Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 321, the INSPIRE Women, Act.

I support this legislation because Article 1 Section 8 of the United States Constitution states our duty ``To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries . . .''

This includes the education of our next generation of women considering participation in the fields of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics and to pursue careers in aerospace.

Statistics show that women remain underrepresented in the science and engineering workforce, although to a lesser degree than in the past, with the greatest disparities occurring in engineering, computer science, and the physical sciences (NSF, Science & Engineering Indicators, 2014).

1. Female scientists and engineers are concentrated in different occupations than are men, with relatively high shares of women in the social sciences (58 percent)

2. biological and medical sciences (48 percent)

3. relatively low shares in engineering (13 percent)

4. computer and mathematical sciences (25 percent) (NSF, Science & Engineering Indicators, 2014).

Women make up 47 percent of the total U.S. workforce, but are much less represented in particular science and engineering occupations (U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Women in the Labor Force: A Databook, 2014):

1. 39 percent of chemists and material scientists are women;

2. 27.9 percent of environmental scientists and geoscientists are women;

3. 15.6 percent of chemical engineers are women;

4. 12.1 percent of civil engineers are women;

5. 8.3 percent of electrical and electronics engineers are women;

6. 17.2 percent of industrial engineers are women; and

7. 7.2 percent of mechanical engineers are women.

These statistics show that measures need to be taken in order to promote women participation in the fields of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics and to pursue careers in aerospace.

H.R. 321 will support NASA GIRLS and NASA BOYS, virtual mentoring programs using commercially available video chat programs, to pair National Aeronautics and Space Administration mentors with young students anywhere in the country.

NASA GIRLS and NASA BOYS give young students the opportunity to interact and learn from real engineers, scientists, and technologists.

H.R. 321 will also support the ``Aspire to Inspire'' Program (A2I), which engages young girls to present science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) career opportunities through the real lives and jobs of early career women at NASA.

H.R. 321 also promotes the Summer Institute in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Research (SISTER) program at the Goddard Space Flight Center designed to increase awareness of, and provide an opportunity for, female middle school students to be exposed to and explore nontraditional career fields with Goddard Space Flight Center women engineers, mathematicians, scientists, technicians, and researchers.

Let me close by urging all Members to join me in voting to pass H.R. 321.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 255 the ``Promoting Women in Entrepreneurship Act.''

As a Senior Member on the House Committee on Homeland Security who sits on the Subcommittee on Cybersecurity, Infrastructure Protection, and Security Technologies, I know well of the need to encourage and train women to thrive in the Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) fields.

Promoting diversity in the STEM professions is more than just an idea; it requires an understanding that there is a need to have a process that will ensure the inclusion of all minorities and women in all areas of American life.

Studies have found that women make up almost 50 percent of the workforce.

Studies note that 23 percent of STEM workers are women; however, women make up 48 percent of workers in all occupations.

Only 26 percent of women who do attain degrees in STEM fields work in STEM jobs.

According to the most recent available data women are less likely to focus on the STEM disciplines in undergraduate and graduate studies.

In 1991, women received 29.6 percent of computer science B.A.'s, compared to just 18.2 percent in 2010.

Jobs in computer systems design and related services, a field dependent upon high-level math and problem-solving skills, are projected to grow 45 percent between 2008 and 2018.

There are approximately 6 million women and minority owned businesses in the United States, representing a significant aspect of our economy.

My home city of Houston, Texas, the energy capital of the world, knows the importance of professionals in the STEM industries.

It has been reported that the highest-paying STEM occupations are petroleum engineers with an annual salary of $147,520, architectural and engineering managers with an annual salary of $138,720, natural sciences managers with an annual salary of $136,450, computer and information systems managers with an annual salary of $136,280, and physicists with a reported annual salary of $117,300.

There is an increasing demand for individuals with STEM degrees to extend their focus beyond the laboratory so they can be leaders in discovery and commercialization.

Women deserve a fair shot in the STEM programs in this nation.

In addition, I believe that work needs to be done to modernize key contracting developmental programs designed to increase opportunities for women, minorities and low-income individuals who pursue STEM degrees and STEM job training.

I support programs at the National Science Foundation that have worked to reduce the current barriers and ensure women have the support they need in the STEM fields.

Mr. Speaker, we should encourage women to pursue degrees and careers in the STEM fields so we can continue to compete in the global economy.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 239, the ``Support for Rapid Innovation Act of 2017,'' which amends the Homeland Security Act of 2002 to provide for improved innovative research and development.

