Elijah Cummings

Mr. CUMMINGS

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, first of all, I want to thank Mr. Walker for introducing this well-thought-out bill and very important bill. I support this bill, which would increase the transparency and accountability of Federal agencies. The bill would require agencies to include in their budget justifications to Congress a summary of the recommendations made by GAO or the agency's inspector general. Agencies would also be required to explain what steps they are taking to address these recommendations or, if they disagree with them, why they disagree. GAO and inspectors general provide critical oversight of the executive branch. Knowing what agencies are doing or not doing to address GAO and IG recommendations will assist Congress in conducting its constitutional oversight role. This is, indeed, a commonsense measure that I strongly support. I just want to urge the House to pass this bill. One of the things that has concerned many of us in the Congress is the issue of accountability. Accountability is so very, very important. We all have a tremendous amount of respect for the inspectors general and for GAO. Over and over again, they make recommendations, and the question becomes: Whatever happens to those recommendations? Are they placed on a shelf and never to be seen again, or are they put into place? After all, the American people are spending a lot of money with regard to the research and the investigations conducted by the IG and the research conducted by the GAO. And so, Mr. Speaker, we are very supportive of this legislation. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. CUMMINGS

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 4890, a bill to designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 9801 Apollo Drive in Upper Marlboro, Maryland, as the ``Wayne K. Curry Post Office Building.'' I thank my colleague from Maryland, Congressman Anthony Brown, for his leadership in introducing this bill, which I am proud to co-sponsor. Wayne Curry was an exceptional leader whose vision and commitment led to many of the groundbreaking developments that have helped make Prince George's County such a vibrant and dynamic county today. He was also a trailblazer committed to opening the doors of opportunity for African Americans in business and government. Mr. Curry was a graduate of Western Maryland College and of the University of Maryland Law School in Baltimore. He worked for many years in commercial real estate and then eventually led the Prince George's Chamber of Commerce. Early in his career, he served as an aide to former County Executive Winfield M. Kelly. Mr. Curry was elected the County Executive of Prince George's County in 1994--one of the first African Americans to be elected to lead a county in the nation--and was re-elected in 1998. As County Executive, he was a fierce advocate for Prince George's County and for its residents, and fought to increase funding for public schools, to ensure that economic development in the county benefited all residents, and to ensure that minority contractors had a fair chance to compete for government-funded contracts. The Washington Post wrote that Mr. Curry was ``A champion of black affluence'' who ``believed that economic power was the last milestone of the civil rights struggle.'' We are blessed to have the memory and example of Wayne Curry to help lead us as we continue to fight to reach that last milestone and achieve the equality of economic opportunity that is essential to making the American dream a reality for minorities across this nation. I urge all Members to support H.R. 4890 and again thank Congressman Brown for his work on this measure.

Mr. CUMMINGS

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Chair, I thank the gentleman from Virginia, the vice ranking member of the Oversight and Government Reform Committee, for yielding time and for doing such a phenomenal job on our committee. Mr. Chair, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 50, the Unfunded Mandates Information and Transparency Act. This legislation would obstruct the regulatory process with new requirements that would make it more difficult to promulgate regulations that protect the health and safety of Americans. This bill also would give regulated companies the ability to weigh in on rules before other stakeholders. That is simply not right. Under this bill, gun manufacturers could influence a gun safety rule before child safety experts. Under this bill, banks could shape rules related to obtaining lines of credit before consumer advocates. Under this bill, a coal company could weigh in on a clean air rule before doctors, scientists, and other public health experts. This is a gross distortion of how this process should work, and it would put the interests of polluters and other corporate offenders ahead of the American people. I simply say that we are better than that. This bill also must be viewed in the context of the broader assault on regulations underway by President Trump and his allies in Congress. Using the Congressional Review Act, Republicans in Congress have repealed 16 health, safety, environmental, and consumer protection rules. They repealed a rule that prevented individuals with severe mental illnesses from gaining access to guns. Give me a break. They repealed the stream protection rule, which required monitoring of streams and groundwater for toxic contaminants dumped by coal mining companies. Yes, they did that, too. They repealed the fair pay and safe workplaces rule, which required that American tax dollars be spent only on companies that comply with the workplace health, safety, and civil rights laws by which all private businesses must abide. The bill before us today is yet another attack on regulations, one that Republicans have passed many times before but have never been able to enact. This bill would amend the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act, which was enacted as part of Newt Gingrich's Contract with America. Even in the context of the extreme agenda of the Contract with America, Congress included several limitations in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act. This bill would repeal those limitations. This bill also would put independent agencies in jeopardy of political interference. The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act currently exempts independent agencies from its reporting requirements. This bill would remove that exemption. That means independent regulatory agencies like the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Consumer Product Safety Commission would have to submit their rules to the Office of Management and Budget for review, which could undermine their independence. Section 12 of the bill would require an agency to perform a retrospective review, including an additional cost-benefit analysis of any existing rule, if requested by the chairman or ranking member of a committee. The Congressional Research Service found that there is a tenable argument that section 12 is unconstitutional. CRS said: ``It could be argued that imbuing certain Members with the authority to demand that an agency prepare a report under section 12 is an action of sufficient legislative character and effect as to trigger the bicameralism and presentment requirements of Article I.'' These flaws are reason enough to oppose this bill, but the most important reason is that we rely on agency rulemaking to protect our children, protect our workers, and protect our economy. The Coalition for Sensible Safeguards, a group of more than 160 good government, labor, scientific, faith, health, and community organizations, sent a letter to Congress strongly opposing this bill. Here is just a portion of what the letter said: ``The costs of deregulation should be obvious by now. The Wall Street economic collapse, various food and product safety recalls, and numerous environmental disasters demonstrate the need for a regulatory system that protects the public, not corporate interests.'' Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to oppose this bill.

