Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I have had the privilege of working with Republican and Democratic Presidents, and, I might add, that I have had the sadness to be standing with them during times of need of this Nation. Living knowledge, during my tenure, President George W. Bush was President during 9/11.

I was in this Capitol on September 11, 2001, and so I was physically evacuated. As we were leaving with no understanding of what was happening--particularly for those of us who had come for early morning meetings, not having the full impact of what had happened in New York and not having the full knowledge. But as we were fleeing this building, we took a look to our right. We could see the billowing black smoke in the Pentagon. We were running for our lives. We were running as Americans, Muslims, Jews, Christians, people of many faiths, many races, many genders, many orientations. We were running as Americans.

Those families at Ground Zero watched in horror or heard in horror of their loved ones lost, in spite of the heroic efforts of first responders. First responders were lost. There, too, was a multitude of the United Nations.

This Nation has always welcomed and respected people from all over the world, and so it disturbs me when those of us who have now taken a visible and stoic stand against an unconstitutional executive order begin to receive attacks from the very person who should be bringing this Nation together.

I take great insult from the firing of Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates, a person whom I have worked with personally as a senior member of the House Judiciary Committee. She is of profound integrity, honesty, respectability, and professionalism. I congratulate Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates for being a patriot.

Last evening, she rendered this statement: ``In addition, I am responsible for ensuring that the positions we take in court remain consistent with this institution's solemn obligation to always seek justice and stand for what is right. At present, I am not convinced that the defense of the executive order is consistent with these responsibilities nor am I convinced that the executive order is lawful.''

Responding to that, almost like Nixon, some decades ago, this White House fired Attorney General Yates and proceeded to make this statement: ``The acting Attorney General, Sally Yates, has betrayed the Department of Justice by refusing to enforce a legal order designed to protect the citizens of the United States. This order was approved as to form and legality by the Department of Justice Office of Legal Counsel.''

Sally Yates explained it, but there is no betrayal of the Department of Justice. It is an entity. It is not the American people, and it is not a Constitution. She has no obligation to the Department of Justice. She has an obligation to the American people to uphold the Constitution.

The White House proceeds to go on to say--I assume President Trump-- ``Ms. Yates is an Obama administration appointee who is weak on borders and very weak on illegal immigration,'' of which I don't know their proof for such.

But what I will say to you is that she was doing her civic and patriotic duty by remaining there as a senior member who was the only person there that could sign subpoenas. She was doing America a favor.

So I will say, in the backdrop of that, were you at the Bush Intercontinental Airport, as I was, when an Iraqi citizen came in, a legal permanent resident with a green card, and was detained for 5 hours while his employer and lawyers were gathering and hovering outside; and CBP, to my understanding, how frightened they were, how they did not know what was going on, did not allow them to be able to speak?

Or did you listen last night when an Iraqi woman indicated that her husband was murdered and she hid for 12 years in Iraq until she was able to bring her children here?

Did you hear that refugees are being denied to come in for 120 days on Friday, Mr. Speaker, and that their papers will expire?

Finally, Mr. Speaker, did you hear that the perpetrator in Quebec had on his social media that he was supporting or praising President Trump?

Enough is enough. Repeal this order. Pass the SOLVE Act. Pass the USA Act

that I have introduced as well that includes gender and religion.

Stop this madness. The executive order is unconstitutional.

Mr. Speaker, the executive order is patently and clearly unconstitutional. An executive order to ban Muslims is unconstitutional.

None of us stand against the stringent review of individuals to determine who would come to do well, but who would come to do harm. A ban or a temporary suspension of all of the refugees around the world who have been vetted over and over again is clearly discriminatory.

It is true that the Constitution of the United States starts with: ``We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence . . .'' and ``welfare. . . .''

Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates made the right decision. Many court jurisdictions have already said that this is an unconstitutional and discriminatory order. The office of a public servant in the United States Federal Government requires that you take an oath to defend and protect the Constitution of the United States. I believe the President should uphold his oath.

Request to Call Up H.R. 724, SOLVE Act, and H.R. 735, USA Values Act

Mr. Speaker, today I join with the resolve of the Deputy Attorney General, and I ask unanimous consent for the SOLVE Act, and ask unanimous consent for H.R. 724 and H.R. 735, the USA Values Act, all dealing with banning and repealing and rescinding, now, the unconstitutional executive order on banning Muslims.

Mr. Speaker, because our Nation has always welcomed refugees and the poor and those who are in need, I don't know why we don't bring up H.R. 724, which would rescind President Trump's refugee ban on students like the Iranian-born anthropology student who left the U.S. to carry out research and is now likely to be unable to return to defend his thesis. If you do not believe in the ban, bring it up so we can vote against this ban.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Georgia and, likewise, congratulate him for his leadership on the Transportation Committee, along with his chairman.

Mr. Speaker, I rise as a senior member of the Homeland Security Committee, which committee has had special emphasis on protecting and responding to our first responders, and so I am excited about the fact of moving this bill forward. I thank the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, and I thank my Homeland Security Committee for moving this forward through an amendment process and now, ultimately, onto the floor of the House.

I rise, Mr. Speaker, enthusiastically, in support of H.R. 58, the First Responder Identification of Emergency Needs in Disaster Situations, or FRIENDS, Act.

I thank my chairman, Mr. McCaul, and Ranking Member Thompson for the valuable assistance and support in bringing this important bill before the House for consideration during the 114th Congress. We are now in the 115th Congress. I appreciate Chairman Shuster and Ranking Member DeFazio for allowing the FRIENDS Act now to come forward, which was referred to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure to be considered on today's suspensions.

The FRIENDS Act reflects what America is all about. The FRIENDS Act reflects what we, as Members of Congress, are all about. How many of us stop by fire stations, pat a police officer of many different levels on the back, say ``thank you,'' and recognize that that 911 number is a very special number to many of our constituents.

But more importantly, when natural disasters or manmade disasters such as the horrific and heinous terrorist act of 9/11 occur, who are among the first to come? It is the first responders, and they go to faraway places.

The FRIENDS Act reflects stakeholder input and bipartisan collaboration with the majority.

I thank the International Association of Fire Chiefs, the National Association of State EMS Officials working with me, and The International Emergency Management Society for their valuable assistance and input regarding the FRIENDS Act.

Our two committees, Transportation and Infrastructure and Homeland Security, really respond in a bipartisan way. Our Homeland Security Committee will be facing many mountains of concerns dealing with intelligence issues, dealing with the issues with Russia, dealing with the issues of executive orders, but we do know that we come together to honor our first responders that are our Nation's heroes. They run into burning buildings; they rescue people trapped by dangerous floods and put themselves in harm's way to protect others. Just last week, in San Bernardino, we saw the brave first responders heroically pursue two individuals that fled from the scene of a deadly attack recently over the last year.

