Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise to commemorate the 10th anniversary of ``Trae Day.''

Trae Tha Truth, is an American hip hop recording artist from Houston, Texas.

Apart from his solo career, Trae is also known as a member of the underground rap collective Screwed Up Click, as well as one-half of the Southern Hip Hop duo ABN, and one of the founding members of the group Guerilla Maab, alongside fellow rappers Z-Ro and Dougie D.

Trae Tha Truth currently hosts Banned Radio on XXL, on Dash Radio.

Trae Tha Truth's music is inspired by the experiences of the disenfranchised, which is rooted in the inner-cities of America, and is driven by loss, love and loyalty.

Trae Tha Truth's music is powerful and real, his voice is a tractor trailer shoveling gravel that booms, bangs, and thumps.

Trae Day is an annual festival commemorating the actual holiday the City of Houston gave Trae for his role as a civic leader, which made him the first rapper in Texas to be given an official holiday by the city.

Among his civic activities, Trae Tha Truth has founded a nonprofit organization, counseled incarcerated persons, and sponsored at-risk high school students.

Trae Tha Truth is very modest and rarely discusses his accomplishments but what is important to know about him is that he is a rapper who uses his gift to help people.

Mr. Speaker, today, in a move that is a betrayal to the American people, the Senate voted 51 to 50 on a motion to advance debate on a piece of Republican legislation that would do away with most of the Affordable Care Act.

Reaching a 51-50 vote, where the tie was broken by Vice President Mike Pence, has been a struggle for Republican Members of the Senate because they realize that a repeal of Obamacare would result in tragedy for millions of Americans.

I want you to know that I oppose this and previous versions of Obamacare repeal for several compelling reasons:

1. Trumpcare forces families to pay higher premiums and deductibles, increasing out-of-pocket costs.

2. Trumpcare will take away health care from 24 million hardworking Americans.

3. Trumpcare would gut essential health benefits and protections for Americans with pre-existing conditions.

4. Trumpcare forces Americans aged 50-64 to pay premiums five times higher than what others pay for health coverage, no matter how healthy they are.

5. Trumpcare shortens the life of the Medicare Trust Fund and ransacks funds that seniors depend on to get the long-term care they need.

Eighty-five months ago, on March 23, 2010, President Barack Obama redeemed a promise that had been unfulfilled for nearly a 100 years, when he signed into law the landmark Affordable Care Act passed by the Democratic controlled 111th Congress.

Seven years later, the verdict is in on the Affordable Care Act: the American people have judged it a success.

As reflected in the most recent public opinion polls, 61% of Americans approve of Obamacare and oppose efforts to repeal it, the highest approval rates on record to date and continuing an inexorable upward trend over the past several years.

The reason Americans are adamantly opposed to Republican repeal efforts, including the third iteration of Trumpcare now before us, is that Obamacare is no longer a bogey cooked up in Republican talking points but a life-saving and life affirming measure that they have experienced in their own lives.

Americans think it is beyond crazy to repeal a law that has brought to more than 20 million Americans the peace of mind and security that comes with knowing they have access to affordable, high quality health care.

Mr. Speaker, before the passage of the Affordable Care Act, 17.1 percent of Americans lacked health insurance; today nearly nine of ten (89.1 percent) are insured, which is the highest rate since Gallup began tracking insurance coverage in 2008.

Because of the Affordable Healthcare Act:

1. Insurance companies are banned from discriminating against anyone, including 17 million children, with a preexisting condition, or charging higher rates based on gender or health status;

2. 6.6 million young adults up to age 26 can stay on their parents' health insurance plans;

3. 100 million Americans no longer have annual or lifetime limits on healthcare coverage;

4. 6.3 million seniors in the ``donut hole'' have saved $6.1 billion on their prescription drugs;

5. 3.2 million seniors now get free annual wellness visits under Medicare, and

6. 360,000 small businesses are using the Health Care Tax Credit to help them provide health insurance to their workers;

7. Pregnancy is no longer a pre-existing condition and women can no longer be charged a higher rate just because they are women.

We are becoming a nation of equals when it comes to access to affordable healthcare insurance.

Mr. Speaker, with all of this progress, and the prospect for more through further refinements, who in their right mind would want to go back to how it used to be?

The answer seems to be only the President and House Republicans who call the Affordable Care Act and its enviable record of success a ``disaster.''

Americans know a disaster when they see one and they see one in the making: it is called ``Trumpcare,'' masquerading as the ``American Health Care Act,'' which will force Americans to pay more, get less, decimate the Medicare and Medicaid programs, and give a massive tax cut for top 1 percent.

Americans are right to be alarmed and angered by what the Trump Republicans are trying to do by rushing to vote on a Trumpcare bill before it can be scored by highly respected and nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office.

What we do know for sure is that this Trumpcare bill is a massive $900 billion tax cut for the wealthy, paid for on the backs of America's seniors, the vulnerable, the poor, and working class households.

Trump gave the game away on March 20, 2017 in one of his trademark pep rallies:

``We want a very big tax cut, but cannot do that until we keep our promise to repeal and replace the disaster known as Obamacare.''

This ``Robin Hood in reverse'' bill is unprecedented and breathtaking in its audacity--no bill ever tried to give so much to the rich while taking so much from the poor and working class.

When they were forced to pull Trumpcare 1.0 from the floor because they lacked the votes to pass, House Republican leaders responded by adding an amendment (Trumpcare 2.0) that made the original bill even worse.

Trumpcare 2.0 would allow states to jettison existing essential health benefit requirements, thereby permitting health plans covering millions of people once again to exclude coverage for maternity and newborn care, pediatric dental and vision services, mental health and substance use services, and other crucial benefits.

All this accomplished was a hemorrhaging of support from the moderate wing of the Republican Conference who feared the repercussions of leaving millions of Americans with preexisting conditions without health insurance so the Trump Republicans invented Trumpcare 3.0 to provide $8 billion over five years to offset the cost of setting up separate pools or premium assistance programs for people with pre- existing conditions.

Mr. Speaker, this pittance is not designed or intended to help real people with real preexisting conditions, but to provide the cover for House Republicans to walk the plank.

According to the Kaiser Family Foundation, at least $25 billion per year would be required, not $8 billion spread out over five years as provided for in Trumpcare 3.0.

