Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I think all of us have heard, in some way, paraphrased: While Rome is burning, much fiddling is going on.

I am grateful for all of the Members of Congress who helped construct this legislation.

I want to remind my friends, as the authorizations proceeded in the 1990s into the 2000s of the Violence Against Women Act, the last authorization was technically supposed to be in 2010, but it took 3 years until 2013. Working with advocates who represent almost 200 groups, Republicans and Democrats, organizations who deal with women impacted by domestic violence and other sexual assault issues and acts, they indicated that they wanted to see this bill expanded to cover Native American women, they wanted to protect immigrant women who are left vulnerable, they wanted to make sure it was gender-neutral in many instances. But, as I recall, in 2010, it was Native American and immigrants, so it took 3 years. And all the bill wanted to do was to simply protect people who are vulnerable.

In this bill, that has been 3 years in writing--with every opportunity with the preceding chairman of this committee, preceding Congress, and members on the Judiciary Committee to sit with us to work--I, for one, remember constant meetings with staff and members interested, Democratic members, in how we can work together.

This bill is long in waiting for prosecutors and law enforcement. They are waiting on the $291 million for stock grants and resources for women's shelters.

This bill is a bipartisan bill. I thank Mr. Fitzpatrick for his work. And in this bill is a whole section on healthcare that Mr. Fitzpatrick's bill allowed us to put in.

It is an important contribution to this legislation.

There is an amendment by Mr. Gohmert, my friend from Texas, on female genital mutilation. It is an amendment that we worked on, in discussion about reporting on the incidences with Indian women, Native American women. My amendment was joined, supported, by Republicans in the Judiciary Committee.

This bill is bipartisan, but, most of all, it is a response to desperation of need. The Violence Against Women Act is long overdue for being reauthorized. This is a strong product that covers so many issues to protect women and to ensure that those who have convictions with gun violence do not allow them to come and kill an innocent mom with her children.

Mr. Speaker, we must pass this bill. The rule is a good rule. Support the rule.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Rule and the underlying bill of

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Collins and I have been working on any number of issues dealing with criminal justice reform, and certainly we have spent the last couple of years on the Judiciary Committee. He may not recall, but working with our chairman in the last session of Congress, who acknowledged that the Judiciary Committee had many opportunities to work together--and I totally agree--one of those issues was, of course, the Violence Against Women Act. We engaged with the staff quite extensively because we wanted this to be a bipartisan bill.

So, for a 3-year period, we engaged, I engaged, many women of this Congress

engaged, and we think we have come up with a product that recognizes that, as we speak here today, there are women who are dying from domestic violence. As we stand here today, law enforcement will tell you that the most difficult, or one of the most difficult, calls they have to make is a domestic violence call.

Maybe it is like my constituent, Candice, whose bill I introduced, who was laying in the bed with a little baby and her other children were moving around the house, and a significant other--a husband, a boyfriend--took his gun and killed Candice while that baby was lying next to her. The little children had to hear that, and they were scurrying. They had to run to another house to try to get help for mommy.

You see, ladies and gentlemen, this is not about a score of the National Rifle Association, because this is not a gun bill, this is a lifesaving bill. This is a bill that a Republican from Pennsylvania, Mr. Fitzpatrick, put a health provision in, he expanded the Public Health Service Act.

His bill will allow more services to come for those children and those survivors of domestic violence, it will expand the capacity of early childhood programs to address domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, and stalking. It will put in $291 million, so that date rape kits, DNA kits, will not be backlogged, so that law enforcement will have resources, and so that prosecutors will have resources.

Candice cannot be brought back. And we introduced that bill at a time when no one wanted to see anything having to do with protecting us from guns. Now we have a statement that respects Candice's life by indicating that if you have been convicted, you need not have a gun around your family, it should be in a lockbox.

What more can we do to be fair and balanced and draw bipartisan support, even to the extent of joining with my friend from Texas to have a bill amendment that deals with female genital mutilation.

We have worked hard. This bill deserves 100 percent support of this Congress, because while we talk lives are being lost.

Mr. Chairman, I ask my friends to support the legislation that we are debating, H.R. 1585.

Mr. Chair, I rise in support of the Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act of 2019.

The Violence Against Women Act (``VAWA'') is landmark legislation which--through policy reforms, interstate cooperation and grant allocation--has been pivotal in providing a national response to protecting half of the population.

Equally important, it has ushered in a seismic transformation on how society perceives violence against women.

The law has enhanced and improved the lives of girls and women, boys and men.

There are many similarities between the year that VAWA initially passed in 1994, and the moment in which we all find ourselves today.

When it was first passed, the country was experiencing reverberations to yet another polarizing battle to fill a seat on the Supreme Court.

Then the courageous victim sharing her truth was Anita Hill.

Today, as VAWA is yet again scheduled to expire, the country is assessing the ripples created by the #MeToo movement.

But despite the passage of over a quarter-century since its first enactment, the malignant treatment received by a courageous person willing to share her story unfortunately endures.

The need to create a safe space for victims of violence, especially women, supported with substantial resources to address this scourge has taken on a new urgency in this era of the #MeToo movement.

When discussing VAWA, we cannot forget the victims of domestic violence like Brittany Smith, who was 23 years old and was gunned down last year in Houston, by her boyfriend and San Diego-based Marine; nor can we forget Charlene Caldwell, a mother and grandmother beaten to death last year by a baseball bat at the hands of her boyfriend in Houston.

Domestic violence was alleged in both of these horrific events.

Unfortunately, there are too many stories like Charlene's or Brittany's.

The stories of these two women remind us of the urgency to protect survivors NOW, before it is too late, because many of these deaths are preventable.

Despite the experiences of #MeToo survivors or victims like Ms. Smith or Ms. Caldwell, all is not for naught.

Since VAWA's codification in 1994, more victims report episodes of domestic violence to the police and the rate of non-fatal intimate partner violence against women has decreased by almost two-thirds.

VAWA has also led to a significant increase in the reporting of sexual assault.

For example, the percentage of victims of rape and sexual assault who report the assault to the police increased from 28.8 percent in 1993-- the year prior to VAWA's initial passage--to 50 percent in 2010.

In the first 15 years of VAWA's validity, rates of serious intimate partner violence declined by 72 percent for women and 64 percent for men.

Research suggests that referring a victim to a domestic violence or sexual assault advocate has been linked to an increased willingness to file a police report--survivors with an advocate filed a report with law enforcement 59 percent of the time, versus 41 percent for individuals not referred to a victim advocate.

This progress cannot be allowed to stop.

Congress must continue sending the clear message that violence against women is unacceptable.

Prior to VAWA, law enforcement lacked the resources and tools to respond effectively to domestic violence and sexual assault.

Each reauthorization of VAWA has improved protections for women and men, while helping to change the culture and reduce the tolerance for these crimes.

The Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act of 2019 improves current law in several important respects, and takes a holistic approach to the goal of eliminating the harm faced by victims of violence, and making vital services accessible to victims of this scourge.

For example, this iteration of VAWA contains guidance on the use of grants to activate judicial and law enforcement tools to develop and enforce firearm surrender policies; expands permissible use of grant funding for programs focused on increasing survivor/law enforcement/ community safety; and provides legal assistance for dependent children in appropriate circumstances.

