Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, on April 3, 2017, I was unavoidably absent in the House Chamber due to a family medical emergency. Due to these unforeseen circumstances, I was unable to vote on two legislative measures on the floor.

I want to express my strong support for H. Res. 92, a resolution condemning North Korea's development of multiple intercontinental ballistic missiles. I am a cosponsor of this measure. Had I been present and voting on Roll Call No. 209, I would have voted ``aye.''

Likewise, I support H.R. 479, the North Korea State Sponsor of Terrorism Designation Act of 2017. This bill expresses the sense of Congress that the Government of North Korea likely meets the criteria for designation as a state sponsor of terrorism and, if so, should be so designated. The bill also requires the State Department to provide a report to Congress on actions the Government of North Korea has taken to support terrorism. Had I been present and voting on Roll Call No. 210, I would have voted ``aye.''

Mr. Speaker, each year, about 33,000 Americans die in gun-related incidents, and twice as many are wounded.

Over 60 percent of gun deaths are suicides. Individuals in emotional distress who attempt suicide with a gun rarely survive, so they don't get the chance to reconsider, to recover, and to live on.

Nearly 35 percent of gun deaths in this country are homicides, with one human being using a firearm to take the life of a fellow human being. These homicides occur as a part of the daily drumbeat of violence, particularly in cities, but also our suburbs and small towns.

Homicides in certain cities have become so customary they are relegated to the back pages of newspapers or not covered at all. Of course, the lack of public attention does not diminish the private pain felt by a victim's family and friends.

Homicides in America also take place in the context of mass shootings that make headlines because the carnage is so immense. The most recent incident was the deadliest in American history. On June 12, 2016, an individual using a semiautomatic rifle shot 49 people to death and wounded 53 at the Pulse nightclub in my hometown of Orlando.

My guest to the President's address to Congress last week was Dr. Marc Levy, a surgeon in Orlando. He and his team operated on victims of the Pulse nightclub shooting, some of whom had their bodies torn apart. As Dr. Levy and other first responders that fateful evening can attest, a weapon designed for the battlefield transformed a celebration of life into a scene of devastation and death that resembled a war zone.

Although Orlando united in the wake of the Pulse attack, earning the label ``Orlando Strong,'' our city was profoundly and permanently affected by this tragedy. I don't want another American community to experience what we have endured.

That is why today I am introducing legislation that would take a modest but meaningful step forward. Specifically, my bill would ensure that the CDC can offer evidence-based research into the causes of gun- related incidents and potential ways to reduce gun deaths and injuries. This research would inform policymakers as they consider whether to enact reasonable reforms that both save lives and protect the constitutional rights of law-abiding gun owners.

The decision rests with elected officials about whether to pass new laws designed to keep the most dangerous weapons out of the hands of the most dangerous individuals, in a manner consistent with the Second Amendment. But lawmakers of both parties should have the benefit of the best scientific research on the subject as they deliberate and debate.

My bill is necessary because, for 20 years, Congress has included a policy rider that, as a practical matter, has prevented the CDC and other HHS agencies from supporting research on gun-related incidents.

I can respect that elected officials, like the diverse Americans that they represent, have a range of views about the wisdom of enacting reasonable reforms within the space allowed by the Second Amendment. What I cannot respect is any lawmaker who would seek to suppress research into gun-related

incidents merely because the lawmaker fears this research could serve as the basis for legislative action that the lawmaker does not favor.

Restricting research because you disagree with its results is unAmerican to its core, a deviation from our proud national tradition of free and open inquiry.

As lawmakers, we must recognize that gun incidents are claiming the lives of too many of our citizens and tearing apart too many of our communities. In deciding how best to confront this challenge, we should seek out and sponsor research on this subject, not shun it.

For this reason, my bill would repeal the current policy rider and express the sense of Congress that no such policy riders should be enacted in the future.

I hope my colleagues will cosponsor this legislation, which underscores the importance of fact-based policymaking, and places people before politics.

Mr. Speaker, a century ago today, a Federal law granted U.S. citizenship to individuals born in Puerto Rico. Island residents have made countless contributions to this country in times of peace and war, serving with exceptional valor in our Armed Forces. The bonds between Puerto Rico and Florida are unbreakable. The State is home to over 1 million Puerto Ricans, with most living in central Florida.

Puerto Rico is going through difficult times, and I am determined to help the Island get back on its feet. The main reason Puerto Rico is struggling is because, as a territory, it is treated unequally under Federal law. I support equal treatment for Puerto Rico because I oppose second class citizenship.

Ultimately, I believe Puerto Rico should discard its territory status and become a State or a sovereign nation. The choice lies with the people of Puerto Rico. However, my personal hope is that they will choose statehood so that they have full voting rights and full equality.