Trumpcare represents the largest transfer of wealth from the bottom 99 percent to the top 1 percent in American history.

This callous Republican scheme gives gigantic tax cuts to the rich, and pays for it by taking insurance away from 24 million people, leaving 52 million uninsured, and raising costs for the poor and middle class.

In addition, Republicans are giving the pharmaceutical industry a big tax repeal, worth nearly $25 billion over a decade without demanding in return any reduction in the cost of prescription and brand-name drugs.

To paraphrase Winston Churchill, of this bill, it can truly be said that ``never has so much been taken from so many to benefit so few.''

The Pay-More-For-Less plan destroys the Medicaid program under the cover of repealing the Affordable Care Act Medicaid expansion.

CBO estimates 14 million Americans will lose Medicaid coverage by 2026 under the Republican plan.

In addition to terminating the ACA Medicaid expansion, the bill converts Medicaid to a per-capita cap that is not guaranteed to keep pace with health costs starting in 2020.

The combined effect of these policies is to slash $880 billion in federal Medicaid funding over the next decade.

The cuts get deeper with each passing year, reaching 25 percent of Medicaid spending in 2026.

These steep cuts will force states to drop people from Medicaid entirely or ration care for those who most need access to comprehensive coverage.

The Pay-More-For-Less plan undermines the health care safety net for vulnerable populations.

Currently, Medicaid provides coverage to more than 70 million Americans, including children, pregnant women, seniors in Medicare, people who are too disabled to work, and parents struggling to get by on poverty-level wages.

In addition to doctor and hospital visits, Medicaid covers long-term services like nursing homes and home and community-based services that allow people with chronic health conditions and disabilities to live independently.

To date, 31 states and D.C. have expanded Medicaid eligibility to low-income adults, which, when combined with the ACA's other coverage provisions, has helped to reduce the nation's uninsured rate to the lowest in history.

Trumpcare throws 24 million Americans off their health insurance by 2026 according to the Congressional Budget Office.

Mr. Speaker, low-income people will be hit especially hard because 14 million people will lose access to Medicaid by 2026 according to CBO.

Trumpcare massively shifts who gets insured in the nongroup market.

According to CBO, ``fewer lower-income people would obtain coverage through the nongroup market under the legislation than current law,'' and, ``a larger share of enrollees in the nongroup market would be younger people and a smaller share would be older people.''

The projected 10 percent reduction in premiums is not the result of better care or efficiency--it is in large part the result of higher- cost and older people being pushed out of a market that is also selling plans that provide less financial protection.

People with low incomes suffer the greatest losses in coverage.

CBO projects the uninsured rate for people in their 30s and 40s with incomes below 200 percent of poverty will reach 38 percent in 2026 under this bill, nearly twice the rate projected under current law.

Among people aged 50-64, CBO projects 30 percent of those with incomes below 200 percent of poverty will be uninsured in 2026.

Under current law, CBO projects the uninsured rate would only be 12 percent.

Being uninsured is not about ``freedom.''

Speaker Ryan has argued that people will happily forgo insurance coverage because this bill gives them that ``freedom.''

The argument makes as much sense as the foolish claim that slaves came to America as ``immigrants'' seeking a better life.

The freedom to be uninsured is no freedom at all to people in their 50s and 60s with modest incomes who simply cannot afford to pay thousands of dollars toward premiums.

They do not really have a choice.

The claim of our Republican friends that Trumpcare provides more freedom to all Americans calls to mind the words of Anatole France:

``The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread from the market.''

Trumpcare raises costs for Americans nearing retirement, essentially imposing an ``Age Tax.''

The bill allows insurance companies to charge older enrollees higher premiums than allowed under current law, while reducing the size of premium tax credits provided.

Again, these changes hit low-income older persons the hardest.

A 64-year-old with an income of $26,500 buying coverage in the individual market will pay $12,900 more toward their premiums in 2026, on average.

Trumpcare raises costs for individuals and families with modest incomes, particularly older Americans.

Mr. Speaker, a recent analysis found that in 2020, individuals with incomes of about $31,000 would pay on average $4,000 more out of pocket for health care--which is like getting a 13 percent pay cut.

And the older you are, the worse it gets.

An analysis by the Urban Institute estimates that for Americans in their 50s and 60s, the tax credits alone would only be sufficient to buy plans with major holes in them, such as a $30,000 deductible for family coverage and no coverage at all of brand-name drugs or many therapy services.

Another reason I oppose the Trumpcare bill before us is because its draconian cuts in Medicaid funding and phase-out of Medicaid expansion put community health centers at risk.

Community health centers are consumer-driven and patient-centered organizations that serve as a comprehensive and cost effective primary health care option for America's most underserved communities.

Community health centers serve as the health care home for more than 25 million patients in nearly 10,000 communities across the country.

Across the country, 550 new clinics have opened to receive 5 million new patients since 2009.

Community health centers serve everyone regardless of ability to pay or insurance status:

1. 71 percent of health center patients have incomes at or below 100 percent of poverty and 92 percent have incomes less than 200 percent of poverty;

2. 49 percent of health center patients are on Medicaid; and

3. 24 percent are uninsured;

4. Community health centers annually serve on average 1.2 million homeless patients and more than 300,000 veterans.

Community health centers reduce health care costs and produce savings--on average, health centers save 24 percent per Medicaid patient when compared to other providers.

Community health centers integrate critical medical and social services such as oral health, mental health, substance abuse, case management, and translation, under one roof.

Community health centers employ nearly 190,000 people and generate over $45 billion in total economic activity in some of the nation's most distressed communities.

Community health centers are on the front lines of every major health crisis our country faces, from providing access to care (and employment) to veterans to addressing the opioid epidemic to responding to public health threats like the Zika virus.

We should be providing more support and funding to community health centers, not making it more difficult for them to serve the communities that desperately need them by slashing Medicaid funding.

The Trumpcare Republican plan leaves rural Americans worse off.

Health insurance has historically been more expensive in rural areas because services cost more and it is hard to have a stable individual market with a small population.

Mr. Speaker, under the Affordable Care Act, premium subsidies are tied to local costs, which helps keep premium costs down.

But they are not under the Republican plan.

So, under the Republican plan residents in rural areas, who tend to be older and poorer, will pay much more and get much less health insurance.

At the end of the day, the powerful and compelling reasons to reject Trumpcare lie in the real world experiences of the American people.

