Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak for one minute on President Trump's Tax Cut Plan,

As a member of the House Budget Committee, I would participate in any Committee's markup of a tax reform bill,

President Trump's much anticipated tax plan is another disappointment; a poor work product; something he should have been ashamed to put his name on; and it reveals yet again what many warned about before the election,

This tax plan would receive a failing grade in any school of business.

A one page federal tax cut plan--really is an insult to the American People.

This plan shows no command of the facts regarding our nation's very complex tax system.

Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin set out a test for tax reform that, ``there will be no absolute tax cut for the upper class.''

But the president's tax plan has failed this test miserably by providing a huge tax cut for the wealthy while middle income families would receive very little benefit.

In fact, Trump's tax plan provides a huge tax benefit for him personally. Using his 2005 tax return numbers, President Trump would save about $28.6 million in taxes under his plan.

About $27 million of those savings is due to the reduction of the passthrough income rate to 15 percent.

President Trump's tax proposal blows a hole in the nation's deficit.

It's become painfully obvious that the deficit only matters when a Democrat is President.

The plan is not revenue neutral.

In fact, early press reports indicate that the Trump proposal is likely to add several trillions of dollars to our deficit.

Busting the deficit the way the Trump tax plan would do puts immediate pressure on our other obligations--including guaranteed Medicare benefits.

The President can't pretend to protect Medicare, then leave beneficiaries completely exposed by draining our coffers.

For some context, these tax cuts could fund Medicare for the next 75 years or more.

You have to question the priorities of the President--is he working to keep his promises to hardworking Americans, or is he abandoning those promises in favor of enriching the wealthy.

Democrats know that the Middle Class deserves the tax cut, not Donald Trump and his Cabinet.

We would focus on growing our economy from the middle out, instead of trickle-down economics from the top down.

The middle class does not need to deal with the consequence of a massive tax cut for the wealthy.

I ask my colleagues join me in opposing any burdensome tax cut plan that hurts working families.

Mr. Speaker, as the gentleman from Massachusetts was speaking, I rushed to the floor because he was making such eloquent and important statements, and I wanted to make sure to join him on recognizing that, though we are pushing the can down the road, we know what the mindset of the administration is in terms of funding this country. As a member of the Budget Committee, we received the skinny budget, and, to my dismay, it was a budget that harmed and hurt and undermined the governance of this Nation.

I think it is important to match the Affordable Care Act with the outside needs of living and thriving in this Nation. So my Houston Housing Authority has now stopped vouchers for families in Section 8 housing for fear of not having the money. They had breaking news 2 days ago telling those families, don't show up because we have no money to house you--similar to no money and no room at the inn.

The zeroing out of the community development dollars, which ends our opportunities for parks and sidewalks and housing and fixing those hurricane roofs of senior citizens who are living in devastation from Hurricane Ike.

It is not realizing the importance of the National Endowment for the Arts or recognizing the EPA and clean air and clean water for those of us who live near the Gulf or near the border.

It is not recognizing that you are not the President of the 10 percent that may approve of what you are doing, but you are the President of the United States of America.

And then, for those who work in health care, in a meeting I just had with the National Institutes of Health, $6 billion cut. Do you realize that one of the institutes sends 88 percent of their moneys out for grants so that researchers, young scientists who live here in the United States, can thrive and provide new kinds of research?

There are 27 institutes in the National Institutes of Health. One of them happens to deal with diabetes. The number one is cancer. And for those of us who have experienced it, and for African- American women and others who have the triple negative trait, breast cancer, the research of the NIH is crucial.

Or Dr. Fauci's National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. Dr. Peter Hotez, in Houston, head of Baylor Infectious Diseases, understands Ebola and Zika. We need these resources. What an outrage to cut, in the skinny budget, $6 billion.

So we may push this to another 7 days, but I can tell you that we are pushing the hearts and minds of Americans. We are creating a disaster.

And I can't appreciate the fact that law enforcement will be losing funding. The Department of Justice and the Civil Rights Division, in spite of who is leading that Department, it is a Department for the vulnerable.

So I thank the gentleman for providing me with this time, but I wanted to make sure that we added this long litany of those who will be negatively impacted and that America is not about that. America is about serving all of the people of the United States.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak about H.J. Res. 99, ``Making Further Continuing Appropriations for Fiscal Year 2017.''

This resolution is an imperfect vehicle for appropriations for FY 2017, because it does not fully fund the government for the entire fiscal year and it keeps in place sequestration.

H.J. Res. 99 goes against sound fiscal practice by including the budget gimmickry known as sequestration, a fiscal bludgeon that makes across the board cuts in funding for the valuable services depended upon by American children, seniors, workers, veterans, students, and small businesses.

Mr. Speaker, the Continuing Resolution before us extends current Fiscal Year 2017 government funding by seven days, through May 5, 2017, at its current rate, which means a continuation of the across-the-board cut of .19% for all accounts, defense and non-defense, contained in the expiring continuing resolution that was approved December 8, 2016.

Mr. Speaker, I am disappointed that we have again been placed in the position of having to fund the government through the device of a continuing resolution rather than through the normal appropriations process of considering and voting on the twelve separate spending bills reported by the Committee on Appropriations.

H.J. Res. 99 is far from perfect, but it is a modest and positive step since it ensures that funding for appropriated entitlements will continue at a rate maintaining program levels under current law and, for a week at least, prevents congressional Republicans from shutting down the government again and manufacturing a crisis that only harms our economy, destroys jobs, and weakens our middle class.

The government shutdown of 2013, which was manufactured by the Republican majority lasted 16 days and cost taxpayers $24 billion.

The enormous harm and disruption of the lives of federal employees and the people they serve, however, was irreparable.

As I stated, Mr. Speaker, this Continuing Resolution is not perfect and it only funds the government until May 5, 2017.

As veteran and seasoned Members of Congress, we have been in this challenging position before.

But working together--in a spirit of goodwill, bipartisanship, and realism, I believe we can reach a long-term agreement that will avert a shutdown of government operations and the disruption a shutdown causes to the lives of millions of Americans who depend upon federal programs to do their jobs, educate their kids, care for their parents, and contribute to their communities.

Our constituents look to the Congress and the President to make responsible choices and decisions to keep the nation safe, the economy prosperous, and to make necessary and prudent investments in education, healthcare and research, transportation and infrastructure, economic development, science, the arts and humanities, and the environment.

This is, after all, just another way of saying that the American people expect their leaders in Washington be guided by the Constitution's Preamble and pursue policies and provide the resources that will:

``establish justice, ensure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty.''

The funding priorities that have been floated by the Trump Administration fail this essential test of leadership because they are irresponsible, impracticable, unrealistic, and, in many respects, insensitive or indifferent to the deleterious impact they will have on the lives of real people living in the real world.

They do not command majority support in the Congress or of the public.

To win such support, I believe that it is essential that any subsequent continuing resolution or omnibus appropriations bill achieves the following goals and objectives:

``To establish justice'' and ``To promote the general welfare'':

1. Full funding for the U.S. Department of Justice Civil Rights Division and the Department of Education Office of Civil Rights so that they have funds needed to enforce laws protecting civil rights, voting rights, and prosecuting hate crimes.

2. Fully funds community development block grants and low income housing programs in urban and rural communities.

3. Fully funds the Legal Services Corporation so that working and low-income persons who lack an army of lobbyists to represent them in Washington will at least have the assistance of counsel to defend their legal rights in courts of law.

4. Fully funds programs providing food assistance to housebound seniors, such as Meals on Wheels.

5. Fully funds programs that provide students from low and moderate- income families access to affordable higher education and provides students with special needs the support needed to receive the free appropriate public education (FAPE) in the least restrictive environment (LRE) guaranteed by the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA Act).

6. Fully funds before and after school programs and other student enrichment programs that help students succeed.

7. Fully funds programs that make federal housing safer through energy efficient heating and cooling systems.

8. Preserves tax credit programs that help revitalize low income communities.

9. Fully funds the Environmental Protection Agency and Department of Energy programs developing the next generation of clean energy and transportation technologies.

``Provide for the common defense'':

1. Provides robust funding for the Department of State and USAID to advance national security interests in places like Iraq and Afghanistan and to end violent conflicts in trouble spots which could threaten the security interests of the United States.

2. Provides adequate funding for United Nations peacekeeping missions throughout the world and distribution of food aid to people in developing and famine stricken countries, such as South Sudan, Somalia, Yemen, and Nigeria.

``To ensure domestic tranquility'':

1. Fully funds cost-sharing reduction subsidies, or CSRs, to compensate insurers for reducing deductibles and out-of-pocket maximums for low-income customers on the Affordable Care Act exchanges.

2. Protects the adequacy, solvency, and integrity of the Medicare and Medicaid programs, which provide health sustaining support for 70 million Americans.

3. Fully funds the National Institutes of Health research programs so that patient access to lifesaving treatments is not delayed.

4. Does not convert funding for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention into block grants which would hinder the nation's ability to respond swiftly and effectively to public health crises like Ebola, Zika, and HIV/AIDS.

Mr. Speaker, I believe that if all members of the House and Senate work together, we can reach agreement on an appropriate budget framework that invests in the American people, preserves our national security, and keeps faith with the values that have served our nation well and made the United States the leading nation on earth.

Mr. Speaker, I first want to rise and salute a very special friend of mine, Johnny Mata, on his 80th birthday.

Longtime Houston activist and leading founder of the Greater Houston Coalition for Justice, Johnny, we love you because you have been a fighter for justice all of your life. I look forward to coming home and celebrating you, not only as a fighter for justice, but a great American, and certainly one who served in the United States Army.

