Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, having worked for the Southern Christian Leadership Conference and been engaged with many of the foot soldiers that studied under Dr. Martin Luther King, I love and cherish nonviolent protests and the rights for people to petition.

I hold up a beautiful and powerful statement by way of a picture, powerful together, as thousands marched across the Nation, upwards of 1 million and maybe even more. I am particularly proud of those in Houston, Texas, and particularly ``Across Texas, marchers `just can't be silent anymore.' ''

Congratulations to those who marched safely, securely, and nonviolently. Congratulations to the Houston organizers. Yes, it is your right to fight against the repeal of the Affordable Care Act, the ignoring of the funding of access to women's health care. It is your right to fight for educational opportunity. It is your right to recognize that we have rights as women, but we have rights as Americans; and it is your right to seek a nation that will be representative of all of the people, no matter where they come from, what their religious background is, what regions they live for.

It is beyond the wonderful Midwest that the Nation needs to be represented. It is in the far corners of the east and the north, yes, down in Houston, Texas, far to the west. We cannot isolate and say we won with few votes from this region. America is a country for all people, and I look forward to this Congress and this White House representing all of us.

I thank the gentlewoman from the Virgin Islands and the gentleman from Texas for their service to the Nation and for leading the Congressional Black Caucus Special Order. It is always important for the voices of the Congressional Black Caucus and the chairman of the Congressional Black Caucus, Mr. Richmond of Louisiana, to be heard. Both Ms. Plaskett and Mr. Veasey have accepted the challenge and the call. I want to express to them my greatest appreciation for the leadership that they are showing.

I want to start my remarks again by saying that it may be hometown pride, but I like the headline of the Houston Chronicle that says ``Powerful Together.'' The numbers have not yet been fully calculated, but we know upwards of a million and maybe over a million persons around the Nation, and then they added individuals from foreign countries far and wide. I would take by this title that represents, Mr. Speaker, the peaceful protests--I want to say that again; in fact, I might want to say it two times: peaceful, peaceful protests, nonviolent protests--that occurred on Saturday, expressing the view of what America is really about.

I say that to my colleagues, they are about what the Congressional Black Caucus is about, and I believe our chairman made the point that we come from very diverse districts, representing people of many racial backgrounds, religious backgrounds, as well as economic backgrounds, that we are the voice of reason and the conscience of this Congress. We fight against poverty, but we have Ph.D.'s, lawyers, judges, and we have businesspersons. They, by and large, Mr. Speaker, are charitable individuals who believe in social justice.

That is why we come with a sense of privilege, if you will, to be able to speak about what America truly is. Yesterday at the Community of Faith, under the leadership of Bishop James Dixon, I gathered for a prayer for the Nation. Mr. Speaker, I did not dissect it. I did not eliminate the White House. I did not point out Members of Congress, call them by name. I said a prayer for the Nation, and that included the White House and individuals in the Congress and the Senate. We had international representation. We had the Consulate General of Pakistan. We had imams. We had individuals who worship on Saturday Sabbath. We had people who spoke Spanish, people who spoke, obviously, English. And we gathered to pray for the nation. That is what I think is represented in the message or the title of the ``New Deal for Black America,'' it needs prayer because it is not reflective. Although well-intentioned, I am not sure who may have advised the administration, but it does not speak to the wideness of diversity of the African American population, African American communities in this Nation.

So I want to speak very briefly on questions of health care and justice. I would like to say that in the safe communities of which the administration or the President has offered his new deal, he says: ``We will make our communities safe again. Every poor African-American child must be able to walk down the street in peace. Safety is a civil right. We will invest in training and funding both local and federal law enforcement operations to remove the gang members, drug dealers, and criminal cartels from our neighborhoods. The reduction of crime is not merely a goal--but a necessity.''

In that there is no mention of ending gun violence or looking at sensible gun safety regulations or laws, of which we have asked. I introduced Gun Violence Reduction Resources Act, which really answered Republicans' cry for enforcing the law, to add to the ATF, to enforce the penalties against those who use guns wrong. In particular, the perpetrator in Mother Emanuel should not have been able to get the gun, but he was because the gun dealer was so easy and quick to sell it, even though he had not gotten an affirmation by ATF, that is the one. I would argue it was because they did not have enough personnel.

He also seems to categorize that every poor child has to walk down the streets. We want every child to walk down--as I said, our community is very diverse. He then says: ``Equal Justice Under the Law. We will apply the law fairly, equally and without prejudice. There will be only one set of rules--not a two-tiered system of justice. Equal justice also means the same rules for Wall Street.''

So I quickly want to offer these points before I yield the floor. Number one, we are not all impoverished, but I join my colleagues in ending poverty. African Americans want the same thing as Barbara Jordan said when asked, ``What do your people want?''

``It is the same thing that all America wants.''

Yes, we do want opportunities, but we do have to be more forceful for issues that are relevant.

We have seen nothing in Mr. Trump's statement of a new deal for Black America to deal with sentencing reduction and ending mandatory minimums. We see nothing about working with police departments that have found themselves falling upon bad times and having a plague of bad actors, even though we respect and honor police. And so the Law Enforcement Trust and Integrity Act that John Conyers and myself introduced has to do with correcting the issue of training and the improper inaction of police and community.

I would offer to say that the nominee for the Attorney General is completely opposed to addressing any questions of bad behavior on behalf of bad actors and bad officers. In fact, he opposed consent decrees like the one in Ferguson and Baltimore that were only positive, welcomed by the police departments to help them do a better job at policing the community.

Prison reform to change the matrix of prison, gun violence prevention that I have already mentioned, and healthcare access that are truly crucial to all of us.

Let me also indicate a changing of the matrix of juvenile justice. We want to reauthorize the Juvenile Accountability Block Grant Program Reauthorization Act, but, more importantly, we want to change how we are dealing with juveniles. We want to change from the idea of them being, if you will, punished versus incentivized.

Finally, let me offer to say that two Senators in the other body have offered a new matrix on health care. I understand there are some proposals here. I would say that we see that we can't have unity. We don't have any replacement. What is being offered by the Senators is health savings accounts, which we know are not realistic. So I would offer to the President that there are many ways of looking at serving all of America, including African Americans. It is not listening to your own voice. It is helping us change the matrix for juveniles, changing the matrix for those who are incarcerated, mandatory minimums, the way police and community work, at the same time respecting them, but, more importantly, it is listening and working with Members who have real life experiences in some of the issues that will make this country continue to be the greatest country in the world.

I thank the gentlewoman for her courtesies.

I thank the gentlewoman.

Mr. Speaker, I was struck by some information that I just received. This is a summary of the new deal for Black America. Nowhere in the new deal for Black America is a commitment to protecting voting rights. One of the Achilles heels of the nominee for the Attorney General is he does not have a history of protecting voting rights.

Particularly, I want to acknowledge President George W. Bush because the Congress--both the House and the Senate--worked extensively with him in the reauthorization of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, including section 5, which is preclearance. Lo and behold, the Shelby case imploded section 5. We no longer have it in a potpourri--a flourishing, a garden of weeds--of voter ID laws, one by which my colleague Mr. Veasey, who was a plaintiff, was promoted.

The last point that I want to make is, in addition to not having anything on voting rights, we just had breaking news that the White House has indicated that the President would have had the popular vote if he had not had happen to him 3 to 5 million illegal votes cast. This is being reported. Likewise, what is being reported is there is absolutely no evidence that there were 3 to 5 million illegal votes cast in the 2016 election. I think we need to have focus on voting rights and on the protection of those who vote.

Mr. Speaker, as a senior member of the House Committees on the Judiciary and Homeland Security Committee; Ranking Member of the Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, Homeland Security, and Investigations, and the Congressional Voting Rights Caucus, I rise today to express my views regarding the more troubling nominations made by the President-Elect to fill the important Cabinet posts at the Departments of Justice, Health and Human Services, and Energy.

Let me begin with the nomination of U.S. Senator Jefferson Beauregard ``Jeff' Sessions III of Alabama to be the next Attorney General of the United States.

Mr. Speaker, those of us who oppose the nomination of Senator Sessions to be Attorney General owe a responsibility to the public to be clear and forthright in stating the reasons they believe he should not be confirmed as the Attorney General of the United States.

Many of the senator's supporters, ranging from his Republican colleagues in the Senate to current and former staffers to home state friends and constituents, praise the senator for his modesty and courtesy and manners.

The four-term senator and former state and federal prosecutor is, we are told, learned in the law, a person of deep faith, a good man who loves his family, his state, and his country.

We can, as the lawyers say, stipulate that these assertions are true.

But that does not make him an appropriate and deserving candidate to be Attorney General of the United States.