Mr. CUMMINGS

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank Chairman Gowdy for his leadership and for working together to craft this legislation. I thank Chairman Meadows and Ranking Member Connolly for helping us reach the compromises that made this legislation possible. In 1988, Mr. Speaker, Congress created the Office of National Drug Control Policy. This is the office that should be coordinating our Nation's drug control efforts and leading our response to the drug crisis, which is now, by the way, killing 175 people per day. Let me repeat that: killing 175 people per day. However, ONDCP is failing, just when we need it the most. In fact, an article published this week described the office this way: ``empty desks, squabbles, inexperienced staff.'' The failure is glaring. For example, the office is required to produce a national drug control strategy by February 1 of each year. Two February 1sts have now come and two have gone since President Trump took office, but the Trump administration still has not come up with a solution to this most glaring and painful problem. This is simply unacceptable. Life expectancy in this Nation is falling because we are failing to respond appropriately to this drug crisis. We urgently need to revitalize and strengthen ONDCP. H.R. 5925, the CRISIS Act, would make changes we need and would improve our drug control efforts if it is fully funded and implemented--fully funded and implemented. It would expand the office's authority to direct resources where they are most needed. It would strengthen data collection and analysis to help us develop the real-time monitoring we need to understand the rapidly changing dimensions of the opioid crisis. The bill incorporates several proposals I have offered to give ONDCP new authorities to coordinate critical aspects of our response to the crisis. I have often said that we must go about the business of being effective and efficient in what we do. These are examples of things that will make ONDCP more effective and efficient in addressing this problem. For example, for the first time ever, it would create a treatment coordinator within the office responsible for coordinating efforts to expand the availability and quality of evidence-based treatment. It would also require the office to develop and promulgate model standards for treatment facilities. Right now, too many so-called treatment facilities are taking advantage of desperate families, charging them outlandish prices, bilking insurance companies, but failing to help those in need. As a matter of fact, many people are going into these places seeking to get treatment and come out worse off because they are not being properly treated. Remember what I said: We want to be effective and efficient in what we do, and we want to make sure that taxpayers' dollars are spent appropriately. I believe that if H.R. 5925 is enacted and fully implemented, it will improve our drug control efforts, and, for that reason, I am supporting the measure. However, I want to be real clear about something. Even if this bill is enacted and fully implemented, the drug crisis we are facing will likely get worse. That is because this bill does not provide the resources we need to treat millions of Americans who have the disease of addiction. According to the President's own commission on opioids, only 10 percent of individuals who need treatment for substance abuse disorders are getting it. No one believes that we can fight cancer, or heart disease, or Alzheimer's if we don't treat people who have these diseases. The same is true here. Imagine someone going into a doctor's office and the doctor says: Well, you are the 10th person, and you are lucky to get treatment. But the other nine who came before you won't get any treatment. We will not stand for that. If we don't treat people who are addicted, we will not solve the drug crisis. We may pass this bill today, celebrate the passage, and say we did a great job. We may work with the Senate to send it to the President. The President might even sign it. But then, next year's overdose fatality numbers will come out. They will show that deaths are continuing to rise. They will show emergency room visits increasing again. They will show the economic effects of a crisis that is already costing us $500 billion a year continuing to grow. It doesn't have to be this way. No, it doesn't have to be this way. We don't have to just nibble at the edges or rearrange the deck chairs on the Titanic. I have introduced legislation called the CARE Act with Senator Elizabeth Warren, modeled directly on the highly successful Ryan White Act, which Congress passed with bipartisan support in 1990 to address the AIDS crisis. The CARE Act would provide $10 billion a year in stable, predictable Federal funding to States, counties, and other frontline responders. The CARE Act would provide funds for research to train health professionals to diagnose and treat addiction. It would also provide half a billion dollars per year to purchase the lifesaving drug naloxone at discounted prices and distribute it to first responders, public health agencies, and the public. I offered the CARE Act as an amendment to this measure considered this week. My amendment was paid for by rolling back just a portion of the tax cuts given by the Republican-controlled Congress to the Nation's largest corporations, including the drug companies who have used their tax breaks to buy back billions of dollars' worth of stock rather than lower drug prices. By the way, there is something wrong with that picture. But the Republican leadership did not make my amendment in order. The House never considered it. I support H.R. 5925 and our critical efforts to ensure that we have an office that will effectively and efficiently coordinate our drug control efforts. However, what our Nation truly needs is for us to show the political courage to choose to save the lives of our fellow Americans by adequately funding treatment. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I want to take a moment, before I yield to my distinguished colleague, Mr. Connolly, to echo what my good friend just said about our staffs. I, too, thank our staffs for all that they have done. So often they are unseen, unnoticed, and feel, I am sure, unappreciated and unapplauded. But our staffs worked very, very hard on this, and I, too, give the ultimate applause to them. I want to thank you for recognizing them. Mr. Speaker, I also thank Mr. Meadows for working so hard to bring all this together. Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Connolly), the ranking member of the Oversight and Government Reform Committee, a man who has just been tireless on this issue and so many others, but who has done such a phenomenal job.

