Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 6459, the ``TSA OPEN for Business Act,'' which amends the Homeland Security Act of 2002, to diversify the technology stakeholder marketplace for TSA acquisitions.

I would like to thank Ranking Member Thompson for his leadership on the Committee on Homeland Security and for introducing this important bill to improve transportation security.

H.R. 6459 directs the Administrator of the U.S. Transportation Security Administration to develop and submit to Congress a strategy to diversify the technology stakeholder marketplace regarding the acquisition by the TSA of security screening technologies.

That strategy must include:

1. Information on how Administration solicitation, testing, evaluation, piloting, acquisition, and procurement processes impact the Administrator's ability to acquire from a technology stakeholder, including a small business innovator, that has not previously provided technology to the Administration, an innovative technology or capability with the potential to enhance transportation security;

2. Specific actions that the administrator will take to foster diversification within the technology stakeholder market along with a timeline for such actions;

3. Plans for how the administrator may assist a small business innovator at certain points in such process; and

4. A feasibility assessment of partnering with an organization described in section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 and exempt from tax under section 501(a) of such Code.

I represent the 18th Congressional District of Texas which is situated in Houston and home to 2 major airports, the George Bush International Airport and William P. Hobby Airport, which are essential hubs for domestic and international air travel for Houston and the region.

Nearly 40 million passengers traveled through George Bush International Airport (IAH) and an additional 10 million traveled through William P. Hobby (HOU).

More than 650 daily departures occur at George Bush International Airport, which is also the 11th busiest airport in the U.S. for total passenger traffic and annually handles more than 419,205 metric tons of cargo.

As better transportation security technology becomes available, it is imperative that it be adequately evaluated for use in our nation's airports.

The size of a company should not limit it from contributing to the important work of aviation security.

We should support advances in transportation security technology that are positive and help fulfill the TSA's mission to protect our nation's transportation systems from terrorist threats.

I ask that all members join me in voting to pass H.R. 6459, the ``TSA OPEN for Business Act.''

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 6443, the ``Advancing Cybersecurity Diagnostics and Mitigation Act'' which codifies the Continuous Diagnostics and Mitigation (CDM) Program administered by the Department of Homeland Security.

At a time when the computer networks of our government are under constant attack, and have suffered serious breaches in recent years, we must take action to ensure that the information of our citizens and the ability of federal agencies to carry out their duties are resilient.

As a long-time advocate of a government that works efficiently for the people, it is clear that current information security practices of federal agencies are neither sufficient nor consistent.

Without an honest effort to even get to obtain a view of the security state of federal networks, users, and devices, we will continue to be increasingly vulnerable.

To that end, H.R. 6443 recognizes the importance of a dynamic approach that will help secure federal networks and data, as well as provide improved information on vulnerabilities and security practices across the various agencies.

In particular, this measure codifies the Continuous Diagnostics and Mitigation (CDM) Program to which:

1. Deploys DHS sensors which perform ongoing scans for vulnerabilities and known flaws; and

2. Feed the collected data to an enterprise dashboard to provide increased insight into the information security posture of federal agencies.

Without codifying this concrete measure to fortify federal networks and devices, federal agencies will remain vulnerable.

While codifying the DHS CDM Program will harden the security posture of the federal government, we are still suffering from a shortage of workers with the requisite skills in this area.

To address this, I have introduced the Cyber Security Education and Federal Workforce Enhancement Act (H.R. 1981), which would address our cyber workforce shortage by establishing an Office of Cybersecurity Education and Awareness within DHS which will focus on:

1. Recruiting information assurance, cybersecurity, and computer security professionals;

2. Providing grants, training programs, and other support for kindergarten through grade 12, secondary, and post-secondary computer security education programs;

3. Supporting guest lecturer programs in which professional computer security experts lecture computer science students at institutions of higher education;

4. Identifying youth training programs for students to work in part- time or summer positions at federal agencies; and

5. Developing programs to support underrepresented minorities in computer security fields with programs at minority-serving institutions, including Historically Black Colleges and Universities, Hispanic-serving institutions, Native American colleges, Asian-American institutions, and rural colleges and universities.

Mr. Speaker, government agencies and the private sector alike continue to struggle to identify the motivations and methods behind a cyber-attack and, in many cases, lack timely information on tactics and techniques hackers are using.

Despite this, the White House has eliminated the position of Cybersecurity Coordinator from the National Security Council.

This occurred even after Federal Risk Determination Reports found that communication of threat information within agencies is also inconsistent, with only 59 percent of agencies reporting a capability to share threat information to all employees within an enterprise so they have the knowledge necessary to block attacks.

Federal agencies are not taking advantage of all available information such as threat intelligence, incident data, and network traffic flow to improve situational awareness regarding systems at risk and to prioritize investments.

For this reason, earlier this Congress, I introduced H.R. 3202, the ``Cyber Vulnerability Disclosure Reporting Act'', which was passed by the full House and is now in the Senate.

H.R. 3202 requires the Secretary of Homeland Security to submit a report on the policies and procedures developed for coordinating cyber vulnerability disclosures.

The report will include an annex with information on instances in which cyber security vulnerability disclosure policies and procedures were used to disclose details on identified weaknesses in computing systems or digital devices at risk.

The report will provide information on the degree to which the information provided by DHS was used by industry and other stakeholders.

I would also like to recognize the University of Houston, which has been recognized by the Department of Homeland Security and the National Security Agency as a Center of Academic Excellence for the programs in cybersecurity and cyber defense.

In closing, Mr. Speaker, I urge all members to join me in voting to pass H.R. 6433, the ``Advancing Cybersecurity Diagnostics and Mitigation Act''.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 5869, the ``Maritime Border Security Review Act,'' which directs the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security to submit a report on DHS's maritime border threat analysis based on the work that the agency is doing to secure the border.

During the markup of this legislation by the Committee on Homeland Security, a Jackson Lee amendment for this bill was adopted.

This Jackson Lee Amendment requires a review of the metrics and performance parameters used by the Department of Homeland Security to evaluate maritime security effectiveness.

This amendment will provide a report on the data that is required by this bill's report.

The generation, collection, and use of data can create greater transparency on processes that can better inform our work on the Committee.

Reporting requirements are an important committee oversight tool that can provide relevant information on the programs and policies authorized by Congress.

The more important aspects of data collection require that the information be relevant, accurate, and consistent.

The private sector is making great strides in the use of data science and big data to better understand the past and present in order to make more informed decisions that will impact the future.

Data collected and used for the purposes of this bill can support data analytics for Maritime Border Security.

Data analytics is the process of examining data sets in order to draw conclusions about the information they contain, increasingly with the aid of specialized systems and software.

Data analytics technologies and techniques are widely used in commercial industries to enable organizations to make more-informed business decisions and by scientists and researchers to verify or disprove scientific models, theories and hypotheses.

The Jackson Lee amendment supports data analytics for the maritime border threat analysis the bill will provide to the committee.