I support this bill because it would extend the Department of Homeland Security secretary's pilot program for research and development projects and prototype projects through 2020.

This bill would require the secretary to report annually to the House Homeland Security and Science committees and the Senate Homeland Security Committee on the dynamics of the projects undertaken.

Specifically, H.R. 239 would amend the Homeland Security Act of 2002 to include fundamental improvements to facilitate information, analytics, and methodologies related to cybersecurity risks and incidents, consistent with the current law.

In particular, it adds a new section to the Homeland Security Act, directing the Department of Homeland Security to support--whether within itself, other agencies, or in academia and private industry--the research and development of cybersecurity-related technologies.

As a senior member of the Homeland Security Committee and Ranking Member of the Judiciary Committee and Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, Homeland Security, and Investigations, I support this bill as it directs the Under Secretary for Science and Technology to bolster research and development, along with the testing and evaluation of cybersecurity technology to improve the sharing of information, analysis, and methodologies related to cybersecurity risks and incidents.

The Rapid Innovation Act is a smart bill that will enable the Department of Homeland Security to establish and improve technologies for detecting attacks or intrusions.

The ``Support for Rapid Innovation Act of 2017'' will equip the Department of Homeland Security with vital tools and resources to prevent and remove attacks and threats implemented by those who target our nation.

Mr. Speaker, we face growing cybersecurity threats, which demands that we increase research and development, along with the testing and evaluation of cybersecurity technology to expand the sharing of information, analysis, and methodologies related to cybersecurity risks and incidents.

This is a comprehensive bill that will help protect all Americans in every corner of this nation.

I urge all Members to join me in voting to pass H.R. 239.

Mr. Speaker, as a senior member of the Homeland Security Committee, I rise in support of H.R. 240, the ``Leveraging Emerging Technologies Act of 2017,'' which requires the Secretary of Homeland Security to engage with innovative and emerging technology developers, including technology-based small businesses and startup ventures that can help tackle the rapidly expanding list of homeland security technology needs.

H.R. 240 helps to protect America's computer and communications networks, which security experts believe represent the nation's most critical national security challenge, including Internet functions and connected critical infrastructure such as air traffic control, the U.S. electrical grid, and nuclear power plants.

H.R. 240 authorizes DHS to establish personnel and office space in diverse geographic areas around the United States that have high concentrations of technology developers and firms.

The bill also directs DHS, within 6 months, to develop and submit to Congress a Department-wide strategy to engage with innovative and emerging technology companies.

Importantly, the bill specifically requires the Secretary to include in that strategy ways to effectively integrate technology-based small businesses and startup ventures.

Importantly, the bill also requires the DHS Secretary to coordinate with those in the venture capital industry to assist in the development of technologies that are ready for commercialization and use in the Homeland Security Enterprise.

Since its founding, the Department of Homeland Security has overcome many challenges as an organization but much more

progress must be made regarding effective inter-operable communication between the federal, state, and local agencies.

Although not a panacea, H.R. 240 is a step in the right direction because it will help improve DHS' overall functions so that it can more effectively protect our people.

I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this important legislation.

Mr. Speaker, let me thank Mr. Veasey for his leadership. Let also thank the chair of the Congressional Black Caucus, Mr. Richmond, for his leadership.

Before I start, let me offer my appreciation to law enforcement officers across America--this is Law Enforcement Appreciation Day--and join my colleague, Val Demings, particularly acknowledging the sadness in Orlando today in the loss of two law enforcement officers in the line of duty.

I rise today for not a personal statement or a statement that has to do with personality. As the President-elect said of Mr. Sessions, he is a fine and decent fellow. I have no interest in determining whether that is true or false. But I do want to hold the President-elect accountable for the words that he said on election night that he pledged to the Nation that he would be a President for all Americans. That pledge, I believe, will ring hollow for tens upon tens of millions of Americans with the nomination of the Secretary of Education, who is against public schools, the nomination of the Secretary of Health and Human Services, who has no plan for health care, and, finally, the nomination for Attorney General.

Rather than select someone who is championing and protecting, rather than opposing and undermining the precious right to vote, the constitutionally guaranteed right of privacy, criminal justice reform, and the support for reform of the Nation's immigration system, it is quite the contrary in the nomination of Senator Sessions--a person who opposed Shelby County v. Holder in terms of the basis of trying to constructively support voting rights, an individual who is hostile to comprehensive immigration reform, and certainly someone who has constantly not sought to fix, but has sought to undermine.