And that is because the office of Attorney General and the Department of Justice he or she leads is different in a very fundamental way from every other Cabinet department.

Unlike the Secretary of Transportation or Commerce or Education, or even the Secretary of Defense or State, the Attorney General leads a department that is charged with administering the laws and enforcing the Constitutional guarantees and protections that directly affect every American, all 320 million of us.

To quote then-Senator Joseph Biden during the 2001 confirmation hearing of Attorney General nominee John Ashcroft:

This Cabinet position is the single most unique position of

any Cabinet office.

For it's the only one where the nominee or the Cabinet

officer has an equally strong and stronger, quite frankly,

responsibility to the American people as he does to the

person who nominates him.

At that same confirmation hearing, Sen. Dick Durbin of Illinois observed that ``the attorney general, more than any other Cabinet officer, is entrusted with protecting the civil rights of Americans.''

The Attorney General is not the lawyer for the President; the Attorney General is the lawyer, and the Department of Justice the law firm, for the American people.

That is why I agree so strongly with then-Senator Biden when he said in 2001:

[F]or the office of attorney general, first, the question

is whether the attorney general is willing to vigorously

enforce all the laws in the Constitution, even though he

might have philosophical disagreements.

[The second question is] whether he possesses the standing

and temperament that will permit the vast majority of the

American people to believe that you can and will protect and

enforce their individual rights.

Put another way, the U.S. Attorney General and Justice Department is not only the instrument of justice but also the living symbol of the Constitution's promise of equal justice under law.

Mr. Speaker, the nation's greatest Attorney Generals conveyed this commitment to equal justice by their prior experience, their words and deed, and their character.

Think Herbert Brownell, Attorney General for Republican President Eisenhower, who overaw the integration of Little Rock's Central High School.

Think Robert Jackson, Attorney General for Democratic President Franklin Roosevelt, who led the prosecution team at the Nazi War Crimes trial in Nuremburg, Germany.

Think Robert F. Kennedy, for whom the Main Justice Building is named, bringing to bear the instruments of federal power to protect Mississippi Freedom Riders and to stare down Governor George Wallace in the successful effort to integrate the University of Alabama.

The nomination of Alabama Senator Sessions as Attorney General does not inspire the necessary confidence.

As a U.S. Senator from Alabama, the state from which the infamous Supreme Court decision in Shelby County v. Holder originated, Senator Sessions has failed to play a constructive role in repairing the damage to voting rights caused by that decision.

He was one of the leading opponents of the reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act.

He is one of the Senate's most hostile opponents of comprehensive immigration reform and was a principal architect of the draconian and incendiary immigration policy advocated by the President-Elect during the campaign.

And his record in support of efforts to bring needed reform to the nation's criminal justice system is virtually non-existent.

In 1986, ten years before Senator Sessions was elected to the Senate, he was rejected for a U.S. District Court judgeship in view of documented incidents that revealed his lack of commitment to civil and voting rights, and to equal justice.

And his Senate voting record and rhetoric has endeared him to white nationalist websites and organizations like Breitbart and Stormfront.

As a U.S. attorney, Senator Sessions was the first federal prosecutor in the country to bring charges against civil rights activists for voter fraud.

Senator Sessions charged the group with 29 counts of voter fraud, facing over 100 years in prison.

Senator Sessions has repeatedly denied the disproportionate impact of voting restrictions on minorities and has been a leader in the effort to undermine the protections of the Voting Rights Act.

Senator Sessions has spoken out against the Voting Rights Act, calling it ``a piece of intrusive legislation.''

Senator Sessions criticized Attorney General Eric Holder for challenging state election laws, claiming they are necessary to fight voter fraud.

However, evidence supports that voter fraud is almost nonexistent, with 31 confirmed cases out of more than 1 billion ballots cast.

As Attorney General of the state of Alabama, Senator Sessions fought to continue practices that harmed schools predominantly attended by African-American students.

Senator Sessions led the fight to uphold the state of Alabama's inequitable school funding mechanism after it had been deemed unconstitutional by the Alabama circuit court.

In the state of Alabama nearly a quarter of African-American students attend apartheid schools, meaning the school's white population is less than one percent.

Although Senator Sessions has publically taken credit for desegregation efforts in the state of Alabama, there is no evidence of his participation in the desegregation of Alabama schools or any school desegregation lawsuits filed by then Attorney General Sessions.

Mr. Speaker, the United States has been blessed to have been served as Attorney General by such illustrious figures as Robert Jackson, Robert Kennedy, Herbert Brownell, Ramsey Clark, Nicholas Katzenbach, Eric Holder, and Edward H. Levi.

Nothing would do more to reassure the American people that the President-Elect is committed to unifying the nation than the nomination and appointment of a person to be Attorney General 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.

Regrettably, Sen. Jeff Sessions of Alabama is not that person and he should not be confirmed by the Senate to be the nation's 84th Attorney General.

Mr. Speaker, this Monday, January 16, the nation observes for the 31st time the Martin Luther King, Jr. Holiday.

Each year this day is set aside for Americans to celebrate the life and legacy of a man who brought hope and healing to America.

The Martin Luther King Holiday reminds us that nothing is impossible when we are guided by the better angels of our nature.

Dr. King's inspiring words filled a great void in our nation, and answered our collective longing to become a country that truly lived by its noblest principles.

Yet, Dr. King knew that it was not enough just to talk the talk, that he had to walk the walk for his words to be credible.

And so we commemorate on this holiday the man of action, who put his life on the line for freedom and justice every day.

We honor the courage of a man who endured harassment, threats and beatings, and even bombings.

We commemorate the man who went to jail 29 times to achieve freedom for others, and who knew he would pay the ultimate price for his leadership, but kept on marching and protesting and organizing anyway.

Dr. King once said that we all have to decide whether we ``will walk in the light of creative altruism or the darkness of destructive selfishness.

``Life's most persistent and nagging question,'' he said, is ``what are you doing for others?''

And when Dr. King talked about the end of his mortal life in one of his last sermons, on February 4, 1968 in the pulpit of Ebenezer Baptist Church, even then he lifted up the value of service as the hallmark of a full life:

I'd like somebody to mention on that day Martin Luther

King, Jr. tried to give his life serving others,'' he said.

``I want you to say on that day, that I did try in my life .

. . to love and serve humanity.

We should also remember that the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. was, above all, a person who was always willing to speak truth to power.

There is perhaps no better example of Dr. King's moral integrity and consistency than his criticism of the Vietnam War being waged by the Johnson Administration, an administration that was otherwise a friend and champion of civil and human rights.

Martin Luther King, Jr. was born in Atlanta, Georgia on January 15, 1929.

Martin's youth was spent in our country's Deep South, then run by Jim Crow and the Ku Klux Klan.

For young African-Americans, it was an environment even more dangerous than the one they face today.

A young Martin managed to find a dream, one that he pieced together from his readings--in the Bible, and literature, and just about any other book he could get his hands on.

And not only did those books help him educate himself, but they also allowed him to work through the destructive and traumatic experiences of blatant discrimination, and the discriminatory abuse inflicted on himself, his family, and his people.

The Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. that we celebrate here today could have turned out to be just another African-American who would have had to learn to be happy with what he had, and what he was allowed.

But he learned to use his imagination and his dreams to see right through those ``White Only'' signs--to see the reality that all men, and women, regardless of their place of origin, their gender, or their creed, are created equal.

Through his studies, Dr. King learned that training his mind and broadening his intellect effectively shielded him from the demoralizing effects of segregation and discrimination.

Dr. Martin Luther King was a dreamer.

His dreams were a tool through which he was able to lift his mind beyond the reality of his segregated society, and into a realm where it was possible that white and black, red and brown, and all others live and work alongside each other and prosper.

But Martin Luther King, Jr. was not an idle daydreamer.

He shared his visions through speeches that motivated others to join in his nonviolent effort to lift themselves from poverty and isolation by creating a new America where equal justice and institutions were facts of life.

In the Declaration of Independence in 1776, Thomas Jefferson wrote, ``We hold these truths to be self evident, that all Men are Created Equal.''

At that time and for centuries to come, African-Americans were historically, culturally, and legally excluded from inclusion in that declaration.

Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King's ``I Have a Dream'' Speech, delivered 53 years ago, on August 28, 1963, was a clarion call to each citizen of this great nation that we still hear today.

His request was simply and eloquently conveyed--he asked America to allow of its citizens to live out the words written in its Declaration of Independence and to have a place in this nation's Bill of Rights.

The 1960s were a time of great crisis and conflict.

The dreams of the people of this country were filled with troubling images that arose

like lava from the nightmares of violence and the crises they had to face, both domestically and internationally.