I know that Johnny would not mind me making mention of the fact that, in the 100 days that this President has served, not only has he not provided any service to the American people in terms of providing for their comfort, but today he will celebrate his 100 days by going and speaking before the National Rifle Association, where over 80 percent of those members believe in responsible gun safety, but not one word

has come from the President of the United States. Yet every day, 48 children and teens are shot in murders, assaults, and suicides in this country and, as well, over $200,000 in costs for health care is part of the tragedy of gun violence.

I would hope that this Presidency will join Members of Congress for responsible gun safety to save lives, and stop catering to the special interests of the National Rifle Association--not its membership, but its leadership who are taking advantage and using this as a moneymaking machine.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to my constituent and longtime friend Mr. Johnny Mata on his 80th Birthday.

Johnny Mata is a longtime Houston activist who is the presiding officer of the Greater Houston Coalition for Justice.

He has been a champion of social justice, education, and civil rights in Houston and across the State of Texas fighting to improve the criminal justice system.

He served his country with distinction in the United States Army and later joined the Gulf Coast Community Services Association, where he served for 32 to years helping struggling families to make better lives for themselves.

His life has been a commitment to service on behalf of those less fortunate, particularly in the Latino communities where his outspoken voice against prejudice and injustice has had a profound effect on our criminal justice system.

Johnny Mata has held numerous leadership positions including six terms as the Director of two local districts and two terms as Texas State Director for the League of United Latin American Citizens.

He is responsible for bringing to the forefront issues regarding law enforcement and education in the Hispanic community and has been nationally recognized for getting public school districts to hire more Hispanic educators and administrators.

In 1999, Johnny Mata founded the Greater Houston Coalition for Justice, an umbrella organization of more than 25 civil rights and advocacy groups dedicated to raising awareness of human rights issues and to addressing deficiencies in the Greater Houston area's criminal justice system.

In the same spirit as Cesar Chavez, Johnny Mata is an inspiration to us all because of his kind spirit and humble heart that allows him to continue his fight for the least of these and for those who just need an opportunity to achieve the American dream on a level playing field with fair and equal justice for all.

Mr. Speaker, I commend Johnny Mata for his deep and abiding commitment to the causes of social justice and equal rights and offer him the very best for his continued success fighting for change and also to recognize his contributions to this country on his 80th birthday.

Johnny Mata is an American hero.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. Jayapal) for yielding and for her leadership on this Special Order.

I will take just a moment of the gentlewoman's time because I think she has captured the essence of the frustration, not that Members of Congress have, but that the American people have. So I wanted to make sure that I shared some of the contrasts that we have between what has happened yesterday and the announcement of the administration of Mr. Trump's tax proposal, which, in essence, is really a bowl of horror. It is a continuation of an ineffective 100 days, and the fear that I have is that it was rushed and put together to meet this really unnecessary standard or unnecessary test of 100 days, one that was so pronounced during Mr. Trump's campaign in contrast to Mr. Clinton, Mr. Bush, and Mr. Obama, the last three Presidents that we have as examples.

What is in the first 100 days?

The first 100 days should be working. You should be working every day and you should have to account or you should be able to account for the successes that you have done in the normal course of work. Methodically, you can check off the good that you have done for the American people; that it comes naturally, that you have been methodical, that you have worked with Congress, that you worked with your executives, that you have looked to see what can be improved.

All that we can see is what has been destroyed or dismantled or taxed or ridiculed. There is nothing that advantages the American people.

Certainly, the healthcare bill was ridiculing the American people. It was ridiculous. $880 billion was taken from Medicaid; $600 billion was to be used for tax cuts, which they do not have at this point. We fear that they will be rushing through such a bill in the next couple of days.

More importantly, where was the commitment to all of the promises?

So let me just speak to two particular points.

The economic security of women, what has happened under this administration?

Blocking expanded overtime pay, which disproportionately benefits women workers. Failing to advance equal pay, paid family leave, and affordable childcare legislation, talking about it but doing nothing.

Endangering retirement security by blocking a rule requiring retirement advisers to put clients first.

Can you imagine?

Senior citizens have helped build this country, and you would deny them adequate counsel on their retirement. That has happened.

All of these have happened under the Trump administration: proposing severe cuts to the Department of Labor, which would hinder enforcement of family and medical leave. Of course, cutting Meals on Wheels, as has been indicated. Cutting the National Institutes of Health. Major lifesaving research down the drain. Scientists looking for other countries to go to because they have no room at the inn.

And then making student debt harder to pay off by rescinding a rule that limits the fees that loan companies can charge its borrowers. Remember, those borrowers are 18, 19, 20, 21 years old. They are the next generation or the current generation of the builders of this economy and this society.

Then to add insult to injury, if I might say, yesterday a big pronouncement announced over the weekend the biggest, fattest tax cut you could ever have or tax reform that you would ever have. Of course, everyone knows in America this is not tax reform. This is a simple bunch of tax cuts that will have a competition between debt and deficit. This will be a spiraling downward trend digging America into the deepest hole of debt and deficit in the history of the United States.

Trillions of dollars spent on individuals and corporations that do not need it.

How do I know?

I have spoken to them, and there is a whole litany of corporate issues that are not being answered.

For example, the idea of being able to deduct interest payments is nowhere to be found. That might help middle class working families, as well as corporations and small businesses.

What you have is trickle-down economics. President Trump's tax plan is built on the same trickle-down economics that withered inequality and undermined working families.

There are massive tax breaks for Trump himself. In the course of his days that he may have paid taxes--and let me be very clear that we don't know what impact this tax bill would have on him because we do not have his tax returns. But we do know, in the last time we have records, he had to pay $39 million in taxes because of the alternative minimum tax put in place in 1986 by President Reagan.

Can you imagine?

If there was not the AMT--alternative minimum tax--he would be paying $5 million.

Well, ladies and gentlemen, my dear colleagues, they have eliminated in this tax bill the AMT. That sounds suspicious, and it shouldn't sound suspicious. It is suspicious, and the reality of it is it is self-promoting and self-happening.

Then, of course, these tax cuts are moving the corporate rate from 35 to 15. Let me make a breaking news announcement. Most corporations pay about 14, but with the 35 moved to 15, maybe they will pay zero.

Who is going to be part of the overall supporting and investment in this Nation, to build our infrastructure, to create jobs, to build the new level of energy, new technology, to ensure that health care is provided for those who need it, to make sure that the Affordable Care Act continues to cover the millions of people that need it instead of cutting 24 million people?

Well, with the tax cuts in place, there is a rush to judgment. That judgment is a pronouncement of a complete deficit hole for the American people. That is what this tax cut does. There are no benefits for working class Americans or middle class Americans. There is no incentive to create jobs. In fact, I have no idea what the thinking or planning was that went into the President's tax plan.

All I know is that the American people who get up every day and go to work, or those who get up every day and get three or four buses to go to work--and part of the time that they are going to work, they have to drop off their children at a school that may not be in their neighborhood because there is a need for more investment in education. All I know is that those people whom I am so proud to be able to represent, as well as large businesses and small businesses that, I believe, as I have listened to corporate leaders just a few hours ago saying, ``We are with you all. We want what is best for America. This is not what we desire, not to give all to us or the top 1 percent. We want to help America grow because, as America grows, our companies thrive, our shareholders thrive,'' that is not the message of this administration.

So I am delighted to join the Congressional Progressive Caucus to ask the question of the Trump administration: Are you so worried about the 100

days that you cannot worry about the American people? Is 100 days more important than the mother who is traveling to work 3 and 4 hours? Is 100 days more important than the traveling salesmen who need the kind of infrastructure and roads that work? or those in southern America that need the kind of rural electric system that helps them? or those that need clean energy? or those that need research for the next cure for sickle cell anemia?

Is your 100 days so important that you cannot provide resources for law enforcement and firefighters and first responders, that you cannot provide help for the national parks, the National Endowment for the Arts, and you cannot provide direction to the Department of Justice, which has turned itself into the injustice, unjust department, exploring ideas of taking away civil rights, denying individuals their rights as citizens in the United States in terms of discrimination and equality, opportunity or, in actuality, creating the one thing that you can be proud of, and that is the deportation task force that is demonizing hardworking individuals who simply want an opportunity for their families?

So I would only say that I thank the gentlewoman for yielding to me, and I thank the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Raskin), as well, for his presence here and others that will come and ask the question: Are all these people that we have listed less important than your 100 days? I am saddened if the answer is yes.

Mr. Speaker, I join my colleague Congresswoman Pramila Jayapal and who is leading tonight ``Congressional Progressive Caucus Special Order the impact of President Trump's Tax Cut Plan.''

As a member of the House Budget Committee, I would participate in any Committee's markup of a tax reform bill.

President Trump's much anticipated tax plan is another disappointment; a poor work product; something he should have been ashamed to put his name on; and it reveals yet again what many warned about before the election.

This President is unprepared for his office, and he shows either no capacity or interest in on the job training.

This tax plan in any school of business would get a failing grade.

A one page federal tax cut plan--really is an insult to the American People.

This plan shows no command of the facts regarding our nation's very complex tax system.

President Trump's tax plan, just as his healthcare reform proposal, and immigration reform proposal would hurt working families and disproportionately favor the wealthy and large corporations at the expense of the nation's middle class.

Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin set out a test for tax reform that, ``there will be no absolute tax cut for the upper class.''

But the president's tax plan has failed this test miserably by providing a huge tax cut for the wealthy while middle income families would receive very little benefit.