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, in closing, I must point out that my Republican colleagues say they want to address the opioid crisis, yet they are standing silent as the Trump administration actively tries to destroy the Affordable Care Act protections for people with pre-existing conditions, which, by the way, includes substance use disorders. If we aren't going to take available steps to expand access to addiction treatment, at least we should all agree that we shouldn't roll back protections that prevent insurance companies from discriminating against people with substance use disorders. Therefore, we should all be working to protect the Affordable Care Act from the Trump administration's effort to destroy the essential protections it provides. Again, I remind all of us that ONDCP is a very important entity and it has a job to do, and it must be properly funded. A lot of people, when they give statistics about opioids and drugs, Mr. Speaker, they find themselves speaking about the dead. Well, I am here to tell you that there are pipelines to death, and those are the people who are addicted now. Those are the ones who are thinking about it, about to start using those drugs. So we must address not only the deaths and the statistics, but we must address treatment that is effective and efficient. Mr. Speaker, again, I am urging my colleagues to vote for this bill, but I want it to be clear that we should not dust our hands off and say it is done. It is not done. There is so much more to do. Mr. Speaker, I urge all Members to vote for this legislation, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. CUMMINGS

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I oppose this rule. This week the House is considering dozens of bills to combat the opioid epidemic. These are small bipartisan bills that we all support, but they are simply not enough. Our country is in the midst of the greatest public health emergency in decades. We have all heard the grim statistics, so I won't repeat them, yet none of the bills that we are considering this week provide the dedicated and sustained resources we need to combat this crisis. President Trump's own Council of Economic Advisers found that the opioid crisis likely cost our Nation more than $500 billion in just 1 year. We cannot just nibble around the edges. We cannot just rearrange the deck chairs on the Titanic. We must treat the opioid epidemic like the true public health emergency that it is. I offered an amendment that could have changed this, but the House is not being allowed to consider it. Earlier this year, I introduced the CARE Act, with Senator Elizabeth Warren, modeled directly on the highly successful Ryan White Act, which the Congress passed with bipartisan support in 1990 to address the AIDS crisis. My amendment would invest in comprehensive, evidence-based treatment for opioid and substance use disorders by authorizing up to $100 billion over 10 years to help States, localities, nonprofits, the CDC, the NIH, and other public health entities working on the front lines of this epidemic to save so many lives. The CARE Act has been endorsed by more than 30 organizations, including provider groups, local government associations, and public health organizations. My Republican colleagues blocked it from being considered. They argue that we do not have the money to pay for it. My amendment would have been fully paid for by rolling back just a fraction of the tax giveaways that my Republican colleagues and President Trump handed out to drug companies and other wealthy corporations. Mr. Speaker, do you know what the drug companies did with their massive tax cuts? They pocketed the money. Then they announced that they would spend tens of billions of dollars buying back their own stock to benefit their shareholders. So far, they have announced stock buybacks totaling $50 billion, and Pfizer and AbbVie, both companies that sell and market opioids, each announced buybacks of $10 billion. Do we really believe it is more important to give drug companies tens of billions of dollars in tax breaks than it is to address the most deadly health crisis in three decades? Is that really where our priorities lie? I say we are better than that. This crisis does not discriminate based on politics. People are dying in red States, blue States, and purple States. Our priorities should be saving the lives of our fellow Americans. They are counting on us to lead.

Mr. CUMMINGS. Finally, I could not leave this podium without noting the staggering hypocrisy of those who claim that they want to help Americans struggling with substance use disorder while at the same time sabotaging the Affordable Care Act. Right now, the Trump administration is threatening the health coverage of millions of Americans with preexisting health conditions, which include substance use disorders. About 2.6 million people in my State of Maryland have preexisting conditions. We cannot go back to the bad old days when our family, friends, and neighbors were discriminated against because they got sick. Mr. Speaker, I urge Members to oppose this rule.

Mr. CUMMINGS

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding, and I rise to support H.R. 3731, the Secret Service Recruitment and Retention Act of 2017, which Congressman Katko and I cosponsored. The bill would authorize an increase in the annual salary and the overtime limit for the men and women of the Secret Service so they can be paid for the significant overtime they have already worked in 2017 and will be working in 2018. Last year, the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform unanimously passed the Overtime Pay for Protective Services Act of 2016. The bill authorized overtime pay for more than 1,400 Secret Service agents and the thousands of hours they worked in the 2016 Presidential campaign year. Although non-campaign years are usually significantly less demanding, the size of President Trump's family, their frequent travel, and the need to secure their multiple residences have caused more than 1,000 Secret Service agents to reach the annual pay cap in 2017. These demands on the Secret Service will remain extremely high and require substantial resources. In December 2015, the Oversight Committee unanimously adopted a report concluding that the Secret Service``. . . is experiencing a staffing crisis that threatens to jeopardize its critical mission.'' Our report found that this was due in large part to ``. . . significant cuts imposed by the Budget Control Act of 2011.'' The report recommended that Congress ensure that the Secret Service has sufficient funds to restore staffing to the required levels. Providing this much-needed overtime pay relief is an essential step towards fulfilling the committee's recommendation. The hardworking men and women of the Secret Service put their lives on the line every day and make tremendous personal sacrifices for our country. We cannot expect the Secret Service to recruit and retain the best of the best and be the elite of the elite if they are not even being compensated for the hours that are demanded of them. Congress has a responsibility to provide the resources they need. I am proud to join my colleagues in this bipartisan effort to do just that, and I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. CUMMINGS