It was the decade of the Cuban Missile Crisis, the Vietnam War, and the assassinations of President John Fitzgerald Kennedy, Malcolm X, Presidential Candidate Robert Kennedy, and the man we honor here today.

Dr. Martin Luther King's dream helped us turn the corner on civil rights.

It started when Dr. King led the Montgomery Bus Boycott, with Rosa Parks and others, that lasted for 381 days, and ended when the United States Supreme Court outlawed racial segregation on all public transportation.

But the dream did not die there.

It continued with a peaceful march for suffrage that started in Selma, Alabama on March 7, 1965--a march that ended with violence at the hands of law enforcement officers as the marchers crossed the Edmund Pettus Bridge.

Dr. King used several nonviolent tactics to protest against Jim Crow Laws in the South and he organized and led demonstrations for desegregation, labor and voting rights.

On April 4, 1967, at Riverside Church in New York City, he spoke out against the Vietnam War, when he saw the devastation that his nation was causing abroad and the effect that it had on the American men and women sent overseas.

When the life of Dr. Martin Luther King was stolen from us, he was a very young 39 years old.

People remember that Dr. King died in Memphis, but few can remember why he was there.

On that fateful day in 1968 Dr. King came to Memphis to support a strike by the city's sanitation workers.

The garbage men there had recently formed a chapter of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees to demand better wages and working conditions.

But the city refused to recognize their union, and when the 1,300 employees walked off their jobs the police broke up the rally with mace and billy clubs.

It was then that union leaders invited Dr. King to Memphis.

Despite the danger he might face entering such a volatile situation, it was an invitation he could not refuse.

Not because he longed for danger, but because the labor movement was intertwined with the civil rights movement for which he had given up so many years of his life.

The death of the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., will never overshadow his life.

That is his legacy as a dreamer and a man of action.

It is a legacy of hope, tempered with peace.

It is a legacy not quite yet fulfilled.

I hope that Dr. King's vision of equality under the law is never lost to us, who in the present, toil in times of unevenness in our equality.

For without that vision--without that dream--we can never continue to improve on the human condition.

For those who have already forgotten, or whose vision is already clouded with the fog of complacency, I would like to recite the immortal words of the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.:

I have a dream that one day on the red hills of Georgia the

sons of former slaves and the sons of former shareholders

will be able to sit down together at the table of

brotherhood.

I have a dream that one day even the State of Mississippi,

a state sweltering with the heat of injustice, sweltering

with the heat of oppression, will be transformed into an

oasis offreedom and justice.

I have a dream that my four little children will one day

live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color

of their skin, but for the content of their character.

I have a dream today.

I have a dream that one day down in Alabama with its

vicious racists, with its Governor having his lips dripping

with words of interposition and nullification--one day right

there in Alabama, little black boys and black girls will be

able to join hands with little white boys and white girls as

sisters and brothers.

I have a dream today.

I have a dream that one day every valley shall be exalted,

every hill and mountain shall be made low, the rough place

will be made plain and the crooked places will be made

straight, and the glory of the Lord shall be revealed, and

all flesh shall see it together.

Dr. King's dream did not stop at racial equality, his ultimate dream was one of human equality and dignity.

There is no doubt that Dr. King wished and worked for freedom and justice for every individual in America.

He was in midst of planning the 1968 Poor People's Campaign for Jobs and Justice when he struck down by the dark deed of an assassin on April 4, 1968.

It is for us, the living, to continue that fight today and forever, in the great spirit that inspired the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to address an increasing concern about the threat against our law enforcement officers, many of whom have been killed by civilians in the line of duty this past year.

We must honor and protect the men, and women that wake up every day to put their lives on the line for us, making an incredible sacrifice to keep their communities safe.

Without them our communities would be broken and our nation would be left fragmented.

Today more than 900,000 law enforcement officers serve the people of this nation, risking their lives for the communities they serve.

Last year proved to be one of tremendous violence, witnessing the loss of 140 law enforcement officers' lives across the nation--65 of whom died from gun violence alone.

Texas experienced the highest rate of law enforcement killings in the line of duty during, tolling 19 deaths--seven of whom were killed as a result of gun violence.

Dallas Police Department:

Senior Corporal Lorne Bradley Ahrens, July 8, 2016;

Officer Patricio E. Zamarripa, July 7, 2016;

Sergeant Michael Joseph Smith, July 7, 2016,;

Officer Michael Leslie Krol, July 7, 2016.

Dallas Area Rapid Transit Police Department:

Officer Brent Alan Thompson, 7/7/16.

Euless Police Department:

Officer David Stefan Hofer, 3/1/16.

San Antonio Police Department:

Detective Benjamin Edward Marconi, 11/20/16.

Today I rise in solidarity with the police departments and communities mourning the loss of their loved ones.

These brave men and women risk their lives to keep us safe and are too often taken from their families by the violence they toil to prevent.

Mr. Speaker, I ask for a moment of silence in memory of all of the Law Enforcement officers killed on the line of duty during 2016.

I thank the distinguished gentleman.

Mr. Chairman, I stand in opposition to this reckless, irresponsible, heartless, and bare bones Republican budget resolution because it does nothing to provide jobs for the American workers; it does nothing to invest in the roads, bridges, ports, cyber networks, and other infrastructure that is needed to sustain economic growth; it explodes the deficit and enriches those who are already wealthy at the expense of middle and working class families.

In particular, this foolish rush to repeal the Affordable Care Act makes plain for all to see that congressional Republicans are far more interested in scoring political points with their rightwing base than they are in protecting the health and economic security of American families.

Thirty million people will lose their insurance; the insurance market will be in shambles; and families left behind will have higher premiums. We will close rural hospitals; and hospitals will lose billions of dollars and might reduce services and cut jobs. The economy will lose 2.6 million jobs.

Repeal and replace is just a straw man. It is about real lives, like Pamela Gross', who suffers from chronic lupus and a number of other autoimmune disorders that have required her to spend upwards of $5,000.

I thank the gentleman.

She writes: ``I asked my doctor recently, `With all that's going on, would I make it without treatment?' The doctor's answer: `No.'''

In her instance, if the Affordable Care Act goes--if is it repealed-- she could completely lose her eligibility for expanded Medicaid and simply die. A young man in my district would die as well.

This is a bad bill. Vote against it. Save America's good health.

Mr. Chair, I rise today in strong opposition to S. Con. Res. 3, the Congressional Budget Resolution for Fiscal Year 2017, which more appropriately should be known as the ``Make America Sick Again'' Budget.

I stand in opposition to this reckless, irresponsible, heartless, and bare-bones Republican budget resolution because it does nothing to provide jobs for American workers; does nothing to invest in the roads, bridges, ports, cybernetworks, and other infrastructure needed to sustain economic growth; and explodes the deficit and enriches those who are already wealthy at the expense of middle and working-class families.

Let us be very clear about the real objective of our Republican colleagues: their sole purpose in bringing this resolution to the floor is to pave the way for the repeal of the Affordable Care Act and the defunding of Planned Parenthood by a simple majority vote in the Senate.

This foolish rush to repeal the Affordable Care Act makes plain for all to see that congressional Republicans are far more interested in scoring political points with their right-wing base than they are in protecting the health and economic security of American families.

Mr. Chair, the Affordable Care Act has been an undisputed success, making access to quality affordable healthcare available to more than 20 million Americans who previously lived with the dreaded fear that an unexpected injury or illness to them or a family member would go untreated or could bankrupt their families.

While House Republicans may pine for a return to those bad old days, the large majority of Americans do not because they understand that repeal of the Affordable Care Act will have devastating consequences for working families, women, and the economy.

Mr. Chair, health care experts, governors, and hospitals warn that repealing the ACA without a comprehensive plan in its place will cause chaos and catastrophe, including:

1. Nearly 30 million people would lose health care coverage, including more than 4 million kids;

2. With the individual insurance market in shambles, families remaining in what's left of it could face higher premiums and fewer choices as insurers exit;

3. Hospitals would lose billions of dollars and might reduce services or cut jobs; and rural hospitals would close.

4. The economy would lose 2.6 million jobs in 2019, with the majority in non-health sectors.

Additionally, eliminating Medicaid funding to Planned Parenthood would severely restrict women's access to comprehensive care such as contraception, cancer screenings, and STI tests and treatments.

Mr. Chair, Republicans claim they have a replacement plan for the Affordable Care Act but the truth is they do not have a plan now nor have they in the past nor will they in the future.

``Repeal and Replace'' is an empty slogan and is about as serious as the President-Elect's promise of ``something terrific.''