Mr. Speaker, let me briefly share with you the positive, life affirming difference made by the Affordable Care Act in the lives of just three of the millions of Americans it has helped.

joan fanwick

``If Obamacare is repealed, I don't know if I'll live to see the next President.

``After nearly a decade of mysterious health scares, I was diagnosed with an autoimmune disorder called Sjogren's syndrome last year, when I was a junior at Temple University.

``It's a chronic illness with no known cause or cure, and without close medical surveillance and care, it can lead to life-threatening complications (like the blood infections I frequently experience).

``For me, having this disorder means waking up every morning and taking 10 different medications.

``It also means a nurse visiting my apartment every Saturday to insert a needle into the port in my chest, so I can give myself IV fluids throughout the week.

``Without insurance, my medical expenses would cost me about $1,000 per week--more than $50,000 per year. And that doesn't even include hospitalizations.

``My medical bills aren't cheap under Obamacare, but I can afford them.

``Under Obamacare, insurance companies aren't allowed to cut you off when your costs climb so right now, the most I personally have to pay out of pocket is $1,000 per year.''

brian norgaard

``I am a small business owner and leadership trainer who Obamacare has helped tremendously.''

Brian Norgaard, a Dallas, Texas resident, called my office to express his opposition to Trumpcare and to share how the Affordable Care Act has helped small business owners like himself:

``I am a small business owner and leadership trainer who Obamacare has helped tremendously.

``My wife and I both own small businesses in the Dallas, Texas area and as a result of the huge savings we received after paying lower healthcare premiums under Obamacare, we were able to reinvest those savings into both of our businesses and the community.

``And the healthcare we received was quality, at that.''

Mr. Speaker, this is a somber day today, and it is a very important day in the history of the United States of America.

I have joined with Senator Franken, who indicated that, today, Senators of the United States Senate will make one of the most significant votes, if not the most significant vote of their career, and it will be a vote that they will long remember because, rather than the serious and difficult decisions

of war and peace that, over the historical times of this body, many Members have had to make that decision and be in the midst of the throngs of patriotism, the vote that will be taken today will be a vote that those Senators will have brought on themselves; and it is a vote that does not have to be taken, nor a movement that has to be moved; and that is, to cause the American people to face a crumbling healthcare system, to dismantle and diminish the rights and obligations and opportunities for Americans, some 32 million, to have health insurance.

For me, it is both baffling and tragic that Senators would make this a campaign competition game, and that it only represents a notch in their belt.

This does not have anything to do with providing healthcare for Americans. It doesn't have anything to do with what doctors say, what hospitals say, what rural hospitals need, what individuals with chronic illnesses need, or those who have been diagnosed with devastating cancer. It has nothing to do with children who are in desperate need of healthcare.

It has nothing to do with two young people who I met; one who was experiencing autism, who sought to live independently and could not do so without Medicaid, or one who had a chronic illness of which, between 2015 and 2016, he spent or had to spend $700,000 to live, and, in the last 6 months, he had to spend $73,000, none of which would have been possible without the Affordable Care Act.

So what is happening in the Senate this afternoon? What vote of courage is being taken? What vote of improving the lives of Americans when the Senate bill, TrumpCare, will cause 49 million people to not have their insurance by 2026?

It will cause rural hospitals to simply crumble. I am from Texas. We have a huge system of rural hospitals helping my constituents, and those hospitals will face disaster. Or the Texas Medical Center, like major hospital configurations across the Nation, where major research is being done, undermined by the vote that will be taken.

It saddens me because I think the American people believe that we come to this place, we take this oath of office, to do what is right for America.

This is not political chips. This is not dominos. This is not a game.

And to the Commander in Chief, for you to be in front of the Boy Scouts--my husband and my son were Boy Scouts, and I sit on the Boy Scout board. I am offended by your words. I am offended because I know how hard my son worked. I know how my husband cherishes his status as an Eagle Scout, and I know what the jamboree means because my child went to it, and I know how excited those young patriots are.

Yet the Commander in Chief would come and speak about former President Obama in a dastardly way, talk about crowd sizes, and then have the nerve to talk about the healthcare bill, not as a moment of conscience, not as a serious issue that would, in fact, make higher costs.

Under the Senate bill, people will be paying more than they have earned for health insurance--well-documented. Of course, this is 22 million in the earlier period of the House bill. We now know it may be 32 million, and, as I have said, 49 million by 2026.

And then, of course, it cuts the protections for preexisting conditions. Of course, it has a crushing age tax. If you are older, 55, you pay more. And then, of course, it undermines Medicare. It interferes with the Medicare trust bill.

Yet the Commander in Chief is speaking before 45,000 or more young men, patriots, Boy Scouts, and talking about the healthcare bill and calling out Senator Capito from West Virginia: You better make her vote for it. What kind of leadership and heart is that? What are we dealing with here in this Nation?

I don't have to say anything, Mr. Speaker, about this individual. As I close, let me simply say that I am introducing a resolution to stop any President from firing the special counsel, and any President from abusing the pardon by pardoning anybody who is under investigation for the Russian involvement in our elections. We have to do this, sadly, because we are not focused on governing; we are focusing on insulting.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 3364 or the bill entitled ``Russia, Iran, and North Korea Sanctions Act.''

As a senior member of the Committee on Homeland Security and its Subcommittees on Counterterrorism and Intelligence, and Cybersecurity, Infrastructure Protection, and Security

Technologies, I am reminded daily that there are actors and nation- states that threaten the security of our nation.

Within the past year, the United States has experienced a series of aggressions that threaten not only our nation's security, but also the very democratic principles that are the foundation upon which our country was built.

These hostile acts have been orchestrated and perpetrated by our long-time adversaries--Russia, Iran, and North Korea.

Within that short time span, their actions have been so egregious that it is inexcusable that this administration has failed to respond to these acts of aggression with strength and resolve.

Mr. Speaker, U.S. intelligence agencies have confirmed that Russian hackers launched cyberattacks during one of the most sacred processes in our republic--the U.S. presidential election.

Specifically, we know that Russia was behind the cyber theft of DNC documents and that Russian hackers intentionally targeted 21 U.S. state election systems during the 2016 presidential campaign.

This administration refused to acknowledge Russia's tampering in last year's election until it became impossible to deny what everyone knows to be true.