Puerto Ricans have earned the right to become first class citizens of the Nation they have served with honor.

Mr. Speaker, 2 weeks ago, I introduced H.R. 804, legislation designed to ensure that the deliberations and decisions of the National Security Council are not unreasonably influenced by partisan politics. The bill has garnered nearly 130 cosponsors, including the ranking members of the House Armed Services, Foreign Affairs, and Intelligence Committees. It is my hope that the bill will obtain support from my colleagues across the aisle because the principle it seeks to vindicate has long enjoyed bipartisan backing.

The motivation for my legislation was President Trump's directive formally authorizing his chief political adviser, Stephen Bannon, to attend all meetings of the NSC and its main subgroup, the Principals Committee. This aspect of the President's directive generated concern from respected military and intelligence professionals across the ideological spectrum.

For example, Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman John McCain characterized Mr. Bannon's appointment as a radical departure from precedent. Former White House Chief of Staff, Defense Secretary, and CIA Director Leon Panetta observed that the last place you want to put someone who worries about politics is in a room where they are talking about national security. And the ex-chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Michael Mullen, asserted that every President has the right and responsibility to shape the National Security Council as he sees fit, but partisan politics has no place at that table.

My bill would amend the 1947 law in which Congress created the NSC and established the statutory members of the Council. It would add simple language to provide that no individual whose primary or predominant responsibility is political in nature shall regularly attend or participate in meetings of the NSC or the Principals Committee.

I want to emphasize that while I may disagree with President Trump and Mr. Bannon on a range of matters, this bill is not about any specific individual. The prohibition in my legislation would apply whether the President or political adviser in question is Republican or Democrat and irrespective of their particular party views or personal attributes.

At its core, this bill is about fidelity to a deeply American principle: the principle that the servicemembers in our all-volunteer military, the quiet professionals in our intelligence community, and the men and women who protect our homeland should never have their lives disrupted or placed at risk because of a national security policymaking process that is contaminated by partisan politics.

The President is free to obtain political and policy advice from whomever

he wishes. However, he should not be free to place a political adviser on the most vital national security policymaking body in our country. Congress created the NSC, and Congress can and should set reasonable parameters governing its membership.

I respectfully urge my colleagues to defeat the previous question and to support H.R. 804.

Mr. Speaker, today I will introduce the Protect the National Security Council from Political Interference Act.

I would like to thank my House colleagues who have signed on as original cosponsors of this legislation.

I have worked at the Department of Defense, and I am a member of the Armed Services Committee. I believe the most solemn responsibility of Federal policymakers is to keep the American people safe, and to do so in a way that is faithful to the moral and ethical principles that have made this country exceptional, and a force for good in a dangerous and unpredictable world.

Within the complex Federal bureaucracy, the National Security Council is, arguably, the most important institution when it comes to debating and deciding issues related to homeland security, foreign policy, intelligence collection, and the national defense. Choices about whether to deploy men and women into combat are made during the meetings of the NSC or its main subgroup, the Principals Committee. So, too, are decisions about how to defend the homeland against terrorism and how to support our allies and counter our adversaries across the globe. The NSC's deliberations are so serious because the stakes are so high.

Since the creation of this body by Congress in 1947, Presidents from Truman to Obama have prescribed the organizational structure and role of the NSC according to their personal preferences within the broad parameters set by Congress. This is how it should be. The NSC is a policymaking instrument, and the President is entitled to utilize this instrument in the manner that the President sees fit.

However, historically, there has been a bipartisan consensus that the NSC debates should be divorced from the world of electoral politics. The Presidents of both parties have sought to establish an NSC policy process that is not contaminated or perceived to be contaminated by political considerations.

Josh Bolton, chief of staff to President George W. Bush, may have put it best while explaining why President Bush excluded political counselor Karl Rove from all NSC meetings: `` . . . the President . . . knew that the signal he wanted to send to the rest of his administration, the signal he wanted to send to the public, and the signal he especially wanted to send to the military, is that, `The decisions I'm making that involve life and death for the people in uniform will not be tainted by any political decisions.' ''

I am filing this bill because I believe that President Trump's directive organizing the NSC breaks from this longstanding, bipartisan tradition of constructing a wall to separate national security policymaking from domestic politics to the greatest extent possible.

Specifically, the President's directive authorizes the Assistant to the President and Chief Strategist Stephen Bannon to be a permanent member of the NSC and to attend all NSC and Principals Committee meetings. Mr. Bannon's role in the administration has a strong political component. Indeed, it appears unprecedented for a political counselor so deeply enmeshed in politics to serve as a permanent member of the NSC.