I urge my colleagues to vote for the passage of H.R. 5869.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 6374, the ``Fitness Information Transparency Act of 2018,'' or the ``FIT Act,'' which will streamline federal contractor fitness determinations for receiving and maintaining contract awards for the Department of Homeland Security.

This bill will standardize the fitness standards for contractors for the Department of Homeland Security that reflect employability standards to ensure contractors meet public trust obligations relating to the work they will do on behalf of the American people.

During the Homeland Security Committee markup of H.R. 6374, an amendment I offered was adopted.

The Jackson Lee Amendment improves the FIT Act by establishing an ``Exigent Circumstances Fitness Determination Review'' process.

The Jackson Lee Amendment provides that ``The Chief Security Officer may conduct an immediate review of a contractor employee's fitness determination when a contractor employee has engaged in violent acts against individuals, property, or public spaces based on the contractor employee's association with persons or organizations that advocate, threaten, or use force or violence, or any other illegal or unconstitutional means, in an effort to prevent others from exercising their rights under the Constitution or laws of the United States or of any State, based on factors including, at a minimum, race, religion, national origin, or disability.''

In July 2018, news reports surfaced that Northrup Grumman had business with a government contractor who employed Michael Miselis, an active member of the California-based Rise Above Movement (RAM), a well-known violent white supremacist group.

RAM's membership has deep roots in California's racist skinhead movement and the violence of RAM members has been a hallmark of the group and its members.

The Anti-Defamation League describes RAM as a white supremacist group whose members believe they are fighting against a ``modern world'' corrupted by the ``destructive cultural influences'' of liberals, Jews, Muslims and non-white immigrants.

RAM members consider themselves to be part of the ``Alt Right'' and operates like a street-fighting club.

RAM members actively train to do physical battle with their ideological foes, and have been involved in violent clashes during political rallies and demonstrations.

Mr. Miselis had a security clearance and worked for Northrup Grumman, a major defense contractor, at the time he engaged in physical violence against persons protesting racism and white supremacy in Charlottesville, Virginia.

In May 2018, Northrup Grumman was informed of Mr. Miselis' membership in RAM and the violent assaults he initiated while he was in Charlottesville participating in activities in support of white supremacy, which were captured on video and in photos.

Mr. Miselis worked for a government contractor and held a security clearance authorizing him to work on projects that were of vital interest to our nation and its defense.

Northrup Grumman did not dismiss him until the story broke earlier this month with media reports on the violence Mr. Miselis engaged in at the white supremacists' rally held in Charlottesville, Virginia.

Mr. Speaker, the United States is a nation of laws, which gives us the freedom to agree, and most importantly disagree, with not only each other, but with our government.

But the limitations on the right to express political views was best described by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., who said: ``The right to swing my fist ends where the other man's nose begins.''

There is a limit to the expression of free speech and the freedom to assemble and that limit is violence.

The awarding of security clearances to contractors must be better managed and the consequences for involvement in activities that would be cause for dismissal from the armed services or any federal agency should not go unnoticed.

The Jackson Lee Amendment makes the clear statement to DHS contractors that the awarding of contracts that involve the security of our nation should not be taken lightly and that the allocation of federal funds to contractors who employ persons who advocate or participate in acts against persons on account of their race, creed, religious beliefs, or gender who engage in constitutionally protected activities will not be tolerated.

For these reasons, I support H.R. 6374 and urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I rise not to mourn the death but to celebrate the remarkable life of John Sidney McCain III, the lion of the Senate, a valiant naval aviator, and an `American Pericles' who always put country first.

In degree and kind, it will be a long time before our nation again sees the likes of John McCain, whom we lost at the age of 81.

The son and grandson of Navy admirals, Senator McCain chose to give back to this country through service, as has been the calling of his family since the early years of the last century.

Senator McCain's love of country was manifested not merely through words; he showed his fidelity to this nation through his deeds.

During his six years as a prisoner of war during the Vietnam War, Senator McCain endured the torture and indignities of the infamous Hanoi Hilton.

When his imprisoners realized he was of official stock, they offered him early release.

Then-naval aviator McCain refused, and showed the valor and courage for which he would soon become known.

After his time as a POW, he was elected in 1982 to the U.S. House of Representatives and served for two terms prior to his election to the United States Senate in 1986, a position he held until his death.

Through his six terms in the U.S. Senate, Senator McCain developed a well-deserved reputation as a statesman--a legislator who did not conform to partisan entrenchment and worked to formulate innovative solutions with members across the aisle.

John McCain's first duty always was to country.

When President Bill Clinton called for the nation to bind the wounds of the Vietnam War, President Clinton sent Senator John McCain.

When the pervasive, and at times corrosive, effect of money in politics reached critical mass, Senator John McCain reached across the aisle and championed landmark legislation to curb the excesses of our system of campaign finance.

And, when the Trump Republicans' threat to the landmark Affordable Care Act came within striking distance of reality, Senator John McCain--by then diagnosed with terminal brain cancer--appeared on the floor of the institution he loved so much, and saved the law championed by his former political rival, President Barack Obama.

Through it all, Senator John McCain exhibited grace, class, and sacrifice; he was the very embodiment of the civic virtue this country needs and requires of its public servants.

Senator John McCain's record of service has both earned the respect of his colleagues throughout the years and has been a source of inspiration to millions of young people across the nation and around the world.

Senator John McCain's dedication to country over party, to his fellow countrymen over self, and to the greater good over personal gain, is a model of conduct for those who seek to lead this nation.

I send my sincerest thoughts and prayers to his family in this most difficult time, and urge all Americans, in celebration of this extraordinary statesman, to work to recover our sense of civility and to find the common ground needed to advance the common good.

I ask the House to observe a moment of silence in memory of an American hero, John Sidney McCain III.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in remembrance of the 50th anniversary of the Soviet invasion of Czechoslovakia in 1968.

Even at the height of the Cold War, the Soviet Union was struggling to maintain order in its brutally enforced communist bloc.

Czechoslovakia, a vibrant democracy prior to the Second World War, had been annexed by the Nazis then subjugated by the Russians in the postwar Soviet takeover in 1948.

For 20 years, the pro-Soviet government installed in Prague stifled public dissent and maintained the charade of communist paradise amidst a crumbling economy.

But in early 1968, conservative leader Antonin Novotny was ousted as the head of the Communist Party of Czechoslovakia, and he was replaced by Alexander Dubcek.

The Dubcek government ended censorship in Czechoslovakia, and in April, the Czech Government issued a formal plan for further reforms.

Recalling the 1956 uprising in Hungary, leaders in Moscow worried that if Czechoslovakia carried reforms too far, other satellite states in Eastern Europe might follow, leading to a widespread rebellion against Moscow's control of the Warsaw Pact, the eastern bloc of nations created by the Soviets to rival the NATO alliance.

These fears, rising from the Kremlin's determination to maintain totalitarian control of its subjugated peoples, was the chief reason for Russian aggression 50 years ago today.