In fact, Trump's tax plan provides a huge tax benefit for him personally. Using his 2005 tax return numbers, President Trump would save about $28.6 million in taxes under his plan.

About $27 million of those savings is due to the reduction of the pass through income rate to 15%.

President Trump's tax proposal blows a hole in the nation's deficit.

It's become painfully obvious that the deficit only matters when a Democrat is President.

The plan is not revenue neutral. In fact, early press reports indicate that the Trump proposal is likely to add several trillions of dollars to our deficit.

Busting the deficit the way the Trump tax plan would do puts immediate pressure on our other obligations--including guaranteed Medicare benefits.

The President can't pretend to protect Medicare, then leave beneficiaries completely exposed by draining our coffers.

For some context, these tax cuts could fund Medicare for the next 75 years or more.

You have to question the priorities of the President--is he working to keep his promises to hardworking Americans, or is he abandoning those promises in favor of enriching the wealthy.

President Trump's tax proposal is a return to Reagan's failed supply side economics.

The evidence is clear: large tax cuts like this don't pay for themselves, despite the rhetoric we hear from this Administration. Just ask the conservative leaning Tax Foundation.

This broad outline--which lacks any kind of real detail--seems to simply be a repeat of the mistakes we made with President George W. Bush's tax cuts in 2001 and 2003, which cost us trillions of dollars, did nothing to help working families, and, in part, contributed to the Great Recession.

Democrats know that the Middle Class deserves the tax cut, not Donald Trump and his Cabinet.

We would focus on growing our economy from the middle out, instead of trickle-down economics from the top down.

The middle class does not need to lose their healthcare coverage provided by the Affordable Care Act.

The middle class does not need to deal with the consequence of a massive tax cut for the wealthy.

Any tax cut must be paid for by getting funding from somewhere else in the federal budget.

The source of funding to pay for the tax cuts under the failed repeal of the Affordable Care Act would have come from Medicare and Medicaid-- hurting millions of people who would have lost access to health insurance coverage.

I am joining my colleagues this evening in strong opposition to this Administration's attempt to diminish the quality of life of working families by creating unfair burdens like funding ill-conceived tax cut plans.

Mr. Speaker, 53 percent of Americans disapprove of President Trump's service to this Nation in this first 100 days. I didn't say Members of Congress. I didn't say party. I said 53 percent of Americans disagree, and I understand why: a healthcare promise that did not come to fruition; families are now looking, with his potential bill, to higher healthcare costs for our working families; 24 million more Americans are off of insurance.

What about the age tax for hardworking Americans? Americans 50 to 64 years old will be paying upwards of $12,000 to $14,000 for their premium.

The last insult is to those hardworking Americans who now receive Medicare by deleting, depleting, taking away, and destroying $100 million from the Medicare trust fund.

There is no other answer. There is no other answer than disapproval, because why would anyone who leads this Nation destroy the very health care, the very arm of opportunity and rest that Americans have when they become sick?

I think the disapproval is probably too low. Let us fix the healthcare system. Let us not destroy it.

Mr. Chair, let me thank the gentleman from Michigan and all of my colleagues that have spoken on this job-creating legislation and recognition of how great America is with all of the creative talent that

we have mustered, the music that you enjoy, the songwriters and others who created both the visual and musical arts. This is what this is about.

Now, I have listened to some of my colleagues from California. I am not from California. I am from Houston, Texas. But we know that creative artists and writers and those who invent and those who write wonderful stories are all part of the arena of what America is great about. They generate genius and they create jobs. The Copyright Office is that protector that ensures that those jobs will be protected.

We, over a series of years in the Judiciary Committee, have looked at reforming the copyright system. We have had hearings even with the former Copyright Register, who indicated that putting her position in a Senate confirmation would be the right thing to do. But it has taken 4 years.

So today we have come not to be out of order and not doing other major aspects of reform. In fact, I want to congratulate the Librarian of Congress who, now, is engaged in modernization. I applaud her. Her appointment has been significant. She is innovative and is already working to make sure that the Library and the creative arts and assets and property of those of great talent is protected.

Today we address an aspect of that work, and that is we want to continue to see the progress that our Librarian has made. We want to be able to make on an equal status that individual that is dealing with copyright just as the director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office status as a Presidential appointee does not compromise that person's ability to execute their duties as head of the USPTO, nor should it compromise or interfere with the responsibilities of cooperation, collaboration, jurisdictional compromise, and work between the Librarian of Congress and the Register of Copyrights.

To the Librarian of Congress, my view is keep working, keep doing the modernization work. I believe that as we move forward, regardless of who at this point is in the Office of President, that we can ensure that Congress has insight and oversight over this important position.

Let me also suggest to my colleagues that the Library of Congress is an important part of the work of Congress, and I think all of us should be interested stakeholders in the work that it does and should be supporters of that.

We encourage the Library of Congress to work with America's constituency by having programs and letting them know of the wonderful artifacts that are there, that are held, that tell the history of this great Nation. It is always important to be able to do research there and to see the storied history.

Now, we come to this bill that does nothing to undermine that storied history or the Librarian of Congress. What it does, as I have indicated, is it helps us create jobs.

Now, in order to recognize the importance of the Librarian of Congress, in this instance, Dr. Carla Hayden, I am very grateful that my colleagues accepted an amendment that I have that, in fact, does do something, and it does a very important action. It respects and recognizes the value of Congress' insight on putting forth nominees or names that will be selected from to become the Register of Copyrights, not to have limited input, but to actually produce the names.

Ultimately, I hope that an amendment going forward after this bill, working with the Senate, can be that there is a limit to the names being put forward and that those names are the names that are put forward to the President of the United States. I think that is an element that should be included.

In the amendment, it has that the Speaker of the House of Representatives, the President pro tempore of the Senate, the majority leader of the House of Representatives, the majority leader of the Senate, minority leader of the House of Representatives, and the Librarian of Congress will be, in fact, the deciders of who gets nominated to be the Register of Copyrights.

As we well know, the AFL-CIO has provided a letter of support, along with the American Federation of Musicians, the Authors Guild, the Directors Guild of America, the Graphic Artists Guild, the International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees, and Screen Actors Guild. All of these create jobs and all of these unions have representatives all around the Nation.

Finally, I would say it is extremely important that the musicians and artists of color have indicated that they see no bias in this particular legislation against the present Librarian and have written a letter indicating that they believe that there is no bias.

So I ask my colleagues to work together and to pass H.R. 1695 to continue the process of modernization of the Copyright Office and continue the collaborative work between the Librarian of Congress and the Register of Copyrights. There is no difference in the cooperation of decades before and, as well, there is no indication that that will not occur in the future. Both of them will have 10-year terms, and I believe that we will move forward on behalf of the American people.

Mr. Chair, I rise in support of the rule under consideration for H.R. 1695, the ``Register of Copyrights Selection and Accountability Act of 2017,'' as amended to include the Jackson Lee Amendment.

H.R. 1695, the ``Register of Copyrights Selection and Accountability Act of 2017,'' if enacted, would change the selection process for the Register of Copyrights, who is the Director of the United States Copyright Office, which is housed in the Library of Congress.

The Librarian of Congress, an appointed position subject to Senate confirmation since 1987, is currently tasked with modernizing the Library of Congress.

This legislation is not about taking power away from any individual.

In fact, Dr. Carla Hayden, the current Librarian of Congress, is by all accounts serving the various needs of the Library of Congress very well.

This legislation and the Jackson Lee Amendment only further the Library's efforts to effectively modernize its copyright selection and approval process.

Just as the Director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office's status as a Presidential appointee does not compromise her ability execute her duties as head of the USPTO, the Copyright Register will not be compromised by the fact he or she is a Presidential appointee.

Dr. Hayden is an exceptional administrator and the bill before us in no way reflects adversely upon her.

The Jackson Lee Amendment, accepted during markup with bipartisan support by the members of the Judiciary Committee to improve the bill, recognizes the dual role of the Library of Congress as both a legislative and a national institution, militating against giving President carte blanche in nominating the Register of Copyrights.

Specifically, the bill's amended provision establishes a 7-person panel to recommend a list of at least three (3) individuals to the President for appointment as the Register of Copyrights.

Mr. Chair, I include in the Record a letter from the Content Creators Coalition, dated April 25, 2017, in support of this legislation.

April 25, 2017.

Congressional Black Caucus Member: On behalf of the Content

Creators Coalition, we write in support of H.R. 1695, the

Register of Copyrights Selection and Accountability Act,

which would modernize and provide greater transparency to the

process of selecting the Register of the Copyright Office.

This is vital legislation that will strengthen the

Copyright Office. We believe this selection process should be

granted a similar import, rigor, and transparency as the

processes of selecting other organizations, such as the U.S.

Patent and Trademark office, that oversee large industries:

Presidential nomination and Senate confirmation. In light of

the specialized knowledge required to lead this office, we

also support the appointment of an advisory group to suggest

candidates for consideration.

This legislation would place the Copyright Office on equal

footing as other economically and culturally vital agencies.

It has wide bipartisan support and was passed out of the

typically polarized House Judiciary Committee on a vote of

27-1.

As artists of color, we find it deeply offensive that

opponents of this bill have attempted to recast their anti-

creators' rights goals into a smear campaign against its

sponsors and supporters, insinuating that the legislation is

about the race and gender of the current Librarian of

Congress. The Register of Copyrights Selection and

Accountability Act is co-authored by the Dean of the House

and the Congressional Black Caucus, Judiciary Ranking Member

John Conyers, and supported by Congressman John Lewis. Their

lifelong and unshakeable commitment to civil rights is a

historical fact and should be honored and respected, not

opportunistically and baselessly questioned just to score a

few empty political points.