So, for example, as a U.S. attorney, he was the first prosecutor in the country to bring charges against civil rights activists of voter fraud. But, Mr. Speaker, listen to this: he didn't just bring charges; he had 29 counts of voter fraud that resulted in civil rights activists facing 100 years in prison.

He 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, and he did nothing to reconstruct the Voting Rights Act and restore section 5 when tens upon tens of Members of Congress worked diligently to try to fix the Shelby case.

He criticized Attorney General Eric Holder for challenging State election laws, claiming they are necessary to fight voter fraud. Evidence supports that voter fraud is almost nonexistent, with 31 confirmed cases out of more than a billion ballots cast.

Senator Sessions fought to continue practices that harm schools predominantly attended by African American students. He 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.

Finally, in the State of Alabama, nearly a quarter of African American students attend what is called apartheid, or what can be called apartheid schools, meaning the school's White population is less than 1 percent.

Now we understand that the Senator has 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.

I would say to you as I close, we who are vulnerable look to the Department of Justice as the solid rock of justice for the Nation. Whether we are immigrant, whether we are a woman who is trying to fight against violence, whether we need civil rights, whether we are LGBT, whether we are those who are seeking religious freedom or freedom of expression, the Department of Justice is a solid rock of justice for this Nation.

With that in mind, I believe that this nominee, who now stands with the criteria evidenced by the record, stands not prepared, not fit to hold this position of the Attorney General of the United States--a sacred position of law and justice.

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 President-Elect's nomination of U.S. Senator Jefferson Beauregard ``Jeff'' Sessions III of Alabama to be the next Attorney General of the United States.

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

That pledge will ring hollow to tens of millions of Americans in light of his announced intention to nominate one of the U.S. Senate's most far-right members, Senator Jeff Sessions (R-AL) to be the next Attorney General of the United States.

Perhaps 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.

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.

I call upon the Senate Judiciary Committee to subject the nomination to the most comprehensive, searching, and withering examination.

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.

The duty of the U.S. Attorney General is to lead the Department of Justice in protecting and expanding the civil rights of all Americans and the pursuit of equal justice for all, not to turn back the clock on hard won rights and liberties.

No senator should vote to confirm the nomination of Jeff Sessions as U.S. Attorney General if there is the slightest doubt that he possesses the character, qualities, integrity, and commitment to justice and equality needed to lead a department, the headquarters building of which is named for Robert F. Kennedy, one of the nation's greatest and most indefatigable champions of civil rights and equal justice for all.

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 offer thoughts and reflections on the congressional responsibility to bear witness to the counting of electoral votes to determine formally the persons elected President and Vice President of the United States and on the campaign and election that brought us to this day.

Historians will surely record that the 2016 presidential campaign was one for the ages.

The two leading protagonists could not have been more dissimilar.

The Democratic candidate, Hillary Clinton of New York, was widely considered the most qualified person ever nominated for the office, having served as Secretary of State; elected by landslide margins to two terms as U.S. Senator from New York, the nation's only First Lady to win high elective office in her own right; valedictorian of her class at Wellesley University, a graduate of Yale Law School, and the first woman ever to win the presidential nomination of one of the nation's two major political parties.

Republican Donald Trump of New York, the other candidate, was sui generis as well, since he is the first person to gain an Electoral College majority with no experience whatsoever in elective or appointed governmental office or public service but possessing a remarkable talent for attracting media attention.

The 2016 was notable also for a number of other unprecedented occurrences.

For example, it was the first time in history that a Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation had ever injected himself and his agency, unintentionally or not, in a presidential campaign when FBI Director James Comey held a July 5, 2016 news conference, during which he announced that the FBI had completed its investigation regarding the email server of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and had concluded that no violation of law had been committed but offered unfavorable personal opinions ex cathedra regarding Secretary Clinton's conduct.

Compounding the damage inflicted on Secretary Clinton's campaign by his gratuitous commentary, FBI Director Comey exacerbated the damage already done when, a mere eleven days before Election Day, he sent a vaguely worded letter to partisan Congressional Republican opponents of Secretary Clinton allowing them to leak the letter to the media and claim falsely that the FBI had reopened the investigation for the sole purpose of inflicting electoral damage on Secretary Clinton.