To do their jobs, first responders must leave their homes and families while the rest of us cling to ours. Whether it is to deal with the aftermath of a terrorist attack, as I indicated, or the fires, hurricanes, and tornadoes that we have seen across America--devastation of so many of our constituents, loss of life--first responders leave their homes to ensure that others are safe.

Unfortunately, today, first responders are asked to answer the call to action without knowing whether their families will be safe as the work to rescue others proceeds. Our first responders deserve better.

The FRIENDS Act directs the Government Accountability Office to conduct a comprehensive review of policies and programs designed to ensure that first responders are able to do their jobs, and effectively, by assessing, among other things, measures taken to ensure first responder families are safe, first of all, and the availability of personal protective equipment exists so that they can come home to their families.

It was particularly noticed during 9/11. For those of us who were able to go to Ground Zero as they were still continuing the recovery, many of you know they continued to recover for months and months and months, and you saw the kind of exposure those first responders had.

During committee consideration of the FRIENDS Act, my friend from New York (Mr. Higgins) offered an amendment to authorize GAO to evaluate the availability of home med kits for first responders and their families in assessing the preparedness of first responders. I was pleased to support the Higgins amendment, and it adds to this bill.

H.R. 58 also directs GAO to distinguish policies available in high- risk urban areas which may be better resourced, and rural areas where efforts to ensure preparedness for first responders and their families may require creative leveraging of resources.

This provision will ensure that the information included in the report will be applicable and adaptable by various communities across the country as they work to better protect their protectors. Let us remember both the rural community as well as the urban community.

Additionally, the FRIENDS Act directs the Secretary of Homeland Security to review its findings and assess whether the policies identified could be applicable to Federal first responders.

The FRIENDS Act has been endorsed by the International Association of Fire Chiefs and a number of other organizations.

Before I conclude, let me again thank all of my colleagues.

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a letter from the International Association of Fire Chiefs and, as well, the National Association of State EMS Officials.

International Association

of Fire Chiefs,

Fairfax, VA, January 31, 2017.

Hon. Sheila Jackson Lee,

House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Dear Representative Jackson Lee: On behalf of the

approximately 12,000 fire and emergency service leaders of

the International Association of Fire Chiefs (IAFC), I would

like to thank you for introducing H.R. 58, the First

Responder Identification of Emergency Needs in Disaster

Situations (FRIENDS) Act. The IAFC supports this legislation,

because it will examine an important issue facing the

nation's first responders during a major terrorist attack:

adequate preparedness for the first responders' families.

During terrorist incidents, fire, law enforcement and EMS

officials will be called upon to take heroic actions to

protect the public and provide fire and emergency medical

response. In the case of a large-scale incident or biological

attack, the families of these first responders also will be

at risk. Based on the experience of IAFC members during the

response to Hurricanes Katrina and Rita and the 2014 response

to potential Ebola incidents in the United States, I know

that the welfare of the first responders' families weighs

heavily on them as they serve the public. It is important

that federal, state, and local officials make plans to

provide for the safety of first responders' families in order

to ensure strong morale among local fire, law enforcement,

and EMS officials during a major terrorist attack.

Thank you for introducing this important legislation. We

look forward to working with you to pass this legislation in

the House of Representatives.

Sincerely,

Fire Chief John D. Sinclair,

President and Chairman of the Board.

Mr. Speaker, it is important to know of the important role that the International Association of Fire Chiefs play in the lives of first responders and their advocacy for their fellow brothers and sisters--and they call them their fellow brothers and sisters. I want to briefly read their words:

Dear Representative Jackson Lee,

On behalf of the approximately 12,000 fire and emergency

service leaders of the International Association of Fire

Chiefs, I would like to thank you for introducing H.R. 58,

the First Responder Identification of Emergency Needs in

Disaster Situations, FRIENDS, Act.

The IAFC supports the legislation because it will examine

an important issue facing the Nation's first responders

during a major terrorist attack, adequate preparedness for

the first responders' families.

It goes on to list terrorist incidents, fire, and law enforcement, and EMS officials will be called upon to take heroic action, and it recounts that their concern is what is happening to their family under these circumstances.

In a letter from the National Association of State EMS Officials which I will insert into the Record, they indicate in their letter:

We are writing to express our support for the Jackson Lee

amendment, which was the bill the Families of Responders

Identification of Emergency Needs in Designated Situations.

This bill would make an important report on the state of

family support planning for the families of first responders.

Ladies and gentlemen, I am grateful to my colleagues for their assistance as we move the FRIENDS Act forward, but I am more grateful to those first responders who unselfishly put themselves forward and in danger to help our constituents and help all of us. To their families, we owe them the responsibility of ensuring that they are safe during the time of their loved ones being on the front lines of saving others.

I ask my colleagues to support the FRIENDS Act, H.R. 58.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 58, the ``First Responder Identification of Emergency Needs in Disaster Situations, or ``Friends' Act'', and yield myself such time as I may consume.

I thank Chairman McCaul and Ranking Member Thompson for the valuable assistance and support in bringing this important bill before the House for consideration during the 114th Congress.

I appreciate and thank Chairman Bill Shuster and Ranking Member Peter A. DeFazio for allowing the FRIENDS Act, which was referred to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure to be considered under today's suspensions.

The FRIENDS Act embodies the important and fundamental idea that we have an obligation to ensure that the first responders who protect our loved ones in emergencies have the peace of mind that comes from knowing that their loved ones are safe while they do their duty.

During terrorist incidents, fire, law enforcement, and EMS officials will be called upon to take heroic actions to protect the public and provide fire and emergency medical response.

The FRIENDS Act reflects stakeholder input and bipartisan collaboration with the Majority.

I thank the International Association of Fire Chiefs, the National Association of State EMS Officials, and the International Emergency Management Society for their valuable assistance and support for the FRIENDS Act.

I also thank Kay Goss, the President of the International Emergency Management Society, who provided technical assistance on the work of first responders to prepare for catastrophic events.

I am passionate about the work of those who dedicate themselves to public service.

I hold in high regard the service of firefighters, law enforcement officers, emergency response technicians, nurses, emergency room doctors, and the dozens of other professionals who are the ultimate public servants.

First responders are called to serve and few outside of their ranks can understand why they do the work they do each day--placing their lives in harm's way to save a stranger.

Law enforcement officers, fire fighters, and emergency medical technicians make our lives safer, while often at the same time putting their own lives at risk.

In the case of a large-scale incident or biological attack, the families of these first responders also will be at risk.

Based upon the experience of International Fire Chiefs, which endorsed the FRIENDS Act, the members' experiences during their response to Hurricanes Katrina and Rita and the 2014 response to potential Ebola incidents in the United States, know that the welfare of their families weighs heavily on first responders as they serve the public.

It is important that federal, state, and local officials make plans to provide for the safety of first responders' families in order to ensure strong morale among local fire, law enforcement, and EMS officials during a major terrorist attack.