Republicans have had seven years to produce and coalesce around an alternative to the ACA, and they totally failed.

The reason for their failure is they are afflicted with Obama Derangement Syndrome that blinds them to the ACA's substantial and positive improvements in people's lives.

Without the ACA, insurance companies could continue to make their own rules, and deny coverage based on a person's health status or job, offer lousy benefits, and impose annual and lifetime limits.

Without the ACA, seniors would still face the Part D donut hole and have to pay more for drugs, and parents would not be able to keep their kids on their plan until age 26.

Without the ACA, 20 million people would not have gained coverage, and we would not have the lowest uninsured rate on record.

If Republicans really thought they could match this record of success, they would have unveiled and campaigned on their alternative plan in the last election or at least reveal it to the American people right now.

It is immoral to put families, the health care system, or our economy at risk by repealing the ACA, hurting the economy, ballooning the deficit, and giving hundreds of billions of dollars in tax cuts to corporations and the wealthy.

Mr. Chair, the constituents of the 18th Congressional District of Texas, which I am privileged to represent, are not buying the `Repeal and Replace' bill of goods that Republicans are selling because they know the Affordable Care Act, which they lovingly call ObamaCare, has brought peace of mind and security where before there was only worry and fear.

Here are some of the ways the Affordable Care Act has made a positive difference to the residents of my congressional district:

1. Coverage for the Previously Uninsured.

Up to 193,000 individuals in the district who lack health insurance will have access to quality, affordable coverage without fear of discrimination or higher rates because of a preexisting health condition.

2. Tax Credits to Make Insurance Affordable.

Under the ACA, tax credits are available to assist individuals and families purchase the private health insurance they need.

The amount of these tax credits range from $630 to $4,480 for individuals and from $3,550 to $11,430 for a family of four.

This benefits as many as 446,850 constituents in my congressional district.

3. Extra Benefits for Seniors.

More than 4,100 seniors in my district receive prescription drug discounts worth an average of $828 per person.

4. Extended Coverage for Young Adults.

11,400 young adults in the district now have health insurance through their parents' plan.

5. No Exorbitant Out-of-Pocket Expenses, Deductibles or Co-Pays.

121,000 individuals in my district--including 23,000 children and 50,000 women--now have health insurance that covers preventive services without any co-pays, coinsurance, or deductible.

6. Premium Rebates.

113,000 individuals in my district are saving money due to ACA provisions that prevent insurance companies from spending more than 20% of their premiums on profits and administrative overhead.

7. No Discrimination for Pre-Existing Conditions.

In my district, up to 46,000 children with preexisting health conditions no longer can be denied coverage by health insurers.

8. No Annual or Lifetime Caps on Coverage.

153,000 individuals in my district now have insurance that cannot place lifetime limits on their coverage and no long face annual limits on coverage.

It is said often, Mr. Chair, but is no less true, that the federal budget is more than a financial document; it is an expression of the nation's most cherished values.

As the late and great former senator and Vice-President Hubert Humphrey said:

The moral test of government is how that government treats

those who are in the dawn of life, the children; those who

are in the twilight of life, the elderly; and those who are

in shadows of life, the sick, the needy, and the handicapped.

It is for this reason that in evaluating the merits of a budget resolution, it is not enough to subject it only to the test of fiscal responsibility.

To keep faith with the nation's past, to be fair to the nation's present, and to safeguard the nation's future, the budget must also pass a ``moral test.''

The Republican budget resolution fails both of these standards.

Because the American people deserve to know exactly what ills Republicans have in store for them, I strongly oppose S. Con. Res. 3 and urge all Members to join me in voting against the reckless, cruel, and heartless measure that will do nothing to improve the lives or well-being of middle and working class families.

Pamela Gross dreads repeal of Medicaid expansion. Still, millions of people like Gross, could face immediate effects. While her disability allows her access to Medicare coverage, she also relies on Medi-Cal, California's Medicaid program, to help pay for costs Medicare doesn't. Gross says she was insured before Obamacare became law. But her Medi- Cal coverage, which she relies on to pay her monthly premiums and co- pays, hung in the balance each year when she received a Supplemental Security Income cost of living increase. The minor jump in pay threatened to push her out of eligibility for the program, which would leave her without the means to pay for a private insurance policy and the doctor visits and medications she says her life literally depends on.

``I asked my doctor recently, with all that's going on would I make it without treatment?'' The doctor's answer: ``No,'' Gross says.

Because Obamacare expanded eligibility for Medicaid and increased the program's income limits, Gross no longer has to be concerned each year that the cost-of-living increase she receives from her SSI income will throw her out of coverage. That would change if Medicaid expansion is eliminated as part of the law's repeal.

``If they repeal I could completely lose eligibility,'' she says. ``I would die.''

I thank the gentleman specifically for a clarity on the status of General Mattis as the legislation is written.

I think it is important, Mr. Speaker, that all of us who stand make sure the American people know of our greatest respect and honor for General Mattis. His history of service to this Nation, his tactical expertise, and his ability to acknowledge the constitutional underpinnings of which this Nation is based is without question. But we have, as my colleagues have said on the other side of the aisle, a very serious moment in history.

In the public domain is a conspicuous intrusion of Russia and the election of 2016. There is also knowledge of other areas of which they have used the cyber system for cyber warfare.

The talent of military persons is welcome, but that is the strength of this Nation: that we don't yield and bend this little book called the Constitution, which has, as I indicated, its essence being that our Nation is governed by the civilian population under principles of democracy and equality, the recognition of the three branches of government, and the separation of our military and civilian operation.

This waiver is extraordinary. This waiver, I believe, undermines the very sense of the freedom of our military, its ability to counsel as a separate entity, and it undermines, again, the idea that in 1947 our Congress decided to acknowledge and only waived to General Marshall because of the potential concern and catastrophe of the Korean conflict, now Korean war. It has not been done since.

So I would ask my colleagues whether or not we are going to bend--not bend the arc toward justice and recognition of the Constitution, but bend at any moment of convenience. I do not believe that this is a time in history to bend for convenience.

I believe General Mattis would agree, with his very fine record, that civilian control of the government should be superior and raise the question himself, if asked, whether or not this waiver is for this time and for now and whether or not we are in such a moment of history that that waiver needs to be granted. My view is that it does not. My view is that we should, in essence, adhere to the regularness of constitutional premise and also to recognize the well-established separation of civilian and military.

At this time, I want to thank General Mattis for his service, and I would argue that this resolution should receive a ``no'' vote from our colleagues in the United States House of Representatives.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to S. 84, which provides an exception to a limitation against appointment of persons as Secretary of Defense within seven years of relief from active duty as a regular commissioned officer of the Armed Forces so that the President-Elect can nominate Gen. James Mattis to serve as the next Secretary of Defense.

Gen. Mattis retired from active duty in 2013, which under current law, makes him ineligible for appointment as Secretary of Defense.

Civilian control of the military has been a bedrock principle of our democracy since the founding of the Republic.

That principle has served the nation well and there is no reason to depart from from 66 years of precedent in strictly protecting the American principle of civilian control over the military.

Indeed, in the history of the Department of Defense, the only Defense Secretary ever given a waiver was then-Secretary of State, General George Marshall--who was provided an individual waiver in 1950 at the height of the Korean War in a stand-alone bill approved by the Congress.

It is not the service of the individual nominated or his or her fitness to serve that is in question, but the dangerous precedent that would be set by entrusting leadership of the Department of Defense to a retired military person whose active duty military experiences have not been moderated by the tempering effect of life in the civil sector.

I urge all Members to join me in voting against S. 84.

Mr. Speaker, as a senior member of both the Judiciary Committee and the Homeland Security Committee, I rise in celebration of the over 1 million Texans who have gained healthcare coverage under the Affordable Health Care Act, and the millions of Americans more whose lives have been exponentially improved by access to substantial increases in life-saving coverage.

The data show that the uninsured rate in Texas has fallen by 28 percent since the Affordable Care Act (ACA) was enacted in 2010, translating into 1,781,000 Texans gaining coverage.

In addition to residents who would otherwise be uninsured, millions more Texans with employer, Medicaid, individual market, or Medicare coverage have also benefited from new protections as a result of the law.

With respect to employer coverage, 13,709,000 people in Texas are covered through employer-sponsored health plans.

Since the ACA was enacted in 2010, this group has seen:

(1) An end to annual and lifetime limits:

Before the ACA, 7,536,000 Texans with employer or individual market coverage had a lifetime limit on their insurance policy.

That meant their coverage could end exactly when they needed it most.

The ACA prohibits annual and lifetime limits on policies, so all Texans with employer plans now have coverage that's there when they need it.

