Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, it's been less than two months since the start of the 115th Congress and Republicans have already taken every opportunity to roll back progress made for women.

They have pledged to tear down the Affordable Care Act and block access to Planned Parenthood.

They passed a bill through the House that limits insurance coverage for comprehensive reproductive healthcare.

Now they've turned their sights to title X, a family planning program that is crucial for women's health.

There are serious consequences for scaling back title X: without the contraceptive services provided at these title X sites, pregnancy rates would be 30 percent higher among teens.

We in government should be making it easier for young people to make smart and informed decisions, not depriving them of the ability to be responsible about their health.

Please, Madam Speaker, think about those young women. Their lives and their health should be a concern to all of us

Mr. Speaker, after the extraordinary events of this week, I certainly had hoped that the House would move forward with a swift investigation into White House dealings with Russia. But, not to be distracted, it looks like the majority would rather spend the day stripping retirement benefits from millions.

We have known for a long time that workers who have access to retirement plans through their workplace are more likely to save for retirement than those who don't. It makes sense.

We also know that nearly half of middle class workers will fall into poverty when they retire.

Last year, the State of California did a great thing. It established a program to provide 7 million Californians with the tools to save for retirement.

The Secure Choice program lets workers who do not have a retirement plan through their employer contribute a share of their income to an IRA account administered by the State. Under this voluntary program-- and I stress voluntary--countless Californians will get access to tax preferred retirement accounts for the very first time. That is extraordinary.

In August, the Department of Labor cleared the way for Secure Choice by ruling that States could move forward with their own programs to help workers save for retirement. Seven other States are in the process of implementing similar laws, and dozens more are considering their options.

The resolution in question today would undo the DOL's ruling, leaving States in a legal gray area that could put these programs in jeopardy. So I ask, Mr. Speaker, is this really how we should be spending our time?

DOL spent months reviewing public comments and carefully crafting this rule. The House will vote to repeal it without a single hearing. Really?

We should be doing everything we can to encourage savings across the board, certainly not voting to making savings harder for folks.

In States across the country, this effort has been bipartisan. I wonder if we would be considering this resolution if the rule in question had not been issued by a Democratic administration?

The word ``irresponsible'' does not even begin to do this for what would be justice in this area.

So I urge, Mr. Speaker, a ``no'' vote on this. Let's move forward. Let's allow more States to experiment so they can decide for themselves whether or not this is something that the folks in their State want to do.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I rise today in strong opposition to H.J. Res. 58, which would dismantle key protections of teacher preparation programs. Unfortunately, this joint resolution is part of a much larger effort by my colleagues to remove crucial safeguards from the education sector and move us backwards.

In my time on the San Diego School Board, the California legislature, and the House Committee on Education and the Workforce, I found one thing to be a constant: studies find time and time again that a quality teacher makes the most important impact on a child's success in school.

So I am finding it difficult to understand why anyone would support this joint resolution that decreases the quality of the very programs responsible for training our teachers.

H.J. Res. 58 undoes years of hard work on both sides of the aisle to develop vital safeguards that ensure transparency and quality in teacher preparation programs. This provision plays a significant role in ensuring that teaching programs across the country work with educators to develop curriculum that trains teachers most effectively. Beyond this specific protection, it is important to keep in mind the damage that Congressional Review Acts can do to key safeguards on the books.

H.J. Res. 58 takes away the possibility of the Department of Education coming back to rethink these protections and takes a sword to the language where a scalpel should be used.

I know that many of my colleagues have concerns about the burdens that these protections have on our schools. Rightly so. But it is important to remember that, behind many of these safeguards, there is a student whose future is at stake.

I have heard countless stories from students in my district who have been defrauded by schools that they trusted with their time and their money. I think it is important to remind my colleagues across the aisle that those are the people who we have been elected to serve, students who seek higher education as a means to a brighter future and often find themselves no better off at the end of years of hard work.

So if my Republican colleagues want to discuss changes to the teacher preparation program provisions when we hopefully reauthorize the Higher Education Act this Congress, I am certainly open to having that discussion. If they want to get creative about increasing the quality and the efficiency of our schools, I will be the first person to sit down and have those discussions.

But if they want to deregulate just for the sake of deregulation, well, I have to stand up for our students. If they want to, as Jerry Falwell recently implied, undo vital components of title 9 safeguards against sexual assault on our campuses, I am hopeful that my colleagues from both sides of the aisle will refuse.

Mr. Speaker, we were elected to this House to protect all of our constituents, including the most vulnerable members of our society. Nowhere is that more critical than where it pertains to the young people who are the most important investments that we can make as a country.

For every student who is defrauded by a school, not given an opportunity because of their socioeconomic background, or drowning in debt, we are holding back one more person who could be contributing to our economy and to our society. We are giving one more person the wrong start in their adult lives, and the impact of that debt often affects their parents, their spouses, and children for years.