H.R. 58 provides Congress an opportunity to let our first responders know that we know they have families and loved ones who they leave behind when they are called to duty, and their families will be protected in the first responder absence.

The GAO study that will be provided as a result of this bill will report on what is being done by local and state governments to address the needs of first responder families when threats like Hurricanes Sandy, Hugo, and Katrina hit communities, or when a terrorist attack like the ones seen in New York and Boston occur.

The report required by the Jackson Lee FRIENDS Act will also provide information on the availability of personal protective equipment for first responders.

The issue of personal protective equipment was an acute problem for front line first responders during the 2014 Ebola crisis.

First responders, including EMTs, emergency room doctors and nurses as well as law enforcement and fire department professionals, were not prepared for the crisis:

1. Nearly 80 percent of first responders report that their hospital had not communicated to them any policy regarding potential admission of patients infected by Ebola;

2. 85 percent said their hospital had not provided education on Ebola that allowed the nurses to interact and ask questions of patients;

3. One-third said their hospital had insufficient supplies of eye protection (face shields or side shields with goggles) and fluid resistant/impermeable gowns; and

4. Nearly 40 percent said their hospital did not have plans to equip isolation rooms with plastic covered mattresses and pillows and discard all linens after use; fewer than 10 percent said they were aware their hospital does have such a plan in place.

The Centers for Disease Control and only a few hospitals around the country with infectious disease units knew the right protocols and had the right protective gear to be used when treating an Ebola patient.

Ebola in the United States was a frightening experience for many, but I think we saw the great work that first responders do each day--our doctors and nurses went to work and treated the sick and did what they always do--they took care of us.

During the 114th Congress the Homeland Security Committee unanimously voted to report the FRIENDS Act favorably to the full House, which passed the measure by an overwhelming margin and in support of local, state and federal first responders.

The Comptroller General's comprehensive review of the range of policies and programs in place at the State level to address the preparedness and protection of first responders will also delineate high risk urban areas and rural communities; and the degree to which selected state policies were developed or executed with funding from the DHS Grant Programs or Urban Area Security Initiative authorized by the Homeland Security Act.

The report's focus will be on the presence of the family of first responders in an area affected by a terrorist attack and the availability of essential personal protective equipment.

This will be the first report that focuses on the family as a critical factor that should be considered in the work of first responders during times of crisis such as a terrorist attack or public emergency like in the massive flooding that occurred in the city of Houston last year and the year before.

The well-being of family members is a factor that one would expect to weigh on a first responder called to respond to a terrorist attack or unprecedented emergency.

The bravery or dedication of first responders is not in question-- they are the people who run into burning buildings to save people whom they may never have met.

They are some of the best among us and we appreciate their dedication and service.

Finally, the FRIENDS Act requires the Secretary of Homeland Security to consider the report's findings and their applicability for federal first responders.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank Natalie Matson, of the Committee's majority staff and

Moira Bergin, of the Committee's minority staff, both of whom worked closely with Lillie Coney on my staff on the FRIENDS Act.

I also thank the staff of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure for their efforts to bring the bill before the full House for consideration.

I ask all Members to join me in voting to pass H.R. 58, the FRIENDS Act.

Mr. Speaker, I, a senior member of the House Homeland Security and Judiciary Committees today am giving the following statement in response to the Executive Order issued by the President regarding admission of refugees to the United States:

Today, I am introducing the Universal Security of American Values Act of 2017 (USA Values Act of 2017), which declares the Executive Order issued by the President on January 27, 2017 to be null and void and of no force and legal effect. In addition, USA Values Act prohibits the issuance or implementation of any Executive Order that has the effect of abridging any of the privileges and immunities of Americans or would discriminate against any person seeking entry to the United States on the basis of race, sex, sexual orientation and identity, place of birth, place of residence, ethnicity, religion, age, or statuses that pose no undue health threat to the general population.

As Americans we are best when we are true to the values we hold dear, beginning with fidelity to the Constitution and the laws of the United States. The executive order issued last Friday by President Trump is a radical departure from these principles and I call upon him to rescind this order immediately.

This Executive Order has affected 67,000 refugees thoroughly vetted by an 18 to 24 month screening process, many of whom have been separated from their families despite processing the proper paperwork.

I agree with President Barack Obama's statement that he ``fundamentally disagrees with the notion of discriminating against individuals because of their faith and religion.

Arbitrarily excluding Muslims from our country will not make us safer and makes a mockery of our reputation the world's most welcoming nation.

America is a country founded by persons escaping religious persecution. We must be ever vigilant to ensure we remain the land religious liberty. Innocent lives are being put at risk as a result of a political theater and reactionary policies of the current Administration without even going through the normal review and clearance process.

`The USA Values Act,' which affirms the nation's core values, compliments the `Statute of Liberty Values Act', (SOLVE Act) introduced today by my colleague Congresswoman Zoe Lofgren of California and sponsored by me and more than 125 Members of the House which bars ethnic and religious discrimination against refugees.

Mr. Speaker, let me thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Veasey) and the gentlewoman from the Virgin Islands (Ms. Plaskett) for their continuing leadership on a very important and needed response to the actions of many, in particular, this new administration.

My time is short, so I want to thank Mr. Veasey for his leadership on the challenge to the voter ID law and, as well, his continuing leadership on the empowerment of voters, as well to Ms. Plaskett for ensuring and fighting for the right to vote for the Virgin Islands.

I stand with both of them. But I come today to plead and also to enunciate what crisis we find ourselves in. The White House is in crisis. When the White House is in crisis, that means America is in crisis.

Mr. Speaker, it is not a frivolous statement that I make; it is a truthful statement because less than 72 hours ago, without the counsel of many experts, Members of Congress who are on the jurisdictional committees, without the notice and input of the Secretary of Homeland Security, an executive order was produced by one young staffer in the White House and another individual who has pushed an agenda of exclusiveness. That is not the way to run this country.

So this executive order came out, and what we find is that 67,000 refugees are stranded around the world who actually had documents, who were vetted, and, as some stories have told us, waited 10 and 12 to 13 years to be able to get in line and to be vetted to come to the United States of America. The tragedy is that some of them were, in fact, our friends from Iraq who have stood by our military personnel who had, in fact, provided them the interpretation that they needed to save their lives. In one story we heard tonight on the steps of the United States Supreme Court was a woman who finally got here with her two children. Her husband was murdered, and her father was tortured.

So, to Mr. Trump, today I think it is important as we have joined in to repeal and to rescind this unconstitutional order, it is clear that you need to read the writing on the wall. The Deputy Attorney General, duly appointed and confirmed, of the U.S. Department of Justice, the remaining individual who has power in that office, has made a very conscious decision that they cannot defend this order because it is unconstitutional. This is not a person who takes her task lightly. This is not someone who is not an officer who has not taken an oath of office. This is akin to what happened in the Nixon administration. They were willing to lose their position to stand for the Constitution.