In addition, the Kremlin guessed--correctly--that given past U.S. pronouncements on non-intervention in the Eastern Bloc, the United States would condemn the invasion but might refrain from intervening.

An emboldened Soviet government under Leonid Brezhnev asserted as justification for the invasion ``the Brezhnev Doctrine,'' which held that Moscow would intervene in any nation where a communist government was under threat.

Mr. Speaker, I hope to have spoken today of these egregious Russian violations of sovereignty and self-determination as a recollection of times past; an episode consigned to the annals of history.

But this history provides a lesson that we dare not ignore.

In 2008, Vladimir Putin's Russia invaded the nation of Georgia in coordination with separatists in South Ossetia and Abkhazia.

Putin's Kremlin claimed that it was protecting Russian nationals in the region, but the American intelligence community accurately assessed that Moscow's involvement in South Ossetia and Abkhazia was a gambit to prevent Georgia's accession to NATO.

In Crimea and the Donbas, too, the Kremlin pursued its aggressive violation of international laws to illegally occupy those territories under the pretense of protecting Russian nationals and Russian interests.

The emboldened Putin regime continues its efforts to destabilize not only Georgia and Ukraine, which have expressed interest in joining the Western Alliance, but also linchpins of liberalism in Europe--from supporting populist nationalists in Austria and Hungary, to conducting extralegal assassinations in England, to influencing our very own elections in the United States.

Putin's actions have been further emboldened by the President's pronouncements casting doubt on the value of the Western Alliance and his moral ambivalence on Russian violations of international law.

Mr. Speaker, those who forget history are doomed to repeat it.

Russian aggression in Georgia, Ukraine, and elsewhere--as well as the continued human suffering thereafter--unequivocally reveals Vladimir Putin's disregard for international law and hostility to our Western alliance.

When confronted with such a foe, the 1968 invasion of Czechoslovakia demonstrates that it is imperative that we draw our allies and partners in Europe closer, not antagonize them.

Between its oppression of the Georgian people, poisoning of expatriates, assassination and imprisonment of dissenters, ruthless bombing of Syrian civilians, illegal occupation and deployment of mercenaries in Ukraine, and its active undermining of U.S. alliances and political systems, we must now, more than ever, stand fast with our allies and clearly signal our commitment to democratic institutions and international organizations and alliances.

Mr. Speaker, our partnerships in Europe advance U.S. interests and protect our allies from Russian aggression.

So on this 50th anniversary of the Soviet invasion of Czechoslovakia, it is critical that the United States Congress reaffirm our nation's unwavering commitment to Article 5 of the NATO Treaty and maintain its vigilance to the lasting humanitarian, social, and other costs that Russian aggression has imposed in Georgia, Ukraine, and elsewhere.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to celebrate the extraordinary and consequential life of Aretha Franklin, the ``First Lady and Queen of Soul.''

Aretha Franklin passed away this morning at the age of 76 at her home in Detroit after waging a long and valiant battle against pancreatic cancer.

For more than a half-century the world was thrilled, inspired, and captivated by the scintillating presence and magical voice of the woman instantly known and recognizable the world over simply as ``Aretha.''

Born in 1942 in Memphis, Tennessee, Aretha's family eventually relocated to Detroit, where she was raised and learned to sing.

When Aretha was 10, her mother passed, and a number of women, including the legendary gospel singer Mahalia Jackson helped take care of Aretha and her siblings.

It was around this time that Aretha started playing piano, singing and performing gospel songs at her father's church in Detroit.

On singing in church Aretha once remarked, ``You have the ethereal feeling there. It is the house of the Lord. It is the Supreme Being. So there is no greater space to sing in than the church.''

Aretha recorded a gospel album when she was just 14 and four years later signed with Columbia Records then Atlantic Records, where she achieved international recognition for internationally loved songs such as ``Rock-a-Bye Your Baby with a Dixie Melody'' and ``Natural Woman.''

Aretha's music defined a modern female archetype: sensual and strong, long-suffering but ultimately indomitable, loving but not to be taken for granted.

Aretha's contributions to music and pop culture received several honors throughout her life.

She won a total of 18 Grammy awards; the first in 1967 for ``Respect.''

Aretha's ``Respect,'' the Otis Redding song that became her signature anthem, was never just about how a woman wanted to be greeted by a spouse coming home from work.

It was a demand for equality and freedom and a harbinger of feminism, carried by the voice of a woman who would accept nothing less.

Aretha's rendition of ``Respect'' resonated beyond individual relationships to the civil rights, counterculture and feminism movements.

As Aretha wrote in her autobiography, ``It was the need of the nation, the need of the average man and woman in the street, the businessman, the mother, the fireman, the teacher--everyone wanted respect.''

Aretha was later honored with a Grammys Legend Award in 1991 and a Lifetime Achievement Award in 1994.

In 2014, Aretha reached a new milestone by becoming the first woman to have her 100th hit on Billboard's Hot R&B and Hip-Hop Songs Chart.

In a career spanning more than 50 years, Aretha's performances marked certain pivotal moments in U.S. history.

A longtime family friend of the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., she sang ``Precious Lord'' at the civil rights leader's memorial service.

Aretha was the first woman inducted into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame in 1987.

Aretha's stirring rendition of the ``Star Spangled Banner'' at the 1992 Democratic Convention In New York City is considered one of the greatest of all time.

Aretha performed ``America (My Country 'Tis of Thee)'' at the inauguration of President Barack Obama.

And Aretha brought President Obama--and much of the audience--to tears six years later when she surprised Kennedy Center honoree Carole King with ``Natural Woman'' in 2015.

Aretha's legacy goes far beyond music.

By the standards of Paradise Valley, the business district and entertainment center of a densely-populated African-American residential area in Detroit, Aretha was a young woman of status and privilege.

Nevertheless she suffered the same humiliations as any black woman travelling through the South or venturing into the white precincts of Detroit.

By the time of the murder of Emmett Till, in 1955, her father, Rev. C. L. Franklin had opened New Bethel Baptist Church to the movement, and, from his pulpit, he denounced segregation and white supremacy.

When Dr. King came to Detroit, he stayed at the home of the Franklins.

On June 23, 1963, Rev. C. L. Franklin helped Dr. King organize the ``Walk to Freedom,'' the march of more than a hundred thousand people through downtown Detroit that set the stage for the March of Washington two months later.

At Detroit's Cobo Hall, Dr. King, acknowledging ``my good friend'' Rev. C. L. Franklin, delivered a speech filled with passages that would become world famous two months later when spoken at the March on Washington: ``This afternoon I have a dream,'' he told the crowd. ``I have a dream,'' that ``little white children and little Negro children'' will be ``judged by the content of their character and not the color of their skin.''

Dr. King later confided to Rev. C. L. Franklin, ``Frank, I will never live to see forty.''

At Dr. King's funeral, in April, 1968, Aretha was asked to sing Thomas Dorsey's ``Precious Lord.''