It also updates programs designed to reduce dating violence, help children exposed to violence and engage men in preventing violence against women.

Additionally, the bill improves services for victims of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, and stalking.

It provides policies, protection, and justice for young victims of violence, including extending the Rape Prevention and Education grant program, addressing bullying of young people, improving grants focused on prevention education for students, and expanding relevant training for school-based and campus health centers; and reauthorizes and updates programs designed to reduce dating violence, help children exposed to violence, and engage men in preventing violence.

This bill also recognizes the cascading ills associated with identifying, eliminating, and preventing the reemergence of domestic violence.

This bill expands grants under the Public Health Service Act to support implementation of training programs to improve the capacity of early childhood programs to address domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, and stalking among the families they serve; preserves and expands housing protections for survivors; provides economic security assistance for survivors, by reauthorizing the National Resource Center on Workplace Responses; protects employees from being fired because they are survivors of sexual assault or domestic violence; and protects survivors' eligibility to receive Unemployment Insurance.

Recognizing that many women are victimized at the hands of intimate partners, this iteration of VAWA helps prevent ``intimate partner'' homicides, by including provisions expanding firearms laws to prohibit persons convicted of dating violence from possessing firearms, prohibiting persons convicted of misdemeanor stalking from possessing firearms, and prohibiting individuals subject to ex parte protective orders from possessing firearms.

Accordingly, the bill helps protect Native American women, by including provisions to improve the response to missing and murdered Native American women, improving tribal access to federal crime information databases, and reaffirming tribal criminal jurisdiction over non-Indian perpetrators of domestic violence, sexual assault, dating violence, stalking, and trafficking for all federally recognized Indian tribes and Alaskan Natives.

Additionally, this bill protects the Office on Violence Against Women in the Department of Justice from being de-emphasized, merged, or consolidated into any other DOJ office.

VAWA is central to our nation's effort to fight the epidemic of domestic, sexual, and dating violence and stalking.

This work did not happen on its own.

It was the product of a collaborative effort of stakeholders, including victim advocates.

It was the product of those willing to share their stories of the abuse suffered at the hands of those who were entrusted to love, but instead harmed.

The courage, strength, and resilience displayed by survivors has reminded all that we must continue to foster an environment for victims of violence to come forward and expose episodes of violence against women.

This bill represents the good that can come when courageous people with a story to tell come forward with the belief that through their pain, the lives of others can be helped.

Having listened to concerned stakeholders from all pockets of the country, we have put pen to paper and produced a bill that is endorsed by the bipartisan National Task Force to End Sexual and Domestic Violence (NTF), which is a national collaboration comprising a large and diverse group of 35 national, tribal, state, territorial, and local organizations, advocates, and individuals that focus on the development, passage and implementation of effective public policy to address domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, and stalking.

Indeed, there is no reason our work on this cannot be bipartisan, as has been the custom of prior Congresses in authorizing this critical piece of legislation.

The love for a spouse, the comfort of a mother and the best wishes for a sister know no political allegiance.

Madam Chair, I claim time in opposition to the amendment, although I am not opposed to the amendment.

Madam Chair, I thank Congresswoman Wagner for her continuing leadership. It has been a pleasure to work with her over the years in the House Committee on the Judiciary on the question of human trafficking and sex trafficking.

I am delighted to join this amendment, along with Congresswoman Maloney from New York. We have a long history of working on the issues of human trafficking and sex trafficking.

Madam Chair, the International Labor Organization estimates that there are 40.3 million victims of human trafficking. Twenty-five percent of them are children; 75 percent of them are women and girls.

It is a tragedy, but one out of seven endangered runaways reported to the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children were likely child sex trafficking victims. Of those, 88 percent were in the care of social services or foster care when they ran.

From 2007 to 2017, the National Human Trafficking Hotline has received 34,700 sex trafficking cases inside the United States; and, in 2017, the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children indicated that children continue in 2017, again, to be sex trafficked. The International Labor Organization, again, estimates that there are 4.8 million people trapped in forced sexual exploitation.

What is necessary to know is that sex trafficking can be a revolving door. It is income that sex traffickers and human traffickers use.

I am very delighted to join with Congresswoman Wagner's amendment to this bill dealing with violence against women because it is an expanded bill that answers the concerns of so many.

I am glad that this amendment will ensure that the Creating Hope through Outreach, Options, Service, and Education for Children and Youth program, the CHOOSE Children and Youth program, can continue to be programs that address sex trafficking.

It is important to note, in particular, that it is answering the question of the gap in services in our States for young women who are at risk and who are struggling to restart their lives. We must ensure that, once these individuals have been victimized, sex trafficked, we do all we can to help them heal and recover.

I ask all Members to join in supporting this amendment, which emphasizes that sex trafficking is a part of our trying to stop and stomp out for good violence against women. I ask all Members to support the Wagner-Jackson Lee-Maloney amendment.

Madam Chair, I rise in strong support of the Wagner/Jackson Lee/ Maloney Amendment to H.R. 1585, the Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act of 2019.

The Wagner/Jackson Lee/Maloney makes an improvement to the bill by drawing attention to the lack of services for child sex trafficking services and which draws attention to groups like CHOOSE Children and Youth (Creating Hope through Outreach, Options, Service and Education for Children and Youth) for educating and preventing sex trafficking.

Madam Chair, while we live in the richest, most powerful country in the history of the world, in our nation we still see the prevalence of sex trafficking.

It is important that as we do this work before us today, we emphasize that sex trafficking is also a form of violence against women and children.

The Congress--this body--must work to ensure that services for sex trafficking victims are available.

The Wagner/Jackson Lee/Maloney Amendment addresses the gap in services in our state for young women who are risk and who are struggling to restart their lives.

Crime, and especially crimes falling within the umbrella of offenses addressed in VAWA are unconscionable and intolerable in a civilized society.

We must ensure that once these individuals have been victimized, we do all we can to help them heal and recover.

This Jackson Lee/Wagner/Maloney Amendment works towards that end.

I ask all members to support the Wagner/Jackson Lee/Maloney Amendment and I thank the gentlelady from Missouri for her work.

Notes on Sex Trafficking

Sex Trafficking is an extension of human trafficking

The International Labor Organization estimates that there

are 40.3 million victims of human trafficking globally.

81 percent of them are trapped in forced labor.

25 percent of them are children.

75 percent are women and girls.

The International Labor Organization estimates that forced

labor and human trafficking is a $150 billion industry

worldwide.

The U.S. Department of Labor has identified 148 goods from

75 countries made by forced and child labor.

In 2017, an estimated 1 out of 7 endangered runaways

reported to the National Center for Missing and Exploited

Children were likely child sex trafficking victims.

Of those, 88 percent were in the care of social services or

foster care when they ran.

There is no official estimate of the total number of human

trafficking victims in the U.S. Estimates indicate that the

total number of victims nationally reaches into the hundreds

of thousands when estimates of both adults and minors and sex

trafficking and labor trafficking are aggregated.

From 2007 to 2017, the National Human Trafficking Hotline

has received reports of 34,700 sex trafficking cases inside

the United States.

In 2017, the National Center for Missing & Exploited

Children estimated that 1 in 7 endangered runaways reported

to them were likely sex trafficking victims.