So the Congressional Black Caucus is on the floor today with our chairman, Mr. Richmond, to be able to inform America that this is patently unconstitutional. It does not provide for due process. It did not provide for equal protection of the law. As well, it is a blatant attack on freedom of religion.

For those of you who need a better explanation, let me tell you what a ban on Muslims is. A ban on Muslims is one country, two countries, seven countries, and the idea of who cannot come in are Muslims--that is a ban on Muslims. It is not a ban on Christians. It is not a ban on any other faith. It is a ban on Muslims, and the White House needs to understand what an interpretation of that means.

Further, let me say, as I come to a close, please do not try to cover yourself with the announcement that was made by President Obama. As a member of the Homeland Security Committee, I am well aware of that announcement that he had regarding a number of countries. It was not a ban. It was to take note that those countries were in conflict and that individuals who were coming from those countries specifically needed to have a higher level of scrutiny. It was not a ban. It is well documented that the tragedies that we have had from Boston to Orlando to San Bernardino were not individuals who came through as refugees or came from those particular countries.

What are we doing here? We are blatantly violating the Constitution. When the President of the United States violates the Constitution, this body has to stand up and respond. So I would ask this body to direct the President to rescind. In the alternative, I would ask that the legislation that is being introduced call upon the President to repeal this.

In all fairness, I would appreciate if the President took it up on his own to suspend this order that is impacting so many who are being left along the highway of despair, people who are able to--if you will, people and individuals who are able to seek refuge here are now being left.

I believe that the Congressional Black Caucus--the conscience of the Congress--stands now, tonight, to seek to ban the Muslim ban, to seek to stop the suppression of voting, and to also say to the nominee for the Attorney General: Are you prepared to represent all of us and to be able to support the institution, or reinstitution, of section 5 of the Voting Rights Act?

Madam Speaker, I rise again in strong opposition to the rule for H.R. 7, the so-called ``No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act,'' and the underlying bill.

I oppose this bill because it is unnecessary, puts the lives of women at risk, interferes with women's constitutionally guaranteed right of privacy, and diverts our attention from the real problems facing the American people.

A more accurate short title for this bill would be the ``Violating the Rights of Women Act of 2017''!

Instead of resuming their annual War on Women, our colleagues across the aisle should be working with Democrats to build upon the ``Middle- Class Economics'' championed by the Obama Administration that have succeeded in ending the economic meltdown it inherited in 2009 and revived the economy to the point where today we have the highest rate of growth and lowest rate of unemployment since the boom years of the Clinton Administration.

We could and should instead be voting to raise the minimum wage to $15.00 per hour so that people who work hard and play by the rules do not have raise their families in poverty.

A far better use of our time would be to provide help to unemployed job-hunters by making access to community college affordable to every person looking to make a new start in life.

Instead of voting to abridge the constitutional rights of women for the umpteenth time, we should bring to the floor for a first vote comprehensive immigration reform legislation or legislations repairing the harm to the Voting Rights Act of 1965 by the Supreme Court's decision in Shelby County v. Holder.

Madam Speaker, the one thing we should not be doing is debating irresponsible ``messaging bills'' that abridge the rights of women and have absolutely no chance of overriding a presidential veto.

The version of H.R. 7 before us now is as bad today as it was when the House Republican leadership insisted on bringing it to a vote a year ago. The other draconian provisions of that terrible bill are retained in H.R. 7, which would:

1. Prohibit federal funds from being used for any health benefits coverage that includes coverage of abortion. (Thus making permanent existing federal policies.)

2. Prohibit the inclusion of abortion in any health care service furnished by a federal or District of Columbia health care facility or by any physician or other individual employed by the federal government or the District.

3. Apply such prohibitions to District of Columbia funds.

4. Prohibit individuals from receiving a refundable federal tax credit, or any cost-sharing reductions, for purchasing a qualified health plan that includes coverage for abortions.

5. Prohibit small employers from receiving the small-employer health insurance credit provided by the health care law if the health plans or benefits that are purchased provide abortion coverage.

If H.R. 7 were enacted, millions of families and small businesses with private health insurance plans that offer abortion coverage would be faced with tax increases, making the cost of health care insurance even more expensive.

Under the Affordable Care Act, insurers are able to offer abortion coverage and receive federal offsets for premiums as long as enrollees pay for the abortion coverage from separate, private funds.

If enacted, H.R. 7 would deny federal subsidies or credits to private health insurance plans that offer abortion coverage even if that coverage is paid for from private funds.

This would inevitably lead to private health insurance companies dropping abortion coverage leaving millions of women without access to affordable, comprehensive health care.

Currently, 87% of private insurance health care plans offered through employers cover abortion.

If H.R. 7 were to become law, consumer Options for private health insurance plans would be unnecessarily restricted and the tax burden on these policy holders would increase significantly.

H.R. 7 would also deny tax credits to small businesses that offer their employees insurance plans that cover abortion, which would have a significant impact on millions of families across the nation who would no longer be able to take advantage of existing tax credits and deductions for the cost of their health care.

For example, small businesses that offer health plans that cover abortions would no longer be eligible for the Small Business Health Tax Credit--potentially worth 35%-50% of the cost of their premiums-- threatening 4 million small businesses.

Self-employed Americans who are able to deduct the cost of their comprehensive health insurance from their taxable income will also be denied similar tax credits and face higher taxes.

H.R. 7 would also undermine the District of Columbia's home rule by restricting its use of funds for abortion care to low-income women.

The Hyde Amendment stipulates that no taxpayer dollars are to be used for abortion care, and has narrow exceptions for rape, incest, and health complications that arise from pregnancy which put the mother's life in danger.

H.R. 7 would restrict women's access to reproductive health care even further by narrowing the already stringent requirements set forth in the Hyde Amendment.

When the Affordable Care Act was signed into law, the President issued an Executive Order to ``ensure that Federal funds are not used for abortion services.''

This version of H.R. 7 goes far beyond the safeguards established under the Affordable Care Act, and sets a dangerous precedent for the future of women's reproductive health in this country because it includes two new provisions that were added at the nth hour but have never received a hearing or a mark-up.

These new provisions would (1) ban abortion coverage in multi-state health plans available under the ACA; and (2) mandate that health plans mislead consumers about abortion coverage by requiring all plans in the health-insurance exchanges that include abortion coverage to display that fact prominently in all advertising, marketing materials, or information from the insurer but interestingly, does not require the same disclosure from plans that do not cover abortion.

Madam Speaker, H.R. 7 would also force health plans to mislead consumers about the law's treatment of abortion.

As a concession to anti-choice lawmakers, the ACA requires insurance plans participating in the new health system to segregate monies used for abortion services from all other funds.