Aretha was now a central voice in both the black community, eclipsing her father, and in the musical world.

In 1970, Aretha offered to post a $250,000 bond to free Angela Davis, the demonized black activist then being held on charges of conspiracy, kidnapping and murder--charges of which she was later acquitted.

Quoted in Jet magazine at the time, Aretha said: ``Angela Davis must go free. Black people will be free.''

Mr. Speaker, it is easy to forget how unusual this was in an era when Aretha's Grammy-winning albums were still sold in segregated ``race music'' sections of record stores and when even the suggestion that a black woman might one day appear on the cover of September Vogue, as Beyonce now does, would have seemed like a pipe dream.

It is important, too, to note that wearing an Afro or the head wraps Aretha was early to adopt was once as risky a political statement as taking a knee would later become.

And while many of her musical contemporaries rarely ventured from their sartorial safe zones, Aretha remained boldly and exuberantly unconstrained in her tastes, confident about demonstrating both her individuality and her economic might by doing as another powerful black woman, Oprah Winfrey, one day would.

Mr. Speaker, Aretha was a musical, spiritual, and cultural leader for America and around the world.

Aretha exemplified the best of America--powerful, compassionate, fearless, and kind.

Aretha personified the community from which she came: forever young, gifted, and black.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the House to observe a moment of silence in memory of one of the

greatest performing artists in American history, the inimitable, indomitable, and irrepressible Aretha Franklin, the First Lady and Queen of Soul.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to commemorate the 83rd anniversary of the passage of the landmark Social Security Act of 1935, the most famous of the New Deal measures and perhaps the most beneficial and consequential government program in American history.

On August 14, 1935, President Franklin Delano Roosevelt signed into law the Social Security Act of 1935 and made good on the Democratic Party's commitment to provide income security to Americans in their old age.

Social Security has transformed what it means to grow old in this country.

For 83 years, Social Security has represented a bedrock promise to the American people: that a lifetime of work will be rewarded with the peace of mind, certainty, and sense of security of a stable retirement.

As we celebrate the 83rd anniversary of the Social Security Act of 1935, we should reflect also on the real-life transformative impact America's most successful program continues to have on millions of Americans each year.

Social Security has been a stable and secure source of income for millions of seniors and families, many of whom desperately need it, over these last more than seven decades.

In the 18th Congressional District of Texas, Social Security is the primary economic lifeline for more than 91,000 seniors and disabled persons. Social Security's economic impact also goes well beyond the seniors and families receiving benefits.

It also benefits state economies and local businesses all across the country.

In the 18th Congressional District of Texas, Social Security recipients inject more than $97 million into the local economy annually; nationwide, this figures is $775 billion.

When more than 58 million Americans use the purchasing power of those benefits, they are supporting businesses with dollars they would not have without Social Security.

It is shameful that there are congressional Republicans who continue to promote various plans to privatize or partially privatize Social Security--plans that would rob seniors of the economic security they count on.

Over the last 83 years, House Democrats have protected and strengthened Social Security; and now and in the future, House Democrats will always act to preserve Social Security and safeguard the rights of our nation's seniors.

And as we look to the future, we can celebrate that what was put in place in 1935 with the Social Security Act of 1935 has given us the foundation for a secure and prosperous future for all Americans.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to celebrate the memory of former Nevada Senator and Governor Paul Laxalt.

Mr. Laxalt passed away this past Monday in McLean, Virginia.

A child of immigrants and a Nevada native from Carson City, he served our nation with distinction in the Pacific during the Second World War.

He applied himself to serving his community, first as a district attorney in 1950, then as Lieutenant Governor in 1962.

After winning the governorship of Nevada in 1968, he stabilized the state's gambling industry from the grips of organized crime and developed a system of community colleges.

Mr. Laxalt is perhaps best remembered as President Reagan's campaign chairman and the moderate Republican Senator from Nevada.

But he was above all a man who cared deeply for the nation, which he served with dignity and integrity.

Former Senator Harry Reid, whom Mr. Laxalt defeated in 1974 when Senator Reid was the state's lieutenant governor, and who succeeded him in the Senate in 1987, said of Mr. Laxalt, ``We have been political adversaries all my adult life, but he and I are friends.''

Though they disagreed on many policy issues, Senator Reid added, he viewed Mr. Laxalt as a man of utmost integrity in the Senate.

Mr. Speaker, I therefore pay tribute today not only to Paul Laxalt's honorable life of service, but also to the spirit of upholding integrity over bitter ideological entrenchment.

The life and story of Mr. Laxalt--his dedication to country over party, to the public over self, and to the greater good over personal gain--is certainly a model of conduct for those who seek to lead this nation.

I urge my colleagues, in memory of this statesman of integrity, to work to recover our sense of civility and work toward mending our differences for the common good.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in remembrance of the long national nightmare that ended 44 years ago today when Richard Milhous Nixon addressed the nation from the Oval Office and announced that he would resign the office of the Presidency.

The next day, August 9, 1974, he submitted his letter of resignation to Henry Kissinger and left for California.

In November 1973, long before it was clear that Richard Nixon would be driven from office, the noted historian Arthur Schlesinger explained in his essay, ``The Runaway Presidency,'' why Nixon's malfeasance was unique, and why it would eventually lead to his downfall:

The presidency has been in crisis before; but the

constitutional offense that led to the impeachment of Andrew

Johnson was trivial compared to the charges now accumulating

around the Nixon Administration.

There are, indeed, constitutional offenses here but . . .

what is unique in the history of the presidency is the long

list of potential criminal charges against the Nixon

Administration.

When the Watergate burglars were arrested in 1972 after breaking into the Democratic National Committee headquarters in the Watergate complex in Washington, D.C., White House press secretary Ron Ziegler dismissed the incident as a ``third-rate burglary.''

The execution of the plot to burglarize the DNC may have been third- rate and amateurish, but that was not the essence of the vast criminal enterprise that would become known as ``Watergate.''

``Watergate'' is short-hand for the systemic, calculated effort conceived and managed from the inner circle of the Nixon White House to subvert elections, punish political enemies, undermine the media, and mislead the American people.

President Nixon obstructed justice from the Oval Office, used the Internal Revenue Service to go after his political enemies, launched an illegal war in Cambodia, waged dirty tricks against his opponents, kept an ``enemies list,'' was recorded in the Oval Office describing Jews as ``aggressive, abrasive and obnoxious'' and Italians as not having their ``heads screwed on tight,'' had articles of impeachment against him approved by the House Judiciary Committee, and left a permanent stain on American democracy.

In short, President Nixon attempted to subvert our democratic institutions and flout the rule of law.

America's democratic institutions, however, are made of sterner stuff, and withstood this assault because in America, no one office or person is above the law.

As President Theodore Roosevelt put it so well on December 7, 1903 in his third Annual Address to Congress: ``No man is above the law and no man is below it: nor do we ask any man's permission when we ask him to obey it.''