These actions were taken in contravention of long-standing Department of Justice policy, practice, and custom enjoining Justice Department officials and employees from engaging any conduct or taking any legal action that could impact the outcome of an election to be held within the ensuing 60 days.

The 2016 presidential election was historic in another respect as well; it is the first American presidential election that the Intelligence Community has confirmed was the subject of cyberattacks and other subversive activities of entities allied with the Government of Russia that were undertaken for the express purpose of influencing the outcome of the 2016 presidential election to secure the election of its preferred candidate, Donald Trump.

It is also worth noting that the 2016 presidential campaign was the first in history in which one of the two leading candidates, Donald Trump, openly invited a hostile foreign power to launch cyberattacks against his political opponent.

In at least one respect, however, the 2016 presidential campaign was not unprecedented.

It was the fifth time in history, and the second in the last 16 years, that the candidate winning an Electoral College majority lost the popular vote.

But what is unusual is the historic margin of the popular vote defeat produced by the 2016 campaign that saw Hillary Clinton defeat Donald Trump by an astounding 2.86 million votes: 65,844,610 votes to 62,979,636, nearly six times more than Vice-President Al Gore's popular vote win in 2000, the next highest victory margin.

Indeed, Hillary Clinton received more votes for president than any person in history not named Barack Obama, which means that the two greatest vote getters in American political history are an African American male and white female, which in itself is a testament to how far America has travelled on the path to equality and opportunity for all in the past 240 years.

While it is true that a switch of less than 80,000 votes in just three states--Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin--would have secured an Electoral College majority for Hillary Clinton, that fact is of little consolation and practical consequence to the situation and task now before us, which is to count the electoral votes cast for President and Vice-President of the United States and announce the results to the country and the world.

It is, as I noted at the outset, a duty imposed on Members of the House and the Senate by the Constitution and laws of the United States.

But because we are all called upon to bear witness to the counting of electoral votes does not mean our role is to be passive observers.

On the contrary, the Constitution and the law, specifically Section 15 of the Electoral College Act, 3 U.S.C. Sec. 1 et seq., vests in Representatives and Senators the power and responsibility of objecting to the counting of any vote cast by an elector if in their judgment the vote was not ``regularly given'' or the person casting the vote was not ``lawfully certified'' as an elector.

The Constitution devolves this solemn duty upon the people's representatives, the Congress, because the linchpin of representative democracy is public confidence in the political system, regime, and community.

That confidence in turn rests upon the extent to which the public has faith that the system employed to select its leaders accurately reflects its preferences.

At bottom, this means that all citizens casting a vote have a fundamental right and reasonable expectation that their votes count and are counted.

This concern is particularly salient when it comes to today's counting of the electoral votes occurring in the aftermath of the unprecedented interference by a hostile foreign power to secure victory for its preferred candidate.

And the salience is heightened by the fact that the November 8, 2016 election is the first presidential election held since the Supreme Court issued the notorious decision in Shelby County v. Holder, which neutered the preclearance provisions of the Voting Rights Act and adversely affected the ability of hundreds of thousands of persons to cast a ballot and have their vote counted.

For these reasons, I owe it to my constituents and to the American people to consider each electoral vote certificate as it is presented and accept those that appear to be meritorious but to oppose those which in my judgment do not appear to satisfy the statutory requirement that the votes reflected on the lists were ``regularly given'' by ``lawfully certified'' electors.

I am particularly skeptical that this legal standard is met where there is evidence to support the following conclusions:

1. There is a failure to provide ``distinct lists of votes'' for the President and Vice President as required by U.S. Constitution, Article II, Section 1 and Amendment XII; and by 3 U.S.C. Sec. 9;

2. There is a failure of one or more elector to reside in the district from which elected as required under state law;

3. There appears to be a violation of state statutes prohibiting electors from holding multiple governmental offices of trust, honor, or profit;

4. There is compelling evidence that the illegal activities engaged in by individuals and entities allied with the Government of Russia that were undertaken for the purpose of benefitting the candidacy of Donald J. Trump deterred and dissuaded thousands of voters from exercising their franchise; or

5. There is compelling evidence that activities engaged in by state officials violated the Voting Rights Act of 1965 and disenfranchised thousands of voters and resulted in the unlawful certification of electors.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, let me say for the record that where, as is the case this year, the results in the Electoral College and of the popular vote diverge by the largest and most astounding margin in American history, it is particularly fitting, appropriate, and necessary to examine the electoral vote certificate presented for acceptance as carefully and fairly as possible and for as long as time permits.