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, deeply embedded in our character as Americans is the vision that ours should be a nation that offers opportunity to all of our people. Even as we continue to work toward making this shared aspiration a reality, we must also recognize that the pathways to a better life are far more difficult for far too many of our citizens. This is why I addressed my colleagues on December 1. I rose on the floor of the House to celebrate a milestone in our nation's financial history. I spoke of an event 30 years ago when Reginald Francis Lewis tore down long-standing social and political stereotypes in our nation's financial industry. On November 30 and December 1 in 1987, Mr. Lewis negotiated the $985 million leveraged buyout of Beatrice International Foods--a transaction that was heard in financial circles around the world. At the time, this was the largest offshore transaction in the country--a breakthrough moment orchestrated by a son of Baltimore, who became the first African-American, billion-dollar business tycoon. The 30th anniversary of this step toward realizing our dream of universal economic opportunity deserves celebration both for all that it accomplished and as a reminder of the challenges that we have yet to overcome. Mr. Lewis' acquisition led to the founding of TLC Beatrice International Holdings, Inc., the first African-American owned enterprise to break through the billion-dollar mark when it grossed $1.8 billion in sales during its first year. That landmark, in turn, helped to change the landscape of American business forever, paving the way for more Americans of Color to succeed in the billion-dollar-business league. This, however, is only the most apparent reason that I rose in the House to celebrate that moment. Equally important, I reminded my colleagues that Mr. Lewis' character as a human being of African heritage is more representative of our character and ambitions than the negative stereotypes that continue to present barriers to success in our country. Reginald Lewis was not an overnight success, as many of his peers and family would point out. Even as a young person growing up in Baltimore, Mr. Lewis developed a strong work ethic and showed great ambition. His passion to succeed carried him from Baltimore to Virginia State University and Harvard Law School. Although he ``mastered the art of the deal,'' he did so with integrity and tenacity. This was the man I was fortunate to call my friend, and his untimely death in 1993 left a void in our nation's financial industry that is palpable today. Because of his success in business, the doors to economic opportunity have opened somewhat for other young Americans of color, who now are inspired to dream as big as Reginald F. Lewis dreamed--and to ``keep on going, no matter what''--until they achieve their own visions for themselves and their communities. Today, Reginald's name will forever be remembered in our hometown of Baltimore through the Reginald F. Lewis Museum of Maryland African American History and Culture, and highlights of his life are also permanently displayed at the Smithsonian National African American Museum of History and Culture. Before Mr. Lewis died, he gave back to the institution that gave him the tools he needed to change Wall Street: as a testament to his generosity, The Reginald F. Lewis International Law Center stands at Harvard Law School. To carry on his spirit of philanthropy and his belief that a good education is key to one's success, the Lewis family has continued to ``give back'' to our society. They created the Reginald F. Lewis Foundation, and partnered with others to create the Reginald F. Lewis High School of Business & Law in Baltimore, the Reginald F. Lewis College of Business at Virginia State University, and The Lewis College in Sorsogon City, Philippines, his widow's hometown. In loving memory of their father, his daughters continue to make lasting contributions to American society. For example, Leslie Lewis was recently recognized for her moving one-woman show called ``Miracle In Rwanda,'' based on a true story of surviving violence, overcoming odds and the power of forgiveness. Christina Lewis-Halpern founded All Star Code, a not-for-profit organization that seeks to equip young men of color with the tools they need to become a new generation of entrepreneurs, who will create even broader economic opportunity for us all. By breaking a barrier in American business, Reginald Lewis also affirmed our core values of diversity, equality, and the liberty to pursue happiness--values that transcend color and race, nationality and gender. As Americans, we all have good reason to rejoice in the successes of our sons and daughters. They will continue to perfect us as a nation and celebrate us as a great people.

Mr. CUMMINGS

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in honor of a native son of Baltimore, Maryland, Mr. Reginald F. Lewis. Let me also acknowledge the presence of many of the Lewis family members in the gallery, including his mother, Carolyn; widow, Loida; daughter, Leslie; and brother, Anthony. From November 30 to December 1, 1987, 30 years ago, Mr. Lewis negotiated the $985 million leveraged buyout of Beatrice International Foods. At the time, it was the largest leveraged buyout of an American company's overseas assets, and it led to the creation of what the New York Times identified in 1993 as the largest corporation in the United States led by an African American. Mr. Lewis' accomplishments changed the face of American business forever and opened new doors of opportunity on Wall Street. His substantial philanthropic gifts have also continued to benefit Baltimore and, indeed, the Nation. They help young Americans of color to dream bigger, and in Lewis' own words, to ``keep on going, no matter what.'' I invite everyone to join me in celebrating and honoring Reginald Lewis' memory and extraordinary accomplishments.