Senator John McCain, the chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, described Mr. Bannon's appointment as a radical departure from any National Security Council in history.

Therefore, my bill will amend Federal law to ensure that no individual, whose primary responsibility is political in nature, shall be designated as a member of the NSC or be authorized to regularly attend meetings of the NSC or the Principals Committee. This language would apply to Democratic Presidents and Republican Presidents alike. Our men and women in uniform, our intelligence and homeland security professionals, and our citizens should feel secure in their knowledge that the critical decisions made by the NSC are free from political considerations. The American people deserve a national security policymaking process that inspires confidence, not cynicism.

My bill also contains a second provision. The President's directive prescribes a diminished role on the Principals Committee for the Director of National Intelligence and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. The directive limits their attendance to only those meetings where issues pertaining to their responsibilities and expertise are to be discussed.

While this language is not unprecedented, it has caused concern among many experts of all political stripes, particularly when it is juxtaposed against the decision to give Mr. Bannon unfettered access to the NSC PC meetings.

Accordingly, my bill will express the view of Congress that the DNI and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, given their importance to national security, should have a standing invitation to attend all PC meetings.

I invite my colleagues to support this legislation which seeks to protect the NSC from political interference, and to ensure that the President receives the best possible advice from his national security experts--experts who will recommend actions because they are in the best interest of the American people and not because they are politically expedient.

Mr. Speaker, I rise--reluctantly--in opposition to S. 84.

There is a federal law, enacted as part of the National Security Act of 1947, providing that the Secretary of Defense shall be ``appointed from civilian life by the President.'' Originally, the law provided that the individual being considered for appointment to this position cannot have served as a commissioned officer in a regular component of the military within 10 years of his appointment as Secretary. In 2008, Congress amended the law from 10 years to seven years.

The law, which is rooted in the deeply American principle that civilians should exercise control over the military, does not provide for any waivers or exceptions. In the 70 years that this statutory restriction has been on the books, Congress has only once enacted legislation to suspend the restriction. In September 1950, in the first year of the Korean War, Congress--acting at the behest of President Truman--approved legislation to suspend the provision in order to enable General George Marshall, at the time an active-duty member of the military, to serve as Secretary of Defense. The 1950 law providing for the suspension referenced General Marshall by name and expressed the sense of Congress that ``after General Marshall leaves the office of Secretary of Defense, no additional appointments of military men to that office shall be approved.''

This Congress is now being asked to provide a second exemption. President-elect Trump has nominated former General James Mattis--who was, by nearly all accounts, one of the nation's most distinguished and capable military officers, inspiring loyalty from the men and women under his command--to serve as Secretary of Defense. Because General Mattis retired from active service within the last seven years, Congress must enact legislation suspending applicable law in order for General Mattis to become Secretary.

While the Constitution gives the Senate the sole power to confirm presidential nominees, we are not talking simply about a confirmation process here. To the contrary, we are also dealing the enactment of significant, potentially precedent-setting legislation. That means that both the Senate and the House must approve the bill authorizing the exception before it is sent to the president for signature. It is up to each chamber to determine whether General Mattis is uniquely qualified to serve as Secretary of Defense, such that legislation suspending generally applicable law would be warranted.

General Mattis testified before the Senate Armed Services Committee, and was fully prepared to testify before the House Armed Services Committee. However, despite General Mattis' willingness to appear before the House Armed Services Committee, the president-elect's transition team declined to make him available to testify.

This decision is difficult to fathom, and strikes me as an unforced error. It is highly likely that, were General Mattis to testify, the House Armed Services Committee would conclude in bipartisan fashion that approving legislation granting an exception to General Mattis is appropriate. I, personally, would be likely to support an exception, in light of General Mattis's impeccable record of service.

But I cannot in good conscience support legislation granting an exemption without the House Armed Services Committee having had the opportunity to speak with General Mattis, to ask him about his views on civilian-military relations and other issues related to our national defense, and to take the full measure of the man. To reiterate, based on everything I know about General Mattis, he would have passed this test with flying colors.

We are a nation of laws. We abide by those laws whether they are convenient or not. Federal law, in place for many decades, prohibits a former military officer within seven years of his departure from active military service from being appointed as Secretary of Defense. We can debate whether this law should be modified, but unless and until it is, it remains the law. Congress can, as it has on one previous occasion, enact legislation to suspend this law. As long as the law remains on the books, it stands to reason that exceptions to the law should be granted only in exceptional circumstances, where the individual to be appointed is uniquely qualified in light of all the circumstances. The House Armed Services Committee cannot reasonably be expected to make such a determination without at least having had an opportunity to pose questions to that individual.