That is why former FBI agent G. Gordon Liddy and former CIA employee James McCord, security director of the Committee to Re-elect the President (CREEP) would be found guilty of conspiracy, burglary and bugging DNC headquarters.

E. Howard Hunt, a former CIA operative and head of the White House ``Plumbers'' unit, and four others would plead guilty.

In April, White House counsel John Dean, chief of staff H.R. Haldeman, domestic policy chief John D. Ehrlichman, and Attorney General Richard Kleindienst resigned amidst the growing scandal.

On October 20, 1973, President Nixon ordered Attorney General Elliot Richardson to fire Special Counsel Archibald Cox, who refused, as did Deputy Attorney General William Ruckelshaus.

Solicitor General Robert Bork did not refuse and executed Nixon's order, setting off what is now known as the ``Saturday Night Massacre.''

In January 1975, several high-ranking Nixon appointees--including H.R. Haldeman, John D. Ehrlichman, and John Mitchell--would be tried, convicted, and sentenced to prison.

White House Counsel Charles Colson pleaded guilty to obstruction of justice and served seven months.

White House Counsel John Dean pleaded guilty to obstruction of justice and served four months.

White House Chief of Staff H.R. Haldeman was convicted of conspiracy and obstruction of justice and served 18 months.

In all, more than 40 government officials were indicted or jailed.

As we look back on the Nixon resignation and his imperial presidency, it is worthwhile to reflect upon the statements of Congresswoman Barbara Jordan, who held the seat I currently hold, made during a House Judiciary Committee impeachment hearing:

Common sense would be revolted if we engaged upon this

process for petty reasons.

Congress has a lot to do: Appropriations, tax reform,

health insurance, campaign finance reform, housing,

environmental protection, energy sufficiency, mass

transportation.

Pettiness cannot be allowed to stand in the face of such

overwhelming problems.

So today we are not being petty. We are trying to be big,

because the task we have before us is a big one.

Mr. Speaker, the circumstances in which we find ourselves today do not call for pettiness.

Nor do they call for twitter politics and spectacle.

They call for leadership; a recognition that a respect for the rule of law and holding our leaders accountable for their misdeeds is a fundamental democratic responsibility.

In August 1974, the vigilant and tireless efforts by law enforcement, journalists, and our nation's leaders led President Nixon to yield to the rule of law.

The saving grace of Richard Nixon is that, at the end, he put the interests of the nation ahead of himself by resigning his office.

Arthur Schlesinger's 1973 essay appears prescient in its prediction that ``corruption appears to visit the White House in fifty-year cycles.''

As Professor Schlesinger wrote, ``If the trails are followed to their end, many, many years will pass before another White House staff dares take the liberties with the Constitution and the laws the Nixon White House has taken,'' which ``suggests that exposure and retribution inoculate the presidency against its latent criminal impulses for about half a century.''

Professor Schlesinger also offered a warning that ``corruption appears to visit the White House in fifty-year cycles.''

Mr. Speaker, on this historic day, let us remember that Congress is a co-equal branch of government and has a duty to hold the executive accountable for misconduct, abuse of power, and `High Crimes and Misdemeanors.'

As Congresswoman Barbara Jordan declared: ``My faith in the Constitution is whole; it is complete; it is total. And I am not going to sit here and be an idle spectator to the diminution, the subversion, the destruction, of the Constitution.''

And today, Mr. Speaker, let me affirm that my faith in the Constitution is whole, complete, and total.

Our nation is founded on the principle that all are equal under the law, and that one can only delay--never escape--the swift sword of justice.

We must always be faithful to the duties imposed upon us by the Constitution.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today not just to commemorate the landmark achievement of 53 years ago but to inform our colleagues and the nation of the need to redouble and rededicate our efforts to the work that remains to be done to protect the right of all Americans to vote free from discrimination and the injustices that prevent them from exercising this most fundamental right of citizenship.

On August 6, 1965, in the Rotunda of the Capitol and in the presence of such luminaries as the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. and Rev. Ralph Abernathy of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference; Roy Wilkins of the NAACP; Whitney Young of the National Urban League; James Foreman of the Congress of Racial Equality; A. Philip Randolph of the Brotherhood of Sleeping Car Porters; John Lewis of the Student Non- Violent Coordinating Committee; Senators Robert Kennedy, Hubert Humphrey, and Everett Dirksen; President Johnson addressed the nation before signing the Voting Rights Act:

The vote is the most powerful instrument ever devised by

man for breaking down injustice and destroying the terrible

walls which imprison men because they are different from

other men.

The Voting Rights Act of 1965 was critical to preventing brazen voter discrimination violations that historically left millions of African Americans disenfranchised.

In 1940, for example, there were less than 30,000 African Americans registered to vote in Texas and only about 3 percent of African Americans living in the South were registered to vote.

Poll taxes, literacy tests, and threats of violence were the major causes of these racially discriminatory results.

After passage of the Voting Rights Act in 1965, which prohibited these discriminatory practices, registration and electoral participation steadily increased to the point that by 2012, more than 1.2 million African Americans living in Texas were registered to vote.

In 1964, the year before the Voting Rights Act became law, there were approximately 300 African-Americans in public office, including just three in Congress.

Few, if any, African Americans held elective office anywhere in the South.

Because of the Voting Rights Act, today there are more than 9,100 black elected officials, including 46 members of Congress, the largest number ever.

Because of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 signed into law by President Lyndon Johnson on this day 53 years ago, I stand before you as the first African American woman Ranking Member of the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, Homeland Security, and Investigations.

Mr. Speaker, the Voting Rights Act opened the political process for many of the approximately 6,000 Hispanic public officials that have been elected and appointed nationwide, including more than 275 at the state or federal level, 32 of whom serve in Congress.

Native Americans, Asians and others who have historically encountered harsh barriers to full political participation also have benefited greatly.

The crown jewel of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 is Section 5, which requires that states and localities with a chronic record of discrimination in voting practices secure federal approval before making any changes to voting processes.

Section 5 protects minority voting rights where voter discrimination has historically been the worst.

Since 1982, Section 5 has stopped more than 1,000 discriminatory voting changes in their tracks, including 107 discriminatory changes right here in Texas.

And it is a source of eternal pride to all of us in Houston that in pursuit of extending the full measure of citizenship to all Americans, in 1975 Congresswoman Barbara Jordan, who also represented this historic 18th Congressional District of Texas, introduced, and the Congress adopted, what are now Sections 4(f)(3) and 4(f)(4) of the Voting Rights Act, which extended the protections of Section 4(a) and Section 5 to language minorities.

During the floor debate on the 1975 reauthorization of the Voting Rights Act, Congresswoman Jordan explained why this reform was needed:

There are Mexican-American people in the State of Texas who

have been denied the right to vote; who have been impeded in

their efforts to register and vote; who have not had

encouragement from those election officials because they are

brown people.

So, the state of Texas, if we approve this measure, would

be brought within the coverage of this Act for the first

time.