The fate of our democracy is at stake. I now submit formal letters to the Vice President regarding objection to certification of Electors in certain states:

Congress of the United States,

House of Representatives,

Washington, DC, January 6, 2017.

Basis of Objection: Failure of one or more elector to reside

in district from which elected.

Hon. Joseph R. Biden,

Vice President of the United States and President of the

Senate, Washington, DC.

Dear Vice President Biden: We object to the 15 votes from

the State of North Carolina for Donald J. Trump for President

and Mike Pence for Vice President. Notwithstanding the

certification by the Governor of the State of North Carolina,

it is the opinion of the undersigned that these 15 votes were

not regularly given because at least five electors were not

``lawfully certified'' and their votes were not ``regularly

given'' since one or more electors does not reside in the

district for which he or she was elected as required by state

law.

Additionally, several activities engaged in by state

officials in violation of the Voting Rights Act of 1965

disenfranchised thousands of North Carolina voters and

resulted in the

unlawful certification of electors. Accordingly, no electoral

vote of the State of North Carolina should be counted for

Donald J. Trump for President or for Mike Pence for Vice

President.

Respectfully,

Sheila Jackson Lee,

U.S. Representative, State of Texas.

Mr. President, I object on the massive voter suppression that is provisional that denied individual ballots--

Mr. President, I have an objection.

Not yet. We are seeking a United States Senator.

Mr. President.

Mr. President, I object to the 15 votes from the State of North Carolina because of the massive voter suppression and the closing of voting massive suppression that occurred from African American--

Mr. Vice President, I do have in writing a signature from myself, not yet a signature from a Senator.

Mr. President.

Mr. President, I object to the votes from South Carolina because--

Mr. President, I have it in writing. I am now seeking a signature from a United States Senator.

Mr. President, I object to the votes from the State of Wisconsin which should not be legally certified.

Mr. President, I do have a written document with my objection.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to place in the Record a statement regarding the joint session of election, the county electoral ballots, and as well the appropriate letters of objection and documentation.

Section 2:

``The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second year by the people of the several States, and the electors in each State shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State legislature.''

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

I oppose this rule because it makes in order H.R. 26, the Regulations from the Executive in Need of Scrutiny (REINS) Act, 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.

The legislation is clearly designed to stop all regulation dead in its tracks--no matter the threat to health, safety or the economy.

It would neuter the current system's reliance on science, expertise, and public participation in developing regulations.

H.R. 26 would reshape the regulatory system to work as it did in the 19th Century, before the abuses of the robber barons led Congress to create a modern and more efficient system to protect public health and safety.

The REINS Act would require both houses of Congress to approve any major rule within a limited period of time in order for it to take effect.

Effectively, this would allow either house of Congress to block rules simply through inaction, even when an existing statute required action.

The legislation would disempower every federal agency, effectively rendering their rulemaking activities advisory opinions with no force of law.

Under REINS, even rules to handle emergencies could be in effect for only 90 days absent Congressional approval.

H.R. 26 is so grossly slanted against regulation that it will allow lawsuits to proceed against any regulation Congress could actually manage to approve.

And the latest version of the bill delays its effective date for a year so that any Trump Administration efforts to repeal existing regulations would not get caught up in the REINS Act trap--another indication that the REINS Act would be expected to stop any regulatory action from moving forward (because repealing regulations must be done through regulation, so repeals would in fact trigger REINS.)

In addition to representing an overwhelming threat to the public, H.R. 26 is also bad for business.

The legislation would require businesses to have to lobby Congress for each and every significant regulatory change they wanted--no matter whether those were new regulations, changes in regulation or repeal; no matter whether the regulatory issues involved disputes between different industries; no matter how technical the issues involved.

H.R. 26 would, in fact, make the regulatory system less predictable for industry and would disadvantage any industry that did not have a large political presence.

It is difficult to exaggerate how fundamentally this alarming piece of legislation would change American government and how hard it would make it to protect the public.

This legislative effort is the ultimate giveaway to special interests.

Under H.R. 26, any special interest could simply use its political clout in one chamber of Congress to sideline such vital public protections as limiting the amount of lead in children's products, preventing salmonella contamination in eggs, reducing emissions of toxic air pollutants or banning predatory banking practices.