In order to aid in identifying these funds and simplify the process of segregating general premium dollars from those used to cover abortion services, the ACA requires that health plans estimate the cost of abortion coverage at no less than $1 per enrollee per month.

H.R. 7 would require plans covering abortion to misrepresent this practice as an ``abortion surcharge,'' which is to be disclosed and identified as a portion of the consumer's premium.

By describing abortion coverage in this way, H.R.7 makes it look as 7 though it is an added, extra cost, available only at an additional fee, when in fact it is not.

Taken together, the provisions in H.R. 7 have the effect, and possibly the intent, of arbitrarily infringing women's reproductive freedoms and pose a nationwide threat to the health and wellbeing of American women and a direct challenge to the Supreme Court's ruling in Roe V. Wade.

Madam Speaker, one of the most detestable aspects of this bill is that it would curb access to care for women in the most desperate of circumstances.

Women like Danielle Deaver, who was 22 weeks pregnant when her water broke. Tests showed that Danielle had suffered anhydramnios, a premature rupture of the membranes before the fetus has achieved viability.

This condition meant that the fetus likely would be born with a shortening of muscle tissue that results in the inability to move limbs. In addition, Danielle's fetus likely would suffer deformities to the face and head, and the lungs were unlikely to develop beyond the 22-week point.

There was less than a 10% chance that, if born, Danielle's baby would be able to breathe on its own and only a 2% chance the baby would be able to eat on its own.

H.R. 7 hurts women like Vikki Stella, a diabetic, who discovered months into her pregnancy that the fetus she was carrying suffered from several major anomalies and had no chance of survival. Because of Vikki's diabetes, her doctor determined that induced labor and Caesarian section were both riskier procedures for Vikki than an abortion.

Every pregnancy is different. No politician knows, or has the right to assume he knows, what is best for a woman and her family.

These are decisions that properly must be left to women to make, in consultation with their partners, doctors, and their God.

H.R. 7 lacks the necessary exceptions to protect the health and life of the mother.

H.R. 7 is an unconstitutional infringement on the right to privacy, as interpreted by the Supreme Court in a long line of cases going back to Griswold v. Connecticut in 1965 and Roe v. Wade decided in 1973.

In Roe v. Wade, the Court held that a state could not prohibit a woman from exercising her right to terminate a pregnancy in order to protect her health prior to viability.

While many factors go into determining fetal viability, the consensus of the medical community is that viability is acknowledged as not occurring prior to 24 weeks gestation.

Supreme Court precedents make it clear that neither Congress nor a state legislature can declare any one element--``be it weeks of gestation or fetal weight or any other single factor--as the determinant'' of viability. Coloyal v. Franklin, 439 U.S. 379,388-89 (1979).

The constitutionally protected right to privacy encompasses the right of women to choose to terminate a pregnancy before viability, and even later where continuing to term poses a threat to her health and safety.

This right of privacy was hard won and must be preserved inviolate.

The bill before us threatens this hard won right for women and must be defeated.

I urge all members to join me in opposing the rule and the underlying bill.

Madam Speaker, these are the faces of innocent and wonderful women like Dakota and Chenoa, who indicate that, if they did not have Planned Parenthood, they would not be able to be where they are today, or Chenoa, who indicated, without Planned Parenthood and the Affordable Care Act, they wouldn't have access to health care.

That is what H.R. 7 intends to do, to deny these young, beautiful women an opportunity. But more importantly, my colleagues on the other side want to suggest they only--they only--have religion and faith. But as a mother, let me say that every child I have loved and every woman who has had a decision to make I have loved and respected for her choice of a faith, her God, and her doctor.

Rather than having this war on women by Republicans, we need to be dealing with the voting rights law. Rather than prohibiting individuals from receiving a refundable tax credit on cost-sharing reductions for purchasing a qualified health plan that encourages coverage for abortions or denying the District of Columbia their rights, we should be standing for rights. This is a constitutional right. It is also a choice by a woman of her God, her doctor, and her family.

Vote against H.R. 7. It is violence against women. It is not helping women or the unborn child.

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

I oppose this bill because it is unnecessary, puts the lives of women at risk, interferes with women's constitutionally guaranteed right of privacy, and diverts our attention from the real problems facing the American people.

A more accurate short title for this bill would be the ``Violating the Rights of Women Act of 2017.''

Instead of resuming their annual War on Women, our colleagues across the aisle should be working with Democrats to build upon the ``Middle- Class Economics'' championed by the Obama Administration that have succeeded in ending the economic meltdown it inherited in 2009 and revived the economy to the point where today we have the highest rate of growth and lowest rate of unemployment since the boom years of the Clinton Administration.

We could and should instead be voting to raise the minimum wage to $15.00 per hour so that people who work hard and play by the rules do not have to raise their families in poverty.

A far better use of our time would be to provide help to unemployed job-hunters by making access to community college affordable to every person looking to make a new start in life.

Instead of voting to abridge the constitutional rights of women for the umpteenth time, we should bring to the floor for a first vote comprehensive immigration reform legislation or legislations repairing the harm to the Voting Rights Act of 1965 by the Supreme Court's decision in Shelby County v. Holder.

Madam Speaker, the one thing we should not be doing is debating irresponsible ``messaging bills'' that abridge the rights of women and have absolutely no chance of overriding a presidential veto.

The version of H.R. 7 before us now is as bad today as it was when the House Republican leadership insisted on bringing it to a vote a year ago.

The other draconian provisions of that terrible bill are retained in H.R. 7, which would:

1. Prohibit federal funds from being used for any health benefits coverage that includes coverage of abortion. (Thus making permanent existing federal policies.)

2. Prohibit the inclusion of abortion in any health care service furnished by a federal or District of Columbia health care facility or by any physician or other individual employed by the federal government or the District.

3. Apply such prohibitions to District of Columbia funds.

4. Prohibit individuals from receiving a refundable federal tax credit, or any cost-sharing reductions, for purchasing a qualified health plan that includes coverage for abortions.

5. Prohibit small employers from receiving the small-employer health insurance credit provided by the health care law if the health plans or benefits that are purchased provide abortion coverage.

If H.R. 7 were enacted, millions of families and small businesses with private health insurance plans that offer abortion coverage would be faced with tax increases, making the cost of health care insurance even more expensive.

Under the Affordable Care Act, insurers are able to offer abortion coverage and receive

federal offsets for premiums as long as enrollees pay for the abortion coverage from separate, private funds.

If enacted, H.R. 7 would deny federal subsidies or credits to private health insurance plans that offer abortion coverage even if that coverage is paid for from private funds.

This would inevitably lead to private health insurance companies dropping abortion coverage leaving millions of women without access to affordable, comprehensive health care.

Currently, 87% of private insurance health care plans offered through employers cover abortion.

If H.R. 7 were to become law, consumer options for private health insurance plans would be unnecessarily restricted and the tax burden on these policy holders would increase significantly.