The International Labor Organization estimates that there

are 4.8 million people trapped in forced sexual exploitation

globally.

Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler), the chairman of the Judiciary Committee.

Madam Chair, I am holding up this bill, H.R. 1585. We are very grateful for the many victims who, once this bill is passed, will be able to both be honored but also be protected.

At the same time, with the gentlewoman's help, we want to make sure

that sex trafficked victims are not left out of important historic legislation like H.R. 1585. With her amendment--and I am pleased to join it with Congresswoman Maloney--we are ensuring that sex trafficking and the victims of sex trafficking will be heard, their voices will be heard. More importantly, there will be resources and programs that will address their pain but also address their ability to restore their lives.

I ask my colleagues to support the Wagner-Jackson Lee-Maloney amendment to H.R. 1585, the Violence Against Women Act.

Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I rise in strong and unequivocal support for the rule governing debate on H. Res. 271 as well as the underlying resolution and ask all Members to join me in supporting this resolution which condemns the Trump Administration's ongoing legal campaign to take away health care from more than 100 million Americans and to make health care dramatically less affordable for those fortunate enough to be insured.

I thank Congressman Allred, my Texas congressional delegation colleague, for introducing this important resolution.

As a new member of Congress who unseated an opponent who voted to repeal the Affordable Care Act dozens of times, the gentlemen from Texas knows first-hand how important and critical access to affordable, high quality, accessible health care available to everyone, including those with pre-existing conditions, to the well-being of American families.

Because of the passage of the Affordable Care Act, the national uninsured rate has been slashed from 14.8 in 2012 to 8.89 percent in 2018.

Texas has long led the nation in rate of uninsured so the comparable rates are 24.6 and 15 percent, respectively.

Madam Speaker, I distinctly recall a candidate for the highest public office in the land saying ``Obamacare is a disaster'' and appealing for voters to support him with this question:

``What have you got to lose?''

The question deserves a response so I hope that person, who occupies the Oval Office, is listening to my answer.

The Affordable Care Act, or ``Obamacare,'' has been an unmitigated success to the more than 20 million Americans who for the first time now have the security and peace of mind that comes with affordable, accessible, high quality health care.

Madam Speaker, Tip O'Neill used to say that ``all politics is local'' so let me share with you how Obamacare has dramatically changed lives for the better for the people in my home state of Texas.

1.874 million Texans who have gained coverage since the ACA was implemented could lose their coverage if the ACA is entirely or partially repealed or invalidated.

1.1 million Texans who purchased high quality Marketplace coverage now stand to lose their coverage if Texas v. United States, No. 4:18- cv-00167-O (N.D. Tex.), the lawsuit brought by Republican Governors, and now whole-heartedly supported and aided by the Trump Administration were to succeed.

913,177 individuals Texans who received financial assistance to purchase Marketplace coverage in 2016, averaging $271 per individual, are at risk of having coverage become unaffordable if the Republican Congress eliminates the premium tax credits.

1.1 million Texans could have insurance if all states adopted the ACA's Medicaid expansion; these individuals will not be able to gain coverage if the Republican Congress eliminates the Medicaid expansion.

508,000 kids in Texas who have gained coverage since the ACA was implemented are also at risk of having their coverage rolled back.

205,000 young adult Texans who were able to stay on a parent's health insurance plan thanks to the ACA now stand to lose coverage if the Republican Congress eliminates the requirement that insurers allow children to stay on their parents' plans until age 26.

646,415 Texans who received cost-sharing reductions to lower out-of- pocket costs such as deductibles, co-pays, and coinsurance are now at risk of having healthcare become unaffordable if the Republican Congress eliminates cost-sharing reductions.

10.28 million Texans who now have private health insurance that covers preventive services without any co-pays, coinsurance, or deductibles stand to lose this access if the Republican Congress eliminates ACA provisions requiring health insurers to cover important preventive services without cost-sharing.

Women in Texas who can now purchase insurance for the same price as men are at risk of being charged more for insurance if the ACA's ban on gender rating in the individual and small group markets is invalidated.

Before the ACA, women paid up to 56 percent more than men for their health insurance.

Roughly 4.5 million Texans who have pre-existing health conditions are at risk of having their coverage rescinded, being denied coverage, or being charged significantly more for coverage if the ACA's ban on pre-existing conditions is struck down.

346,750 Texas seniors who have saved an average of $1,057 each as a result of closing the Medicare prescription drug ``donut hole'' gap in coverage stand to lose this critical help going forward.

1.75 million Texas seniors who have received free preventive care services thanks to ACA provisions requiring coverage of annual wellness visits and eliminating cost-sharing for

many recommended preventive services covered by Medicare Part B, such as cancer screenings, are at risk of losing access to these services if congressional Republicans go forward with their plan to repeal the ACA.

The Affordable Care Act works and has made a life-affirming difference in the lives of millions of Americans, in Texas and across the country.

This is what happens when a visionary president cares enough to work with a committed and empathetic Congress to address the real issues facing the American people.

You want to know why the American people have Obamacare?

It is because Obama cared.

The same cannot be said about this Republican president and congressional Republicans who have made careers of attacking and undermining the Affordable Care Act's protections and benefits for the American people.

I urge all Members to vote for H. Res. 271 and send a powerful message to the President and the American people that this House will not stand idly by as this Administration tries to take away health care from more than 130 million persons.

Instead, this House will resist by all constitutional and appropriate means, including opposing this Administration in the courts and by passing the ``Protecting Pre-Existing Conditions and Making Health Care More Affordable Act of 2019,'' which will lower health insurance premiums with strengthened and expanded affordability assistance by:

1. strengthening tax credits in the Marketplace to lower Americans' health insurance premiums and allows more middle-class individuals and families to qualify for subsidies;

2. ensuring that families who don't have an offer of affordable coverage from an employer can still qualify for subsidies in the Marketplace; and,

3. providing funding for reinsurance, to help with high-cost claims, improve Marketplace stability, and prevent the Administration's sabotage from raising premiums.

The ``Protecting Pre-Existing Conditions and Making Health Care More Affordable Act of 2019,'' will also strengthen protections for people with pre-existing conditions by curtailing the Administration's efforts to give states waivers to undermine protections for people with pre- existing conditions and weaken standards for essential health benefits.

These improper waivers leave consumers with less comprehensive plans that do not cover needed services, such as prescription drugs, maternity care and substance use disorder treatment.

Another way the ``Protecting Pre-Existing Conditions and Making Health Care More Affordable Act of 2019,'' protects consumers is by prohibiting insurance companies from selling junk health insurance plans that do not provide coverage for essential medical treatments and drugs, or cover people with pre-existing medical conditions.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong and unequivocal support for H. Res. 271 as well as the underlying resolution and ask all Members to join me in supporting this resolution which condemns the Trump Administration's ongoing legal campaign to take away health care from more than 100 million Americans and to make health care dramatically less affordable for those fortunate enough to be insured.

I thank Congressman Allred, my Texas congressional delegation colleague, for introducing this important resolution.

As a new member of Congress who unseated an opponent who voted to repeal the Affordable Care Act dozens of times, the gentlemen from Texas knows first-hand how important and critical access to affordable, high quality, accessible health care available to everyone, including those with pre-existing conditions, to the well-being of American families.