We would be the first to speak out against prejudice or

bias anywhere--in business, culture, the arts, or politics.

But here, we know these charges are false. The bill has

nothing to do with the current Librarian at all--in fact,

these reform proposals pre-date her appointment.

Nor does this bill have anything to do with the former

Register of Copyrights. We are grateful for her tireless

efforts and advocacy on behalf of working musicians and find

it appalling that some have engaged in efforts to drag her

record through the mud to defeat these reforms.

And certainly the bill has nothing to do with the current

President--once again, these proposals to modernize the

Copyright Office long pre-date his election. It is the height

of cynicism for bill opponents to attempt to ride on the

powerful coattails of the ``RESIST'' movement by falsely

wrapping this bipartisan pro-artist, pro-creator legislation

in the controversies surrounding the President, especially in

light of his proposal for massive cuts to funding for the

arts. In our view, misleading the President's critics by

leveraging fear into opposition for a non-controversial

proposal like this ultimately undermines and disrespects our

movement.

The need for this legislation is plain. The current system

in which the Librarian of Congress selects the Register is

the result of a unique moment in history and outdated

concerns: in 1870, the Librarian of Congress asked Congress

to give him the authority to appoint the Register in order to

deal with a massive influx of new works and the need to

quickly grow the Library's collection.

Nearly 150 years later, the functions of the Copyright

Office have changed. It is no mere registry of creative

works, but has become the most trusted advisor on Copyright

law and its interpretation for the United States Congress.

The process of selecting a leader to this office should

reflect the importance of copyright to the U.S. economy.

Congress is reviewing and revising copyright laws to ensure

they continue to protect all music creators in a time of

rapid transition online. It deserves the best advice it can

get, and reform of the Register selection process is long

overdue.

Thank you for consideration of our views,

Melvin Gibbs.

Nona Hendryx.

Ernie Isley.

Ramsey Jones.

Darrell McNeill.

V Jeffery Smith.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished lady for her commitment and this very important resolution, and the opportunities to meet with her and advocate as she convenes the South Sudan and Sudan Caucus and works as the ranking member on the Foreign Affairs Committee, Subcommittee on Africa, with our chairman, Mr. Smith; and, of course, I thank Mr. Royce and Mr. Engel, leading the full committee; and those who came to the floor, Mr. Crowley, and certainly Mr. Payne, who has a legacy that he is holding in such high esteem by his own leadership.

I was in South Sudan with the late Congressman Donald Payne as the right to return was implemented, and the individuals who were fleeing Sudan came with joy and tears. As they exited the buses that were bringing them in, they clearly were joyful. This was a homecoming.

We look forward to a great recognition of the assets and minerals and various wealth that Sudan, South Sudan could have to help all of its people and even to try and help those still in Darfur even though in Sudan.

We met with the then-President and Vice President, who have now turned it into an enormous conflict and rising up against each other and killing and causing people to flee.

And so I want to congratulate Congresswoman Bass for this resolution, for us to be on record relating to efforts to respond to the famine in South Sudan. And I take this moment just to read this story about a woman who is an example of what the fear and fright is:

``By day, Mary Nyarac scours swamps for fish and edible water lilies. When darkness falls and South Sudan's militias retreat to their bases, she and hundreds of others fleeing a 3-year civil war slip onto dry land and tend crops to stave off famine.

``Prowling hyenas pose a threat during Nyarac's nighttime harvests, but they worry her less than the armed men who can appear in daytime, the 20-year-old said as she sat beneath neem trees in the northern county of Leer, one of two areas in South Sudan where the United Nations in February made the world's first declaration of famine since 2011. She and other residents are facing a catastrophe that's being echoed by looming mass food shortages in Somalia, Yemen, and northern Nigeria.''

This is devastating--an article in Bloomberg News--100,000 in those counties, 5 million all throughout Sudan and South Sudan, but it is in all of Sub-Saharan Africa.

So I believe that this resolution brings all of us together-- Republicans and Democrats--and makes the statement of the United States House of Representatives, then on to the Senate, and then for the President to make the statement, as Congresswoman Bass so aptly states in this resolution, to let humanitarian aid come in. Let there be food that will reach those starving, and particularly the children, that are apt to die in this region.

It is well-known, as well, that women are not treated in the way that they should be, and I look forward to working with Congresswoman Bass on H.R. 48 that deals specifically with the rights of women and providing them with human rights and women's participation in leadership. That is certainly missing.

But now people are starving, and so I would ask my colleagues to join me in supporting H. Res. 187, relating to efforts to respond to the famine in South Sudan and be reminded of Mary, who scours swamps for fish and edible water lilies, if at all possible, and fears the onslaught of violence during the day. They cannot live this way. They can only die this way.

Mr. Speaker, support H. Res. 187 so that we can save lives.

Mr. Speaker, as a member of the South Sudan Caucus, and the sponsor of H.R. 48, the ``Equal Rights and Access for the Women of South Sudan Act,'' I rise in strong support of H. Res. 187, a resolution directing the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) to increase emergency assistance to respond to the famine in South Sudan.

On February 20, 2017 famine was declared formally in two counties of Unity State, which is located in the northern region of South Sudan.

The United Nations currently estimates that more than 100,000 people in two Unity State counties are directly affected by the famine.

In addition, food security experts are concerned that famine will spread.

According to expert analyses, in the absence of urgent humanitarian action, as many as 4.9 million South Sudanese, about 40 percent of the country's population, face the grim and certain prospect of starvation.

In 1998 the region suffered from a famine spurred by civil war and approximately 70,000 to several hundred thousand people died during that famine.

Although South Sudan has previously experienced wide-spread food insecurity, the present famine crisis is different because it is almost entirely man-made.

South Sudan is the world's newest nation, located in the center of Africa and bordered by six countries.

It is rich in oil, but following decades of civil war it is also one of the least developed regions on earth--only 15% of its citizens own a mobile phone and there are very few tarmac roads in an area larger in land mass than Spain and Portugal combined.

This makes the Nile River, which flows through regional centers, an important transport and trade route.

Since South Sudan overwhelmingly voted to break away from Sudan in 2011, the government's main concern has been to get oil flowing following disagreements with the regime in Khartoum.

There have been a few small armed rebellions, border clashes and deadly cattle feuds but these have all taken place far from the capital city of Juba.

Signs of friction within the governing party, Sudan People's Liberation Movement (SPLM), came when President Salva Kiir, an ethnic Dinka, the country's largest group, fired his deputy Riek Machar, who is from the second largest tribe, the Nuer.

President Kiir believes Mr. Machar was behind a coup plot to oust him and seize power.

Mr. Machar denies the accusations, but has publicly criticized Mr. Kiir for failing to tackle corruption and vowed to challenge President Kiir for leadership of the SPLM.

It is not clear what led to the breach in their relationship but what started out as a political squabble has escalated into ethnic violence.

The loyalties of the South Sudan army are divided with each of the principals commanding significant military support and forces loyal to each man have clashed around the country.

And some of the most intense fighting has taken place in areas where famine is most severe.

Compounding matters, Mr. Speaker, South Sudan is awash with guns after decades of conflict and there is a history of ethnic tension for politicians to exploit if they believe that could help them gain, or remain in, power.

It is against this backdrop that USAID is coordinating proactively and closely with the United Nations, the African Union, the European Union, and others to address South Sudan's food insecurity.

Complicating this situation is the fact that while the Government of South Sudan has reportedly promised access to the most at-risk areas, humanitarian organizations remain unable to provide vital food, water and shelter in many locations.

Mr. Speaker, the actions of South Sudan Government in prohibiting humanitarian assistance from getting to starving communities has undermined the most proactive attempts by the United States and others to address what has now become a famine.

H. Res. 187 calls on South Sudan's leaders to put their petty disputes aside and to put the well-being of their people first.

The resolution condemns all threats and violence against civilian populations and aid workers, including the over 70 humanitarian aid workers killed since the conflict began and the brutal attack by the South Sudanese military on humanitarian aid workers, including Americans, at the Terrain Camp in July 2016.

In addition, H. Res. 187 expresses support for the efforts of the United States Government, working with partners in the international community, including the United Nations, the African Union, and the European Union, to facilitate humanitarian access to affected areas, and encourages greater diplomatic pressure on the parties to return to the negotiation table to stop the violence, and to allow full humanitarian access to displaced and starving populations, and to cease violations of humanitarian principles.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, let me conclude by observing that while bringing an end to the civil war and humanitarian relief the famine- stricken in South Sudan must be our first order of business, it is also very important to note that all of us who worked to secure its independence want the country to succeed and become a productive and constructive member of the community of nations.

That is why I have reintroduced the ``Equal Rights and Access for the Women of South Sudan Act'' (H.R. 48), which promotes the human rights of women in South Sudan as the country transitions to a long-term government and to ensure women enjoy the right to participate fully in the political and economic life of the country.

Despite its newly won independence women in South Sudan continue to face brutal violations of their human rights.

A lack of infrastructure as well as gender inequality has the potential to regress much of the progress that has been made in South Sudan.

Such a lack of human development factors only furthers the marginalization of women in South Sudan:

1. Inadequate health care has resulted in high maternal and infant mortality rates in South Sudan; the maternal mortality rate is one of the highest in the world with 1,054 deaths per 100,000 live births.

2. Additionally, literacy rates for women are staggeringly low; over 80% of women and girls in South Sudan are illiterate.