Mr. CUMMINGS

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to H.R. 4182, the EQUALS Act. My Republican colleagues have offered a legislative solution to a problem that does not exist. The Oversight Committee has not held a single hearing to examine the existing one-year probationary period. Yet, this legislation would double the probationary period. In the process, it would degrade the due process rights of these employees. These due process protections are critical to protecting whistleblowers who report waste, fraud, and abuse. For example, the Oversight Committee has examined retaliation against whistleblowers at the Transportation Security Administration. In one case, a career official and disabled veteran testified before the Oversight Committee that he was removed from consideration for a Senior Executive Service position during his probationary period because he reported misconduct by top leaders at TSA including sexual harassment. During his interview with Committee staff, this senior career official explained that extending the probationary period would make it easier for agencies to retaliate against other whistleblowers in the future. The House of Representatives should not approve legislation that would allow more retaliation against whistleblowers at federal agencies. Apart from the negative effects, we have seen no reason to adopt this bill. We have seen no problem that needs to be addressed. As I said, the Oversight Committee never held a hearing on this bill. We have not determined whether doubling the probationary period would help agencies deal with poor performers or further their missions. We have not seen any evidence that federal agencies need a blanket one-year extension of the probationary period for every single federal job. Instead, a recent GAO report recommended that the Office of Personnel Management actually study whether expanding the probationary period makes sense. GAO found that OPM should, and I quote: Determine whether there are occupations in which . . . the probationary period should extend beyond 1-year to provide supervisors with sufficient time to assess an individual's performance. I agree with GAO that a study needs to be conducted first. But our Republican colleagues want to skip this step. They want to skip any real examination of the issue and just add another year of probation during which employees have limited rights. Some of my colleagues cite the fact that Congress passed a two-year probationary period for Department of Defense civilian employees in the National Defense Authorization Act of Fiscal Year 2016. However, I would like to note two important facts. First, the Defense Department did not request this change in the probationary period or indicate any need for it. Second, the Department is not even using this new authority. The Acting Undersecretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness, Peter Levine, testified before the Senate Armed Services Committee in March. He stated, and I quote, ``the Department has done little to take advantage of that legislation.'' Mr. Levin warned that changing the law to address a small number of problem employees could hurt recruitment and retention and worker productivity. He stated, and I quote: ``If legislation that is intended to address a problem with one percent of the workforce is perceived as threatening and hostile by the other 99 percent, it may undermine morale and reduce the Department's ability to attract and retain the capable employees that it needs.'' Before damaging protections for whistleblowers, we should first determine whether an extension of the probationary period is needed at all. We should also determine whether it is appropriate for all federal service occupations or only certain occupations.

Mr. CUMMINGS

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor a great American and a visionary leader--Bishop Clifford M. Johnson, Jr. This month, Bishop Johnson celebrates his 48th anniversary as Pastor of Mount Pleasant Church and Ministries, which is located in my Congressional District in Baltimore, Maryland. For nearly half a century, Bishop Johnson has used his God-given talents and abilities to uplift the people of his church and those in the surrounding community. As a passionate Bible scholar and avid reader, Bishop Johnson was drawn to studying the Word of God at a young age. A native of Baltimore, he graduated from Kenwood High School in Baltimore County and pursued additional studies at the Baltimore College of Commerce and the Community College of Baltimore. Bishop Johnson earned a Bachelor of Arts degree in Pastoral Theology from the Washington Bible College and Capital Seminary. In 1975, he received an Honorary Doctor of Divinity degree from the Virginia Seminary and College of Lynchburg, Virginia. Under Bishop Johnson's dynamic leadership, Mount Pleasant Church and Ministries has grown to serve a congregation of 8,000 people. He turned a deteriorating shopping center into a thriving 17-acre campus with several ministries that reach beyond the walls of the church to bring resources and support to neighbors in need. Those ministries include: Kingdom Men Bible Class, the Prison Ministry, the Adult Learning Center, the Word of Life Ministry for children, the Evangelism Ministry, the Food and Banquet Ministry, and the Lampstand Christian Bookstore. Because of Bishop Johnson's deep belief in the power of education to change the trajectory of the lives of young people, he established the Mount Pleasant Christian School. The school serves children from Kindergarten through grade five, and everyone involved with the school--from teachers, to parents and support staff--has committed to the mission of ``awakening the genius in every child.'' Bishop Johnson's influence runs deep through the City of Baltimore. He is highly regarded by elected officials, business and civic leaders, and the people of the community. I witnessed this influence first-hand during the city's unrest following the killing of Freddie Gray. Bishop Johnson was one of the first pastors to join with me and other spiritual leaders to help bring calm to the streets of Baltimore. Bishop Johnson then helped to devise a long-term plan to heal the shattered relationship between police and the communities they serve and protect. His genuine connection to the people of the community helped us assess and respond to their real needs. Bishop Johnson has such a powerful ministry because he relates the Word of God to people's everyday lives. He has made an impact throughout the world by ministering in Canada, Israel, Sweden, France and Africa. He recently earned the distinction of being the first African American to preach and evangelize in Cuba. A loving family man, Bishop Johnson has been married to Dorothy Johnson for more than 50 years. They have five children and thirteen grandchildren. I am honored to pay tribute to Bishop Clifford M. Johnson, Jr. for his 48 years of pastoring Mount Pleasant Church and Ministries. He is a noble American who continues to serve his church, his community, and his country with distinction, and I thank him for his ministry.

Mr. CUMMINGS

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio), the ranking member of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee and one who has been a staunch supporter of whistleblowers.