Because of the passage of the Affordable Care Act, the national uninsured rate has been slashed from 14.8 in 2012 to 8.8 percent in 2018.

Texas has long led the nation in rate of uninsured so the comparable rates are 24.6 and 15 percent, respectively.

Mr. Speaker, I distinctly recall a candidate for the highest public office in the land saying ``Obamacare is a disaster'' and appealing for voters to support him with this question:

``What have you got to lose?''

The question deserves a response so I hope that person, who occupies the Oval Office, is listening to my answer.

The Affordable Care Act, or ``Obamacare,'' has been an unmitigated success to the more than 20 million Americans who for the first time now have the security and peace of mind that comes with affordable, accessible, high quality health care.

Mr. Speaker, Tip O'Neill used to say that ``all politics is local'' so let me share with you how Obamacare has dramatically changed lives for the better for the people in my home state of Texas.

1.874 million Texans who have gained coverage since the ACA was implemented could lose their coverage if the ACA is entirely or partially repealed or invalidated.

1.1 million Texans who purchased high quality Marketplace coverage now stand to lose their coverage if Texas v. United States, No. 4:18- cv-00167-O (N.D. Tex.), the lawsuit brought by Republican Governors, and now whole-heartedly supported and aided by the Trump Administration were to succeed.

913,177 individuals Texans who received financial assistance to purchase Marketplace coverage in 2016, averaging $271 per individual, are at risk of having coverage become unaffordable if the Republican Congress eliminates the premium tax credits.

1.1 million Texans could have insurance if all states adopted the ACA's Medicaid expansion; these individuals will not be able to gain coverage if the Republican Congress eliminates the Medicaid expansion.

508,000 kids in Texas who have gained coverage since the ACA was implemented are also at risk of having their coverage rolled back.

205,000 young adult Texans who were able to stay on a parent's health insurance plan thanks to the ACA now stand to lose coverage if the Republican Congress eliminates the requirement that insurers allow children to stay on their parents' plans until age 26.

646,415 Texans who received cost-sharing reductions to lower out-of- pocket costs such as deductibles, co-pays, and coinsurance are now at risk of having healthcare become unaffordable if the Republican Congress eliminates cost-sharing reductions.

10.28 million Texans who now have private health insurance that covers preventive services without any co-pays, coinsurance, or deductibles stand to lose this access if the Republican Congress eliminates ACA provisions requiring health insurers to cover important preventive services without cost-sharing.

Women in Texas who can now purchase insurance for the same price as men are at risk of being charged more for insurance if the ACA's ban on gender rating in the individual and small group markets is invalidated.

Before the ACA, women paid up to 56 percent more than men for their health insurance.

Roughly 4.5 million Texans who have pre-existing health conditions are at risk of having their coverage rescinded, being denied coverage, or being charged significantly more for coverage if the ACA's ban on pre-existing conditions is struck down.

346,750 Texas seniors who have saved an average of $1,057 each as a result of closing the Medicare prescription drug ``donut hole'' gap in coverage stand to lose this critical help going forward.

1.75 million Texas seniors who have received free preventive care services thanks to ACA provisions requiring coverage of annual wellness visits and eliminating cost-sharing for many recommended preventive services covered by Medicare Part B, such as cancer screenings, are at risk of losing access to these services if congressional Republicans go forward with their plan to repeal the ACA.

The Affordable Care Act works and has made a life-affirming difference in the lives of millions of Americans, in Texas and across the country.

This is what happens when a visionary president cares enough to work with a committed and empathetic Congress to address the real issues facing the American people.

You want to know why the American people have Obamacare?

It is because Obama cared.

The same cannot be said about this Republican president and congressional Republicans who have made careers of attacking and undermining the Affordable Care Act's protections and benefits for the American people.

I urge all Members to vote for H. Res. 271 and send a powerful message to the President and the American people that this House will not stand idly by as this Administration tries to take away health care from more than 130 million persons.

Instead, this House will resist by all constitutional and appropriate means, including opposing this Administration in the courts and by passing the ``Protecting Pre-Existing Conditions and Making Health Care More Affordable Act of 2019,'' which will lower health insurance premiums with strengthened and expanded affordability assistance by:

1. strengthening tax credits in the Marketplace to lower Americans' health insurance premiums and allows more middle-class individuals and families to qualify for subsidies;

2. ensuring that families who don't have an offer of affordable coverage from an employer can still qualify for subsidies in the Marketplace; and,

3. providing funding for reinsurance, to help with high-cost claims, improve Marketplace stability, and prevent the Administration's sabotage from raising premiums.

The ``Protecting Pre-Existing Conditions and Making Health Care More Affordable Act of 2019,'' will also strengthen protections for people with pre-existing conditions by curtailing the Administration's efforts to give states waivers to undermine protections for people with pre- existing conditions and weaken standards for essential health benefits.

These improper waivers leave consumers with less comprehensive plans that do not cover needed services, such as prescription drugs, maternity care and substance use disorder treatment.

Another way the ``Protecting Pre-Existing Conditions and Making Health Care More Affordable Act of 2019,'' protects consumers is by prohibiting insurance companies from selling junk health insurance plans that do not provide coverage for essential medical treatments and drugs, or cover people with pre-existing medical conditions.

Mr. Speaker, in the 2016 election, as the candidate who now is in the Oval Office said that ObamaCare is a disaster, the question was asked: What do you have to lose?

Well, now we know. It is the Affordable Care Act, which has provided 20 million Americans, for the first time, with security and peace of mind in healthcare.

I rise to support H. Res. 271, and I thank the gentleman from Texas, my colleague, Colin Allred, because we know that the Texas case is the epicenter of destruction of the Affordable Care Act.

The administration's flip on us to now be against the position of survival of the Affordable Care Act tells us we have a lot to lose: 1.8 million Texans have gained coverage; 1.1 million Texans have purchased high-quality marketplace coverage; 913,000 individual Texans have received financial assistance.

More importantly, there are 1.1 million Texans who have insurance. If all the States adopted ACA's Medicaid, we would have that as well. We did not do it.

But, as well, Texans have no lifetime caps. They have the ability to have their children on their health insurance plans.

This is a tragedy. Mr. Speaker, I condemn the action of the administration in filing their opposition to the Affordable Care Act.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman and the ranking member managing this bill, and I thank Mr. Kennedy for his insight.

We are reminded that we have nothing to fear but fear itself. Franklin Delano Roosevelt offered those great words on the precipice of World War II, the victory with the United States troops standing side by side, some of them African Americans who lived and served in the uniform but in a segregated way. But their blood was the same, and they shared their blood in the same way; they died in the same way.

Do we want victory or defeat?

Let me be very clear. Allowing transgenders to serve and brushing them out is a travesty.

Do you realize that it is clear that the RAND report found that healthcare coverage for transgender military personnel would increase the military total account by less than zero?

In addition, when all of this was banned by the Obama administration, we recognized it is honored, the sacrifices of selfless transgender servicemembers who have endured exclusion, silence, and persecution due to discriminatory policies and attitudes against LGBT and military personnel such as Don't Ask, Don't Tell, which was rightfully struck down under the Obama administration.

We must be against these destructive practices.

Do we want victory or defeat?

There is nothing to fear but fear itself.

Support this resolution to stand with those who want to serve and die for their country.

I rise in support of H. Res. 124.