When it comes to extending and protecting the precious right vote, the Lone Star State--the home state of Lyndon Johnson and Barbara Jordan--can be the leading state in the Union, one that sets the example for the nation.

But to realize that future, we must turn from and not return to the dark days of the past.

We must remain ever vigilant and oppose all schemes that will abridge or dilute the precious right to vote.

Mr. Speaker, I am here today to remind the nation that the right to vote--that ``powerful instrument that can break down the walls of injustice''--is facing grave threats.

The threat stems from the decision issued in June 2013 by the Supreme Court in Shelby County v. Holder, 570 U.S. 193 (2013), which invalidated Section 4(b) of the VRA, and paralyzed the application of the VRA's Section 5 preclearance requirements.

According to the Supreme Court majority, the reason for striking down Section 4(b) was that ``times change.''

Now, the Court was right; times have changed.

But what the Court did not fully appreciate is that the positive changes it cited are due almost entirely to the existence and vigorous enforcement of the Voting Rights Act.

And that is why the Voting Rights Act is still needed.

Let me put it this way: in the same way that the vaccine invented by Dr. Jonas Salk in 1953 eradicated the crippling effects but did not eliminate the cause of polio, the Voting Rights Act succeeded in stymieing the practices that resulted in the wholesale disenfranchisement of African Americans and language minorities but did eliminate them entirely.

The Voting Rights Act is needed as much today to prevent another epidemic of voting disenfranchisement as Dr. Salk's vaccine is still needed to prevent another polio epidemic.

However, officials in some states, notably Texas and North Carolina, seemed to regard the Shelby decision as a green light and rushed to implement election laws, policies, and practices that could never pass muster under the Section 5 preclearance regime.

My constituents remember very well the Voter ID law passed in Texas in 2011, which required every registered voter to present a valid government-issued photo ID on the day of polling in order to vote.

The Justice Department blocked the law in March of 2012, and it was Section 5 that prohibited it from going into effect.

At least it did until the Shelby decision, because on the very same day that Shelby was decided officials in Texas announced they would immediately implement the Photo ID law, and other election laws, policies, and practices that could never pass muster under the Section 5 preclearance regime.

The Texas Photo ID law was challenged in federal court and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit upheld the decision of U.S. District Court Judge Nelva Gonzales Ramos that Texas' strict voter identification law discriminated against blacks and Hispanics and violated Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act.

Mr. Speaker, protecting voting rights and combating voter suppression schemes are two of the critical challenges facing our great democracy.

Without safeguards to ensure that all citizens have equal access to the polls, more injustices are likely to occur and the voices of millions silenced.

Those of us who cherish the right to vote justifiably are skeptical of Voter ID laws because we understand how these laws, like poll taxes and literacy tests, can be used to impede or negate the ability of seniors, racial and language minorities, and young people to cast their votes.

Consider the demographic groups who lack a government issued ID:

1. African Americans: 25 percent.

2. Asian Americans: 20 percent.

3. Hispanic Americans: 19 percent.

4. Young people, aged 18-24: 18 percent.

5. Persons with incomes less than $35,000: 15 percent.

And there are other ways abridging or suppressing the right to vote, including:

1. Curtailing or eliminating early voting.

2. Ending same-day registration.

3. Not counting provisional ballots cast in the wrong precinct on Election Day will not count.

4. Eliminating adolescent pre-registration.

5. Shortening poll hours.

6. Lessening the standards governing voter challenges thus allowing self-proclaimed ``ballot security vigilantes'' like the King Street Patriots to cause trouble at the polls.

Mr. Speaker, on this day, the 53rd anniversary of the landmark Voting Rights Act signed into law by President Lyndon Johnson on August 6, 1965, I call upon House Speaker Ryan to bring legislation intended to protect the right to vote of all Americans to the floor for debate and vote.

Specifically, I call for the passage of the Voting Rights Advancement Act, (H.R. 2978) of which I am an original co-sponsor, which repairs the damage done to the Voting Rights Act by the Supreme Court's Shelby decision.

This legislation provides even greater federal oversight of jurisdictions which have a history of voter suppression and protects vulnerable communities from discriminatory voting practices.

Mr. Speaker, before concluding there is one other point I would like to stress.

In his address to the nation before signing the Voting Rights Act of 1965, President Johnson said:

Presidents and Congresses, laws and lawsuits can open the

doors to the polling places and open the doors to the

wondrous rewards which await the wise use of the ballot.

But only the individual Negro, and all others who have been

denied the right to vote, can really walk through those

doors, and can use that right, and can transform the vote

into an instrument of justice and fulfillment.

In other words, political power--and the justice, opportunity, inclusion, and fulfillment it provides--comes not from the right to vote but in the exercise of that right.

And that means it is the civic obligation of every citizen to both register and vote in every election, state and local as well as federal.

Because if we can register and vote, but fail to do so, we are guilty of voluntary voter suppression, the most effective method of disenfranchisement ever devised.

And in recent years, Americans have not been doing a very good job of exercising our civic responsibility to register, vote, and make their voices heard.

Mr. Speaker, for millions of Americans, the right to vote protected by the Voting Rights Act of 1965 is sacred treasure, earned by the sweat and toil and tears and blood of ordinary Americans who showed the world it was possible to accomplish extraordinary things.

So on this 53rd anniversary of that landmark law, let us rededicate ourselves to honoring those who won for us this precious right by remaining vigilant and fighting against both the efforts of others to abridge or suppress the right to vote and our own apathy in exercising this sacred right.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak in remembrance of the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki that ushered in the nuclear age 73 years ago this week.

The atomic bombs that devastated Hiroshima on August 6, 1945 and Nagasaki on August 9, 1945 thankfully represent the only instances where the awesome destructive power of nuclear weapons were unleashed.

While it is true that the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki helped to bring a speedy and decisive end to the conflict in the Pacific theater during World War II, it is also true that devastation and carnage wrought by those explosions was a vivid reminder and compelling reason for the international community to work in concert to prevent the proliferation and use of nuclear weapons.

And for 73 years, the international community, led by the United States, has deterred every nation on earth from using nuclear weapons although it has been less successful in deterring several nation-states from developing their nuclear weapons capability.

So while we pause to remember the victims who perished in, and the lives that were saved by, the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, it is critically important that we take this moment to redouble our commitment towards nuclear nonproliferation and banishing the threat of nuclear annihilation from the earth.

Mr. Speaker, since 1945 preventing the spread of nuclear weapons and weapons technology has been a pillar of the U.S.-led, rules-based international order that has brought an unprecedented era of peace and prosperity the United States and its allies in Europe, Asia, and the Pacific.

It is this commitment to nuclear non-proliferation that has led the United States to

work with the international community to keep rogue nations from developing their own nuclear arsenals, the most recent achievement in this regard is the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) negotiated with the Iranian government in 2015.

Multilateral efforts like the JCPOA were made possible by responsible, level-headed leadership that did not needlessly engage in brinksmanship.