I hope that my colleagues realize that it is in our best interest to protect students and not corporations. That it is in our best interest to safeguard equity and accessibility in our schools, and not for- profit schools who donate millions to encourage deregulation.

I am hopeful that instead of taking an ax to the many protections that we developed for our students, my colleagues will join me in discussing the most responsible way, the best way that we can increase quality and efficiency in our schools.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Danny K. Davis).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Espaillat).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Bonamici).

Mr. Speaker, I just want to comment because I was a little confused by what the gentleman said. I believe that we want to be sure that teachers who get TEACH grants are doing that at schools that have shown the capacity and the ability to really help children achieve. And so that is why we want to direct them into those schools particularly.

Mr. Speaker, I yield as much time as he may consume to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Courtney).

I yield the gentleman such time as he may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

We are actually talking about two of these joint resolutions, both H.J. Res. 57 and H.J. Res. 58, and are looking at accountability measures. Sometimes I think people forget, actually, that the first time that Common Core was mentioned in Federal law was in ESSA, the most recently reauthorized legislation for elementary and secondary education. That was done because we agreed to do that, because we felt that it was important to call it out while, at the same time, being careful to look at our local and our State authorities and have them come together and make the decisions that they think are best for their students. That has been the tradition, and that is why it is important that we have those folks in place in our local school districts.

As a former school board member, I know that those are where the real decisions are made for kids, but we need to see in which area and why we have a Federal role. I think, even at the hearing that we had in the Education and the Workforce Committee today, the Republicans' witnesses acknowledged that there is an importance of a Federal role. It is in accountability and responsibility and in acknowledging that sometimes it is important to give direction to States and to give direction to local school districts as well.

That is really what we are trying to do here. We are trying to do it in a smart way, and we are trying to do it in a way so that we can realize, in the future, there may be changes that need to be made and that those changes may require Congresses of the future to look at particular protections and see if they are redundant, if they are necessary, or if, maybe, they take us in the wrong direction. What we are talking about today gives us no hope that we will be able to do that. We are basically writing in stone that we will never have to go back--that we can't go back--and look at some of those protections. That is the wrong thing to do.

We all know that, with one protection or another, of course, there can be problems. We don't want to ignore that, but we want to be sure that, particularly when we are looking at teacher prep programs, for example, we are looking at the data that is coming together that suggests whether some programs are more beneficial for the achievement of young people in our schools than others.

Boy, I sure hope as a school board member that we have the information that is available to people, because we can get that at a national level that we can't necessarily all get at the State level. It is important to know what processes are in place. Some of these protections that the Federal Government has created are giving direction to that. They are saying here are ways to look at your program and decide whether, in fact, they are doing exactly what you think they should be doing.

The most important part is that we are getting feedback from our teachers. This is a process that is so critical, that of having people who are on the ground who know what they are talking about. We are responsive to that, and those were some of the processes that we used in the Department of Education as well. I am not going to tell you that each one is perfect. I just want us to have a way to look at them and to understand how they impact our teachers. I want all teachers who want to succeed with kids, who are not in teaching for financial reimbursement, to be there because they really believe in kids and because they believe in their ability to succeed, and they want to be sure that they have the tools, that they have the resources, to do that. Many of the protections that we are talking about provide that kind of help and assistance.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott), the ranking member of the Committee on Education and the Workforce.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time to close.

I think this has been a good discussion, and I think that the hearing that we had today was even an opening as well at looking at this issue.

I think no matter what side of the aisle one was on, you couldn't necessarily distinguish the witnesses because it was important that we say that there is a smart way to do this and, frankly, there is kind of a stupid way to do it. Because we want to be sure that the consequences of our actions are not ones that would be impacting our children down the road.

So we have to go about this in a measured way, in a smart way. I actually believe that we all have the capacity to do that. There is no question in my mind that we can't do that in a way that really asks the right questions: Why are those protections there? Why did they establish those regulations and protections?

So that we can track and understand what is behind them.

I really do remember that, as a school board member, now and then, there was some frustration over something within the special education arena. But when you went back and you looked at why that came about, it was because there was a child who represented a problem in the system because we didn't do the right thing. We realized that it wasn't just that child, but it was many children who could be affected in the same way.

That is what we have to look at: Why are they there? How can we change them? How can we be smart about it and make sure that we don't do something that, in the end, will harm our education system and even impact those children who really are the most vulnerable that we would not want to impact under any circumstances?

So, Mr. Speaker, let's work together on this. Unfortunately, what this does today is it takes away that ability to use, I think, the goodwill of our committee to do the right thing. I hope that my colleagues will agree with that.