H.R. 7 would also deny tax credits to small businesses that offer their employees insurance plans that cover abortion, which would have a significant impact on millions of families across the nation who would no longer be able to take advantage of existing tax credits and deductions for the cost of their health care.

For example, small businesses that offer health plans that cover abortions would no longer be eligible for the Small Business Health Tax Credit--potentially worth 35%-50% of the cost of their premiums-- threatening 4 million small businesses.

Self-employed Americans who are able to deduct the cost of their comprehensive health insurance from their taxable income will also be denied similar tax credits and face higher taxes.

H R. 7 would also undermine the District of Columbia's home rule by restricting its use of funds for abortion care to low-income women.

The Hyde Amendment stipulates that no taxpayer dollars are to be used for abortion care, and has narrow exceptions for rape, incest, and health complications that arise from pregnancy which put the mother's life in danger.

H.R. 7 would restrict women's access to reproductive health care even further by narrowing the already stringent requirements set forth in the Hyde Amendment.

When the Affordable Care Act was signed into law, the President issued an Executive Order to ``ensure that Federal funds are not used for abortion services.''

This version of H.R. 7 goes far beyond the safeguards established under the Affordable Care Act, and sets a dangerous precedent for the future of women's reproductive health in this country because it includes two new provisions that were added at the 11th hour but have never received a hearing or a mark-up.

These new provisions would (1) ban abortion coverage in multi-state health plans available under the ACA; and (2) mandate that health plans mislead consumers about abortion coverage by requiring all plans in the health-insurance exchanges that include abortion coverage to display that fact prominently in all advertising, marketing materials, or information from the insurer but interestingly, does not require the same disclosure from plans that do not cover abortion.

Madam Speaker, H.R. 7 would also force health plans to mislead consumers about the law's treatment of abortion.

As a concession to anti-choice lawmakers, the ACA requires insurance plans participating in the new health system to segregate monies used for abortion services from all other funds.

In order to aid in identifying these funds and simplify the process of segregating general premium dollars from those used to cover abortion services, the ACA requires that health plans estimate the cost of abortion coverage at no less than $1 per enrollee per month.

H.R. 7 would require plans covering abortion to misrepresent this practice as an ``abortion surcharge,'' which is to be disclosed and identified as a portion of the consumer's premium.

By describing abortion coverage in this way, H.R. 7 makes it look as though it is an added, extra cost, available only at an additional fee, when in fact it is not.

Taken together, the provisions in H.R. 7 have the effect, and possibly the intent, of arbitrarily infringing women's reproductive freedoms and pose a nationwide threat to the health and wellbeing of American women and a direct challenge to the Supreme Court's ruling in Roe v. Wade.

Madam Speaker, one of the most detestable aspects of this bill is that it would curb access to care for women in the most desperate of circumstances.

Women like Danielle Deaver, who was 22 weeks pregnant when her water broke. Tests showed that Danielle had suffered anhydramnios, a premature rupture of the membranes before the fetus has achieved viability.

This condition meant that the fetus likely would be born with a shortening of muscle tissue that results in the inability to move limbs. In addition, Danielle's fetus likely would suffer deformities to the face and head, and the lungs were unlikely to develop beyond the 22-week point.

There was less than a 10% chance that, if born, Danielle's baby would be able to breathe on its own and only a 2% chance the baby would be able to eat on its own.

H.R. 7 hurts women like Vikki Stella, a diabetic, who discovered months into her pregnancy that the fetus she was carrying suffered from several major anomalies and had no chance of survival. Because of Vikki's diabetes, her doctor determined that induced labor and Caesarian section were both riskier procedures for Vikki than an abortion.

Every pregnancy is different. No politician knows, or has the right to assume he knows, what is best for a woman and her family.

These are decisions that properly must be left to women to make, in consultation with their partners, doctors, and their God.

H.R. 7 lacks the necessary exceptions to protect the health and life of the mother.

H.R. 7 is an unconstitutional infringement on the right to privacy, as interpreted by the Supreme Court in a long line of cases going back to Griswold v. Connecticut in 1965 and Roe v. Wade decided in 1973.

In Roe v. Wade, the Court held that a state could not prohibit a woman from exercising her right to terminate a pregnancy in order to protect her health prior to viability.

While many factors go into determining fetal viability, the consensus of the medical community is that viability is acknowledged as not occurring prior to 24 weeks gestation.

Supreme Court precedents make it clear that neither Congress nor a state legislature can declare any one element--``be it weeks of gestation or fetal weight or any other single factor--as the determinant'' of viability. Colautti v. Franklin, 439 U.S. 379, 388-89 (1979).

The constitutionally protected right to privacy encompasses the right of women to choose to terminate a pregnancy before viability, and even later where continuing to term poses a threat to her health and safety.

This right of privacy was hard won and must be preserved inviolate.

The bill before us threatens this hard won right for women and must be defeated.

I urge all members to join me in opposing the bill.

Mr. Speaker, as a person of faith, I wish President- elect Donald Trump nothing but the best as he becomes the Commander-in- Chief of our nation.

On November 8th 2016, many of us were deeply wounded and it was a very difficult time. For me, the concern was for so many of my constituents who had worked so hard for a different result; and the many young people who were for the first time engaged in the democratic process that were seemingly so disappointed. They were looking for hope.

After the election, although still very concerned, I was willing to give the President-elect the appropriate time, as he moved through his transition, to address the American people with a message of unity. Unfortunately, the transition was not as smooth as I believe many of us, as Americans, would have wanted it to be. The call for unity and the embracing of all Americans simply did not come. The moments of attack continued. However, many of us still continued to listen.

As a senior Member of the Homeland Security Committee and Ranking Member on the Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime, Homeland Security, Terrorism, and Investigations, I take national security very seriously. I was appointed to the Homeland Security Committee in the aftermath of the heinous, murderous, and horrific terrorist attack on September 9, 2011. The intelligence community is part of my day to day work.

In the midst of moving toward the inauguration, stark, provocative, sobering, and difficult facts came to our attention. All of America's intelligence agencies confirmed the detrimental cyber-attack by high Russian officials, including President Vladimir Putin, to steer the election toward one candidate, Mr. Trump, and away from the other candidate. Rather than accept their report, President-elect Trump chose to make a full force attack on the brave men and women serving in our intelligence community and disparaged their commitment to serving our nation. There are moments in a public official's life that you always put country over self. That did not happen and the disappointment was piercing.

As a Member of the Judiciary committee, one of my proudest moments was the reauthorization of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. But an even prouder moment was the enormous number of votes the legislation received from both Republicans and Democrats in the House and Senate. And when all the Members went to the White House for the signing of the legislation by a sitting Republican President, we celebrated America's love affair with the precious right to vote. President George W. Bush signed that legislation into law only to now come to 2016 to face huge examples across the nation of voter suppression in this election with newly minted laws that suppressed the voting rights of so many Americans and particularly many in minority communities. The President- elect gave these voting abuses no credence.