3. The violence stemming from the conflict has led some traders to suspend their market presence resulting in food commodity price increases as much as 30 percent in high-conflict regions.

The ``Equal Rights and Access for the Women of South Sudan Act'' puts equal rights and access for the women of South Sudan at the forefront by:

1. Encouraging the appointment of women to high level positions within Republic of South Sudan Government;

2. Ensuring that a significant portion of United States development, humanitarian, and relief assistance is channeled to local and United States-based South Sudanese organizations, particularly South Sudanese women's organizations;

3. Providing long-term financial assistance for primary, secondary, higher, nontraditional, and vocational education for South Sudanese girls, women, boys, and men;

4. Providing financial assistance to build health infrastructure and deliver high-quality comprehensive health care programs, including primary, maternal, child, reproductive, and mental health care;

5. Requiring military training regarding the protection, rights, and particular needs of

women and emphasizing that violations of women's rights are intolerable and should be prosecuted; and

6. Taking all necessary steps to ensure that internally displaced South Sudanese women are directly receiving food aid, shelter, relief supplies, and other services from United States-sponsored programs.

Mr. Speaker, as a nation, we should support the Republic of South Sudan in its efforts to become a freer, more equitable society that respects, supports, and endorses the rights of women.

I look forward to working with Congresswoman Bass, the Ranking Member of the Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on Africa, members of the South Sudan Caucus, and all Members of the House to pass the ``Equal Rights and Access for the Women of South Sudan Act'' and send it to the President's desk for signature.

But before we can do that, we must end the man-made famine and alleviate the humanitarian suffering now ongoing in South Sudan.

That is why I strongly support H. Res. 187 and urge all Members to join me in voting for this important resolution.

Mr. Speaker, every year at this time tens of millions of Americans are completing their tax returns and rushing to the nearest post office to mail them before the deadline.

No one likes to pay taxes but the vast majority of Americans voluntarily comply out of their respect for law and because paying taxes is one of the responsibilities of citizenship.

That responsibility is placed upon and assumed by struggling wage earners to the wealthiest individuals in America.

And that even includes the President of the United States.

Americans have the right to expect and to know that the leader of their country, and the most powerful person on Earth, is paying his fair share of taxes that fund the government he heads, the Armed Forces he commands, the nuclear arsenal he controls, the Secret Service protection he receives, and the White House he lives in.

And that is why thousands of persons took to the streets last Saturday in peaceful protest to demand that the President of the United States do what every President since Gerald Ford in 1976 has done.

And that is to release his tax returns while in office.

Trump is the first President since Watergate to refuse to release his tax information to the public.

Full release of Trump's tax returns will provide the public with clear information as to his potential conflicts of interest and entanglements with foreign governments and businesses.

A recent Washington Post-ABC News poll found that 74 percent of Americans, including 53 percent of Republicans, believe Trump should release his tax returns.

All roads lead back to the President's tax returns, and the light they can shine on his actions.

As chief steward of America's extensive domestic, global, and national security interests, the fidelity of the President of the United States to the national interest must never be subject to question or doubt.

Trump's extensive financial interests in more than 100 companies operating in more than 18 countries and on five continents potentially represent major conflicts of interest between his personal financial interests and the national interests of the American people.

A preliminary analysis of Trump's extensive financial arrangements reveals dozens of potential conflicts of interest.

For example, Trump has received more than $10 million from his interest in the Trump Towers Istanbul in Turkey, a country with which the United States has extensive, complicated, and politically sensitive military and diplomatic relations.

Since August 2015, Trump's business organizations have registered eight separate companies connected to hotel deals in Saudi Arabia, which is located in one of the world's most critical geopolitical regions.

Based on the limited and inadequate financial disclosures he has made to date, it appears that Trump's business organization is financially dependent upon, and obligated to, Deutsche Bank, its biggest lender, which happens to be negotiating a multibillion-dollar settlement over housing-crisis-era abuses with the Justice Department, a deal that will be finalized with Justice Department officials appointed by Trump.

Companies owned or controlled by Trump's organization also owe hundreds of millions of dollars to the state-owned Bank of China and to Wall Street interests.

The American people are entitled to assume without hesitation or doubt that when the President of the United States meets with foreign leaders and dignitaries that he is motivated only by what is in the national interest and not the private, pecuniary interests of himself, his family members, or his business enterprises.

That assurance cannot be provided when the President of the United States has enormous financial stakes in the enterprises operating in those same foreign countries and refuses to release his tax returns for examination by the public.

It is for this reason--to ensure that the President's loyalty will always be to the nation he leads--that the Framers included the Emoluments Clause in Article I, Section 9 of the Constitution, which provides that: `no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.'

According to leading experts in ethics, a prohibited emolument would include, for example, anything from a foreign government that benefits Trump, such as providing favorable tax, zoning, licensing treatment for his real estate holdings or enhanced security to protect his business operations.

The financial interests of Trump are extensive, complex, and inter- connected with the interests of foreign leaders and countries.

They are all-encompassing and time-consuming.

But they pale in comparison to the global, diplomatic, economic, and national security interests of the United States, which supersede the interests of any one person or corporation.

As the Scriptures teach, you cannot serve two masters.

And that is why, Mr. Speaker, I believe the President must make a choice, either he should:

1. release his tax returns and divest all of his financial interests; or

2. relinquish the office he holds due to his inability to `take care that the Laws be faithfully executed' and `to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States.'

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the bipartisan measure, H.R. 1667, the Financial Institution Bankruptcy Act of 2017, which was reported favorably out of the Judiciary committee to the House floor, on March 29, 2017, on a voice vote.

As leaders of the Judiciary Committee with oversight of our nation's bankruptcy laws, I am glad to see that my colleagues and I were able to work across the aisle to answer the question of how to improve the existing bankruptcy process for the resolution of failing financial institutions.

Removing potential obstacles to an efficient bankruptcy of a financial institution, this legislation enhances the Bankruptcy Code and its ability to resolve financial firms for the benefit of stability in the U.S. and global economies and does so with minimal financial burdens or cost.

Specifically, H.R. 1667 will allow the expeditious resolution of large, complex financial institutions on the verge of insolvency to be better facilitated under the Bankruptcy Code by minimizing the disruptive impact of the company's collapse on the financial marketplace.

First, this legislation addresses a real need, which is recognized by the regulatory agencies, bankruptcy experts, and the private sector, that the bankruptcy law must be amended, so that it can expeditiously restore trust in the financial marketplace after the collapse of a major financial institution.

Such was the case with the failure of Lehman Brothers in 2008, for example, which caused a worldwide freeze on the availability of credit, wreaking havoc on Wall Street, as well as, on Main Street.

The near collapse of our nation's economy that resulted from Lehman's failure revealed that current bankruptcy law is, unfortunately, ill- equipped to deal with complex financial institutions that are in economic distress.

This legislation, accordingly, creates a court-supervised, orderly liquidation mechanism that will be guided by the regulators.

In sum, this process will allow a failing financial institution to transfer its assets to a newly-formed bridge company over a single weekend, which will promote confidence in the financial marketplace.

The institution's equity and debt will remain in the bankruptcy case to be administered by a trustee under court supervision.

As a result, valued assets will be maximized for the benefit of creditors, and the marketplace will stabilize.

Additionally, I support the legislation because it appropriately recognizes the important role that the Dodd-Frank Act has in the regulation of large financial institutions.

Without a doubt, the Great Recession resulted following the regulatory equivalent of the Wild West.

The Dodd-Frank Act goes a long way toward reinvigorating a regulatory system making the financial marketplace more accountable and hopefully more resilient.

The act also institutes long-needed consumer protections that have, up until now, not been available.

For example, Title II of the Dodd-Frank Act establishes a mandatory administratively-driven resolution process to wind down large financial institutions.

Title II is a critical enforcement tool for bank regulators to facilitate compliance with the act's heightened regulatory requirements for large companies.

Nevertheless, the Dodd-Frank Act clearly recognizes that bankruptcy should be a first resort and that the orderly liquidation process should be a last resort.

In fact, Title I of the act explicitly requires these companies to write so-called ``living wills'' explaining how they will resolve their financial difficulties hypothetically, in the event of a bankruptcy scenario.

This is because bankruptcy law has, for more than 100 years, enabled some of the nation's largest companies to regain their financial footing.

H.R. 1667 will ensure that bankruptcy is a truly viable alternative to the Dodd-Frank Act's resolution process.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to note that this legislation is the product of a very collaborative, bipartisan, and deliberate process, which should be the norm, not the exception, when it comes to drafting legislation.

For example, this bill, unlike similar legislation that has come through the Senate, does not include any controversial provisions aimed at undoing the important protections of the Dodd-Frank Act.

I should also note, however, that H.R. 1667 does not include any provision allowing companies to have access to lenders of last resort.

Nearly every expert recognizes that such access, even if it is by the federal government, is a necessary element to ensure financial stability.

I urge my colleagues to support this measure.

Mr. Speaker, I could not leave this place, the most powerful lawmaking body in the world, in the season of Easter and Passover and sacrifice without bringing to the attention of my colleagues that children are dying. The children in Syria are suffering from the bombing and the vileness of President Assad and the chemical attack, where children and babies are struggling to breath.

This Congress has to act. We must join those who want an infusion of emergency dollars.

Where is our heart.

And then the famine in Sub-Saharan Africa, where there are more displaced persons than we have seen in history. Sixty thousand have escaped to Kenya, and children and women are dying. In the name of our former colleague, the Honorable Mickey Leland, who died in 1989, taking grain to the famine area in Sub-Saharan Africa, we must act now.