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, as the ranking member of the Oversight and Government Reform Committee, the committee with oversight jurisdiction over Federal workers and agencies, I am one of the staunchest supporters of whistleblower protections in the Congress. I strongly support enhancing protections for the brave men and women who put their careers on the line to speak out against waste, fraud, and abuse. I fully support the intent of S. 585 to protect whistleblowers who face investigations in retaliation for their disclosures. But I am disappointed that the Republican leadership chose not to consider this measure under regular order. House Republicans rushed this legislation directly to the floor, bypassing any consideration by the Oversight Committee or the Veterans' Affairs Committee, which have jurisdiction over the bill. It is especially disappointing that my committee was not given the opportunity to address constitutional and privacy concerns raised by the Trump administration's Office of Personnel Management about the bill. That is what I said: the Trump administration's concerns about it. It is even more disheartening that the Rules Committee issued a closed rule for this bill. They blocked all three germane amendments that I submitted, including an amendment to fix the problems identified by the OPM. The measure before us today would change the procedures for disciplining Federal supervisors who retaliate against employees who blow the whistle. It would require agency heads to impose suspensions of at least 3 days for a first offense, and termination for a second offense whenever an agency head, administrative law judge, the Merit Systems Protection Board, a Federal judge, or an inspector general finds that a supervisor retaliated against an employee who blew the whistle. It also would reduce the length of the notice requirement for proposed disciplinary action from 30 days to 14 days. It would eliminate the option to hold a hearing if a supervisor contests a proposed disciplinary action. It would change the current burden of proof for demonstrating retaliation from a preponderance of the evidence to require agency heads to impose disciplinary action in any case in which a supervisor does not furnish evidence or if the head of the agency determines that such evidence is not sufficient to reverse the proposed action. The bill also would require an agency head, when an employee may have committed suicide, to refer any information to the Office of Special Counsel indicating that the employee had blown the whistle and that the agency took personnel action against the employee. The OPM has questioned whether some of the provisions in the bill would withstand constitutional scrutiny if challenged in court, and I agree with the OPM on that issue. For example, the OPM explained that the bill's requirement to propose minimum penalties of 3 days' suspension for the first offense and termination for second offenses could violate due process protections. These protections require agencies to notify employees of factors they will consider regarding proposed penalties for findings of wrongdoing and to provide employees with meaningful opportunities to respond. The United States Supreme Court and Federal Circuit Courts have ruled that Federal employees are entitled to these protections. After all, they are Americans. But according to the OPM, the bill would eliminate agency consideration of many of the 12 factors that were set force by the Merit Systems Protection Board in Douglas v. Veterans Administration in 1981. The Board uses these so-called Douglas factors to assess the reasonableness of penalties, and agency officials who propose or decide adverse actions against employees must concurrently consider these factors. Concerns have also been raised that by reducing the current requirement for 30 days' notice of adverse action to 14 days, lowering the existing burden of proof, and eliminating the option for hearings, the bill could be challenged on the basis that it does not give supervisors sufficiently meaningful opportunities to respond to accusations of retaliation. In addition, although the intent of the bill is to enhance protections for whistleblowers, there is some concern that it would be misused to harm whistleblowers. For example, an agency head could utilize the bill's abbreviated disciplinary processes in bad faith to retaliate against supervisors who blow the whistle on high-level waste, fraud, or abuse. Lastly, the provision requiring agency heads to refer information to the Office of Special Counsel regarding employees who may have committed suicide raises important privacy questions. The bill does not include any provision requiring agencies to obtain permission from family members before sharing information about an employee's death. It is unfortunate that the House has failed to take the opportunity to fix these flaws in this measure. The second amendment that I presented would have protected the privacy interests of employees who commit suicide by requiring written permission from their next of kin before agency heads disclose the details about the death. And another amendment that I submitted would have made corrections in the underlying bill to ensure that managers who violate whistleblower rights will be held accountable, while safeguarding due process rights. Finally, the third amendment was the text of my bipartisan bill, H.R. 702, the Federal Employee Anti-Discrimination Act of 2017, which passed the House by a voice vote under suspension of the rules earlier in this Congress, and also passed the House by a vote of 403-0 in the last Congress. This amendment would have expanded the protections for employees who suffer retaliation and discrimination. It also would have prohibited the use of nondisclosure agreements to prevent employees from disclosing waste, fraud, or abuse to Congress, to the Office of Special Counsel, and inspector generals. I expect the bill, as it now stands, to engender substantial litigation that may have to be addressed by the courts. It would, indeed, be unfortunate if that litigation resulted in overturning disciplinary action against an employee who retaliated against a whistleblower, when we could have acted today to address the constitutional concerns. As I said before the Rules Committee, sometimes I think we can get so caught up in our partisan battles, that even when we come with good suggestions as to how to make a piece of legislation better and more effective and certainly come within the bounds of the Constitution, we are blinded by what we see; and that is this battle between Republicans and Democrats, Mr. Speaker, and we don't come up, sometimes with the very best product. But even with all that, because I am so concerned about whistleblowers, I plan to vote for the bill. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind).

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from New Hampshire (Ms. Kuster).

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. As I close, I take the opportunity to reiterate that I strongly support the objectives of S. 585. If there is anything that we agree on in the Oversight and Government Reform Committee, it is that we must protect whistleblowers. Many of the investigations that we have conducted have been as a result of somebody who saw something and said something. Like Dr. Kirkpatrick, I am sure, in most of those instances, it was very difficult for them because they, on the one hand, wanted to improve a situation or address a problem, but at the same time, they knew that it was possible that they, themselves, might be harmed and their families might be harmed. So they make a very, very difficult choice, a very difficult choice. I am horrified that Dr. Kirkpatrick was so agonized by the treatment he endured at the Veterans Administration that he saw no options for himself. In other words, Mr. Speaker, he saw no way out. I worry that there are civil servants today who are enduring that same agony. But we say to them that we will protect you with all we have got, and that is why I appreciate Senator Johnson's work on S. 585, and I share his commitment to protecting whistleblowers. For that reason, as I said earlier, I will vote in favor of this legislation. That said, I wish that the Republican leadership had taken the opportunities that my amendments provided to improve this bill. These issues of equal protection are nothing to play with because we begin to chip away and chip away and chip away at employees' rights, and the next you know, those rights begin to disappear. Those are the kind of rights that are a part and the fabric of this thing we call a democracy. I think we have to be very, very, very careful. It is going to be interesting to see what the courts have to say about this legislation. My amendments would have addressed the constitutional concerns raised by OPM--and I emphasize OPM. This was not the Obama OPM. This was the Trump OPM. My amendments would also have protected the privacy of employees who take their own lives. My amendments would have added to the underlying bill additional protections for employees who suffer retaliation or discrimination, protections that the House has already approved. I believe this is a missed opportunity and it is sad. I truly hope that future litigation does not undo the advances that this bill seeks to make in the protections provided for the courageous men and women willing to blow the whistle on wrongdoing. In this day and age, we need the whistleblower more now than we have ever needed them. Mr. Speaker, I urge the Members to support this bill to protect some of the boldest, most courageous people in our Nation, the whistleblowers. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. CUMMINGS