Mr. Speaker, on Wednesday, July 26, 2017, the fears of the LGBTQ community were confirmed.

In an unexpected move that immediately sent shockwaves through the media and LGBTQ+ community, the President tweeted Wednesday morning that ``the United States Government will not accept or allow Transgender individuals to serve in any capacity in the U.S. Military.''

Scores of individuals, civil rights groups, and military personnel on all sides of the political spectrum unanimously condemned the President's announcement as an intolerant and irrational violation of the sacred right of Transgender Americans to valiantly serve their country.

In his tweets, the President claimed that ``our military . . . cannot be burdened with the tremendous medical costs and disruption that transgender in the military would entail.''

This statement directly contradicts the wealth of rigorous evidence indicating the exact opposite:

According to a 2016 study by the RAND Corporation, allowing transgender individuals to serve openly in the military poses ``little to no impact on unit cohesion, operational effectiveness, or readiness.''

Furthermore, RAND found that health care coverage for transgender military personnel would increase the U.S. military's total annual health care expenditures by a mere 0.04 to 0.13-percent.

The President's illogical ban on transgender military personnel reverses a previous policy set forth by Former Defense Secretary Ash Carter in June, 2016 that allowed transgender troops to serve openly.

This policy under Obama was a significant step forward that made our armed services more inclusive.

It honored the sacrifices of selfless transgender service members who have endured exclusion, silence, and persecution due to discriminatory policies and attitudes against LGBTQ+ military personnel such as ``Don't Ask, Don't Tell,'' which was rightfully struck down under the Obama administration.

Numerous advocacy groups that focus on LGBTQ+ service members and veterans organizations have decried the President's transgender ban announcement and criticized the hypocrisy and poor leadership of the White House.

Officials at OutServe, which provides legal assistance to LGBTQ+ troops and recruits, said Trump's ``pseudo-policy-by-twitter'' demonstrated ``blatant disregard for transgender service members.''

The group then turned the President's hateful rhetoric back on itself: ``The disruptive burden to the military comes from indecision in a White House which itself is not focused on victory if it's targeting service members.

The readiness, effectiveness, and lethality of the Armed Services comes from the commitment of our troops--not the vagaries and bigotry of exclusionary policies.''

The Palm Center, an advocacy group for transgender service members, denounced the President's comments as ``creating a worse version of don't ask, don't tell'' policy.

Vote Vets, an organization dedicated to opening U.S. military services to diverse Americans, correctly assessed that ``removing [transgender service members] weakens our country and our military.''

There are approximately 15,000 transgender service members currently serving in the U.S. military.

The President's announcement offers no clarity on the status of these troops who continue to serve their country with honor, dignity, and excellence.

However, if the President's expression of intent to ``not accept or allow Transgender individuals to serve'' entails the removal of these service members from the ranks of the U.S. military--this can only be understood as a direct violation of the rights and principles laid down in the Constitution.

Angela Davis once said, ``If they come for me in the morning, they will come for you in the night.''

Americans of all races, ethnicities, origins, sexual preferences, and gender identities must realize that the reverse is also true: If the President comes for them in the morning, he will come for me in the night.

To the brave transgender individuals who have served, currently serve, or dream of serving in the military: I recognize your commitment to protecting this nation with your very lives.

I oppose the President's unlawful agenda of discrimination. I will not stop until your sacrifices are regarded as equal under the law of the United States.

To all members of the transgender community: I stand with you. I am fighting for you. I will not allow your rights to be stripped away by bigoted men who have lost sight of what it means to be American. That is why I support H. Res. 124.

Madam Speaker, I rise to commemorate Women's History Month.

I want to offer a special mention for the U.S. House of Representatives women firsts:

Congresswoman Jeanette Rankin of Montana who was the first elected woman member of the House of Representatives;

Congresswoman Patsy Mink of Hawaii was the first woman of color and the first Asian American woman elected to Congress;

Congresswoman Shirley Anita Chisholm of New York who was the first African-American Congresswoman member of the House of Representatives; and

Congresswoman Ileana Ros-Lehtinen whom we have the honor of working with is the first Hispanic woman elected to serve in Congress.

National Women's History Month's roots go back to March 8, 1857, when women from New York City factories staged a protest over working conditions.

International Women's Day was first observed in 1909.

In 1981, Congress passed a law authorizing the President to proclaim March 7, 1982 as ``Women's History Week.'' It was a modest beginning, but very significant to women because it started a societal and cultural change in how women--and especially young girls saw themselves within the American story.

In 1987, Congress expanded the week to a month. Every year since, Congress has passed a resolution for Women's History Month, and the President has issued a proclamation.

This month we recognize Women's History Month by noting the fundamental role women have played in shaping America's history. But I say to you that a month is not enough to make known the significant contributions of women to the success of the United States of America.

We taught our girls about Rose the Riveter who represented the millions of American women who went to work on assembly lines to manufacture tanks, planes, and weapons for the defense of this nation during World War II.

We have many American Women heroes in the STEM area like: Sally Kristen Ride, the first woman sent into space; Eileen Marie Collins, the first woman space shuttle pilot; and Grace Murray Hopper an American computer scientist and United States Navy rear admiral.

Admiral Hopper developed the first compiler for a computer programming language, which made it possible to program computers without using punch cards.

The Shriver Report, ``A Woman's Nation Pushes Back from the Brink:'' Some Recommended Steps for Government Businesses, and Women reported on the economic health of the average American woman.

Today, women make up half the U.S. workforce, but the average full time working woman earns only 77 percent of what the average full time working man makes.

And that is why the House must pass H.R. 7, the Paycheck Fairness Act, when it comes to the floor for debate and vote.

There are many women in the State of Texas and in the city of Houston who have made significant contributions to the American story:

Congresswoman Barbara Jordan of Texas was the first African American woman elected to the House of Representatives;

Kathryn ``Kathy'' Whitmire was the first woman elected to serve in Houston City government; and

Mae Carol Jemison, the first African American woman astronaut.

These many accomplishments does not mean there is not more that needs to be done.

There is still a long way for women to go according the Shriver Report.

Women are more than 50 percent of the population and more than 50 percent of the votes.

A woman working full time, all year at a minimum-wage job, or a job close to the minimum wage, will not be able to bring her family above the poverty line.

Families need an income closer to 200 percent of the federal poverty threshold to escape the brink.

In the Shriver Report's survey:

73 percent of Americans said that in order to raise the incomes of working women and their families, they strongly favor the government ensuring that women get equal pay for equal work;

79 percent of Americans said the government should expand access to high-quality, affordable childcare for working families;

Almost 60 percent of Americans said women raising children on their own face tremendous challenges and should be helped financially by government, employers, and communities; and

If we are going to win the war on poverty we must wage and win the war of discrimination of women in the workforce.

Pay inequality is not just a women's issue--it is a family income equality issue.

In 2012, Texas' ranked second among the 50 states among with workers earning at or below the federal minimum wage.

According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics of the 6.1 million workers are paid hourly rates in Texas in 2012,

In Texas 282,000 earned exactly the prevailing federal minimum wage of $7.25 per hour, while 170,000 earned less.

From 2011 to 2012, the number of Texas workers who earned at or below the federal minimum wage was 7.5 percent. The percentage of workers earning less than the federal minimum 2012 was 2.8 percent, while the share earning exactly the minimum wage was 4.7 percent.