As a founder of the Congressional Children's Caucus myself, I cannot stand here and allow the children to die. This Congress must immediately issue emergency funds that appropriators such as Congresswoman Lee are putting forward. We must go to the region now and say what America is going to do. And the Trump administration must stand up for children now.

Mr. Speaker, I rise as a mother. As I looked at the video of young children trying to survive, trying to live in Syria-- this is one of the most potent pictures--I had to come and cry out for the mothers and children of that vile and heinous act.

I am calling upon Americans and this government to stop talking and to act, to begin to demand that Russia stop assisting President Assad-- himself a terrorist--against his people and begin to understand that the chemical attack was driven by Assad's bombers.

No matter where it might have been, you have to know that families are here.

To my Syrian neighbors in Houston, Texas, we are standing with you. We must find a resolution.

Even as we are investigating Russian collusion and Russian investigation into elections, the President must say to Vladimir Putin to become a world citizen and not a thug. This is thuggish. We are killing people.

The Syrian people and Syria deserve to live. We must stand up and fight together, and I hope that we will immediately be able to respond to this with the United Nations, with our surrounding neighbors, and with legislation that brings sanctions against Russia and Assad.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commend Women's Caucus Chairs: Susan Brooks and Lois Frankel, for hosting this bipartisan special order focused on the Achievements and Importance of Women in Congress.

I am proud to be a Woman Member of Congress representing the great state of Texas.

And, as a member of the Women's Caucus, I am proud to be an original co-sponsor of Congresswoman Brooks' commemorative resolution which honors the life and legacy of the first woman to serve in i the United States Congress, Jeannette Pickering Rankin, on the l00th anniversary of her swearing-in to Congress, who famously said ``I may be the first woman in Congress, but I won't be the last.''

It is critical today that we take pause to highlight the importance and contributions of women Members in Congress; as well as:

1. Recognize the importance of the Suffragette Movement in achieving opportunities for women;

2. Emphasize the imperative of promoting education for women in STEM; and

3. Affirm our nation's commitment to expanding opportunities for women in my home state of Texas and across the country.

This year marks the 100th anniversary of the first woman being elected to Congress, Representative Jeannette Rankin of Montana.

This resolution is a fitting way to honor Representative Rankin's legacy, and to celebrate the many contributions of the female lawmakers who have succeeded her in this institution.

Jeannette Rankin was a trailblazer who broke barriers throughout her lifetime and whose example continues to inspire women the world over.

She graduated from the University of Montana with a biology degree in 1902.

She later became active in the women's suffrage movement, organizing the New York Women's Suffrage Party and working for the National American Woman Suffrage Association.

In 1916, Representative Rankin became the first woman elected to Congress, even before the ratification of the 19th Amendment, which guaranteed the right to vote to women.

For all of her contributions to women's rights, to political activism, and to this institution, it is only fitting to pay tribute to her achievements.

This year also marks the 45th anniversary of the first woman in her own right to represent Texas in the House of Representatives, Congresswoman Barbara Jordan.

In 1972, Congresswoman Jordan, was the first African American elected to the Texas Senate after Reconstruction, and the first Southern African-American woman elected to the United States House of Representatives.

Congresswoman Barbara Jordan was a lawyer, educator, an American politician, and a leader of the Civil Rights Movement.

Today, it is with great honor that I serve in my mentor and friend's former seat, continuing to carry the torch she elevated for so many and for so many years, representing the outstanding constituents of Houston, Texas.

We tend to think that before the Women's and Civil Rights Movements minority Americans had no ability to represent themselves in government.

Despite the tremendous obstacles of intimidation and harassment that was faced by these brave Americans, they sought and won election to political office.

Prior to her election to Congress, Jordan taught political science at Tuskegee Institute in Alabama for a year before passing the Texas State bar in 1960 and starting a private law practice by which she served her community with pride.

In 1994, President Clinton awarded her the Presidential Medal of Freedom and The NAACP presented her with the Springarn Medal.

She was honored many times and was given over 20 honorary degrees from institutions across the country, including Harvard and Princeton, and was elected to the Texas and National Women's Halls of Fame.

Congresswomen Jordan and Rankin both dedicated their lives to the pursuit of unfettered democracy so that we all could have a voice and use it freely.

Shirley Chisholm became the first African American woman elected to Congress, when she was elected to represent the New York's Twelfth Congressional District in 1968 running on the slogan, ``Fighting Shirley Chisholm--Unbought and Unbossed.''

She reflected that spirit well during her 14 years in Congress.

During her first term she spoke out for civil rights, women's rights, the poor and against the Vietnam War.

Her first term in Congress was set against the backdrop of the Civil Rights Movement and the women's movement for equal rights.

Shirley Chisolm had an understanding that during those turbulent times the nation required a determined leader to represent the voice of so many Americans who felt dismay at their treatment.

She took an extremely active role in changing the way women were to be judged from that point on.

She remarked that, ``Women in this country must become revolutionaries. We must refuse to accept the old, the traditional roles and stereotypes.''

This is a sentiment that I myself take to heart, women in this nation are now told they have a right to determine the kind of life they want to lead; Shirley Chisholm was at the core of this movement.

On January 25, 1972, Chisholm announced her candidacy for president.

She stood before the cameras and in the beginning of her speech she said:

``I stand before you today as a candidate for the Democratic nomination for the Presidency of the United States.

I am not the candidate of black America, although I am black and proud.

I am not the candidate of the women's movement of this country, although I am a woman, and I am equally proud of that. I am not the candidate of any political bosses or special interests.

I am the candidate of the people.''

Shirley Chisholm did not win the nomination; but she went on to the Democratic Convention in Miami and received 151 delegates' votes.

More than that, she demonstrated the will and determination of so many Americans who had previously felt forgotten, she had lighted a fire under so many who had felt disenfranchised.

I am glad to walk in their footsteps and will continue to encourage women to uphold the principles they taught us to fight for and cherish.

Because Representative Rankin is a graduate of the sciences from a rural area, encouraging participation in programs such as the Jeannette Rankin Women and Minorities in STEM Fields Program is the perfect way to honor her legacy as a woman of the sciences and the first woman elected to Congress, and to inspire the next generation of women and minorities from rural areas to take up STEM fields.

Following in the footsteps of so many astounding role models, we must continue to encourage women, particularly those from underserved communities across the country, to participate in research and projects in all academic fields, and specifically in the sciences.

Women and minorities have been and continue to be underrepresented in STEM fields.

Although women make up 47% of the total U.S. labor force, they comprise only 36% of the computing workforce, 24% of the engineering workforce, and 18% of the advanced manufacturing workforce.

Indeed, minority representation in STEM fields is even lower, with African-American and Latino workers comprising 29% of the general workforce, but only 15% of the computing workforce, 12% of the engineering workforce, and 6% of the advanced manufacturing workforce.

The Jeannette Rankin Women and Minorities in STEM Fields Program is one way that we can address these glaring disparities.

The program awards grants to universities and institutions of higher learning to distribute to eligible applicants, and they prioritize projects and programs of particular relevance to USDA.

Recipient institutions have used these grants for worthy endeavors, such as:

1. establishing a Jeannette Rankin Women and Minorities in STEM Fields Program fellowship program for women and minority high school students in rural areas;

2. providing mentorship and hands-on, service-based learning to high school students and undergraduates in particular STEM fields; and

3. offering mentoring services to current undergraduates to help them successfully complete STEM-based degrees.

These women were in positions of great responsibility during times when this nation was under a great burden.

The true greatness of their story is not just that they overcame the oppression they faced, but that they had the courage to help remedy a nation that in many ways had spited them.

They refused to bend their principles to the hatred they faced; they were true pioneers in leadership.

They are my role models in Congress because they represent the kind of leaders that America has always needed at times of adversity, they had a spirit and a courage that could not be broken, they had a vision of America that exceeded that of most of their peers.

I am very proud to be a Member of Congress and to follow in the footsteps of giants like Jeannette Rankin, Barbara Jordan, and Shirley Chisolm.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentleman from the great State of Maryland, a well respected theorist and professor who has been such an addition to the Committee on the Judiciary.

Let me say something not out of arrogance or even difficult pride because pride goes before the fall, but I do believe the Committee on the Judiciary in this Congress--both the House and the Senate--has, at this moment, the highest responsibility for truth. I don't think there should be one moment of partisanship in our committee. Certainly I am delighted to be here with you and the Congressional Progressive Caucus, but we both serve on the Committee on the Judiciary, and our ranking member, Mr. Conyers, is a member of the Congressional Progressive Caucus. I believe that we are here, as was the Congressional Black Caucus just a few days ago, because it really behooves us to be able to speak to an important point that I think that I would like to make, a brief point.

First, I would like to indicate that none of this reflects on Mr. Gorsuch's personality, character, or standing as a member of the judiciary who has served in the 10th Circuit for any number of years or the many accolades that he received from colleagues, but it does go to the question of the temperament and the ability to withstand the easy way of making decisions where you feel most comfortable. That is not the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court is to be able to look at the proceedings of the lower courts, but also the facts, and make decisions regardless of where you stand politically in your former life or where you feel comfortable in your philosophy. And so my concern, and the reason why I think there is courageous actions by my colleagues in the other body as they proceed to filibuster--and filibuster sounds like an ugly word. It sounds like here they go again, what obstructionists. But let me be very clear. I have had the privilege to either read about great jurists, or I have either lived through that period of time, and they were not all appointed by Democrats. I am certainly a great admirer of Chief Justice Warren, who led the Court for a number of years, a Republican, and certainly I have watched Justice Kennedy for a period of time and many others. But listen to the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights; I want to take their words: ``Judge Gorsuch's decade-long record on the Federal bench, as well as his writings, speeches, and activities throughout his career, demonstrate he is a judge with an agenda. His frequent dissents and concurrences show he is out of the mainstream of legal thought . . .''