Further, the President-elect has every right to select his or her cabinet. However, it is very difficult when his choice for the nation's highest law enforcement officer, who is supposed to be the arm of justice for the most vulnerable in our nation, and that person holds consistent positions against civil rights and against voting rights.

So, I deliberated on my decision over a period of time. I did not boycott this ceremonial inaugural event. I have decided in good conscience I could not go. John Lewis, a man who bled for freedom made his choice and made his decision without rancor or hysteria. But that was not the tone of the response he received; and John did not call for any boycott. This is not a boycott. This is an act of conscience. The President-elect could not refrain from a full-fledged personal attack on Congressman John Lewis. He failed to offer even a small olive branch.

The State of the Union will be the President's first message directly to Congress and the American people on how he will lead--that I will attend--and I am committed to working for my constituents and all of the American people. I hope the new President will do the same.

So my principles revolving around justice and fairness, an unfettered election, the duty that I have to the national security community and the recognition of the provocative and criminal intrusion by the Russians into our election causes me to be reflective on January 20.

Finally, I did enjoy greeting my constituents as they came to the inauguration. But as so many Americans, I will be waiting on that olive branch to be extended to all of us by this President; thereby giving us an opportunity to heal, to mend, and for him to recognize that Americans have very similar aspirations and values, and to remember that those who did not vote for the ultimate victor still deserve dignity and respect in this country.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 511, the ``Power and Security Systems Act of 2017, which will revise energy conservation standards for devices operating in standby mode.

In the early 1970s, I recall, as many of my colleagues do, the impact to our nation's economy when OPEC nations withheld oil from the United States causing one of the greatest peace-time energy shortages in United States history.

One of the remedial steps taken by the Carter Administration was the promulgation of regulations that required large appliances and equipment that used electricity to default to a power down mode when not in use.

Today, we take for granted that machines power down when not in use, but this one change in energy policy over the last 4o years has saved taxpayers, which includes businesses and private homes, billions of dollars in energy costs.

This was only one policy solution that was used to reduce our nation's dependence on foreign oil so that energy could go to vital services like fuel for electricity generation, gasoline, heating fuels, and diesel oil.

H.R. 511, the bill before us would extend energy conservation to digital technology that can operate in standby mode.

Most digital device technology manufactures already provide sleep mode on their devices to assist their users in conserving power on cellphones, smartphones, MP3 players, e-book readers, as well as desktop and laptop computers.

Today, 68 percent of U.S. adults own a smartphone, up from 35 percent in 2011, and tablet computer ownership has edged up to 45 percent among adults, according to newly released survey data from the Pew Research Center.

Considering not just smartphones, but all types of mobile phones, Pew notes that cellphones continue to top of the list.

Roughly nine-in-ten American adults or 92 percent own a mobile phone of some kind.

Although these mobile devices are ubiquitous today, the share of adults who own one has risen substantially since 2004.

Smartphone ownership is nearing the saturation point with some groups: 1. 86 percent of those ages 18-29; 2. 83 percent of those ages 30-49; and 3. 87 percent of those living in households earning $75,000 and up annually own smartphones.

These facts highlight the importance of energy conservation for mobile communication users.

The battery life for these devices is limited and without power they are of no use to the user.

This bill will help users remain connected as long as possible because the energy consumption on their cellphones and other digital devices will be minimized when they are not in use.

Energy conservation will also assist consumers during times when power outages may occur due to weather or other electricity disruption.

The longer power life for cellphones will benefit consumers by reducing the amount of electricity needed to recharge their personal devices.

This bill will also benefit businesses that often have many computers that when in use can consume electricity if left on after business hours--especially over weekends.

For these reasons, I ask my colleagues to join me in supporting H.R. 511.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 587, the ``Fair Ratepayer Accountability, Transparency, and Efficiency Standards Act'' (Fair RATES Act), which amends the Federal Power Act to permit administrative and judicial review of any rate change filed by a public utility that takes effect without the approval of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC).

The need for this change became evident in the wake of a New England Forward Capacity Market Auction in 2014, which occurred at a time when FERC only had 4 Commissioners.

When the New England Forward Capacity Market Auction issue was addressed by FERC, the Commissioners split evenly over the question of whether the auction results were just and reasonable.

Since FERC did not disapprove the auction results, wholesale electricity prices in New England increased dramatically; and

So, while rates went up, none of the affected parties could challenge the decision or resulting rate increase, and, therefore, no rehearing or judicial review was possible.

H.R. 587 provides those who want to challenge similar rulings or non- decisions by FERC the ability to challenge the decision administratively or in the courts.

The bill ensures that stakeholders have recourse when a non-decision by FERC has very real consequences for consumers, producers and others.

This bill would also improve the process by which FERC votes are reconsidered.

I ask my colleagues to join me in supporting H.R. 587.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 423, the ``Anti-Spoofing Act of 2017,'' which amends the Communications Act of 1934, to make it unlawful to cause a caller identification service to knowingly transmit inaccurate caller identification information with the intent to: defraud, cause harm, or wrongfully obtain anything of value.

Spoofing is a practice in which a phone number shown on a phone or caller identification device deliberately is falsified.

Spoofing is a commonly used tool for a number of illegal practices, including ``phishing'' for personal information and ``swatting''-- calling in a fictitious crime in progress in order to generate-a-police response.

The Truth in Caller ID Act of 2009 prohibits spoofing of voice caller identification information; however, as communications methods and consumer habits continue to evolve, so do the attempts by third parties to gain personal information for criminal use.

Many Americans now rely on text messaging to stay connected.

According to CTIA, in 2015, Americans sent over 156 billion text messages per month.

H.R. 423, the Anti-Spoofing Act, will extend the provisions of the Truth in Caller ID Act to include text messaging and text messaging services.

The legislation adds a definition of ``spoofing service'' to the statute, addressing the growth of services that allows a user to knowingly transmit misleading or inaccurate caller identification information.

In addition, it extends the prohibitions to any person or service placing an international call to a recipient within the United States.

Additionally, H.R. 423 will revise the definitions of ``caller identification information'' and

``caller identification service'' to include text messages sent using a text messaging service.

It defines ``text message'' as real-time messages consisting of text, images, sounds, or other information transmitted from or received by a device identified by a telephone number.

It also includes in the definition both, real-time and two-way voice or video communications, addressing the emerging law enforcement issue of ``swatting'' by which people can purposefully misdirect valuable, police efforts and resources.

This bill takes the right approach targeting behavior, while protecting innovations that are important to the digital economy.

As the Ranking Member of the Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime, I understand the vital need to safeguard against caller identification spoofing.

For example, women's abuse shelters and law enforcement officers working undercover have a need to protect their clients' identities.