(2) Young adults covered until age 26:

An estimated 205,000 young adults in Texas have benefited from the ACA provision that allows kids to stay on their parents' health insurance up to age 26.

(3) Free preventive care:

Under the ACA, health plans must cover preventive services--like flu shots, cancer screenings, contraception, and mammograms--at no extra cost to consumers.

This provision benefits 10,278,005 people in Texas, most of whom have employer coverage.

(4) Slower premium growth:

The average premium for Texas families with employer coverage grew 3.5 percent per year from 2010-2015, compared with 8.1 percent over the previous decade.

Assuming Texas premiums grew in line with the national average in 2016, family premiums in Texas are $5,400 lower today than if growth had matched the pre-ACA decade.

(5) Better value through the 80/20 rule:

Because of the ACA, health insurance companies must spend at least 80 cents of each premium dollar on health care or care improvements, rather than administrative costs like salaries or marketing, or else give consumers a refund;.

Texans with employer coverage have received $20,082,448 in insurance refunds since 2012.

With respect to Medicaid, 4,770,229 people in Texas are covered by Medicaid or the Children's Health Insurance Program, including 3,512,929 children and 374,617 seniors and people with disabilities covered by both Medicaid and Medicare.

The ACA expanded Medicaid eligibility and strengthened the program for those already eligible.

An estimated 1,107,000 Texans could have health insurance today if Texas expanded Medicaid under the ACA.

Coverage improves access to care, financial security, and health; expansion would result in an estimated 127,000 more Texans getting all needed care, 157,400 fewer Texans struggling to pay medical bills, and 1,330 avoided deaths each year.

406,000 Texans, or an estimated 23 percent of those who could gain Medicaid coverage through expansion, have a mental illness or substance use disorder.

Texas could be saving millions in uncompensated care costs. Instead of spending $1 billion on uncompensated care, which increases costs for everyone, Texas could be getting $5 billion in federal support to provide low-income adults with much needed care.

Children, people with disabilities, and seniors can more easily access Medicaid coverage. The ACA streamlined Medicaid eligibility processes, eliminating hurdles so that vulnerable Texans could more easily access and maintain coverage.

Texas can better fight opioids. Under the ACA, CMS provided technical assistance that is giving Texas the opportunity to strengthen Medicaid services for people struggling with opioid abuse or other substance use disorders (SUDs).

With respect to Medicare, 3,765,946 people in Texas are covered by Medicare. The ACA strengthened the Medicare Trust Fund, extending its life by over a decade. In addition, Medicare enrollees have benefited from:

Lower costs for prescription drugs: Because the ACA is closing the prescription drug donut hole, 346,750 Texas seniors are saving $366 million on drugs in 2015, an average of $1,057 per beneficiary.

Free preventive services: The ACA added coverage of an annual wellness visit and eliminated cost-sharing for recommended preventive services such as cancer screenings. In 2015, 1,746,043 Texas seniors, or 72 percent of all Texas seniors enrolled in Medicare Part B, took advantage of at least one free preventive service.

Fewer hospital mistakes: The ACA introduced new incentives for hospitals to avoid preventable patient harms and avoidable readmissions. Hospital readmissions for Texas Medicare beneficiaries dropped 6 percent between 2010 and 2015, which translates into 4,960 times Texas Medicare beneficiaries avoided an unnecessary return to the hospital in 2015.

More coordinated care: The ACA encouraged groups of doctors, hospitals, and other health care providers to come together to provide coordinated high-quality care to the Medicare patients they serve. 37 Accountable Care Organizations (ACOs) in Texas now offer Medicare beneficiaries the opportunity to receive higher quality, more coordinated care.

Now is not the time to undermine or slow the ability of our insurance providers to address growing threats and active cases of Americans' health crises.

Accordingly, I urge all Members to join me in protecting the gains achieved by the Affordable Healthcare Act.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to keep America healthy, saving the Affordable Care Act.

I rise in the name of Cynthia Perry, facing a life-or-death scenario. Without the law in place, Cynthia Perry would also be facing life or death. Perry suffers from an immune deficiency that requires her to take medication she estimates costs roughly $40,000 a year. Cynthia, who lives today.

I rise to keep America healthy. Kathryn Will, terrified about losing access to treatment, terrified because she, herself, at 28 years old, was diagnosed with stage III breast cancer.

I rise to keep America healthy because a Senator from Kentucky said we need to think through how we do this, and it is a huge mistake for Republicans if they do not vote for replacement on the same day they vote for repeal.

I rise to keep America healthy and not give hundreds of billions of dollars in tax breaks to insurance companies and drug manufacturers while eliminating tax credits for millions of working Americans.

I rise to keep America healthy. Vote to save the Affordable Care Act.

Mr. Speaker, as a senior member of the House Committees on the Judiciary and Homeland Security Committee; Ranking Member of the Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, Homeland Security, and Investigations, and the Congressional Voting Rights Caucus, I rise today to express my views regarding the more troubling nominations made by the President-Elect to fill the important Cabinet posts at the Departments of Justice, Health and Human Services, and Energy.

Let me begin with the nomination of U.S. Senator Jefferson Beauregard ``Jeff'' Sessions III of Alabama to be the next Attorney General of the United States.

Mr. Speaker, those of us who oppose the nomination of Senator Sessions to be Attorney General owe a responsibility to the public to clear and forthright in stating the reasons they believe he should not be confirmed as the Attorney General of the United States.

Many of the senator's supporters, ranging from his Republican colleagues in the Senate to current and former staffers to home state friends and constituents, praise the senator for his modesty and courtesy and manners.

The four-term senator and former state and federal prosecutor is, we are told, learned in the law, a person of deep faith, a good man who loves his family, his state, and his country.

We can, as the lawyers say, stipulate that these assertions are true.

But that does not make him an appropriate and deserving candidate to be Attorney General of the United States.

And that is because the office of Attorney General and the Department of Justice he or she leads is different in a very fundamental way from every other Cabinet department.

Unlike the Secretary of Transportation or Commerce or Education, or even the Secretary of Defense or State, the Attorney General leads a department that is charged with administering the laws and enforcing the Constitutional guarantees and protections that directly affect every American, all 320 million of us.

To quote then-Senator Joseph Biden during the 2001 confirmation hearing of Attorney General nominee John Ashcroft:

``This Cabinet position is the single most unique position of any Cabinet office.''

``For it's the only one where the nominee or the Cabinet officer has an equally strong and stronger, quite frankly, responsibility to the American people as he does to the person who nominates him.''

At that same confirmation hearing, Sen. Dick Durbin of Illinois observed that ``the attorney general, more than any other Cabinet officer, is entrusted with protecting the civil rights of Americans.''

The Attorney General is not the lawyer for the President; the Attorney General is the lawyer, and the Department of Justice the law firm, for the American people.

That is why I agree so strongly with then-Senator Biden when he said in 2001:

``[F]or the office of attorney general, first, the question is whether the attorney general is willing to vigorously enforce all the laws in the Constitution, even though he might have philosophical disagreements.''

``[The second question is] whether he possesses the standing and temperament that will permit the vast majority of the American people to believe that you can and will protect and enforce their individual rights.''

Put another way, the U.S. Attorney General and Justice Department is not only the instrument of justice but also the living symbol of the Constitution's promise of equal justice under law.

Mr. Speaker, the nation's greatest Attorney Generals conveyed this commitment to equal justice by their prior experience, their words and deed, and their character.

Think Herbert Brownell, Attorney General for Republican President Eisenhower, who overaw the integration of Little Rock's Central High School.

Think Robert Jackson, Attorney General for Democratic President Franklin Roosevelt, who led the prosecution team at the Nazi War Crimes trial in Nuremburg, Germany.

Think Robert F. Kennedy, for whom the Main Justice Building is named, bringing to bear the instruments of federal power to protect Mississippi Freedom Riders and to stare down Governor George Wallace in the successful effort to integrate the University of Alabama.

The nomination of Alabama Senator Sessions as Attorney General does not inspire the necessary confidence.

As a U.S. Senator from Alabama, the state from which the infamous Supreme Court decision in Shelby County v. Holder originated, Senator Sessions has failed to play a constructive role in repairing the damage to voting rights caused by that decision.

He was one of the leading opponents of the reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act.

He is one of the Senate's most hostile opponents of comprehensive immigration reform and was a principal architect of the draconian and incendiary immigration policy advocated by the President-Elect during the campaign.

And his record in support of efforts to bring needed reform to the nation's criminal justice system is virtually non-existent.

In 1986, ten years before Senator Sessions was elected to the Senate, he was rejected for a U.S. District Court judgeship in view of documented incidents that revealed his lack of commitment to civil and voting rights, and to equal justice.