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

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Speaker, whatever you call the President's recent executive orders, the reality is that they constitute a Muslim ban.

Yesterday, one of my constituents was crossing the border into San Diego when he was singled out for having brown skin. He was asked by a CBP agent if he was Muslim as he stood in line. Well, in fact, he is an Indian-American man who got his citizenship mere months ago, and he was so proud to become a U.S. citizen because it meant that he could finally vote in our elections.

His wife called our office, horrified at how casually her husband's civil rights had been violated, and she told us that she was scared now to travel with her kids because she didn't want to tell them that they shouldn't talk to any agents at the airport. Her voice wavered as she explained that she has lived here for 45 years, but this is the first time she ever felt scared because of her skin color.

Mr. Speaker, I demand--in fact, we all should demand--that President Trump rescind these discriminatory orders immediately and that my Republican colleagues stand up against these un-American policies.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to bring up H.R. 724, which would rescind President Trump's refugee ban in light of individuals like Jordanian Musa Sharkawi, a cardiology fellow in Connecticut whose wife is a Syrian doctor and whose family cannot visit her because of the ban.

Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall No. 66.

Madam Speaker, let me tell you about Chelsea, a mother of two young children, who was on Medicaid when she was diagnosed with cervical cancer. She never missed her birth control pills, but when she went to the clinic for treatment, she was told that she was pregnant and could not get the surgery she needed because of the pregnancy.

Why is that? Because of the Hyde rule, Medicaid would not cover the abortion care that she needed, and her cancer treatment was delayed, obviously compromising her health.

Instead of discussing ways to make Chelsea's situation better, we are considering a bill that would make the ban on abortion care services under Medicaid permanent.

This is not about women asking for free, federally funded abortions. This is about women like Chelsea being able to receive the medical care they desperately need.

We saw this weekend millions of women took to the streets throughout our country in a historic movement. So let's show them that we are listening by rejecting this bill that makes bad policy permanent.

Madam Speaker, let's leave a woman's medical decision between her and her doctor and reject this far-reaching bill.

Mr. Speaker, I opposed similar legislation in a markup yesterday, and I cannot support it today. My concerns are not with the exceptional qualifications and decades of honorable service of General Mattis, but I am opposed to a process that has made this House irrelevant.

We have an obligation under the law to review this nomination based on General Mattis' military service, a law that codified the principle of civilian control of the military. General Mattis agreed, and was even eager, according to the chairman, to speak before the Armed Services Committee.

The people have the right to know that the Presidential transition team blocked him from appearing. The American people, frankly, don't care

what unelected members of the transition team think and would much rather hear from General Mattis on why we in the House should grant this exception to law.

His testimony would be in all of our best interest. General Mattis could certainly start the new relationship that he has with the House Armed Services Committee, with our committee, through a thoughtful and a productive conversation on the issues.

Today we are casting off our duty and agreeing to be irrelevant. To accept this legislation without making the appropriate changes, without fully participating in this legislative process, under a closed rule, we are doing nothing to safeguard civilian control of our military. In fact, we are accepting poorly drafted language, and we are not performing proper oversight.

Why are we doing that?

Because the President-elect's transition team said so.

My colleagues have said that there is no requirement that General Mattis speak before us, but I want to say to them: Why cede our power to the Senate? Both houses of Congress have a duty here. Why let a nascent administration push us and a distinguished general around?

I will not roll over and allow the transition team to dictate the charge of the people's House. We can fix this, Mr. Speaker, and we should.

Mr. Speaker, the Affordable Care Act is not a matter of politics. It is a matter of life or death for the people back home. In the San Diego region, repeal of the ACA would mean nearly 300,000 people could lose access to health care.

I heard from one constituent just this week who was diagnosed with an autoimmune disease where the rheumatoid arthritis is not just attacking her joints, but her organs as well. She needs a double lung transplant to stay alive. Her 7-year-old son, she writes me, tells her, ``Mommy, I'm scared. I hope you get your new balloons soon.'' She lives with the anxiety and the fear of how the repeal of the ACA may affect her treatment every day because of her preexisting condition.

I implore my Republican colleagues to remember the people that this decision will impact. The effect of this repeal has much more important consequences than politics. Let's not be responsible for any child who sees a mother suffer or even lose her life without the treatment she needs.

Mr. Speaker, I rise with great respect to mourn the passing of one of San Diego's greatest innovators, businessmen, educators and humanitarians, Dr. J. Robert Beyster. Dr. Beyster was born in Detroit, MI on July 26, 1924, to his parents John F. and Lillian E. Beyster. He attended Dlocum Truax High School in Trenton, Michigan and graduated as Salutatorian. Just as the United States entered World War II, he enlisted in the Navy. He was sent by the Navy to the University of Michigan and later commissioned an Ensign.