Further, Iran's support of groups who actively operate against U.S. interests is disturbing even in the face of the implementation of the JCPOA in January 2016.

North Korea is growing increasingly belligerent, launching 17 missiles since the beginning of this year as it attempts to improve its missile capabilities with each launch.

Although North Korea has launched missiles in the past, never have they occurred in such a rapid, unpredictable succession.

In a show of bipartisanship, our counterparts in the Senate led the charge in adopting legislation that would stop Russia, Iran, and North Korea from operating with such impunity.

On June 15, 2017, the Senate passed an amended version of S. 722, the ``Countering Iran's Destabilizing Activities Act of 2017'' that not only penalizes Iran but also punishes Russia for its interference in the 2016 U.S. presidential election.

The fact that that legislation was passed 98-2 demonstrated congressional willingness to set clear boundaries for what is and is not acceptable behavior especially for our adversaries.

The House must act just as decisively by passing H.R. 3364.

H.R. 3364 will work to avert and penalize any threat posed by adversaries in several ways.

One of the most important provisions of this act is that it will prevent the Trump Administration from repealing existing Obama-era Russian sanctions tied to Ukraine and election interference.

H.R. 3364 will also impose new sanctions on Russia while strengthening other sanctions.

Furthermore, it will require congressional oversight for altering sanctions related to Russia.

With respect to Iran, H.R. 3364 will mandate new sanctions on those who support the development of Iran's ballistic missile program.

H.R. 3364 requires the imposition of sanctions on Iran for human rights violations as well as sanctions on the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps.

Finally, H.R. 3364 clamps down on North Korea by updating and expanding sanctions in direct response to its repeated aggression.

In addition, H.R. 3364 also makes it more difficult for North Korea to secure the funding for its illegal weapon program.

Mr. Speaker, it is time that this body acts to show that the United States will not tolerate and will respond to threats to our homeland, our national security.

That is why I urge all Members to join me in voting for H.R. 3364.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.J. Res. 111, which would repeal the Arbitration Rule recently created by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.

The Arbitration Rule is an important victory for consumer protection, because it prevents banks and other financial institutions from stripping consumers of their constitutionally-guaranteed right to a day in court.

The ``forced arbitration'' clauses that this rule addresses prevents a consumer from filing a lawsuit against a company, and always forces the consumer into a private and confidential arbitration process that operates outside of the legal system.

Additionally, these clauses, which are often buried in the fine-print of agreements and do not allow the consumer any authority to change them, frequently prohibit class-action claims.

This means that even if there are thousands of consumers who have been hurt by a bank or financial institution in a similar way, they would not be able to join their complaints into one case.

By forcing each and every consumer to endure arbitration on his or her own, outcomes for cases with the exact same complaints will vary unjustly, because arbitration does not set legal precedent.

Mr. Speaker, these forced arbitration clauses essentially amount to a rip-off clause.

It is clear that this rip-off clause is stacked against the consumer and is meant to shield predatory banks, payday lenders, credit card companies and other financial institutions from accountability when they cheat or plunder consumers.

In April of this year, it was revealed that Wells Fargo opened as many as 149,857 fraudulent bank accounts in my home state of Texas, including many in Houston.

But the rip-off clause prevented consumers from getting justice.

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau's Arbitration Rule rightfully aims to protect consumers from being forced to sign away their legal rights when doing something as simple as opening a bank account, obtaining a credit card, financing a home, or obtaining a private student loan.

The CFPB's Arbitration Rule makes it easier for consumers to file a lawsuit if they are harmed by a bank or financial institution, and increases transparency in the arbitration process.

The Arbitration Rule strongly serves the public interest.

H.J. Res. 111 is only the latest in a long series of attacks that Republicans have leveled against the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau since its very creation in 2011.

The Bureau is a tremendous ally in the fight for consumer protection, and it is imperative that its work be allowed to continue.

It is unconscionable that Republicans are working so hard to repeal a rule that only serves to protect consumers from harmful and predatory practices by the financial services industry.

I urge all of my colleagues to join me in rejecting this harmful resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I thank Mr. Garamendi for yielding. I was detained at another meeting, but I could not help but conclude our very important Special Order.

And I do want to emphasize that we have a better deal. We have the opportunity to be able to stabilize the markets.

We heard from Mr. Cohen today, who is from the great State of California, who says: The Affordable Care Act does work. Subsidies do work. And if we go the route of the Senate--the tragic vote today-- Americans will wind up paying more for premiums than their own income.

So I join in saying we can fix and stabilize--fix the Affordable Care Act, stabilize the healthcare system, and ensure that 49 million people do not lose their insurance by 2026; or with the Senate bill, 32 million don't lose their insurance.

So I simply conclude with this: I met with a family who has an autistic child--a young woman who wants to live on her own. She can't do that without the Affordable Care Act.

I met with a young man by the name of Matthew, who spent $700,000 over a 2-year period because he has a chronic illness; $73,000 on his medication in the last 6 months. The American people need us to do for them what the government can do, and that is to ensure a healthcare system for all.

That is what the Affordable Care Act's underlying premise is. That is what Democrats have as their message. Mr. Garamendi, I believe in saving lives. That is what I want to do with the Affordable Care Act.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 3218, the ``Harry W. Colmery Veterans Educational Assistance Act of 2017.''

H.R. 3218 eliminates the current 15-year cap for veterans to use the benefits provided in the GI Bill, therefore enabling future eligible recipients to use their GI bill benefits for their entire lives.

This change would greatly aid our brave veterans in facilitating the transition from active duty to civilian life by ensuring that veterans have access to retraining at any point after service to meet the needs of a changing economy.

Furthermore, H.R. 3218 would enhance GI Bill benefits for survivors of military members killed during active duty by granting them access to the Yellow Ribbon Program, which is a program that covers more costs at private institutions of higher learning for eligible recipients.

By expanding access to financial assistance, this bill ameliorates the often high cost barrier associated with higher education for survivors of military members killed in the line of duty.

H.R. 3218 will also protect veteran's GI Bill benefits from the closures of private, for-profit universities, a development that has negatively impacted many student veterans across the nation.

Madam Speaker, our veterans deserve better than to see their hard- earned benefits lost, especially for events beyond their own control.

This bill also increases GI Bill benefits for nine additional months for student veterans enrolled in STEM 5-year degree programs.