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentlewoman for yielding. I introduced the All Circuit Review Act, Mr. Speaker, to send a clear message to all Federal employees who blow the whistle on wrongdoing that we here in Congress have their backs. This bill would give Federal employees who face retaliation for blowing the whistle a more equitable playing field when they challenge that retaliation in court. Under the bill, whistleblowers could file appeals in the jurisdictions where they work or live, rather than having to file appeals in the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals in Washington, D.C. Whistleblowers who live outside of Washington, D.C., should have the same opportunities as those who live in Washington. I want to thank Representative Blake Farenthold for cosponsoring this bill with me. Representative Farenthold has been a steadfast supporter of this basic due process right for Federal employees. The bill we are considering today makes permanent a pilot provision that was included in the Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act, which was signed into law in 2012. That pilot provision will expire in November if we do not send this bill to the President before then. Without this bill, whistleblowers could appeal a decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board only to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. The Federal circuit has historically been overly restrictive of whistleblower rights. According to the Merit Systems Protection Board, 29 cases have been appealed to courts other than the Federal circuit since 2012. The Project On Government Oversight sent a letter to the Oversight and Government Reform Committee on May 2, 2017, in strong support of this bill. Executive Director Danielle Brian wrote as follows: ``The pilot program has been a success. It has not resulted in a flood of whistleblower appeals as opponents of the program asserted it would do, and it allows for potential circuit splits, which encourage sister circuits to review the laws and allows for possible Supreme Court review. It is working exactly as intended and should be made permanent before it expires in November 2017.'' The bill was approved by the Oversight and Government Reform Committee without opposition in May. Two years ago, Congress approved an extension of the All Circuit Review Extension Act pilot program in 2014 without a single negative vote. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the whistleblower bill.

Mr. CUMMINGS

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 3031, the TSP Modernization Act of 2017. I thank the Government Operations Subcommittee chairman, Mr. Meadows, for working with me in a bipartisan manner on this commonsense, good government bill. I also thank the Oversight and Government Reform Committee chairman, Mr. Gowdy, for his support of this legislation. Congressman Meadows and I introduced this legislation to make the Federal Government's Thrift Savings Plan more closely align with private sector best practices by allowing TSP participants more flexible withdrawal options. In 2013, the Federal Retirement Thrift Investment Board found that employees who separated from Federal service transferred $9 billion out of their TSP accounts to other financial institutions. TSP participants do this because private sector 401(k) plans provide more flexibility, and they wanted more options for withdrawing money in case they needed it. A 2014 survey of TSP participants who withdrew funds showed that more than 50 percent reported that they wanted more flexibility to withdraw funds to address life events. Current law limits participants to only one withdrawal from their TSP accounts while in Federal service after reaching age 59\1/2\, and participants who make this type of age-based withdrawal cannot take another partial withdrawal once they separate from service. Similarly, participants who are separated from Federal service and who have not made a prior age-based withdrawal are restricted to making only one partial separation withdrawal. H.R. 3031 would eliminate these restrictions and allow participants to make multiple age-based and post-separation withdrawals from TSP accounts. The bill also would allow participants to elect to combine partial withdrawals with an annuity. It also would eliminate automatic annuities as a default option in the absence of an election by participants. By providing greater withdrawal flexibility, studies show that participants would be more likely to keep their assets in their TSP accounts. For example, a study issued by Vanguard in 2013 found that 50 percent more participants and assets remain in retirement plans when partial disbursements are allowed. Providing more withdrawal options for Federal employees and retirees in the TSP may help their financial security since administrative fees for the TSP are much lower than fees charged by other financial institutions. This legislation is supported by the National Active and Retired Federal Employees Association, the American Federation of Government Employees, and the National Treasury Employees Union.

Mr. CUMMINGS

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Chair, as the Ranking Member of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, I strongly oppose House Concurrent Resolution 71. This Budget Resolution would direct the Oversight Committee to identify a minimum of $32 billion in savings over ten years. Only two of the other 11 authorizing committees would be instructed to make more drastic cuts to federal programs--the Ways and Means Committee would have to identify at least $52 billion and the Judiciary Committee would have to identify at least $45 billion in cuts. Once again, House Republicans are targeting middle class civil service workers and their pensions for massive reductions. The Republican Budget would require federal workers to contribute significantly more to their pension plans than they do now. It would also end the retirement supplement for employees like law enforcement officers who are required by law to retire before reaching eligibility age for Social Security benefits. It would also eliminate pensions altogether for new hires. This Budget Resolution would slash the federal workforce by 10 percent through attrition in certain agencies by limiting agencies to one new hire for every three employees who leave. I am utterly dismayed at the relentless Republican attacks on middle class federal workers without any real consideration of what they do every single day for the American people. Over the past several years, Republicans in Congress have cut federal employee compensation and retirement benefits for a total of nearly $200 billion in order to pay for deficit reduction and other government programs. The argument that federal workers must sacrifice for the good of the country might have made some sense when the country was struggling during the Great Recession, and they did sacrifice. But it makes much less sense now that our economy is recovering and the wage gains made by private sector workers are far outstripping those of workers who commit their lives to public service. The argument that federal workers must be continually forced to sacrifice for deficit reduction also loses its strength when House Republicans are trying to give tax cuts to the wealthy without paying for it. The Republican tax package would add $2.4 trillion to the deficit over 10 years, and 80 percent of tax cuts would benefit the top 1 percent of Americans, who earn at least $900,000. While the wealthiest in our country would receive the vast majority of tax cuts, one third of middle class families making between $50,000 and $150,000 would see their taxes increase. Many of these middle class families are federal workers who dedicate their lives to serving the American people. It is unfair and uncompassionate to treat our civil servants in this way. These are the men and women who aided in the rescue and recovery efforts as Hurricanes Harvey, Irma, and Maria tore through Texas, Louisiana, the Southeast, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands. More than 32,000 federal employees were involved in helping families trapped in the storms. They include: disaster response teams from the Federal Emergency Management Agency; U.S. Army Corps of Engineers who provided temporary power and roofing, debris removal, and infrastructure assessment; National Guard soldiers and airmen who delivered food and water to survivors and cleared debris to open roads; Department of Energy personnel who ensured that fuel was available in impacted areas; Public Health Service officers who provided healthcare, including dialysis services to those in need; Members of the U.S. Coast Guard who helped ensure the delivery of relief supplies; and Agriculture Department employees who provided food to schools, shelters, and disaster organizations. Rather than targeting and penalizing these brave and selfless public servants, Congress must do a better job at showing how much we appreciate their efforts. I urge my colleagues to vote against House Concurrent Resolution 71.