Now when we say mainstream, we are not suggesting that we dictate what he wants to do, but the mainstream is where the American people are. They are on Main Street, no matter who they are.

``. . . the mainstream of legal thought and unwilling to accept the constructs of binding precedent and stare decisis''--that is a key element, not willing to accept what has been accepted by so many-- ``when they dictate results he disfavors. If confirmed to the Supreme Court, which is closely divided on many critical issues, Judge Gorsuch would tip the balance in a direction that would undermine many of our core rights and legal protections.''

So let me make these two points in joining my colleague. The most indicting decision where Judge Gorsuch was in the dissent--let me see if the American people can understand this decision where, in fact, if I am correct, the gentleman prevailed in the lower court, I believe, and this is the truck driver, the freezing truck driver who was freezing one night when the cargo part of his big, huge 18-wheeler was attached to a bad working--I am trying to be a trucker here now--cab that he sits in. The brakes didn't work.

I know a lot of truckers, and that is absolutely zero. You just don't drive--icy roads, freezing. He tried to wait on the repair guys. They did not come. He knew that if he had attached the large part of the 18- wheeler that it would be dangerous, and he might lose his life. He drove the cab off and he was fired. His legs had been freezing. He had been there for a long period of time.

Judge Gorsuch wound up being the dissenter on a decision that favored not somebody's personality or ``I am a union member judge.'' No. It was about the fact that he said employers could just fire you for whatever reason whatsoever.

The plaintiff has not been able to work for 7 years. It has impacted his whole life. But the other members of the court thought that he had a legitimate reason and did everything that he could. That is Main Street.

My final point is that we are in a very unique and challenging time. There are investigations going on regarding this administration, and we really don't know where the truth will wind up.

There are suggestions by committees--not this Member or not the distinguished Congressman that is on the floor here with me--that crimes have been perpetrated, criminal acts, someone may go to jail. I believe Judge Gorsuch should not be confirmed until we determine the conclusion of the investigations against the Trump administration. This is not biased. This is not about picking one side versus another.

I just want to remind my colleagues: Would it happen if it were President Obama? Would it happen if it were President George W. Bush? Would it happen if it were President Clinton? These are the Presidents I have had the privilege of serving with. No, it would not.

You cannot be the person who selects the person to a lifelong position on the Supreme Court and your whole administration, the context of the White House, is totally under investigation, including your former national security adviser for lying to the Vice President of the United States of America, your allegations that your former President wiretapped you, which has been disapproved by the FBI Director. I don't think so, and I don't think we can go forward.

So I would say that the nomination of Judge Gorsuch should be filibustered as it is. I am saddened by the fact that it has to be filibustered. I would hope that Mr. McConnell could pull it down, that the President would understand that the whole nomination process was compromised. There was no consultation with the Democrats, as all Presidents have done. And, frankly, we call it: We are not ready; we are not prepared; we are unready, if you will, to go forward with a nomination by this President who is under complete investigation by the FBI and various intelligence agencies in the United States.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commemorate Equal Pay Day, a day in which President John F. Kennedy, on June 10, 1963, proclaimed the simple principle that women deserve equal pay for equal work.

The symbolism of this day is expressed in that, as we are more than three months into the year, women's wages are only now beginning to catch up to what men were paid the previous year.

Today, women on average make 78 cents for every dollar earned by men, amounting to an annual disparity of more than $10,876 dollars between full-time working men and women.

It is important to understand what 78 cents to ever dollar means to a family: $10,876 could purchase 86 more weeks of food; $10,876 could afford more than 3,200 additional gallons of gasoline; $10,876 could support families in incredible ways, and yet, even today, $10,876 annually is exactly what women currently do without simply because of being women.

For African American women and Latina women, the wage gap is even higher. African American women on average earn only 64 cents, while Latina women earn 54 cents to every dollar earned by white, non- Hispanic men.

In my home state of Texas, however, the average wage gap for African American women is 59 cents to the dollar. For Latina women, it is an abysmal 45 cents to the dollar.

This is why I support H.R. 1869, the Paycheck Fairness Act, which addresses loopholes in the 1963 Equal Pay Act.

H.R. 1869 would protect employees who voluntarily share their own salary information at work from retaliation by an employer and remove obstacles in the Equal Pay Act to facilitate plaintiffs' participation in class action lawsuits that challenge discrimination.

H.R. 1869 would also better align key Equal Pay Act defenses with those in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, requiring employers to prove that pay disparities exist for legitimate, job-related reasons.

On this Equal Pay Day, I call upon House Republicans, all of whom have so far refused to co-sponsor the Paycheck Fairness Act, to answer this simple question: why are you opposed to woman earning the same amount as men?

I ask House Republicans to stop wasting the time of this Congress with attempts to repeal the Affordable Care Act and focus on legislation that would actually help the American people.

Let us call this opposition to the Paycheck Fairness Act, and opposition to all acts of Congress dating back to the 1960's that have attempted to ameliorate the glaring disparities in wages between women and men, for what it is: deliberately and blatantly sexist.

I ask all my colleagues to make the Paycheck Fairness Act a reality.

We should remember: equal pay is not simply a women's issue--it is a family issue.

It is time now to update antiquated pay equality laws and to eliminate the wage gap entirely between men and women.

It is time for equal pay for equal work.

Mr. Speaker, as a senior member of the House Committee on the Judiciary, Ranking Member of the Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, Homeland Security, and Investigations, and member of the Congressional Voting Rights Caucus, I rise today to express my views regarding the nomination of Judge Neil Gorsuch to be Associate Justice of the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court is the highest court in the land and the final arbiter of our Constitution and laws, and its rulings can impact the lives and rights of all Americans as shown in the cases of Brown v. Board of Education, Roe v. Wade; Miranda v. Arizona; Gideon v. Wainwright; New York Times v. Sullivan; Obergefell v. Hodges; and Shelby County v. Holder, to name but a few.

Judge Gorsuch is a judge with an agenda, as demonstrated by his record on the federal bench, as well as his writings, speeches, and activities throughout his career.

Judge Gorsuch's frequent dissents and concurrences show he is out of the mainstream of legal thought and unwilling to accept the constructs of binding precedent and stare decisis when they dictate results he disfavors.

Judge Gorsuch's appointment to the Court would tip the balance in a direction that would undermine many of the core rights and legal protections Americans cherish.

For the reasons I will discuss in detail, the Senate should reject his nomination and not consent to his confirmation as the next Associate Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court.

On Election Night the President-Elect pledged to the nation that he would be a president to all Americans.

That pledge will ring hollow to tens of millions of Americans in light of his nomination of Judge Neil M. Gorsuch to be an Associate Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court.

Perhaps nothing would do more to reassure the American people that the President is committed to unifying the nation than the nomination and appointment of a person to be Associate Justice who has a record of championing and protecting, rather than opposing and undermining, the precious right to vote; the constitutionally guaranteed right of privacy, criminal justice reform, and support for reform of the nation's immigration system so that it is fair and humane.

That is not to be found in the record or character of Judge Gorsuch.

It should not be forgotten that the vacancy at issue was created in February 2016 by the death of Justice Antonin Scalia and should have been filled by the confirmation of the eminently qualified Judge Merrick Garland, Chief Judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.

In fact, the only reason Judge Garland is not now on the Court is because Republican Senators disregarded a century of precedent and their constitutional oaths and refused to consider the nomination because it was made by President Obama.

Judge Gorsuch's conservative ideology and professed judicial philosophy of ``original intent,'' which more accurately should be called the doctrine of predetermined result, has been at the core of his prior legal decisions.

He is not an unbiased judge; at best, he is a younger, more charming version of Judge Robert Bork, who was rejected 58-42 by the Senate in 1987.

Unlike his predecessors, Presidents Obama, Clinton, Reagan, Eisenhower among them, the current President did not consult in advance with the bipartisan leadership of the Senate and its Judiciary Committee.

Instead, the President selected Judge Gorsuch from the list of names provided him by the right-wing legal group, the Federalists Society.

Judge Gorsuch's adherence to originalism is alarming and should raise concerns for all Americans because on a narrowly divided Court, his could be the deciding vote to dismantle many of the constitutional safeguards and protections upheld by the Court that have moved the country forward and made it better.

Judge Gorsuch has a history of ruling against people who have used the legal system to hold government officials accountable.

He has also used the bench to rule in favor of large corporations routinely and against the rights of workers.

He has been lenient on those that have used excessive force and police brutality.

His record demonstrates hostility towards equal opportunity, worker's rights, women's access to reproductive healthcare services, and protections for persons with disabilities.

For example, in TransAm Trucking, Inc. v. Administrative Review Board, the majority held that a trucking company unlawfully fired an employee in violation of federal whistleblower protections.

The employee, Alphonse Maddin, was a truck driver whose brakes broke down in the middle of a freezing January night in Illinois.

The truck heater didn't work either, and he got so cold that he couldn't feel his feet or torso, and he had trouble breathing.

Nonetheless, his boss ordered him to wait in the truck until a repairperson arrived.

After waiting for three hours, Mr. Maddin finally drove off in the truck and left the trailer behind, in search of assistance.

His employer fired him a week later for violating company policy by abandoning his load while under dispatch.