My hope is that the president-elect's transition team would reconsider its decision not to authorize General Mattis to testify before the House Armed Services Committee, that General Mattis would so testify (as he is prepared to do), and that the Committee would act expeditiously on legislation to exempt General Mattis--and Mr. Mattis alone, which the broadly-worded legislation before us does not do--from generally applicable federal law.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the bipartisan HALOS Act because it will help startup companies with angel investors without compromising important investor protections.

When working in the private sector, I participated in numerous so- called demo days where early-stage entrepreneurs make presentations. I have counseled multiple startups and small firms through this process, particularly women and minority-owned businesses. I have seen firsthand as they struggled to overcome regulatory hurdles and to obtain access to much-needed capital when traditional financing sources, such as banks, may not be feasible.

It is important for the government at all levels--Federal, State, and local--to promote economic growth and encourage innovation by connecting people with good ideas to people with the capital and courage to bankroll those ideas. Robust entrepreneurial ecosystems is how great products come to market and how well-paying jobs are created. This is particularly important for my district in central Florida, which has a growing innovative and entrepreneurial startup community.

Based on personal experiences and on the experiences conveyed to me by Floridians with expertise in this area, the current Federal regulations governing demo days can be made more clear and less burdensome so that they better promote the flow of capital through our economy while continuing to protect nonaccredited investors.

Because I believe the HALOS Act achieves these dual objectives, I urge my colleagues to join me in voting ``yes'' on H.R. 79.

Section 2:

``The citizens of each State shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States.

``A person charged in any State with treason, felony, or other crime, who shall flee from justice and be found in another State, shall on demand of the executive authority of the State from which he fled, be delivered up, to be removed to the State having jurisdiction of the crime.''

Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.

I am opposed.

Mr. Speaker, this is the final amendment to the bill. It will not kill the bill or send it back to committee. If the amendment is adopted, the bill will immediately proceed to final passage, as amended.

Like a number of my new colleagues on both sides of the aisle, I was not a Member of Congress in 2010 when Congress enacted the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. The law has now been in place for nearly 7 years, and it has become part of the fabric of our health care system, fundamentally changing the way that we provide and pay for health care in this country.

The Members of this Chamber, our counterparts in the Senate, and the incoming President will soon have a binary choice to make, and the stakes for patients, physicians, hospitals, and health insurance providers could not be higher.

The choice is this: Will we retain the many provisions in the Affordable Care Act that are functioning well and work together in a bipartisan manner to reform, refine, and rectify those provisions that need improvement; or, on the other hand, will we repeal the entire Affordable Care Act without a clear and comprehensive plan in place to replace the law with something as good or better, which is almost certain to cause chaos in our health care system and disrupt the lives and livelihoods of millions of our constituents?

The Affordable Care Act is not perfect; but I believe the responsible and moral course of action for this body is to strengthen the law, not repeal it. A look to historic precedent gives us guidance here. In the past, when Congress enacted important legislation, like Social Security or Medicare, designed to address serious national problems, it rarely gets it perfectly right the first time. Congress almost always needs to revisit the law down the line to observe how the law has operated in practice, to see who the law has helped or who it may have inadvertently harmed, to learn from that experience, and then, based on the evidence and the counsel of our constituents, to work across party lines to make any necessary improvements to the law. The perfect must never become the enemy of the good.

Just as in business, when your business plan runs into challenges, you don't scrap the whole plan; you make left and right adjustments along the way and keep moving forward toward your goals. Health care is too central to the lives of our constituents to be rebooted every few years in a partisan, haphazard manner.

My specific amendment is consistent with this broader philosophy. One of the most popular and well-functioning provisions of the Affordable Care Act is a provision requiring certain health insurance plans to allow young adults to stay on their parents' health insurance plans until the age of 26. This provision has been particularly beneficial for my district in central Florida, which has one of the lowest median ages of any congressional district in the Sunshine State and which is home to the University of Central Florida--the Nation's second largest university, with over 63,000 enrolled students.

Prior to the Affordable Care Act, too many young adults in central Florida and around the country were uninsured either because they were not employed or because they were employed at jobs that did not provide affordable coverage or any coverage at all. If these young men and women were to become sick or get injured, the resulting medical bills could bankrupt them or their families. The Affordable Care Act sought to mitigate this risk, and the evidence indicates that it has done so successfully; and the American people have said, overwhelmingly, that they want to keep this popular provision.

Accordingly, my amendment would establish an exception to the REINS Act. It would ensure that any Federal regulation that executes or enforces the Affordable Care Act provision enabling young adults up to age 26 to obtain health insurance coverage through their parents' plans will not be annulled by Congress. By voting for my amendment, you will send a signal that you support this provision, which has benefited millions of our constituents whether they live in red States, blue States, or purple States.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.