This bill seeks to target those who have the intent to cause harm or commit a crime.

I support this legislation because it protects the consumer from criminal behavior, while protecting our fundamental right to privacy.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 588, ``Securing Access to Networks in Disaster Act'', which requires the Federal Communications Commission to submit to Congress and publish on the FCC website a study on the: public safety benefits, technical feasibility, and cost of providing the public with access to 9-1-1 services during times of emergency when mobile service is unavailable.

As a senior member of the Homeland Security Committee, I am well aware of the importance of telephone service during disasters.

The Securing Access to Networks in Disasters (SANDy) Act seeks to ensure the resiliency of the nation's communications networks during emergencies.

Acquiring cellphone service during a massive natural or manmade disaster is often difficult, if not impossible, and this is why this piece of legislation is so essential.

During the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks that destroyed the World Trade Center in New York City, cellphone service was severely disrupted, forcing many callers to repeatedly dial to get through to 9- 1-1 emergency services.

On that day, some of the most tragic, heart wrenching calls came from those trapped in the Twin Towers.

It is not only during terrorist attacks that cellphone services are severely disrupted, but also natural disasters such as Hurricane Katrina, which claimed the lives of over 1,800 people.

The SANDy Act would ensure that during an emergency, consumers' cell phones work on other carriers' networks if a consumer's own network goes down.

H.R. 588 would give priority to calls to 9-1-1 services and emergency alerts.

It also would increase coordination between wireless carriers, utilities, and public safety officials by creating a directory of the contact information for relevant disaster response officials.

The bill would require the FCC to report to Congress regarding whether additional outage data should be provided in times of emergency.

In addition, the bill requires the FCC to report to Congress on the viability of providing 9-1-1 services over Wi-Fi hotspots during emergencies.

H.R. 588 would be of immense benefit to the 18th Congressional District and the greater Houston area.

On April 17-18, 2016, Houston experienced a historic flood event that claimed the lives of eight people; damaged over 1,150 households; disrupted hundreds of businesses; closed community centers, schools, and places of worship due to flood waters.

On April 25, President Obama granted the request for federal Individual Assistance for Harris County residences and business owners who were affected by severe weather and flooding.

Unfortunately, that was not the end of the story of flooding in Houston for 2016--in early June another record setting rainfall led to catastrophic flooding throughout the Houston area.

I am grateful to President Obama and the great work of those at the Department of Homeland Security who worked tirelessly to help people after both 2016 flood events.

I spoke on the House Floor several times about the floods and the suffering caused by the waters that came through our communities-- damaging homes, our schools, places of business, and our places of worship.

The flooding problems in the Houston area are frequent, widespread, and severe, with projects to reduce flood risks in place that are valued at several billion dollars

In 2015, the Houston and surrounding area experienced widespread historic flooding.

The importance of being able to contact emergency responders in the case of natural disasters is critical in order to save the lives of those directly affected by such events.

The SANDy Act would provide telecommunication access to victims of natural and man-made disasters.

The SANDy Act amends the Stafford Act to ensure that all communications providers:

1. Have the ability to access relevant disaster stricken areas during emergencies to restore service; and

2. Are included in the universal credentialing program for essential service providers

The SANDy Act would recognize the critical role that all communications providers--broadcasters, cable, and telecommunications-- serve in emergencies, but most notably, the bill would ensure consumers have access to wireless service even if their cellphone service provider's wireless network goes down.

I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting H.R. 588, the ``Securing Access to Networks in Disaster Act.''

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 460, the ``Improving Rural Call Quality and Reliability Act of 2017'', which amends the Communications Act of 1934 to require voice communications that charge users to register with the FCC, and comply with service quality standards to be established by the FCC.

The bill, should it become law, prohibits long-distance providers from using an internet provider to transmit voice communications and signals unless the intermediate provider is registered.

H.R. 460 would require the FCC to:

1. Ensure the integrity of voice communications to all customers in the United States,

2. Prevent unjust or unreasonable discrimination across areas of the United States in the delivery of voice communications; and

3. Make a registry of intermediate providers publicly available on the FCC website.

H.R. 460, the Improving Rural Call Quality and Reliability Act of 2016, would seek to ensure that calls to Americans living in the rural areas of our country actually make it through to the intended receiver.

Making sure a call goes through, regardless of where it is being made, is fundamental to our communications system.

H.R. 460 would require the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to establish basic quality standards for providers that transmit voice calls to consumers, among other things.

The Senate Commerce Committee adopted an amendment in the nature of a substitute (AINS) that made the following changes:

1. Extends deadlines for service quality standards for intermediate providers from 180 days to one year,

2. Exempts intermediate providers that have been certified as a safe harbor provider; and

3. Amends the definition of intermediate provider.

I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting H.R. 460, the ``Improving Rural Call Quality and Reliability Act of 2017.''

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 582, the Kari's Law Act of 2017, which amends the Communications Act of 1934 to require multi-line telephone systems to have a configuration that permits users to directly initiate a call 9-1-1 without dialing any additional digit, code, prefix, or post-fix.

As a senior member of the House Committees on Homeland Security and Judiciary, I am well aware of the importance of 9-1-1 services and some of the challenges of E-9-1-1 to ensure that those seeking emergency assistance receive the help they need.

H.R. 582 would create parity for landline ``9-1-1 services'' and smartphone E-9-1-1 services'' so that emergency assistance request from either is treated the same.

The bill requires that those engaged in the manufacturing, importation, sale, and lease of telecommunication service or devices pre-configured technology to dial 9-1-1.

The goal of H.R. 582 is to ensure that all emergency calls regardless of the source are routed properly to emergency services.

Kari's Law is not intended to alter the authority of State commissions or other State or local agencies with jurisdiction over emergency communications.

The establishment of the Kari's Law Act acknowledges the importance of the configuration of multi-line telephones systems for direct dialing for 9-1-1.

Over the past two decades, the personal communications of Americans have changed.

The Wireless Association reported that the penetration of cellular devices surpassed 100 percent in 2012, and as of the latest 2014 report, penetration is now at 110 percent.

According to the Pew Research Center, 68 percent of U.S. adults have a smartphone, up from 35 percent in 2011, and tablet computer ownership has edged up to 45 percent among adults, according to newly released survey data from the Pew Research Center.

Smartphone ownership is nearing the saturation point with some groups: 86 percent of those ages 18 through 29 have a smartphone, as do 83 percent of those ages 30 through 49 and 87 percent of those living in households earning $75,000 and up annually.

With so many mobile devices deployed the majority of calls to 911 emergency public safety answering points (PSAP) originate from them.

U.S. emergency dispatch agencies report that wireless callers are responsible for at least 80 percent of their emergency call volume.

For these reasons, I urge my colleagues to Support H.R. 582, Kari's Law Act of 2017.