I am pleased that this bill gives our veterans the resources they need to take advantage of the opportunities provided by the growing technology industry.

Last, this bill would qualify post-9/11 Purple Heart recipients for full GI Bill benefits.

It is imperative that service members whose active duty is cut short due to an injury suffered in the line of fire have their heroic service recognized fully when receiving GI Bill benefits.

H.R. 3218 corrects previous inequities faced by our nation's brave veterans, and protects their future.

I urge all of my colleagues to join me in supporting H.R. 3218.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 2364, which authorizes financial institutions to invest more of their capital in small business investment funds.

As it stands, federally insured banks and savings associations are limited to investing a maximum of 5 percent of their capital and surplus in Small Business Investment Companies (SBIC).

Small Business Investment Companies (SBIC) are private funds, licensed and regulated by the Small Business Administration, that make investments in small businesses using their own capital or loans borrowed with an SBA guarantee.

Under H.R. 2364, financial institutions would be able to invest as much as 15 percent of their capital and surplus in SBICs.

There are over 8 million small businesses in America, which account for 54 percent of all U.S. sales.

Small businesses also provide 55 percent of all jobs and 66 percent of all net new jobs since the 1970s.

With more than half of Americans either owning or working for a small business, it is clear these companies are a vital part of our nation economy.

As the representative for Houston, one of the leading cities for entrepreneurs and small businesses, I remain mindful of the significance of, and have strongly advocated for policies that will preserve and create jobs and keep our nation's small business sector strong.

When small firms are able to grow and thrive, we all benefit from their innovations, job-creating power, and ability to make the U.S. more competitive globally.

That is why I urge all members to join me in supporting H.R. 2364.

Mr. Speaker, as a senior member of the Homeland Security Committee and vigilant defender of our national security, I rise in support of H.R. 3180, the ``Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2018,'' which will provide the Intelligence Community (IC) with the necessary resources and authorities to ensure they remain capable of protecting and defending the United States.

This bill authorizes appropriations for Fiscal Year 2018 for vital intelligence activities of the U.S. government, the Community Management Account, and the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) Retirement and Disability System, and for other purposes.

H.R. 3180 comes at a critical time in the status of our national security and the IC's ability to protect it.

As we continue to face a diverse and growing array of threats from terrorist groups, hostile nation states, and questionable or incompetent figures in the Trump administration, it is crucial that the IC receive all the resources it needs to do its job while Congress has the necessary tools to carry out rigorous oversight of its work.

This bill seeks to meet these challenges by supporting critical national security programs, particularly those focused on countering terrorism and cyberattacks.

Under H.R. 3180, the Director of National Intelligence will be required to electronically publish an unclassified advisory report on foreign counterintelligence and cybersecurity threats to federal elections.

It also bolsters intelligence oversight by ensuring that IC contractors can meet freely with Congress.

Lastly, this bill improves IC accountability to Congress by requiring the IC to provide reports on:

Investigations of leaks of classified information;

Security clearance processing timelines;

The process for reviewing information about computer vulnerabilities for retention or potential release;

And Russian influence campaigns directed at foreign elections and threat finance activities.

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 3180 is a necessary response to the overwhelming evidence pointing to a carefully planned and executed infiltration of our 2016 Presidential Election by the Russian government and its operatives.

The issue of cybersecurity, particularly with regards to our federal election computer system infrastructure, has been of great concern to me and the American public as more and more reports of Russian hacking efforts have come to light.

In addition, the provision requiring reports on security clearance processing timelines should shed light on the highly dubious and inscrutable security clearances of Ivanka Trump and Jared Kushner.

Donald Trump's blatant and irresponsible nepotism towards his daughter and son-in-law have made us all vulnerable to Russian and other foreign influence at the highest levels of our federal government.

H.R. 3180 will give the American people what they crave and deserve: clarity and transparency to pierce through the haze of cover-ups and distractions surrounding the Trump Administration.

This bill also takes significant, much-needed steps to improve benefits for members of the IC, such as increasing employee compensation and authorizing $514 million in appropriations for the CIA's Retirement and Disability System.

Congress must do its part to adequately recompense the patriotic Americans who serve our nation through their work in the IC, especially employees with disabilities, who make up 9 percent of the intelligence workforce.

At the same lime, we must continue to ensure that Congress can exercise oversight over and maintain transparency for the 17 agencies that comprise the IC.

I am heartened that my Republican colleagues in the Intelligence Committee are starting to see the light in recognizing the sinister threat of Russian infiltration and White House collusion, both of which endanger our nation's ability to practice and protect its core democratic values.

I look forward to working with all Members of Congress to strengthen our IC, and I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this important legislation.

Mr. Speaker, within hours, the Senate will begin a sinister unraveling of the safety net for millions of Americans--$774 billion cut from Medicaid--and they will throw on the ground some $200 billion that is just a bait to be able to bring votes in.

It was sad to see the administration speak today about having people lose their lives because, without healthcare, they will. I ask the Senate to vote ``no.'' Kill this bill.

It would be important if the President would also have an agenda--6 months and he has no jobs bill, no insurance, and no infrastructure bill.

I hope also to restore constitutional integrity, and I expect to introduce legislation dealing with preventing the President from firing the special counsel and from abusing the pardon power to pardon people who are under investigation.

I ask that we work together, and that is to save lives. Vote ``no'' on that Senate bill.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague Congresswoman Plaskett for hosting this special order for members of the Congressional Black Caucus (CBC) to speak about the first 6 months of Republicans' failure to govern in the White House and in Congress.

Today marks 185 days since the inauguration of Donald Trump, and 203 days since the start of this Republican Congress.

Despite the countless promises Trump made to the American people, the Trump presidency has been defined by chaos and incompetence from Day 1.

In addition to being mired in controversy, Trump lacks an agenda and has no major accomplishments to tout after six months in office.

Following in the footsteps of their leader, Republicans in both chambers of Congress have utterly failed to produce legislation that actually improves the lives of everyday Americans in any meaningful or measurable way.

Of the 43 bills that have been signed into law, 58 percent of these were noncontroversial suspensions and 33 percent were partisan GOP special-interest bills that strip vital protections away from the American people.

The Republican leadership has demonstrated a remarkable incapacity to actually lead their respective majorities in the House and Senate; instead their ``leadership'' has been marred by empty legislation, regressive policies, and damage control to rein in each new scandal spiraling out from the White House.