And his Senate voting record and rhetoric has endeared him to white nationalist websites and organizations like Breitbart and Stormfront.

As a U.S. attorney, Senator Sessions was the first federal prosecutor in the country to bring charges against civil rights activist for voter fraud.

Senator Sessions charged the group with 29 counts of voter fraud, facing over 100 years in prison.

Senator Sessions has repeatedly denied the disproportionate impact of voting restrictions on minorities and has been a leader in the effort to undermine the protections of the Voting Rights Act.

Senator Sessions has spoken out against the Voting Rights Act, calling it ``a piece of intrusive legislation.''

Senator Sessions criticized Attorney General Eric Holder for challenging state election laws, claiming they are necessary to fight voter fraud.

However, evidence supports that voter fraud is almost nonexistent, with 31 confirmed cases out of more than 1 billion ballots cast.

As Attorney General of the state of Alabama, Senator Sessions fought to continue practices that harmed schools predominantly attended by African-American students.

Senator Sessions led the fight to uphold the state of Alabama's inequitable school funding mechanism after it had been deemed unconstitutional by the Alabama circuit court.

In the state of Alabama nearly a quarter of African-American students attend apartheid schools, meaning the school's white population is less than one percent.

Although Senator Sessions has publicly taken credit for desegregation efforts in the state of Alabama, there is no evidence of his participation in the desegregation of Alabama schools or any school desegregation lawsuits filed by then Attorney General Sessions.

Mr. Speaker, The United States has been blessed to have been served as Attorney General by such illustrious figures as Robert Jackson, Robert Kennedy, Herbert Brownell, Ramsey Clark, Nicholas Katzenbach, Eric Holder, and Edward H. Levi.

Nothing would do more to reassure the American people that the President-Elect is committed to unifying the nation than the nomination and appointment of a person to be Attorney General 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.

Regrettably, Sen. Jeff Sessions of Alabama is not that person and he should not be confirmed by the Senate to be the nation's 84th Attorney General.

Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday, January 10, 2017, I traveled to Chicago at the invitation of the President of the United States to attend his Farewell Address to the Nation. Consequently, I was not present for Roll Call Votes 29 through 31. Had I been present, I would have voted as follows:

On Roll Call 29, I would have voted AYE. (Velazquez Amendment to H.R. 79, Helping Angels Lead Our Startups Act (``HALOS Act'')

On Roll Call 30, I would have voted AYE. (Clay/Waters Amendment to H.R. 79, Helping Angels Lead Our Startups Act (``HALOS Act'')

On Roll Call 31, I would have voted AYE. (Final Passage of H.R. 79, Helping Angels Lead Our Startups Act (``HALOS Act'')

Mr. Speaker, on Wednesday, January 11, 2017, I was unavoidably detained attending to representation duties and was not present for rollcall Votes 32 through 34. Had I been present, I would have voted as follows: On rollcall 32, I would have voted ``no.'' On rollcall 33, I would have voted ``no.'' On rollcall 34, I would have voted ``aye.''

Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished chairman and the distinguished ranking member for convening us. It reenforces my commitment to the importance of the House Judiciary Committee for important, innovative, and groundbreaking, in some instances, work that we have done.

In this instance, I find fault because this legislation does not meet that criteria. Just a few days ago, we read the

Constitution, and some might make the argument that H.R. 5 fits very comfortably into the Bill of Rights, Amendment V and Amendment XIV. Both frame themselves around the question of due process. I make the argument that this legislation is sorely lacking.

I want to take up, first of all, a point made by my colleague, a member of the Rules Committee. This legislation, to my recalling, has been circulated for many years. It seems that I have been in the House when a bill like H.R. 5 has passed over and over again.

This bill appeared in the 114th Congress. Many Members left since that time. New Members are here. New Members, Republicans and Democrats, will be added to the House Judiciary Committee and to the Senate Judiciary Committee. None of them will have had the opportunity for regular order, to be able to ensure hearings and to be able to engage in input with amendments that I would agree or disagree with, but to have a vigorous debate in our Judiciary Committee as well as in the Senate. It did not happen. We are now on the floor of the House. So that is one fracture of what we are doing, one Achilles' heel to this legislation.

In the last 24 hours, I heard a news account of a little boy who swallowed magnets that were produced by a particular company. It went through the process. It was designated dangerous; and then, unfortunately, that dangerous status was pulled back, and the company is excited about producing those magnets again.

The little boy who swallowed the magnets, I think, was about 2 years old. A happy little boy, of course, that is how children are. He had major intestinal surgery, and most of his intestines were removed. He is now 6 years old, and he must now be fed intravenously.

His devastation is our failure. That is what we are facing with H.R. 5.

I don't know if my colleagues agree, as boring as the Administrative Procedure Act was in law school, I liked the course. I had a great professor who made me understand the life of the APA and its value. This legislation attempts to rewrite the Administrative Procedure Act to the detriment of the American people.

Consider this, hardworking agencies should have oversight; that is what our committees are all about. They should have oversight. They will now have to jump through hoops of 70 new criteria. I didn't say 10; I didn't say a quarter of 100, 25; I didn't say a half of 100, 50; but 70 when issuing rules, including alternatives to any rule proposal, the scope of the problems the rule meant to address, and potential cost and benefits of the proposal and alternative.

I want to see small businesses thrive. Part of that includes a reasonable healthcare package like ObamaCare, the Affordable Care Act, for its employees, a reasonable new structure dealing with taxation that helps small businesses and does not give a mountain of benefit to major corporations.

Maybe we should address the needs of small businesses in that manner, or, as my minority constituents tell me, access to credit which is generally denied to women, Hispanics, in some instances, and certainly African Americans. That may help our small businesses get them back on their feet. But that is not what H.R. 5 does. It stifles the work of our agencies of which we have attributed to them, the Small Business Administration, Health and Human Services, the Federal Trade Commission, the FCC, and, in some instances, the Department of Justice articulating regulations dealing with funding of juvenile issues.

I thank the gentleman.

These are agencies that are depended upon to give regular order. Oversight is important, but I would make the argument that stifling, denying, demolishing, or destroying is not order.

Now, I had an amendment that I think is crucial. It is to provide an exception under this bill for regulations that help prevent cyber attacks on election processes or institutions. Mr. Chairman, not only have we found with much profoundness that a foreign entity, in this instance Russia, maybe it might be Iran, maybe it might be some other country, intruded into the democratic process of elections. I am glad Senator Graham said this is not Republicans or Democrats. This is about the integrity of the election system. And why we were hesitant to make this amendment in order, because there is no stopping of the peaceful transfer of government. The American people see to that process. Thank God for our love of democracy. We are able to express our opposition in many different ways.

But there is no doubt there was not only intrusion, there was skewing from one candidate versus another. There are prints--this is public knowledge--that have been able to be tracked to suggest who, what, and what country, and how far up the chain to Mr. Putin that it went to.

So my amendment, I think, was constructive. Why would we be reluctant to debate it? Why would we be reluctant to acknowledge the intelligence report assessing Russian activities and intentions in the recent U.S. elections? And why would we be reluctant to find out who was involved?

H.R. 5 is not doing what it is supposed to do. It is, in fact, undermining the Constitution and eliminating the protections for a little boy who now lives his life completely different because maybe we didn't intervene in the regulatory manner of oversight over that product that we should have, and maybe now we have given them a pass so that other children might suffer the same consequences. I ask my colleagues to vote against the underlying bill and send it back for us to do the work of the people in regular order.

Mr. Chair, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 5, the ``Regulatory Accountability Act of 2017,'' which is a radical measure that could make it impossible to promulgate safety regulations to protect the public.

I oppose this legislation because it would effectively shut down the entire U.S. regulatory system, amending in one fell swoop every bedrock existing regulatory statute.

My opposition to H.R. 5 is amplified by the Rules Committee's decision to decline to make in order the Jackson Lee Amendment, ``to provide an exception for regulations that help prevent cyberattacks on election processes or institutions.''

Apparently, House Republicans are still reluctant to debate the subject--undisputed by our Intelligence community--of Russian cyberattacks on American cyber networks and infrastructure.

Key Judgments in the Intelligence Community Assessment's declassified version of a highly classified report entitled, ``Assessing Russian Activities and Intentions in Recent U.S. Elections,'' have confirmed that 2016 witnessed the first American presidential election that was the subject of cyberattacks.

These and other subversive activities have been confirmed to have been perpetrated by entities allied with the Government of Russia and were undertaken for the express purpose of influencing the presidential contest to secure the election of its preferred candidate, Donald Trump, who made history by becoming the first presidential candidate to invite a hostile foreign power to launch cyberattacks against his political opponent.