Madam Speaker, I ask my colleagues to help celebrate Women's History month by becoming cosponsors of H.R. 863.

Mr. Speaker, I want to take this moment to go down a very tough, and for many families, humiliating journey down memory lane.

Memories full of sick mothers and fathers, sick children, and maybe even those who lost their life because they could not get affordable healthcare.

Apparently, this administration doesn't understand; for those of us who were here before the Affordable Care Act, the years and years of work, the thousands of pages of testimony, the many different committees--even my committee, the Committee on the Judiciary--we heard the pain and cries of those who did not have health insurance.

Maybe he doesn't know--the administration--the story of the 8-year- old girl whose family actually took her to the office of the insurance company--she had leukemia--to beg for coverage. And they denied her, and she died.

Maybe they did not hear the story of the mother whose son had hepatitis because he had not been able to overcome his drug addiction, even though he was a lawyer, and his only basis of healthcare was the emergency room in a city hospital;

Or maybe the doctor who drove to another city hundreds of miles away to get his intern son, put him in the backseat of his car and drive him all the way back so that he could be inside the jurisdiction in which his healthcare covered.

Maybe the administration and the President do not know about junk insurance policies, that when you get to the hospital, as they look over you in the emergency room and say, There is no room at the inn for you because your insurance doesn't cover hospitalization.

Or the tap on the door of your hospital room while you are in the bed, and although you are still ill, you are evicted because your insurance has capped.

All of that was eliminated with the Affordable Care Act.

What a disaster for this administration to proudly and arrogantly stand up to take a stand to destroy the Affordable Care Act in my State, in Texas v. Azar, and how sad it is that State officials from the moment they got elected in my State, Republicans, every day have been fighting to destroy the Affordable Care Act.

And my own county health department is begging for relief; begging for the expanded Medicaid; begging to serve the many thousands upon thousands that are in need who are working poor, but my State refused to accept the expanded Medicaid. And now, with great hubris, pompousness, this Government--it is supposed to be for the people, of which we are--has decided to take a stand to destroy the Affordable Care Act.

Rather than do what we are attempting to do as Democrats and protecting preexisting conditions and to expand and improve on healthcare, we are looking to lower health insurance premiums, strengthen protections for people with pre-existing conditions, stop insurance companies from selling junk health insurance plans, and reverse the administration's healthcare, sabotaging needlessly driven- up premiums and uninsured rates and empower States to innovate and invest in enrolling more people.

Outreach. I have been engaged in outreach and education, and the families are excited when they are eligible for insurance.

All of the people that I mentioned, and some who died, had preexisting conditions. Over 50 percent of the American people--maybe upwards of 65 percent--have preexisting conditions.

In 2012, there were 45 million uninsured persons, but the Affordable Care Act was making its way so much so that we have reduced the amount of uninsured persons, as the numbers show in 2018, down to about 28 million, and we were making steady progress.

What kind of caring attitude do you have?

Where is your humanity, that you would take insurance away from sick children, families, and the elderly, and that you would allow their prescription drugs to shoot through the roof, which is what will happen when you destroy and implode the Affordable Care Act.

It is not an overnight success. 50 years America was trying to work on a system that would work, beyond the Medicare system, and Medicaid.

We are supporting--many of us--a way to provide healthcare for all, like Medicare for all. I am supporting this legislation, but what is happening in the administration is nothing but an implosion of a lifeline for the American people.

We need to stop that now.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding, the chairman of the full committee, I acknowledge the ranking member, and indicate that, as all of us who have come to the floor, this is an enormously historic day.

For those of us who know the history of equal pay for women in America, this is a journey long in coming and continuing--first with the Equal Pay Act of some 50-plus years ago; then with the Lilly Ledbetter Act 10 years ago; and now with this historic legislation, the Paycheck Fairness Act--to make good on the idea that women should not be getting less than their male counterparts: African American women earning 61 percent, Latina women earning 53 percent, and Hawaiian and Pacific Islanders earning 62 percent versus White, non-Hispanic men.

The most important part of this legislation is the protection given to women today, requiring employers to prove that pay disparities exist for legitimate, job-related reasons other than sex. It bans retaliation against workers who wish to discuss their wages. It removes obstacles in the Equal Pay Act to allow workers to participate in class-action lawsuits and improves the Department of Labor tools for enforcing the Equal Pay Act.

Madam Chair, it is important to note that no one, as a woman, can ask you what your previous pay was--how denigrating that is--and use it as a basis to not pay you what you really deserve in this new position.

Also, women are heads of household; they deserve the ability to provide for their family.

Madam Chair, this is not a lawsuit bill. This is an opportunity bill. This is a fairness bill. This is the ability to go into court to receive justice. And, yes, as part of justice, class-action lawsuits can work.

I believe that the Paycheck Fairness Act should be passed, promptly going to the other body, and be signed by the President of the United States, because women, too, have the responsibilities to serve and provide for their family.

This is an historic piece of legislation. I thank Rosa DeLauro.

Madam Speaker, I want to speak openly to my friends and colleagues. Take a moment to look to your right as you come into this body, to the memorial that was put together by the Parkland students and other gun victims. It will pain your heart and move you to action.

It acknowledges that 722 people die every week from gun violence. It acknowledges that teenagers may lose their lives, and it has a form to indicate which teenager is next. It has flowers, and it says, ``Stop killing us.''

Every Member of Congress should walk by that memorial today, commit themselves to be decent and do decent things, and recognize that we should have gun safety legislation.

I rise as well to say that women who are not being paid or who are supporting families need the paycheck legislation that I will be supporting tomorrow.

I also say that this country must not accept behavior by a President as a norm, and the Mueller report and the facts must be had. We must do it quietly and respectfully, and we must have our hearings to tell the truth.

Finally, I am outraged, coming from a State that was a poster child for the persons without healthcare, that this administration would try to oppose the Affordable Care Act. We are going to fight it. We are going to try to save the lives of our children and provide healthcare for all.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to congratulate the University of Houston Cougars Men's Basketball Team on its extraordinary success during the 2018-2019 season.

I am proud to represent this exceptional university, which is located in the heart of the 18th Congressional District of Texas.

The University of Houston men's basketball team were dominant throughout the season, compiling a 30-2 overall record and 16-2 in conference play.

This season marks the first outright American Athletic Conference Championship, which confers an automatic berth to the NCAA Men's College Basketball Tournament.

The Cougars were consistently ranked in the Top 20 all season and currently are ranked No. 11 in the Associated Press Poll and No. 10 in the Coaches Poll.

The Cougars opened their March Madness quest on Thursday, March 21, in Tulsa, Oklahoma as the No. 3 seed in the Midwest Region, where they defeated Georgia State, 84-55.

After defeating Ohio State 74-59, on Sunday, March 24, the Cougars advanced to the Sweet 16 for the first time in 35 years.

The Cougars next take the court this Friday against the No. 2 seed Kentucky Wildcats at the Sprint Center in Kansas City, Missouri.

Madam Speaker, you should also know that this historic season includes the selection of Cougars Head Coach Kelvin Sampson as AAC Coach of the Year.