Today, the world faces a grave threat from the rogue and hostile regime in Pyongyang in the Democratic People's Republic of Korea.

Mr. Speaker, it is imperative that we continually seek to reduce the risk of war, and this is not accomplished through the use of overheated, reckless, and bombastic rhetoric, or foolish and short- sighted actions like the current President's decision to withdraw from the JCPOA.

It is vitally important that the President learns the importance of using restrained and judicious rhetoric in trying to diffuse this delicate situation.

Mr. Speaker, blustery statements and bombastic tweets will not defuse the tense situation on the Korean peninsula or frighten the regime in North Korea.

Instead, we must employ the full arsenal of America's smart power assets--diplomacy, economic sanctions--to persuade North Korea that it is in its self-interest to turn away from the dangerous path it is traveling.

The United States does not harbor hostile intentions toward North Korea and is seeking to overthrow the regime in Pyongyang.

Mr. Speaker, thoughtful, sober, carefully calibrated diplomatic engagement with North Korea represents America's best option and holds the promise of a favorable and peaceful outcome, just as was achieved with the JCPOA and the 1994 Agreed Framework reached with North Korea that stopped North Korea's nuclear weapons program for nine years.

On July 16, 1945, after witnessing the first test of the atomic bomb in Alamagordo, New Mexico, Dr. J. Robert Oppenheimer, the director of the Manhattan Project, remembered the line from the Hindu scripture, the Bhagavad-Gita: ``Now, I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds.''

Mr. Speaker, for more than 70 years the international community, led by the most indispensable of nations, the United States, has kept the nuclear genie in the bottle.

We have been successful to date in no small part due to the thoughtful, persistent, judicious, restrained application of American power by responsible, sober, determined, informed Presidents of the United States, from Harry Truman through Barack Obama.

When he took the oath of office on January 20, 2017, that torch, and the burden of leadership, was passed to Donald Trump and all Americans are anxiously still waiting and praying he can rise to the occasion.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Johnny Harris, Jr., a great American, who dedicated his life in service to making this great country a better place and educating the next generation of leaders.

Living by the creed that knowledge and education could change your life and perceptions making you a better person, Mr. Johnny Harris Jr. obtained his bachelor's degree in business and two master's degrees in business and education.

During his life he sold insurance and owned his own businesses, but later returned to his passion of educating and coaching the next generation of future leaders.

His love for football extended to him coaching football at Zaragoza Air Base in Spain and later at Estacado High School in Lubbock, Texas.

In addition, he also taught at Lincoln Middle School, Edison Middle School, and Lee Middle School respectively.

In life and work, he was committed to inspiring excellence in all people.

He exuded love, friendship and compassion.

Mr. Johnny Harris Jr. loved mentoring local high school students and founded the non-profit Center for Athletic and Academic Placement (CAAP), of which he was extremely proud, to help high school student athletes improve their academics and obtain scholarships for college.

During the past 20 years, Mr. Johnny Harris Jr. and his wife helped mentor hundreds of students and assisted them into college.

Mr. Johnny Harris Jr. believed no child should suffer and even in his last days sought to empower and enrich causes dedicated to helping eradicate diseases prevalent among children, and terminal diseases generally.

He lived by the quote ``God, family, and education'' and it was evident in all the he did.

On April 26, 2018, he succumbed to illness, but not without inspiring a new generation of leaders.

As we go forward, it is of the upmost importance to provide experimental treatment to those facing terminal diagnoses.

As we have seen, it can literally mean the difference between life and death or essential comfort during the final days of life.

Mr. Johnny Harris Jr. is survived by his wife, Regina, of 38 years; children, including his daughter Zenobia Harris Bivens--a brilliant and formidable attorney in the Houston area--her husband Darvell, and their lovely son Dean. He has another daughter, LaGina, and a son, Johnny III, and a daughter-in-law, Jessica. Mr. Johnny Harris is also survived by his parents, Johnny Sr. and Flora Mae Harris, as well as a full and loving extended family.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in celebrating Johnny Harris Jr.'s life and legacy.

America is a better place, and Texas is a better state, because of Mr. Harris and his service.

I ask the House to observe a moment of silence in memory of Johnny Harris Jr.

Mr. Speaker, it is with a heavy heart that I rise to remember and pay tribute to Ronald V. Dellums, the pioneering, legendary, brilliant, and dynamic former Chairman of the House Armed Services Committee who represented the residents of California 9th Congressional District in this body for 27 years.

Ronald Dellums died peacefully on July 30, 2018, at his home in Washington D.C. after waging a heroic but losing battle against prostate cancer; he was 82 years old.

Born November 24, 1935 in Oakland, California, to Verney and Willa Dellums, Ronald Vernie Dellums would go on to lead a consequential life marked by public service, active engagement, and passionate leadership.

These qualities--service, engagement, passionate commitment--were Dellums family traits; Ron's father was a longshoreman and active in the labor movement and his uncle, Cottrell Laurence Dellums, helped A. Philip Randolph organize the Brother of Sleeping Car Porters, before being elected President of the union in 1966.

In 1954, after graduating from high school, and during the height of the Cold War, Ronald Dellums enlisted in the United States Marine Corps and served two years before being honorably discharged in 1956.

His honorable service to the nation enabled him to attend college on the G.I. Bill and in 1958 he earned an Associate of Arts degree from Oakland City College, followed by a Bachelor of Science degree in 1960 from San Francisco State University, an M.S.W. from the University of California at Berkeley in 1962.

Upon graduation from UC-Berkeley, Ronald Dellums worked as a psychiatric social worker for the California Department of Mental Hygiene and taught at San Francisco State University and the University of California at Berkeley, work which soon led him to become involved in local politics.

In 1967, at the age of 32, Ronald was elected to the Berkeley City Council, where he served until 1970, when he was elected to Congress as an anti-Vietnam War activist, defeating the incumbent in the primary, and winning the general election in a landslide.

In 1972, Ronald Dellums was reelected to the 93rd Congress and to the succeeding Congresses, never winning election with less than 57 percent of the vote.

During his tenure in Congress, Ronald Dellums served on the House Committees on Foreign Affairs, the District of Columbia, Post Office and Civil Service, the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, and Armed Services, which he chaired from 1993 to 95 and was Ranking Member from 1995 until his retirement from the House in 1998.

Throughout his congressional career, Ronald Dellums, who cofounded the Congressional Black Caucus in 1971 and the Congressional Progressive Caucus in 1991, was one of the Capitol's leading authorities and voices challenging the underlying assumptions of the U.S. military budget.

Ronald Dellums also led the congressional opposition to the apartheid regime in South Africa, winning passage of the Comprehensive Anti- Apartheid Act of 1986 by congressional override of President Reagan's veto, the first override in the 20th century of a presidential foreign policy veto.

Ronald Dellums championed for equal rights for Americans and was one of the first to call for the integration of gays and lesbians into the military.