The REINS Act constitutes the ultimate overreach as well, not only because of the impact it would have, but because Congress already has ample tools to control the regulatory system.

Congress is already vested with the authority to vote to block a specific regulation at any time.

And regulation is permitted only pursuant to statutes that Congress has passed and can amend or repeal.

Under current law, agencies must keep a record of their interactions with industry and other entities interested in the regulatory process and provide a clear record of their decision-making (which often must be able to hold up in court).

Because agencies often take years to review the scientific and technical evidence relevant to a decision, throwing every final decision to Congress would undermine this entire process.

In addition, courts can review regulations and an elaborate public process that can stretch out for years must be followed to issue a regulation.

Instead, under this legislation, Congress would have to make relatively rapid decisions, often behind closed doors, and it would not be legally held to any standard of technical review.

Businesses would no longer have an incentive to cooperate with agencies and provide

arguments and evidence because they could just take their chances with the political process, which they would no doubt try to influence with campaign contributions.

Ultimately, decisions on regulations would be determined solely by political horse-trading among Members of Congress.

Agencies issue 50 to 100 major rules a year dealing with everything from Medicare reimbursement to railroad safety to environmental protection.

But, under H.R. 26, Congress would have 70 legislative days to second-guess each and every decision covered by the Act.

Because failure to take action would kill any safeguard, Congress would be forced to hold hearings in a short time on technical issues-- or worse, forgo hearings and race the 70-day clock with even less information and debate.

This body has already allowed backlog to clog the channels of its current docket, and this legislation would require that as many as 100 additional measures come to the floor.

This is not an effort to drain the swamp; this is a divisive and manipulative tactic employed to clog the drain.

Mr. Speaker, make no mistake about it, this merry-go-round legislative scheme and the irresponsibility of the House majority in wasting time trying to shut down the entire regulatory system (because it cannot win through time-honored, Constitutional legislative processes) entirely disregard the administrative public support efforts in place to protect food safety, air and water quality and to limit the manipulation of our economic system by special interests.

The REINS Act is tantamount to a coup--a right-wing takeover to block future agency actions regardless of public desires.

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.

Mr. Speaker, today, in the Senate, the other body, unfortunately, joined the pathway of destruction for most Americans and voted to repeal the Affordable Care Act. These are not my words, the pathway of destruction, but is evidence what will happen to millions and millions of Americans. By repealing without a replacement, which does not exist, insurance will be taken away from 32 million working families. Now, some 4 million uninsured children will have no insurance.

Let me be very clear that many of these individuals do not have college degrees. Many of them, the voters of those who now will take the rein of government. Healthcare premiums will increase by 50 percent for millions of Americans. Hundreds of billions of dollars will go to tax breaks for insurance companies while eliminating the tax credits and subsidies for millions of working families.

It will take healthcare coverage away from millions of low- and moderate-income Americans by cutting Medicaid, and it will close rural hospitals and public hospitals that provide the lifeline for many Americans. It will cut off Federal funds for health care for women through Planned Parenthood. And yes, it will eliminate and have cuts in Medicare and Medicaid.

Mr. Speaker, this is a pathway of disaster. We should not repeal the Affordable Care Act.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to the legendary Antioch Missionary Baptist Church in Houston, Texas, which this year celebrates 149 years of service to the greater Houston community and the nation.

For more than a half century, under the leadership of the Rev. F.N. Williams, Sr., the Antioch Missionary Baptist Church, now led by Rev. O.B. Winkley, has provided material support and spiritual sanctuary to the least of God's children and used the prophetic voice of the church to speak truth to power.

Mr. Speaker, in January 1866, seven months after slaves were freed in Texas (June 19, 1865), a small group of freed slaves, assisted by the First Baptist Church and missionaries, organized the first African American Baptist Church in Houston, Texas.

After holding worship services at the First Baptist Church and the German Baptist Church, church members began to hold services on Buffalo Bayou in ``Brush Arbor.''

Later, the church moved to ``Baptist Hill'' located at Rusk and Bagby until the present site was purchased.

In 1868, one of Antioch Missionary Baptist Church's members, Jack Yates, was ordained at the first meeting of the Association of African American Baptist Churches.

Rev. Jack Yates became the first pastor of Antioch Missionary Baptist Church and as the membership grew and additional space was needed, Rev. Yates led the church to purchase its present site and build a brick structure.