On January 20, 2017, Trump restated his trademark campaign promise to the American people: ``Together we will make America great again.''

Six months later, and that slogan rings hollower with each passing day.

Six months later, he has forged virtually no deals; he has not achieved his goal of ``insurance for everybody,'' nor has he put forward a single jobs or infrastructure bill, nor has he achieved tax reform, nor has he negotiated a single trade agreement.

Donald Trump promised that his extensive business experience would lead to better deals for the American people, and that he would be the ``greatest president for jobs that God ever created.''

Six months later, he has taken no action to support job creation or grow the economy.

Instead, the Trump budget includes draconian cuts to education, research, infrastructure, and other key areas that support job creation and the American economy.

Before he entered office, Trump showed off his infamous ``deal-making skills'' when he promised to make Carrier Corp. keep their furnace factory jobs on American soil.

On the 6-month anniversary of his inauguration, Carrier announced plans to cut 632 workers from the very Indianapolis factory Trump visited last December.

These manufacturing jobs will move to Monterrey, Mexico, where minimum wage is $3.90; the White House has not addressed this failure of Trump's strong-man, isolationist economic policy.

During his campaign, Trump claimed that he would save the coal industry--a sector that only employs 0.03 percent of the economy--and in June, 2017, Scott Pruitt of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) declared that the U.S. had miraculously created 50,000 coal jobs since 2016.

This staggering figure turned out to be a staggering lie; according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the coal sector has added about 1,000 jobs since October, 2016; it appears as though Mr. Pruitt ``miscalculated'' his estimate by 5,000 percent.

Not only have Trump's predictions for unparalleled job creation and economic growth proved to be pipe dreams or outright lies--the White House's budget proposal cruelly imposes drastic cuts to food stamps, student loans, and disability payments among a host of critical programs.

Trump promised that there would be no cuts to Social Security, Medicare, or Medicaid--that everybody was going to be taken care ``much better than they're taken care of now.''

Six months later, the Republicans do not have a plan that would ensure all Americans have access to affordable, quality healthcare.

Six months later, the existing Trumpcare plan, which has completely stalled in the Senate, would make 23 million Americans lose their health coverage and increase costs for millions more.

Trumpcare cuts Medicare and Medicaid, and his budget proposal cuts Social Security.

Trumpcare would allow discrimination against Americans with preexisting conditions and imposes an age tax on older Americans.

Thousands of Americans--both Republicans and Democrats, conservatives and liberals, old and young, healthy and sick--have cried out to their Congressmembers to keep the Affordable Care Act and to prevent Trumpcare from ever seeing the light of day.

Americans oppose Trumpcare by a three-to-one margin, but this overwhelming majority sentiment seems to have fallen on deaf ears for Donald Trump and the Republican leadership.

Trump also promised clean air and water in America.

Six months later, the Trump Administration and G.O.P. Congressmembers are rolling back vital environmental protections.

In a move that drew universal ire from the international community and concerned Americans, Trump withdrew the U.S. from the Paris Climate Agreement.

He has signed executive orders rolling back the Clean Power Plan and Clean Water Rule, and 37 Congressional Review Act bills, several of which roll back environmental protections.

His budget proposal would seek to inflict a 31 percent cut to the EPA and eliminates clean water programs for the Great Lakes and Chesapeake Bay.

On the campaign trail, Trump made repeated declarations about restoring national security and being ``tough on Russia.''

Six months later, Trump has failed to put forward a plan to defeat ISIS or strategies to address the situations in Syria, Iraq, Somalia, or Yemen.

Every week, a new report indicating collusion between the Trump Administration and the Russian government seems to come to light.

American citizens and lawmakers alike have responded to this growing list of scandals with growing anxiety, animosity, and exasperation.

In this and a few other respects, Trump has excelled.

For instance, he racked up 991 tweets since his inauguration; even more impressive, he has made 836 false or misleading claims according to the Washington Post's Fact Checker team.

He has spent a record 40 days at his own golf properties.

His approval rating is without equal at 36 percent--the worst of any president ever at the 6-month mark.

To recap, Trump's legislative accomplishments total at exactly zero:

No plan to lower healthcare costs;

No jobs bill;

No infrastructure bill;

No tax reform;

No plan to avoid defaulting on our debt;

And no budget.

By stark contrast, former President Obama had made great strides at this point in his presidency.

By the 6-month mark, Obama had:

Signed the Lily Ledbetter Fair Pay Act and the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act into law to improve protections for the American worker;

Outlined an extensive new energy policy;

Published an op-ed piece in 30 global newspapers simultaneously to discuss the growing economic crisis;

Passed an historic climate change bill through Congress;

Set out a new approach to Afghanistan and Pakistan;

Announced a new auto emission policy aimed at getting greener cars on the road;

Launched his successful campaign to overhaul the U.S. healthcare system;

And much more.

Americans want a President who can inspire them; they want a President who can lead effectively, with all the dignity and tact befitting the most powerful office in the world.

To our collective dismay and frustration, Trump and the Republicans have been their own worst enemy in preventing major, commonsense legislation from being voted on or signed into law.

I commend my colleague, Congresswoman Plaskett, for hosting this special order examining the disastrous results that have resulted from 6 months of Republican control over our federal government.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman and ranking member of the committee for doing a historic reauthorization of this historic Department that came in the backdrop of the most heinous and singular terrorist act in terms of the beginning part of the 21st century to come together with this important statement about securing the homeland.

This year will mark the 15th year of the Department of Homeland Security. Homeland security is defined as ``the national effort to ensure a homeland that is safe, secure, and resilient against terrorism and other hazards where American interests, aspirations, and ways of life can thrive . . . .''

This is what I hope this bill will do.

I want to take special note of two of the subagencies in this bill in particular, taking note of the killing of Gerardo Hernandez, the first TSA officer in the line of duty to be killed, in Los Angeles, and the machete attack on Carol Richel at the Louis Armstrong New Orleans International Airport. We owe a great deal of appreciation and thanks to the Transportation Security Administration and the TSOs. I personally thank them for the work that they do to be front line in securing America.

I also want to express my appreciation for the Secret Service, who, of course, through challenges, have continued to work to protect America's most important leadership, the President in particular. I thank them for their service.