This year's success of the student athletes at the University of Houston, together with its first-rate academic program, shows the nation and the world the formidable prowess of this fine institution led by its dynamic and visionary Chancellor and President, Dr. Renu Khato.

I commend congratulate Coach Sampson, the Cougars and wish them continued success at the Big Dance.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman very much for yielding.

I, too, add my appreciation to Mr. Collins' eagerness to adhere to what I think is an appropriate policy that reasserts the article I authority, if you will, of the Congress. And I think it is important for my colleagues to recognize that Americans are wondering. They are wondering. They have heard over and over again of Russian collusion. They have heard the factual affirmation that the Russians did interfere with the 2016 election and tried to interfere with the 2018 election. Therefore, it is important for them, in their concern, to be informed. They are taxpayers. We say this all the time.

And it is important to note that, through this investigation, the National Security Advisor and former foreign policy advisor and many others have gone to court because of Mr. Mueller.

It is indeed important to know that we have learned much because of his report, but we have not learned all. And we must overcome Attorney General Barr's hesitation, because the American people have made the point. The point is that 68 percent of them say that they would like to see this report.

Now, we know that it has been bandied around that we cannot indict a President. This is not about indicting a President. But assuming, arguendo, that this regulation is correct, that someone thinks that that is constant law and the President cannot be subjected to criminal process and, therefore, cannot and should not be indicted, it is a logical fallacy to say that because he cannot be indicted by virtue of his office and because it is the Justice Department's regulation not to reveal information about unindicted parties and individuals.

The Justice Department cannot reveal any information or potential wrongdoing by the President and not reveal any information to the body that possesses the constitutional responsibility for holding this President accountable.

So let us follow good policy. Even the words of Attorney General Barr that recognizes that the DOJ's purpose is to release investigations in the public interest. This is in the public interest.

Mr. Speaker, I would suggest to all that we do this in a bipartisan way to give to the American people what they deserve and what they want.

Mr. Speaker, as a senior member of the Committee on Judiciary, which has oversight of the Department of Justice, and as a Senior Member of the Committee on Homeland Security, which has oversight over our election security infrastructure, I rise in strong support of H. Con. Res. 24.

Mr. Speaker, I rise because I believe our nation will soon be at an inflection point.

For many years now, Americans have wondered about the role of Russia's interference in the 2016 election and whether that crime was aided and abetted by Associates of the Trump Campaign.

Americans have been concerned as we have watched a parade of colleagues and contemporaries of the President hauled before court.

This includes the President's National Security Advisor, his longtime confidante, his former foreign policy advisor, and yesterday his former campaign manager and his former campaign manager.

Indeed, the future that awaits the President's former campaign manager is bleak--he is facing 7.5 years in federal prison, and today a 16-count indictment was returned in Manhattan detailing residential mortgage fraud, conspiracy and falsifying business records.

Indeed, most if not all of what we have learned about those who surround the president has been because of the work of the Special Counsel, Robert Mueller.

It is important that whatever work Mr. Mueller has done, be shared by the American people.

This is for any number of reasons.

First of all, broad swaths of the American people want this report published.

The last public opinion poll conducted showed that 68% of Americans want this Mueller report published.

Next, the entire purpose of appointing a special counsel was because the president's first attorney General had to recuse himself because he was found to be less-than-truthful about his contacts with Kremlin officials during the 2016 campaign, on behalf of then Candidate Trump.

According to the former Acting Attorney General, the Special Counsel was appointed in order for the American people to have full confidence in the outcome of the investigation . . . the public must be assured that government officials administer the law fairly.

And thus far, Mr. Mueller's investigation has revealed the public indictment of 34 individuals, 3 companies, 7 guilty pleas and one 1 conviction following trial.

Through the work done by Mr. Mueller and his ``speaking indictments,'' we learned that Russian military officials tried to wage an active measures campaign.

We know that the Russians manipulated our social media systems.

They did this by turning our social media platforms like Twitter and Facebook, into rowdy and unwieldy debates that turned Americans against one another.

They did this by creating fake online social media accounts and populated them on social media platforms.

After infiltrating the social media accounts of real Americans, these fake accounts sought to sow discord in these online communities by purposely exacerbating divisions within our nation and creating new ones--all with the intent of pitting Americans against one another.

While they were distorting the social media landscape, they were also selectively disseminating emails stolen from the Democratic National Committee and the campaign of Hillary Clinton with the purpose of timing the dissemination to maximize political damage on Secretary Clinton's campaign.

All the while, the President was encouraging this behavior.

And, despite protestations by the President, this is not a witch hunt--it has yielded the

public indictments of 34 individuals and 3 companies, 7 guilty pleas, and 1 conviction.

The American people are watching and paying attention.

The most recent public opinion poll shows that a super majority of Americans--a full 68%--wants the Mueller Report made public.

The Mueller Report is one unparalleled way in which Americans can learn this information with confidence.

And, finally, we must tackle a serious issue that is being discussed among elected officials and the Justice Department.

Over the past two years, we have been told that it is Justice Department regulations that a sitting President cannot be indicted. I will note that this principle has not been tested in court.

That regulation was implemented during the Watergate investigation, under the theory that the President cannot be subjected to criminal process.

But, assuming arguendo that this regulation is correct, and the President cannot be subjected to criminal process and therefore cannot and should not be indicted, it is a logical fallacy to say that because he cannot be indicted by virtue of his office, and because it is Justice Department regulation not to reveal information about unindicted parties and individuals, the Justice Department cannot reveal any information of potential wrongdoing by the President and not reveal any information to the body that possesses the constitutional responsibility for holding this president accountable.

For these reasons, I rise in strong support of H. Con. Res. 24, and urge my colleagues to support it and urge passage so the American people can learn how the 2016 election became a crime scene.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to David Leon Loya. This is a young man who was full of life.

David loved life and enjoyed something that many of us have participated in and that we see more Americans doing across the Nation, and that is bicycling. He was an avid bicyclist and enjoyed the outdoors in Houston, Texas.

He was a young man with a future before him with a loving family.

He was a young man that we want to pay tribute to because we know that he exhibited values of love and generosity, because of the community who came out to express their remorse and their sadness that he lost his life while bicycling.

We understand, in tribute to him, recognizing that as the world changes, more Americans will be riding their bicycle. We want to make sure, in his name, that we have designed bicycle paths, that in the urban areas they cover streets in a lighted way so that vehicles can acknowledge those on bicycles and that they can be protected.

David Leon Loya, we honor him and love him. In his name, Mr. Speaker, we will make these bicycle paths the best and the most safe, and he will not have died in vain.

To his family, my deepest sympathy.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Let me thank the gentleman from California and congratulate him on his new distinguished post on the Rules Committee. My good friend who I have seen quite frequently over the years at the Rules Committee and I have known of his consistent concern with the rule of law and truly appreciate his comments today as it relates to the rule of law.

I would like my comments to be strictly on that question and really the American people of whom each and every one of us come here to represent.

I don't want to recount in detail, but I do want to make mention that we know that the Intelligence Committee in January 2017 concluded--and that is the intelligence community concluded--in a report that Russian President Putin ordered and influenced the campaign of 2016 on the Presidential election. We all know recently there were attempts to influence the 2018 election.

We won't dwell on that. We won't dwell on the fact that there are discussions and review in the special counsel's work dealing with collusion or the questions dealing with the campaign of the present President and Russia.