Antioch Missionary Baptist Church's new home was the first brick structure built and owned by African-Americans in Houston, and was located in the center of Freedman's Town and was the center of activity for the African-American community.

Antioch Missionary Baptist Church provided the former slaves with opportunities to worship the Lord, but also established ministries to help them develop educationally, economically and socially.

With the help of two missionaries, Rev. Yates began the Baptist Academy, which taught such fundamental skills as reading, writing, and arithmetic, and provided vocational training to enable men and women to start their own businesses.

Mr. Speaker, Baptist Academy would later become Houston College, the forerunner of Texas Southern University.

Under Rev. Yates' leadership, church members were encouraged and assisted in buying property, owning homes, and developing businesses.

The Old Landmark Baptist Association of Texas was organized at Antioch and Emancipation Park was purchased in a joint venture with Trinity Methodist Church to provide green space to engage in recreational activities and hold community celebrations, such as Juneteenth.

Mr. Speaker, I take great pride in recognizing the Antioch Missionary Baptist Church

and the Rev. O.B. Winkley on the occasion of its 149th Anniversary and its nearly century and half of service to the Houston community.

Mr. Speaker, our hearts and prayers are with the victims of the Metrolink train crash that took place this early morning in Oxnard, California.

As of right now, there are no confirmed casualties and I pray that it stays that way and all of the injured have a speedy recovery.

I also wish to commend the first responders who arrived at the scene so rapidly to treat the victims of the crash.

The nation can be proud of the first responders at the local, state, and federal level who selflessly answer the call to service and risk their lives to keep us safe.

Mr. Speaker, first responders ask little in return for the risks they willingly incur.

All they ask is that we support them and provide them the resources needed to protect the homeland.

That is why it is absolutely critical that Speaker Boehner bring to the floor immediately a clean Homeland Security funding bill.

House Republicans should stop risking the security of the homeland to appease the Tea Party extremist wing of their conference.

Mr. Speaker, there are only 4 days remaining until funding for the Department of Homeland Security runs out.

If House Republicans were to let that happen, DHS would be required to shut down much of the homeland security infrastructure put in place in the aftermath of the 9/11 terrorist attacks.

Although some DHS employees would continue to work in the event of a shutdown, they would be forced to do so without pay, creating significant disruptions and dealing a blow to morale.

Among those who would be expected to protect Americans without getting paid would be:

1. More than 40,000 Border Patrol agents and Customs and Border Protection officers;

2. More than 50,000 TSA aviation security screeners;

3. More than 13,000 Immigration and Customs Enforcement law enforcement agents and officers;

4. More than 40,000 active duty Coast Guard military members;

5. More than 4,000 Secret Service law enforcement agents and officers.

Mr. Speaker, it is time for House Republicans to stop politicizing the funding of this most essential function of the federal government and bring to the floor for debate and passage of a clean DHS funding bill so that we can keep our homeland safe.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to salute a gentle giant by the name of Captain Brazile, a hero, a man who died in the line of fire, and a man who many of us got to know and love.

He started in the Houston Fire Department at the age of 19, and he was called Baby Boy. That ultimately became B.B. Everyone who came in the distance of his heart and mind said that Captain Brazile was a mentor who taught men and women who were incoming firefighters.

This past weekend, I flew into Houston and was able to go to his bedside on Saturday, to be able to see his family and his wonderful son, who he loves with deep and abiding love, and a wife who loved him without question. All of his fire brothers and sisters were all around. They had the opportunity to pray.

Then, unfortunately, he lost his life. He died in the line of duty, and on Saturday night into early morning on Sunday, I joined a throng of firefighters to proceed in the procession to take his body from the Memorial Hermann Medical Center to the medical examiners.

Mr. Speaker, let me simply say, as we rode through those streets, through the neighborhoods that he fought for and fought fires, saved lives, and passed Fire Station 46 and all of his brothers and sisters, I felt a sense that his spirit had lifted up and that we had honored him by his travel and journey, that we will continue to honor him--Baby Boy, B.B., father, husband, great leader, hero, captain, firefighter-- who died in the line of duty.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the Lunar New Year and to applaud the significant contributions made by Chinese Americans to American life and culture.

Yesterday, Thursday, February 19, marked the first day of the ``Year of the Goat.''

The Lunar New Year, or ``Nian,'' is a tradition that has been celebrated for more than a thousand years by the Chinese and other persons of Asian ancestry.