The panel majority said the firing was unlawful, but Judge Gorsuch dissented and said the employee should have followed orders even at the risk of serious injury.

In NLRB v. Community Health Services, Inc., Judge Gorsuch again dissented from a majority opinion that found in favor of employees, where a hospital was required to award back pay to 13 employees whose hours had been reduced in violation of the National Labor Relations Act.

Judge Gorsuch's frequent and recurring dissents in workers' rights cases suggest a refusal to follow binding case law when it leads to results that favor workers rather than businesses and employers.

In Strickland v. UPS, Gorsuch dissented from a ruling giving a I female UPS driver a chance to prove sex discrimination, arguing that the plaintiff had not provided evidence that she was treated less favorably than her male colleagues even though her coworkers testified and gave written testimony detailing the level of mistreatment they witnessed her receiving while employed by UPS.

Hwang v. Kansas State University involved a professor employed by Kansas State University who was diagnosed with cancer, and after treatments requested an extension for her disability due to a flu outbreak on the campus, which could potentially compromise her health.

Judge Gorsuch ruled that ``showing up'' for work is an essential job function and that the Rehabilitation Act should not be used as a safety net for employees who cannot work.

In Planned Parenthood Association of Utah v. Herbert, Judge Gorsuch dissented against the court's majority decision to decline a full court review of the case, in which, Governor Herbert of Utah stripped federal funding away from Planned Parenthood.

Neither party requested a full court review, however, Judge Gorsuch desired to deviate from court practices and norms to signal his favor for Governor Herbert's decision.

This particular case amplifies Judge Gorsuch's inability to remain impartial when deciding cases that may conflict with his personal beliefs.

Throughout his tenure as a Judge, Judge Gorsuch's record indicates his hostility toward women's rights and his willingness to overlook institutions that discriminate against women.

Women will likely be disproportionately impacted by Judge Gorsuch's appointment to the United States Supreme Court and any decisions related to health, labor, and reproductive justice.

Judge Gorsuch's record shows that he believes police officers always should be granted qualified immunity, allowing police officers and other government officials to avoid being held accountable for the excessive use of force.

His record on police immunity aligns with President Trump's belief in police impunity.

In cases where victims of excessive force did not pose an imminent threat to police safety, Judge Gorsuch has a tendency to side with police.

Judge Gorsuch's judicial record on police accountability minimizes the Fourth Amendment protections against warrantless search and seizure.

In three separate cases, Judge Gorsuch ruled in favor of police searches of vehicles without a warrant.

As an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States, Judge Gorsuch would be one of the nine individuals tasked with one of the most critical systems of American democracy.

Because of the decisions rendered by the Supreme Court of the United States, women have been granted reproductive rights, de jure segregation and discrimination against African-Americans has been abolished and their right to vote protected, workers have been granted security from exploitative labor practices; and marriage equality is the law of the land.

If confirmed to a evenly divided United States Supreme Court, it is unlikely that Judge Gorsuch would have a balanced, unbiased view of important issues.

Judge Gorsuch's extreme judicial philosophy of original intent would likely lead him to cast decisive, out-of-the mainstream votes that reverse significant gains in the areas of police accountability, civil rights and liberties, women's reproductive rights, and workers' rights.

Judge Gorsuch's record in each of these areas should raise concerns for all Americans.

Opposing Judge Gorsuch is not a difficult decision; for members of the communities represented by CBC members, it is a matter of survival, of life and death.

An Associate Justice would be expected to be an independent jurist capable of rendering judicial decisions that prevent executive overreach.

No senator should vote to confirm the nomination of Judge Neil Gorsuch as Associate Justice if he or she has the slightest doubt that he possesses the character, qualities, integrity, and commitment to justice and equality needed for this position.

[From the National Law Journal, Mar. 22, 2017]

Lawyers in Gorsuch `Frozen Trucker' Case Surprised at Attention

(By Marcia Coyle)

The case of the frozen trucker sounds like a Conan Doyle

mystery but it has become a focal point in Judge Neil

Gorsuch's confirmation hearings, to the surprise of the

lawyers who faced off before the judge--and to the

frustration of one of them.

``Would I have anticipated this last year? Of course not,''

said Robert Fetter of Detroit's Miller Cohen, who represented

the truck driver in a suit over the lawfulness of his

termination. ``It's just a strange set of circumstances that

gets this case on the national radar.''

Attorney Brad Thoenen of Kansas City, Missouri's Seigfreid

Bingham, who represented the trucking company in the case,

said: ``From a professional perspective, I'm very intrigued

how this little case that I got to work on now comes up in

something as important as this.'' He added: ``It's kind of

cool.''

The case is Transam Trucking v. Administrative Review

Board, which the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth

Circuit--Gorsuch's home for the past decade--ruled on last

year.

The 2-1 panel, with Gorsuch in dissent, ruled for truck

driver Alphonse Maddin.

Gorsuch's dissent has loomed large in U.S. Senate

Democrats' portrayal of the nominee as a judge who more often

than not sides with the companies against the ``little guy.''

Democrats have challenged Gorsuch often about the dissent

during his Senate Judiciary Committee hearings, which

continued Wednesday.

The backstory, in brief: [Alphonse] Maddin, driving through

Illinois, had waited more than three hours in freezing

temperatures in an unheated truck for assistance. The brakes

had frozen on his trailer. He was fired after disconnecting

the trailer and driving off because his feet and legs were

going numb. His employer had instructed him to stay with the

truck until a repair team arrived or to drive the truck while

pulling the trailer with the failed brakes.

In his dissent, Gorsuch said the law only forbids firing an

employee who refuses to operate a vehicle out of safety

concerns. ``The trucker in this case wasn't fired for

refusing to operate his vehicle,'' Gorsuch wrote. ``The

trucker was fired only after he declined the statutorily

protected option (refuse to operate) and chose instead to

operate his vehicle in a manner he thought wise but his

employer did not.''

Reluctant participant

Maddin and two others who were negatively affected by

Gorsuch opinions recently appeared at a press conference

sponsored by several Senate Democrats. A Detroit resident,

Maddin has been unable to find work as a driver since his

firing seven years ago and is ``somewhat homeless,'' said

Fetter, who has stayed in touch.

``He's a reluctant participant in these things,'' Fetter

said in an interview this week. ``He is just a regular guy

and kind of shocked his case is getting this attention.''

The case began more than seven years ago when Maddin, on

his own, filed a complaint with the Occupational Safety and

Health Administration. The agency undertook an investigation.

Maddin had been unable to find a lawyer to represent him

until he reached Fetter. That happened around the time the

OSHA ruled against him.

``I saw there was an issue and wanted to represent him,''

Fetter recalled. ``I had a lot of empathy for what he went

through.''

Through administrative proceedings, Maddin ultimately won.

The company then turned to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the

Tenth Circuit.

``I'm a Detroit lawyer,'' Fetter said. ``I practice in

circuit courts pretty regularly, either the Sixth or D.C.

circuits. We have maybe one case in the history of the firm

that gets to the Tenth Circuit; it has pretty egregious facts

and we happen to get to Judge Gorsuch on the panel. He writes

a dissent with this textualist argument that keys it up for

interest in a Supreme Court confirmation hearing. That set of

circumstances is pretty astounding.''

At oral argument in the case, Fetter said, Gorsuch was

``incredibly'' hostile in tone towards him and the Labor

Department attorney who shared his argument time

``It was not pleasant,'' Fetter said of the experience.

Fetter said he has been watching some of Gorsuch's hearing

and would normally pay attention to a U.S. Supreme Court

confirmation hearing. ``Whether I would watch as much as I

did [Tuesday], probably not,'' he added. ``I've looked at

this one with particular interest. I'm watching Judge Gorsuch

being grilled by [Sen. Al] Franken over my case and I'm

feeling some sympathy for him, but then I remember my case,

and I have no sympathy.''

The Gorsuch hearing is the first that Thoenen, the lawyer

for Transam, has watched.

``We were certainly interested in seeing how [the Transam

case] would come up,'' he said. ``We were aware of it when he

was nominated and as the nomination process has gone on,

we've been watching to see how it gets portrayed.''

Much more to the story

The portrayal of the case, he said, has been a source of

frustration to the firm, which has represented Transam for a

number of years.

``The narrative is: Frozen trucker and frozen trucker gets

fired from job,'' Thoenen said. ``There's much, much more to

the story that doesn't come out.''

Thoenen continued: ``As soon as he made his original

complaint, OSHA came into Transam and had a couple of days

investigation, talked to all of the people involved and found

no violation, no retaliation by Transam. [Maddin] lost that

round. That never gets mentioned in the narrative right now,

only that seven judges ruled for him and Gorsuch is [the]

only one to rule against him.''

The facts, as found by an administrative law judge, were

``vigorously disputed,'' including a nonworking heater and

auxiliary power, Thoenen said.

Thoenen's firm, Seigfreid Bingham, is ``kind of a unique

little player in the market,'' he said. ``We view ourselves

as outside general counsel for a lot of clients,'' he said.

``Primarily we represent clients in and around Kansas City.''

Thoenen came into the case after the administrative law

judge's opinion.

As surprising as is the trucker case's notoriety, more

surprising perhaps is how long it took to end the case

itself, Thoenen said.

``This event occurred in January 2009,'' he recalled. ``We

got the appellate opinion in 2016. Four years before that was

the ALJ decision and another two to two-and-half years for

the Administrative Review Board to affirm.''

During the Gorsuch hearings, senators and the nominee

talked about access to justice and the length of litigation,

Thoenen said. ``It is unbelievable that this case would go on

for seven-and-a-half years.''