Dr. Beyster's impressive biography describes a World War II Veteran, a nuclear engineer whose research propelled the Department of Defense's weapons systems and submarines into the future of war fighting, but most notably, he founded Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC), an employee-owned multi-billion dollar corporation. His selfless vision built SAIC from the ground up. He believed in the simple principle that wealth should be distributed among those who contribute to the growth of the company.

Dr. Beyster was the recipient of multiple distinguished awards, to include a Lifetime Achievement Award from Ernst & Young and the Spirit of San Diego Award from the San Diego Regional Chamber of Commerce. We remember him for his high standards of excellence and influence at the University of California's Sulpizio Cardiovascular Center. Furthermore, he founded the Foundation for Enterprise Development, which launched the Beyster Institute at the University of California San Diego's Rady School of Management for technologists, entrepreneurs, executives and educators.

San Diego was fortunate to have someone like Dr. Beyster in our community. We see his altruistic contributions in the success of the students who've been given incredible opportunities from his charitable donations. Our community employs those who have been educated through his generous grants, scholarships and fellowships. We grow from those who will undoubtedly give back to the community in the same ways in which they have, themselves, benefited from his generosity. His efforts have provided our next generation of scientists, doctors and intellectual leaders.

He was an author, educator, philanthropist, veteran, a family man of integrity, values and of charitable contributions, who will be sorely missed by his family, friends and colleagues. We are fortunate to have constant reminders of his giving nature and his brilliant mind. Thank you Dr. Beyster, for giving San Diego so much of your incredible life. You will never be forgotten.

Madam Speaker, I was pleased that the Speaker expressed support for infrastructure improvements on ``60 Minutes'' last Sunday.

America is in desperate need of repair.

Officials in San Diego just reported that it would take $3.9 billion to maintain their infrastructure, and there is no doubt that my colleagues are facing similar circumstances in their home districts.

The longer we wait, the longer we drag our feet on this issue, the bigger the pricetag grows. The economic benefits of an improved infrastructure are clear. S&P is estimating that $1.3 billion in infrastructure investment creates 29,000 construction jobs, and that is not including indirect job creation.

But we all know this is more than an economic issue. We are risking the safety of the American people who are traveling every day on crumbling roads and bridges.

Madam Speaker, what are we waiting for? There is much to gain by acting and yet so much to lose by doing nothing.

Mr. Speaker, in December, Congress passed a spending bill to keep the government open, finally providing some certainty to our economy.

Another shutdown was the last thing anyone needed, but we cannot forget that one agency was left out: the Department of Homeland Security. Creating uncertainty at Homeland Security is reckless because it threatens our national security.

The tragic events in France remind us that we need to be as vigilant as ever. So why is this funding held back? So the majority can try to force its immigration policy on the President and the full Congress.

We can and we should have the immigration debate, but it should not hold hostage the hardworking men and women who guard our ports and protect our borders.

Mr. Speaker, let's do the right thing. Let's fund Homeland Security and have a proper debate on immigration. This is not an either/or situation; it is a both/and.

``. . . the House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President. But in choosing the President, the votes shall be taken by States, the representation from each State having one vote; a quorum for this purpose shall consist of a Member or Members from two-thirds of the States, and a majority of all the States shall be necessary to a choice.''

Mr. Speaker, how does this one project, the Keystone XL pipeline, get so much outsized attention? We currently have a sprawling, 185,000-mile network of oil pipelines in the United States and a regulatory process to ensure that they are operating safely.

So why are we spending so much time trying to exempt a Canadian company from the environmental reviews that every other company in America has to abide by?

And the big question, Mr. Speaker: Who will pay for any future oil spills? Not Keystone. This bill exempts Keystone from contributing the same 8 cents per barrel that every other oil company is required to pay into the oil spill trust fund.

Tell me, Mr. Speaker, why is this? If the authors are so certain that this pipeline does not carry any environmental risk, won't they allow the review process to run its course?

I stand with my colleagues. I want those jobs, I want them around the country. We can do this, we can do better.

I urge a ``no'' vote on this dangerous precedent, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, this week marks the beginning of a new Congress, and with it comes a new chance to move past the bickering that has characterized the last 2 years. Sadly, the leadership of the House seems poised to let that opportunity go to waste.

Since the election, we have heard that one potential area of agreement would be tax reform. That would be great. I would welcome the chance to improve our deeply flawed Tax Code. And yet, the very first act of this Congress will make it much harder for any reform bill to get bipartisan support.

That is because House leadership has quite literally changed the rules of the game, allowing them to pick and choose which tax bills the congressional budget will be giving favorable treatment.

Mr. Speaker, I am optimistic that we can move past the dysfunction of the last few years, but changing the rules of the game isn't a signal that we are heading in the right direction.