In addition to championing equal rights, Ron Dellums was a strong supporter of historic preservation.

He emerged as one of the most radical and outspoken Congressmen in Washington, and a spokesperson for African American community affairs and for his radical political beliefs.

After retiring from Congress in 1998, Ronald Dellums served as president of Healthcare International Management, an organization that worked with the newly democratic South African government to develop low cost, affordable healthcare and bring awareness, prevention and treatment in response to the AIDS epidemic.

Mr. Speaker, Ron Dellums lived a long and fulfilling life and made his mark in the world by making a difference in the lives of untold numbers of individuals.

I hope that Ron's family and loved ones are comforted by the fact that the lives of millions of people here at home and around the world were touched by the service of one of the great social activists, political leaders, and statesmen of the 20th century.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the House to observe a moment of silence in memory of Ronald V. Dellums, a tireless and eloquent voice for justice and equality, who did so much to ensure that America always strives to live up to the promise of its founding ideals and remain a beacon and example for the world.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to commemorate the 53rd Anniversary of the passage of Medicaid and Medicare, two of the most beneficial and consequential government programs ever launched.

On July 30, 1965, President Lyndon B. Johnson signed Medicare and Medicaid into law as part of the Social Security Act and in the process made good on the commitments made by Presidents Theodore Roosevelt, Franklin Roosevelt, Harry Truman, and John Kennedy to provide health security to Americans in their old age.

Medicare is a promise kept to those who have contributed a lifetime to our nation so they could enjoy their golden years with peace of mind and the security of reliable, affordable, and high quality healthcare.

Likewise, Medicaid created a crucial partnership between the government and the people to provide a basic health care safety net for the most vulnerable Americans: children of adults with low incomes, persons with disabilities, and the poor.

Mr. Speaker, 53 years later, the legacy of these programs have proven how effective and critical government action can be to the life and wellbeing of our nation's most vulnerable.

In 1965, almost half of all Americans aged 65 and older had no health coverage, living in fear that the colossal healthcare costs would drive them and their families into poverty.

Today, because of Medicare, over 98 percent of seniors have health insurance, which has led to a five-year increase in life expectancy for those over 65.

Today, 55 million Americans rely on Medicare for health care, ranging from preventive services, hospital visits, lab tests, to critical medical supplies, and prescription drugs.

It is difficult for some to imagine what 1965 was really like, when today affordable, accessible and available health insurance is a reality for so many people living with disabilities.

Before Medicaid was enacted, children from poor families, pregnant women, and low-income working Americans were not able to afford even the most basic medical care they needed to remain healthy and productive.

When the legislation was first passed, many claimed that Medicaid would not live up to its promise; but today, because of expansion of Medicaid through passage of the Affordable Care Act, the program provides comprehensive coverage for over 70 million children, pregnant women, low-income adults, and people living with disabilities.

Mr. Speaker, it cannot be seriously disputed that Medicare and Medicaid have changed our country and made it better.

In my home state of Texas and in communities across the country, both programs have significantly changed the lives and improved health outcomes of many Americans over the past century and represent the best of American values.

Unfortunately, Texas has the highest percentage of uninsured in the nation, and Texas' refusal to participate in the Medicaid expansion created by the Affordable Care act puts the poor residents of my state in jeopardy.

So the 53rd anniversary of Medicaid is bittersweet for Texans because while we celebrate a program that has saved lives, helped people live longer, expanded care to marginalizes communities, and reduced disparities in access to healthcare, thousands of low income Texans still do not have the peace of mind that comes with access to affordable, quality health care enjoyed by low-income residents of states that have expanded their Medicaid program with funds made possible by the Affordable Care Act.

In the 18th Congressional District of Texas there are 195,400 persons with Medicaid and 74,704 with medical care provided by Medicare.

Mr. Speaker, my constituents favor the Affordable Care Act because they understand the insecurity and feeling of helplessness of being uninsured or underinsured.

Like Medicare and Medicaid, the Affordable Care Act, or ``Obamacare,'' was vehemently opposed and derided by its adversaries, who said it was too costly, would not work, was unnecessary, or would change the character of America for the worse.

Like the critics of Social Security, Medicare, and the G.I. Bill, all of whom are silent now, they are wrong.

The Affordable Care Act has been an unqualified success.

This historic legislation has extended affordable health coverage to tens of millions of Americans, and has helped to bring and peace of mind to many of those for whom relief seemed far out of reach.

The Affordable Care Act was driven by a simple premise: that citizens of the most prosperous nation on earth should not be forced to choose between their health and their financial security.

Since the passage of the ACA in 2010, the number of uninsured Americans has fallen by nearly one-third, or roughly 16 million people.

These Americans come from all walks of life.

They are women, who can no longer be denied coverage or be force to pay exorbitant amounts for coverage simply because of their sex.

They are nine million seniors and persons with disabilities, who have saved an average of $1,600 on expensive and lifesaving prescription medication.

And they are this country's most at risk citizens; people who are working hard and struggling make ends meet while living in near- poverty, and who have been covered by Medicaid expansion in 32 states and the District of Columbia.

These benefits have been felt across the country, especially in my home state of Texas:

1. 10.7 million individuals with pre-existing conditions such as asthma, cancer, or diabetes--including up to 1,632,000 children--no longer have to worry about being denied coverage or charged higher prices because of their health status or history;

2. 4.9 million uninsured Texans have new health insurance options through Medicaid or private health plans in the ACA Marketplace; and

3. 5.2 million persons on private insurance have gained coverage for at least one free preventive health care service such as a mammogram, birth control, or an immunization in 2011 and 2012.

In addition to the tangible healthcare benefits for millions of families, the ACA has had powerful effects on the financial state of our nation.

Since the passage of the Affordable Care Act, we have extended the solvency of the Medicare Trust fund by more than a decade, and helped save taxpayers $116 billion through new Medicare efficiencies.

The Department of Health and Human Services has estimated that hospitals saved more than $5.7 billion in costs that would have normally gone unpaid by patients without insurance.

Contrary to the claims of the ACA's critics, private insurance companies have leaped at the opportunity to compete for business among the newly insured, and the healthcare industry has boomed.

Through all of these successes, however, House Republicans remain obsessed with destroying this law, and with unraveling the security it provides to millions of Americans.

Medicare and Medicaid also continue to drive innovation and are set the standard for coverage, quality, and innovation in American healthcare.

Mr. Speaker, Medicare and Medicaid continue to play crucial roles in providing equitable and affordable healthcare, leading innovation in payment and delivery reform, carrying out outreach to the most vulnerable communities, and reshaping the delivery of care for the future.

Because of these programs, more Americans have access to affordable, equitable health care today than at any point in our history.

And I am committed to making sure that number will continue to grow.

On this 53rd anniversary of Medicare and Medicaid, we should remember that a healthy America is a prosperous America.

And as we look ahead to the next half century, we can celebrate that what was put in place in 1965 has given us the foundation for a healthy and prosperous future for all Americans.