I also want to make mention of the fact that I was very appreciative of the number of amendments that I was able to get in. The Jackson Lee amendments included mandates that the Department of Homeland Security add a new provision to the duties of the Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties, which directs that the Department recognize as part of their mission to preserve individual liberty, fairness, and equality under the law.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Mississippi, the ranking member.

Mr. Speaker, my second amendment deals with the multiyear acquisition strategy, keeps pace with changes in technology. This amendment makes sure that the agency's purchases are most up-to-date.

My third amendment deals with the fusion centers and will develop, keep up-to-date, and make available information on Federal resources intended to support fusion centers across America.

My fourth amendment would add to the list of DHS components, including the chief medical officer, to allow them to enter into MOUs so that they can be most helpful across the country.

My other amendment deals with preparedness, ensuring that the National Domestic Preparedness Consortium includes a special directive regarding preparedness in urban areas.

Finally, let me say that we have oversight over ICE and the immigration services. I think it is important to note that ICE has to be responsible, not seeking to raid and deport individuals who have been in this country, who are paying their taxes, and who have options to be able to stay in this country. I hope this reauthorization recognizes that we need comprehensive immigration reform and that ICE is important, but it must restrain its reckless way of deporting individuals.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in speak in strong support of H.R. 2825, the Homeland Security Authorization Act of 2017, which is the first authorization bill for the Department of Homeland Security since its creation.

I thank Chairman McCaul and Ranking Member Thompson for working diligently to bring before the House of Representatives the authorization legislation.

As a Senior member of the Committee on Homeland Security, and former Chair of the Subcommittee on Transportation Security, now known as the Transportation and Protective Security Subcommittee, as well as the former Ranking Member of the Subcommittee on Border and Maritime Security, I am very much aware of the importance of the work performed by the men and women who protect us from terrorism.

Homeland Security is defined as: ``the national effort to ensure a homeland that is safe, secure, and resilient against terrorism and other hazards where American interests, aspirations, and ways of life can thrive to the national effort to prevent terrorist attacks within the United States, reduce the vulnerability of the U.S. to terrorism, and minimize the damage from attacks that do occur.''

This year will mark the 15th year the Department of Homeland Security has been in existence and we owe the men and women who serve on the front line of defending our people of the United States against terrorist acts at home.

DHS's mission is to secure the nation from the many threats we face.

DHS is securing our nation through the dedication and hard work of the more than 229,000 employees to serve the nation in jobs that range from aviation and border security to emergency response, from cybersecurity analyst to chemical facility inspector.

The Department of Homeland Security has many challenges--the greatest of which is overcoming serious morale problems.

This authorization will accomplish a great deal, but the underlying central problem for the Department of Homeland Security is morale.

The employees of the Department of Homeland Security are on the front lines of our nation's defense against terrorism.

I recall the shooting incident at LAX that killed Gerardo Hernandez, who became the first TSA officer killed in the line of duty; and the machete attack at the Louis Armstrong New Orleans International Airport that resulted in injuries to Senior Transportation Security Officer Carol Richel.

Their sacrifice and heroism reminds me of what we saw on September 11, 2001.

I will never forget that day, which made the creation of the Department of Homeland Security necessary.

September 11, 2017 will mark the 16th Anniversary of the attacks that killed 2,977 men, women and children.

On September 11, 2001, I stood on the East Front steps of the Capitol along with 150 Members of the House of Representatives and sang ``God Bless America.''

I will forever recall the Members of this House who stood with each other not as Democrats or Republicans, but as Americans.

I want to thank and commend the work of our first responders across the nation for their efforts to protect and serve their communities and our nation.

Our duty as Members of Congress is to support the Department of Homeland Security in meeting its core mission of keeping Americans safe.

I am in support of H.R. 2825 for the following three reasons:

Terrorists have evolved their means and methods for perpetrating acts of terror that were not envisioned at the time the agency was created;

The role of the Internet as a tool for terrorists to recruit and train people around the world who may be drawn to their messages of hate must be calculated into the work to defend the nation; and

The Department of Homeland Security has evolved since its initial authorization bill became law on November 25, 2002, and this bill is a necessary step to make sure the agency can benefit from that experience.

I appreciate and thank the Committee on Homeland Security Members for the inclusion of my bill, the ``Federal Information Resource to Strengthen Ties with State and Local Law Enforcement Act of 2017'' also known as the ``FIRST State and Local Law Enforcement Act'' in the Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute for H.R. 2824, the Homeland Security Authorization Act of 2017.

Mr. Speaker, the FIRST State and Local Law Enforcement Act, supports transparency and oversight of the work of the DHS Office of State and Local Law Enforcement by requiring that an annual report of its activities be provided to Congress.

This office is the primary coordinator, liaison, and advocate for state, local, tribal, and territorial law enforcement agencies.

This office was created based on recommendations from the 9/11 Commission and serves as the primary liaison between DHS and non- Federal law enforcement agencies across the country.

The office also leads the coordination of DHS' policies related to state, local, tribal, and territorial law enforcement's role in preventing, preparing for, protecting against, and responding to natural disasters, acts of terrorism and other man-made disasters.

Because this DHS office plays a significant role in the required outreach to state and local law enforcement entities it is important that the Committee be kept apprised of its work.

The ``FIRST State and Local Law Enforcement Act'' will include data about the coordination and information with State and locals, establishing and reporting performance and metrics feedback received from State, local, and tribal law enforcement agencies about the Office.

I thank the Chairman and Ranking Member of the Homeland Security Committee for also including Several Jackson Lee amendments in the final bill:

The First Jackson Lee Amendment adds to the list of the Bill's mandates for the Department of Homeland Security, which the Secretary of DHS shall implement as part of the overall mission of the agency.

This Jackson Lee Amendment adds a new provision to the duties of the Office of Civil Rights and Civil Liberties, which directs that the Department recognizes as part of its mission to preserve individual liberty, fairness, and equality under the law;''.

The Second Jackson Lee Amendment adds an assurance that the DHS Multiyear Acquisition Strategy keeps ``pace with changes in technology that could impact deliverables.'' This amendment makes sure that the agency's purchases are the most up to date technology available.

The Third Jackson Lee Amendment would amend the Department of Homeland Security Fusion Center Partnership Initiative section of the bill to make sure that the Department will ``develop, keep up to date, and make available information on federal resources intended to support fusion center access to agency data.''