I believe that the real point of this is to answer the questions of the American people. If we say that the purpose of appointing the special counsel to oversee the investigation is to ensure that the American public would have full confidence in the integrity of the investigation, regardless of what it says, I am here to say, regardless of what the Mueller report will say--and we know that there will be comments made by the general public, leaders of Congress, and that is their right as Americans--we want to reinforce the fact that the DOJ regulations themselves say that investigation results should be made fully extended to the American public in the public interest, and that the results of that report should be made available to the American people.

Obviously, being concerned about persons that are mentioned with no relevance whatsoever, as a lawyer, I would want to make sure such protections occur. But it is true that Special Counsel Mueller previously served in the Department of Justice as a prosecutor, and director of the FBI in the Republican and Democrat administrations where he built a reputation of competence, fairness, and nonpartisanship.

With that in mind, we thank him for the work he has done that has shown a number of guilty pleas and other responses.

But the main point is the American people need to know that their government adheres to the rule of law, and the integrity of the Constitution. All we are asking today is to reflect in a sense of Congress that you, the American people, that my colleagues in this House and the Senate should have the right to see the full report.

I ask for support of the underlying bill, and I ask us to do it in a bipartisan way.

Mr. Speaker, as a senior member of the Committee on Judiciary, which has oversight of the Department of Justice, and as a senior member of the Committee on Homeland Security, which has oversight over our election security infrastructure, I rise in strong support of H. Con. Res. 24.

Mr. Speaker, I take no glee in standing here.

In fact, there are many parts of the last 22 months, since the day that Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein appointed former FBI Director Robert Mueller to be Special Counsel, where I have been concerned for the state of our democracy.

And I know, from my travels back to the 18th Congressional District of Texas, around our Nation, and to nations involved, that many Americans are concerned about our democracy.

Since well before the 2016 election, Americans have been concerned about how Russia was manipulating our election and the extent to which that crime was aided and abetted by associates of the Trump Campaign.

American intelligence officials have been keenly aware of this threat to the democracy posed by Russia's active measures campaign to sabotage the election and secure the American presidency for its preferred candidate, the current occupant of the Oval Office.

Shortly after the President took office, James Comey, the former director of the FBI testified to the House Intelligence Committee in a public congressional hearing that there was an active FBI investigation into Russia's interference and the extent to which Russia and was aided and abetted by agents of the Trump Campaign.

Shortly after the hearing, the President fired James Comey as FBI Director and went on broadcast television and cited the looming Russia investigation as his reason for doing so.

The next day in the Oval Office, the President of the United States met with the Russian Ambassador and other officials from the Kremlin and told them that he had gotten rid of ``nut job'' Comey and had gotten the Russian investigation off his back.

Mere days later, the Deputy Attorney General, Rod Rosenstein appointed legendary FBI Director and Department of Justice prosecutor Robert Mueller as Special Counsel to investigate whether Russia interfered in our election and whether that effort was aided and abetted by members of the Trump Campaign.

Since that time, the investigation has secured numerous indictments, convictions or guilty pleas from the: President's campaign manager, his deputy campaign manager, his campaign's foreign policy advisor, his former personal attorney, his longtime confidante, and many others, including Russian agents.

The president has attempted to dismiss these crimes and other charges brought--like obstruction of justice, perjury, making false statements, etc.--as ``process crimes,'' when in actuality they are crimes designed to safeguard the integrity of the criminal justice system and the rule of law.

But these are merely the headlines, when we look closer at just what we have learned from the Russia investigation, we have a roadmap on how to manipulate the electoral process in the world's oldest democracy.

We know that the Russians manipulated our social media systems.

They did this by turning our social media platforms like Twitter and Facebook, into rowdy and unwieldy debates that turned Americans against one another.

They did this by creating fake online social media accounts and populated them on social media platforms.

After infiltrating the social media accounts of real Americans, these fake accounts sought to sow discord in these online communities by purposely exacerbating divisions within our

Nation and creating new ones--all with the intent of pitting Americans against one another.

While they were distorting the social media landscape, they were also selectively disseminating emails stolen from the Democratic National Committee and the campaign of Hillary Clinton with the purpose of timing the dissemination to maximize political damage on Secretary Clinton's campaign.

Based on the statements from the Trump Campaign, we also know that it was actively trying to suppress the votes of groups traditionally aligned with the Democratic party, including women, African Americans and young voters.

We now know, due to information uncovered during the pendency of the Special Counsel's investigation, Russians affiliated with the highest ranks of the Kremlin were at Trump Tower during the middle of the 2016 election.

We know that then-candidate Trump asked Russia, ``Russia, if you're releasing, I hope you will find Hillary's stolen emails.''

In May 2017, Special Counsel Mueller was appointed with the task of getting to the bottom of this.

The American people deserve answers to know how their last presidential election was a crime scene so that we may learn to ensure that the next one is also not a crime scene.

And, the American people have every reason to have confidence in the report produced by the Special Counsel.

The Special Counsel is a decorated American hero and public servant. He has served as the FBI director for presidents of both parties.

He has served as a line prosecutor, a United States Attorney and a leader within the Justice Department.

Despite protestations by the President, this is not a witch hunt--it has yielded the public indictments of 34 individuals and 3 companies, 7 guilty pleas, and 1 conviction.

The American people are watching.

The most recent public opinion poll shows that a super majority of Americans--a full 68 percent--wants the Mueller Report made public.

The Mueller Report is one unparalleled way in which Americans can learn this information with confidence.

And, finally, we must tackle a serious issue that is being discussed among elected officials and the Justice Department.

Over the past two years, we have been told that it is Justice Department regulations that a sitting President cannot be indicted. I will note that this principle has not been tested in court.

That regulation was implemented during the Watergate investigation, under the theory that the President cannot be subjected to criminal process.

But, assuming arguendo that this regulation is correct, and the President cannot be subjected to criminal process and therefore cannot and should not be indicted, it is a logical fallacy to say that because he cannot be indicted by virtue of his office, and because it is Justice Department regulation not to reveal information about unindicted parties and individuals, the Justice Department cannot reveal any information of potential wrongdoing by the President and not reveal any information to the body that possesses the constitutional responsibility for holding this president accountable.

For these reasons, I rise in strong support of H. Con. Res. 24, and urge my colleagues to support it and urge passage so the American people can learn how the 2016 election became a crime scene.

Madam Speaker, I serve on the Homeland Security Committee, and I have done so since the heinous act of 9/11.

I have a great deal of faith in the aviation industry of this Nation, but I want to offer my deepest sympathy to the people of Ethiopia and Indonesia.

In the instance of the Ethiopian flight, some eight Americans died. Ethiopian Americans have been calling my office saddened by the fact that some of their relatives, who are very special to them, lost their life.

I called, earlier today, for the grounding of the 737 Max 8 not because I don't have faith in America's genius, but because I believe people are number one and first. Pilots count, fight attendants count, and passengers count.

It is time for the FAA to remove their fear and to be able to assess a temporary grounding of this aircraft so that all of the systems can be checked, even the one that is automatic that the pilot is to release, which is alleged did not happen, but to release in order to save lives.

These planes, this aircraft, should be grounded now, and I will be sending a letter to the FAA to demand that.