The Lunar New Year is cause for celebration in communities all across our country but might I say that no city does it better than my home city of Houston, which will be hosting the Annual Lunar New Year Houston Celebration this coming weekend.

Celebrants will be treated to a variety of festivities, including parades, festivals, art exhibits, and musical performances.

Mr. Speaker, Americans of Asian Pacific ancestry have positively influenced our country through their strong commitment to family, faith, hard work, and service.

They have enhanced and shaped our national character with centuries- old traditions that reflect the multiethnic and multicultural customs of their communities.

Asian Americans have enriched our culture and economy and made significant contributions in every area of American life from the arts and humanities, to the natural and social sciences, to business and the economy, in government, sports, the military, and technology and innovation.

Notable Chinese Americans who have distinguished themselves in the field of the arts and humanities include the two-time Academy Award winning cinematographer, James Wong Howe; Ang Lee, the Academy Award winning director; Maya Lin, the architect who designed the iconic Vietnam Veterans Memorial; I. M. Pei, the famous architect and designer of the Louvre Pyramid; Amy Tan, the best-selling author of The Joy Luck Club; Yo-Yo Ma, the world-renowned cellist; and the legendary Bruce Lee, who revolutionized the martial arts film genre.

In the field of business, American life has been enriched by the contributions of Steve Chen, the co-founder of YouTube; Jen-Hsun Huang, the co-founder and CEO of NVIDIA, the computer graphics card company; Min H. Kao, co-founder of Garmin, the GPS software giant; William Wang, the founder and CEO of Vizio; and Jerry Yang, co-founder of Yahoo!

Mr. Speaker, Connie Chung made history as the first Chinese American woman to co-anchor a major network's national news broadcast, as did Norman Bay, the first Chinese American United States Attorney; and Thomas Tang, the first Chinese American federal judge.

Many contemporary Chinese Americans have risen to occupy some of the most important positions in the nation, including my colleagues, Judy Chu and Grace Meng, the first and second Chinese American woman elected to the U.S. House of Representatives; Dr. Steven Chum, Nobel laureate in Physics and United States Secretary of Energy from 2009-2013; Hiram L. Fong, the first U.S. Senator of Chinese ancestry; Ed Lee, the Mayor of San Francisco; and Gary Locke, former Secretary of Commerce, Ambassador to China, and only Chinese American ever to serve as a Governor.

Mr. Speaker, Kurt Lee was the first Asian American Marine Corps officer and he was followed by John Liu Fugh, the first Chinese American officer to be promoted to the rank of Major General in the United States Army and Coral Wong Pietsch, the first female Chinese American Army General; and it is a source of great pride that the Congressional Medal of

Honor was awarded to Francis Wai, so far the only Chinese American to have been so honored.

In the fields of science, engineering, and medicine, Chinese Americans have made significant contributions that have fundamentally changed the way we live and work, including those of Min Chueh Chang, the co-inventor of the first birth control pill; Charles Kao, the 2009 Nobel laureate in Physics who pioneered the development and use of fiber optics in telecommunications; Yuan-Cheng Fung, the founder of modern biomechanics; and NASA astronauts Leroy Chiao and Edward Lu.

Mr. Speaker, according to most recent data reported by the Census Bureau, there are more than 423,609 businesses owned by Chinese Americans generating $142.8 billion in economic output towards the U.S. economy, along with creating over 780,000 jobs.

As the Member of Congress from the 18th Congressional District of Texas, I am honored to represent a district rich in cultural and ethnic diversity and with a vibrant Chinese-American community.

Mr. Speaker, there are more than four million Chinese-Americans in the United States and Texas is home to more than 167,000 of them; of this latter number, approximately 25 percent, or 43,940, Chinese- Americans live in Harris County, making it the tenth largest community of persons of Chinese heritage in the nation.

Mr. Speaker, Chinese-Americans have made much progress in the United States since May 10, 1860, the date the first transcontinental railroad was completed.

That massive construction project transformed our country for the better and could not have been completed had it not been for the labor of Chinese immigrants.

Despite the enormous progress made challenges still remain of person of Chinese ancestry, particularly the nation's antiquated immigration system which needs to be reformed to make it fairer and more humane.

Celebrating the Lunar New Year helps us to remember how much our country has benefitted from the energy, creativity, and service of Chinese Americans.

I encourage all Americans to take part in activities marking this important occasion.