All three agencies, CIA, FBI and NSA, agree with this judgment.

The so-called Regulatory Accountability Act (RAA), in addition if to this rule, demonstrates the deceptive design of the majority to make it harder to establish regulations to protect the public by tilting the entire regulatory system significantly toward special interests.

The bill allows Federal courts without expertise on technical issues to substitute their judgment for those of the expert federal agencies.

These agencies are staffed with career subject matter experts that are deeply knowledgeable of the background, context, and history of agency actions and policy rationale.

For this reason, courts have long deferred to agency experts who are in the best position to carry out the statutes.

The RAA would end this well-established practice and allow far less experienced judges to second guess expert opinion--essentially sanctioning judicial activism.

The Jackson Lee Amendment, however, would have attuned this dangerous legislation to provide an exception for regulation upon which Americans so greatly rely on their government to help prevent cyberattacks on our highly coveted and esteemed election processes and institutions.

The bill promoted by the majority, calling for accountability from our Administrative Agencies--fails to answer in accountability to the threat posed by foreign and domestic invaders on our national cyber networks.

As the new Congress commences in the People's House, obstructionist Republicans are circumventing the very procedures by which elected officials answer the cries of outrage and dismay of desperately concerned constituents.

To the obstructionist majority perpetuating this restrictive rule, let me stand firm in the American convictions laid bare by the Jackson Lee Amendment--the system of Checks and Balances established by the Separation of Powers clause of the Constitution will not be thwarted.

The spirit of the H.R. 5 is clearly designed to stop all regulation dead in its tracks--no matter the threat to cyber networks, national security, economy, or the very health and safety of the American people.

We know that Russia's cyber activities were intended to influence the election, erode faith in U.S. democratic institutions, sow doubt about the integrity of our electoral process, and undermine confidence in the institutions of the U.S. government. These actions are unacceptable and will not be tolerated.

The mission of the Intelligence Community is to seek to reduce the uncertainty surrounding foreign activities, capabilities, or leaders' intentions.

On these issues of great importance to U.S. national security, the goal of intelligence analysis is to provide assessments to decision makers that are intellectually rigorous, objective, timely, and useful, and that adhere to tradecraft standards.

Applying these standards helps ensure that the Intelligence Community provides U.S. policymakers, warfighters, and operators with the best and most accurate insight, warning, and context, as well as potential opportunities to advance U.S. national security.

This objective is difficult to achieve when seeking to understand complex issues on which foreign actors go to extraordinary lengths to hide or obfuscate their activities.

My amendment would have improved H.R. 5 by exempting only those regulations critical to making cyber networks invulnerable to attack from foreign and domestic agencies and individuals.

Specifically, the amendment that the Rules Committee disallowed for presentation on a vote here on the floor today would have provided the American people an exemption to allow for the prevention of tampering, alteration, or misappropriation of information by agents of foreign countries with the purpose or effect of interfering with or undermining election processes or institutions.

In particular, restrictions put forth in H.R. 5 could result in further delay to agencies attempting to take action to help network defenders better identify new tactics or techniques that a malicious actor might deploy or detect and disrupt an ongoing intrusion, in addition to protecting data that enables cybersecurity firms and other network defenders to identify certain malware that the Russian intelligence services use.

The Regulatory Accountability Act provides no accountability to the American public.

Instead, it allows polluting industries and special interests to game the system and escape accountability for any harm they inflict.

It makes it incredibly difficult, if not impossible, to secure new public protections and arms industry with numerous tools to avoid their legal obligations.

The increasing use of cyber-enabled means to undermine democratic processes at home and abroad, as exemplified by Russia's recent activities, has made clear that a tool explicitly targeting attempts to interfere with elections is also warranted.

We cannot afford to let global terroristic threats, in the form of cyber activities, erode faith in U.S. democratic institutions, sow doubt about the integrity of our electoral process, influence elections, or undermine confidence in the institutions of the U.S. government.

My amendment would have offered protections guarding the integrity of our cyber networks, while at the same time allowing the bill to achieve the proponents' major purposes.

For these reasons and more, I oppose this bill.

Mr. Chairman, I applaud Mr. Johnson, the ranking member of the subcommittee for his leadership on these issues, and the ranking member of the full committee, Mr. Conyers, for his persistent leadership, having gone over this bill any number of times. Let me mention that Mr. Johnson's amendment is vital because it deals with vulnerable workforce individuals, individuals with disabilities, limited English proficiency, and other requirements. And I would beg to differ with my good friend from Pennsylvania, 70 different elements of criteria that you will put these regulations through, you are simply trying to implode those who advocate for the rights of workers, unions, and others. Therefore, I would question the viability of trying to obstruct, helping these vulnerable workers. This is a very good amendment.

Let me be very clear. Since 2010, U.S. businesses have added 15.6 million jobs. From 2014 to 2015, real median household income grew by 5.2 percent. We know that, as Jason Furman, chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers notes, demographic changes in labor force participation, primarily driven by a large increase in retirement by baby boomers that began in 2008, has consistently weighed on employment growth. It is quite different from when President Reagan was in. The labor force participation rate is low because of these variables.

These regulations are not going to improve that participation. The Obama recovery has been slower because, under Reagan, we realized the baby boomers were in their prime. Now the baby boomers are retiring.

We need to provide opportunities for younger workers, minority workers, workers with disabilities; and this, H.R. 5, with all of these hoops that the regulation has to go through that are protecting or empowering workers or increasing the opportunities for workers is certainly going to thwart that growth.

You cannot deny that this administration has seen growth with 200,000-plus jobs per month over a series of

years. I would argue that Mr. Johnson's amendment is a strong amendment. It promotes job growth, and it gives opportunities to many who are vulnerable in the workforce.

I ask my colleagues to support the Johnson amendment.

Mr. Chair, my Republican colleagues have made several statements concerning economic activity that invite fact checks:

First, they argue that the labor force participation rate is historically low, but as we all know, the labor force participation is affected by both long term trends and short term policies. As Jason Furman, the Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers, notes, ``demograpic changes in labor force participation--primarily driven by a large increase in retirement by baby boomers that began in 2008--have consistently weighed on employment growth.''

Second, they argue that the Obama recovery has been slower than the economic recovery under the Reagan Administration. But this argument is laughable. President Reagan's recovery benefited from the fact that many baby boomers were in the prime working years while President Obama's recovery has taken place in front of the backdrop of an aging U.S. population. More importantly, the economic lows of the Reagan Administration are not comparable to the mortgage-foreclosure crisis, which resulted in higher unemployment than any other period since the Great Depression.

Finally, despite many bald assertions, my Republican colleagues have not satisfactorily explained how H.R. 5 will create a single job or responded to President Obama's unimpeachable jobs record. In fact, despite, strong economic headwinds and years of Republican obstructionism during the majority of his presidency, the U.S. economy is 11.5 percent larger than its peak before the 2008 economic crisis as of the third quarter of 2016.

Since early 2010, U.S. businesses have added 15.6 million jobs.

From 2014 to 2015, real median household income grew by 5.2 percent, the fastest annual growth on record, and the United States saw its largest one-year drop in the poverty rate since the 1960s.

In closing, there is little evidence supporting my Republican colleagues' claims and if there is any doubt that the H.R. 5 will undermine workforce participation, my colleagues should support my amendment.

Will the gentleman yield?

I thank the gentleman for his kindness.

Would the gentleman not count automation and technology as one of the elements and, as well, the idea of the retiring of baby boomers as part of the issue of growth? And can we not work together to question those particular elements so that we can collectively and collaboratively promote job growth?

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I sadly rise today to pay tribute to Judge Bruce Mosier, who lost his life yesterday; to his lovely and beautiful wife, Diane; beautiful daughter; and extended family.

The whole of Harris County in Texas loved and respected Judge Bruce Mosier. Oh, he was a strong and vibrant Democrat, but he was a man that, whenever you called upon him, he would serve. He loved the law, practiced, and continued to represent individuals, many of whom could not help themselves. And, of course, he stood by his wife's side, championing every effort she made to empower people to vote. He was a stalwart in the last Presidential election. He continued to encourage and support all of us to do what is right and to ensure the rights of all people to vote.

Judge Bruce Mosier served his neighborhood, served his county, served his State, and served this Nation. I will miss Judge Mosier. I will miss his friendly smile and his kindness, his willingness to help those who were just starting in their political or legal career, his willingness to lift up this country and to be the kind of American that always had an open mind to anyone, no matter how different they might be.

So today, my dear friend, Judge Bruce Mosier, may you rest in peace.