The unique and well established relationship between the National Network of Fusion Centers and the Department of Homeland Security is codified in this authorization bill, and important transparency measure.

This amendment creates an ongoing mission by the Homeland Security Fusion Center Partnership Initiative to support local and state fusion participation.

The Fourth Jackson Lee Amendment adds to the list of DHS components which can enter into Memorandums of Understanding to include the Chief Medical Officer.

A memorandum of understanding or MOU is a formal agreement between Department of Homeland Security components and two or more parties regarding a matter of mutual benefit or interest where each party will provide to the other something of consequence.

In the case of this Jackson Lee amendment, the Office of Chief Medical Officer will be able to enter into MOUs, which are not legally binding agreements, for the purpose of carrying out its mission.

The fifth Jackson Lee Amendment assures that the Department of Homeland Security's National Domestic Preparedness Consortium includes a special directive regarding preparedness training for urban areas.

The Amendment establishes that ``to the extent practicable,'' the Department of Homeland Security will ``provide training in settings that simulate real response environments, such as urban areas.''

Urban preparedness planning will include drills, and my amendment allows each urban area to determine the settings and scenarios that will best approximate the challenges that may need to be overcome.

Few of us will forget the impact of Hurricane Katrina or what we saw following Hurricane Sandy.

None of us will forget the attack on New York City or the months of difficult excavation and recovery at the site of the attacks.

Urban centers come with a host of challenges that require adjustments in how preparedness drills are conducted to ensure that lessons learned can be applied to real world conditions.

I thank the Committee for adoption of these legislative improvements, which added them to the bill being debated by the House of Representatives.

I ask that the members of the House to support H.R. 2825, the ``Department of Homeland Security Authorization Act of 2017.''

Mr. Speaker, many of us are engaged in the budget process today.

A budget for Americans should be the playbook for improving the quality of lives for all Americans. Yet this draconian budget, which is worse than the Trump budget, cuts $250 billion-plus out of quality of life issues for Americans. It cuts education, healthcare, Medicaid, Medicare, and the environment, undermining the fight against climate change.

Where is the relief for the American people?

We have the fact that wages are slow in growing. Mr. Speaker, corporate America is doing well, and all that is needed, as some corporations have already done, is to raise the salaries of Americans.

We also need to make sure the government does what the American people need, to shore up the Affordable Care Act, but not cut billions from it. Shore up national defense, but not cut from diplomacy and engagement in peacekeeping activities, as well as USAID. Shore up America's national security. Give a quality of life to our young people so that jobs are created.

How do you do that?

You do that, Mr. Speaker, by ensuring that the climate and quality of life issues are there for corporations to grow. Growth is important for the American people, not draconian cuts to leave Americans without healthcare, without good climate, and without education. We want a budget for the American people.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, on Tuesday, July 18, I was unavoidably detained on constituency business.

On rollcall vote No. 382, motion on ordering the previous question on the rule, if I had been present, I would have voted ``no.''

On rollcall vote No. 383, House Resolution 451 covering H.R. 806, if I had been present, I would have voted ``no.''

On rollcall vote No. 384 on H.R. 2786, if I had been present, regarding qualifying conduit hydropower facility by Mr. Hudson, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, as an original co-sponsor, I rise in strong support of H.R. 2200, the Frederick Douglass Trafficking Victims Prevention and Protection Reauthorization Act of 2017.

I thank my colleagues, Congressman Christopher H. Smith and Congresswoman Karen Bass, the Chair and Ranking Member of the Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on Africa, for their work in shepherding this bipartisan legislation to the floor.

H.R. 2200 authorizes $130 million to support a cause that has special significance for me--that is, the eradication of trafficking in persons--both domestic and abroad.

Throughout my tenure in Congress and as a founder and cochair of the Congressional Children's Caucus, I have consistently advocated on behalf of victims of human trafficking, especially children, who are the most vulnerable victims.

I am pleased that the title of this legislation honors the life and legacy of the great orator and abolitionist, Frederick Douglass, who vigorously opposed slavery not as a mere outside observer of the peculiar institution but as a survivor himself of what we could now call ``trafficking in persons.''

In fact, with regard to his own condition, Frederick Douglass famously said he would ``prefer death to hopeless bondage.''

In the 21st century, no one should be put in such a position where death becomes preferable in the face of being held captive against his or her own will.

Mr. Speaker, that is why I fully support this legislation's ``whole- of-government'' approach to eliminating this horrific crime wherever and whenever it is committed.

H.R. 2200 strengthens the Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2000 by adding the following measures to reduce human trafficking including but not limited to:

1. Ensuring that vulnerable children and at-risk populations receive training on how to avoid traffickers;

2. Encouraging USAID to incorporate anti-trafficking measures during disaster relief efforts;

3. Pursuing the prosecution of individuals who use services provided by human trafficking victims as a deterrent for not only human traffickers but patrons as well;

4. Supporting the enforcement of the Tariff Act of 1930 to prohibit the importation of goods made by forced labor; and

5. Ensuring that foreign governments that use child soldiers are not the recipients of U.S. military assistance.

This legislation operates in the same spirit of H.R. 53, the CATCH Traffickers Act of 2017, which I reintroduced earlier this year that directs the Department of Homeland Security to create a national database to assist in human trafficking investigations.

In 2014, I also held a Homeland Security Committee field hearing focusing on human trafficking in my congressional district because Houston, Texas is one of the nation's largest hubs for human trafficking.

Mr. Speaker, both H.R. 2200 and H.R. 53 call on the federal government to formulate and utilize tools at its disposal to eradicate human trafficking.

Modern-day slavery which includes sex trafficking, child sex trafficking, forced labor, debt bondage, domestic servitude, forced child labor, and the recruitment and use of child soldiers is a violation of the principle of liberty that we hold dear in this country.

To effectively oppose human trafficking and eliminate modern-day slavery in all of its forms, the U.S. government must aggressively pursue, prosecute, and convict both traffickers and patrons of human trafficking victims .

Moreover, we must do everything in our power to educate and protect particularly vulnerable members of our human family from becoming victims of the barbaric practice of human trafficking.

I ask my colleagues to join me in supporting H.R. 2200, the Frederick Douglass Trafficking Victims Prevention and Protection Reauthorization Act of 2017.