Diane, we will continue to love you and honor his legacy, work with you to continue his dreams and aspirations, and encourage those in this Nation, our county, and our State to be participatory participants in the wonderment of democracy in this Nation that is, that was, Judge Bruce Mosier.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Colorado, and I thank my good friend from Georgia. It is important to take note of the value of democracy and the discourse on this floor, and my friendship with the gentleman from Georgia, but absolute disagreement with him on our purposes here.

Yes, regulation should be fair, and it should cede to the administrative process and the administrative laws that dictate how they should be formulated, and that fairness should be their underpinnings. But I think my constituents, in terms of the regulatory scheme, are far more interested in clean water and clean air. They are far more interested in making sure that consumer products that impact toddlers and babies are enforced. They are far more interested in ensuring that there is competition to the FTC, and that there are fair energy laws to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.

Having said that, I am disappointed as well that we are moving forward on H.R. 5, which is a bill that went through the Judiciary Committee, and, as my colleague from Colorado said, with 56 new Members, it did not go through regular order. We are recycling the same bad bill again.

I rise today to express concern over the number of amendments that were presented that were good amendments that did not get in. Before I speak to the amendment I am concerned about, first, I want to speak to the previous question. I support the gentleman from California (Mr. Swalwell) and the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cummings) on a very important statement, and that is in the tragedy and the heinousness of 9/11, we formulated the 9/11 Commission.

Mr. Speaker, there is no more heinousness than a foreign nation interfering with the just and fair voting of every American. There are many who lost their life in the name of one vote, one person. For that reason, I would make the argument that it is imperative that this bill be amended to create the commission that will address the question of foreign intrusion, particularly Russian intrusion and hacking in our election.

I believe this election was skewed, in spite of the peaceful democratic transfer of government, which we will all adhere to, but there is no doubt. This does not compete to 2001 with President Bush in Florida. It does not compete to 2004 with Mr. Kerry. It is beyond any kind of comprehension of what happened in this election, a direct intrusion and skewing of this election. But, more importantly, protecting the systems of election and the voting rights, the preciousness of the voting rights, is crucial to democracy.

This commission, independent of any of the committees that should be working--and I agree, Congress should be working. Senator McCain has already begun working--a Republican--but this commission would be a vital asset. So I am certainly disappointed that the amendment I had that was crucial as relates to cybersecurity to deal with the question of cyber intrusion was not made in order. It would have been appropriate for us to have an amendment that would have spoken directly to the idea of identifying new tactics or techniques that a malicious actor might deploy, or detect and disrupt an ongoing intrusion, in addition to protecting the data that enables cybersecurity firms and other network defenders to identify certain malware that the Russian intelligence services use.

I thank the gentleman.

This amendment would have been vital to have not only a vigorous discussion on the floor but also to recognize that cybersecurity has now become a potential weapon. I have worked on this issue for a decade as the former chairwoman of the Transportation and Infrastructure Subcommittee. It was under my subcommittee that we began to look at electric grids and began to see the enormous power of the cyber world. My amendment should have been included because we are now faced with what the cyber world used as a weapon can do. I am disappointed that that amendment was not made in order. I am disappointed that H.R. 5 is again before us without regular order, and would hope that we have the opportunity to vote for and support the previous question to find out what happened and who conspired to alter our elections in 2016.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the rule and the underlying bill.

I strongly oppose this rule because it makes in order H.R. 5, the Regulatory Accountability Act of 2017, which is a radical measure that could make it impossible to promulgate safety regulations to protect the public.

I oppose this rule because it would effectively shut down the entire U.S. regulatory system, amending in one fell swoop every bedrock existing regulatory statute.

My opposition to H. Res. 33 is amplified by the Rules Committee's decision to decline to make in order the Jackson Lee Amendment, ``to provide an exception for regulations that help prevent cyberattacks on election processes or institutions.''

Apparently, House Republicans are still reluctant to debate the subject--undisputed by our Intelligence community--of Russian cyberattacks on American cyber networks and infrastructure.

Key Judgments in the Intelligence Community Assessment's declassified version of a highly classified report entitled, ``Assessing Russian Activities and Intentions in Recent U.S. Elections,'' have confirmed that 2016 witnessed the first American presidential election that was the subject of cyberattacks.

These and other subversive activities have been confirmed to have been perpetrated by entities allied with the Government of Russia and were undertaken for the express purpose of influencing the presidential contest to secure the election of its preferred candidate, Donald Trump, who made history by becoming the first presidential candidate to invite a hostile foreign power to launch cyberattacks against his political opponent.

All three agencies, CIA, FBI and NSA, agree with this judgment.

The so-called Regulatory Accountability Act (RAA), in addition to this rule, demonstrates the deceptive design of the majority to make it harder to establish regulations to protect the public by tilting the entire regulatory system significantly toward special interests.

The bill allows Federal courts without expertise on technical issues to substitute their judgment for those of the expert federal agencies.

These agencies are staffed with career subject matter experts that are deeply knowledgeable of the background, context, and history of agency actions and policy rationale.

For this reason, courts have long deferred to agency experts who are in the best position to carry out the statutes.

The RAA would end this well-established practice and allow far less experienced judges to second-guess expert opinion--essentially sanctioning judicial activism.

The Jackson Lee Amendment, however, would have attuned this dangerous legislation to provide an exception for regulation upon which Americans so greatly rely on their government to help prevent cyberattacks on our highly coveted and esteemed election processes and institutions.

The bill promoted by the majority, calling for accountability from our Administrative Agencies--fails to answer in accountability to the threat posed by foreign and domestic invaders on our national cyber networks.

As the new Congress commences in the People's House, obstructionist Republicans are circumventing the very procedures by which elected officials answer the cries of outrage and dismay of desperately concerned constituents.

To the obstructionist majority perpetuating this restrictive rule, let me stand firm in the American convictions laid bare by the Jackson Lee amendment--the system of Checks and Balances established by the Separation of Powers clause of the Constitution will not be thwarted.

The spirit of the H.R. 5 is clearly designed to stop all regulation dead in its tracks--no matter the threat to cyber networks, national security, economy, or the very health and safety of the American people.

We know that Russia's cyber activities were intended to influence the election, erode faith in U.S. democratic institutions, sow doubt about the integrity of our electoral process, and undermine confidence in the institutions of the U.S. government. These actions are unacceptable and will not be tolerated.

The mission of the Intelligence Community is to seek to reduce the uncertainty surrounding foreign activities, capabilities, or leaders' intentions.

On these issues of great importance to U.S. national security, the goal of intelligence analysis is to provide assessments to decision makers that are intellectually rigorous, objective, timely, and useful, and that adhere to tradecraft standards.

Applying these standards helps ensure that the Intelligence Community provides U.S. policymakers, warfighters, and operators with the best and most accurate insight, warning, and context, as well as potential opportunities to advance U.S. national security.

This objective is difficult to achieve when seeking to understand complex issues on which foreign actors go to extraordinary lengths to hide or obfuscate their activities.

My amendment would have improved H.R. 5 by exempting only those regulations critical to making cyber networks invulnerable to attack from foreign and domestic agencies and individuals.

Specifically, the amendment that the Rules committee disallowed for presentation on a vote here on the floor today would have provided the American people an exemption to allow for the prevention of tampering, alteration, or misappropriation of information by agents of foreign countries with the purpose or effect of interfering with or undermining election processes or institutions.

In particular, restrictions put forth in H.R. 5 could result in further delay to agencies attempting to take action to help network defenders better identify new tactics or techniques that a malicious actor might deploy or detect and disrupt an ongoing intrusion, in addition to protecting data that enables cybersecurity firms and other network defenders to identify certain malware that the Russian intelligence services use.

The Regulatory Accountability Act provides no accountability to the American public.

Instead, it allows polluting industries and special interests to game the system and escape accountability for any harm they inflict.

It makes it incredibly difficult, if not impossible, to secure new public protections and arms industry with numerous tools to avoid their legal obligations.

The increasing use of cyber-enabled means to undermine democratic processes at home and abroad, as exemplified by Russia's recent activities, has made clear that a tool explicitly targeting attempts to interfere with elections is also warranted.

We cannot afford to let global terroristic threats, in the form of cyber activities, erode faith in U.S. democratic institutions, sow doubt about the integrity of our electoral process, influence elections, or undermine confidence in the institutions of the U.S. government.

My amendment would have offered protections guarding the integrity of our cyber networks, while at the same time allowing the bill to achieve the proponents' major purposes.

The exceptional Americans we serve deserve a Congress that does its job and keeps our time-honored institutions functioning.

For these reasons and more, I oppose this rule and the underlying bill.