Mr. CUMMINGS

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 702, the Federal Employee Antidiscrimination Act of 2017, as amended. I thank all of the bill's co-sponsors, including Representatives Norton, Sensenbrenner and Jackson Lee, for working with me on this measure and for their commitment to strengthening federal Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) programs. I also thank Tanya Ward Jordan, Paulette Taylor, and all the members of the Coalition 4 Change (C4C) for their years of work on this measure and their perseverance. H.R. 702 is essentially identical to H.R. 1557, which was considered in the last Congress. That legislation passed the House by a vote of 403-0. However, the bill did not pass the Senate before the end of the 114th Congress. I am hopeful that this year, we can finally get this measure over the finish line and to the President's desk for signature. I authored H.R. 702 to make long-overdue reforms of federal EEO programs to ensure that they are better able to protect the rights of federal employees and applicants for federal employment. Federal EEO programs exist to uphold the guarantee of equal opportunity that is the right of every citizen in this nation and to ensure that any barriers impeding fairness in personnel decisions are identified and eliminated. While the vast majority of federal workplaces comply with current EEO requirements, some federal agencies still have not met the standards of a model EEO program set forth by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). For example, in 2014, the EEOC issued a report on the Social Security Administration (SSA) that made 12 findings regarding SSA's failure to maintain a model EEOC program, ensure efficient management of the complaint process, provide uniform training to ensure equal opportunities, and implement effective and efficient anti-harassment policies and procedures. The EEOC made more than 60 recommendations for reform of that one program alone. Last year, bi-partisan investigations conducted by the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform of the National Park Service and the U.S. Forest Service found significant deficiencies in both agencies' EEO programs. At both agencies, employees suffered when their complaints of discrimination were not handled in a fair and timely manner. Employees were also harmed by agencies' failure to safeguard complainants' personal information. To help end these failings, my bill would require that EEO programs operate independently of an agency's human resources or general counsel offices--and that the head of the program reports directly to the head of an agency. This would ensure that effective implementation of the EEO program is prioritized at the highest level of an agency--and that it operates with the sole purpose of ensuring equal opportunity for all employees. H.R. 702 would also strengthen the accountability mechanisms that are central to the effectiveness of the EEO process. Further, H.R. 702 would make clear that agencies cannot impose any nondisclosure agreement on federal employees to prohibit employees from disclosing fraud or illegal actions to Congress, the Office of Special Counsel (OSC), or an Inspector General. According to the 2014 Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey, only 60 percent of federal employees agreed that they could, quote, ``disclose a suspected violation of any law, rule or regulation without fear of reprisal.'' The Federal Employee Antidiscrimination Act would help ensure that federal employees can report discrimination without suffering retaliation--and that such reports will be thoroughly and fairly investigated and adjudicated in a timely manner. Finally, as I close, I want to address some of the issues that arose during consideration of this measure in the Senate Homeland Security Committee last year. I want to be crystal clear that I believe that supervisors who engage in discriminatory or retaliatory action must be held accountable. However, this can be accomplished without curtailing any existing due process rights for federal employees and I will continue to oppose all efforts to roll back any due process right. I urge all Members to support H.R. 702, and I hope that in this Congress, we can finally enact this measure into law.

Mr. CUMMINGS

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, I wish to commend a great American who has devoted more than five decades of his life to the continuing struggle of our nation's working families for greater opportunity, empowerment, and social justice. On June 16, Fred Douglas Mason, Jr., who retired in April as President of the Maryland-District of Columbia AFL-CIO and its 384,000 members, will be honored at a dinner in his honor. We would be remiss if we did not recognize the contributions and struggles of Fred Mason and all the other hard-working Americans who forge our steel, build our automobiles, care for our families in times of illness or injury, teach our children, and contribute their sweat and toil to enriching our lives in so many other ways. Fred Mason's career, both on the assembly lines of Baltimore and as a union organizer and leader, exemplified the strong and resilient character of the Americans he served during the last 52 years. Fred personally experienced the heartbreak that wreaked havoc on the economic and social order of our Greater Baltimore community--as Bethlehem Steel, General Motors, General Electric, Proctor and Gamble and other manufacturing corporations abandoned their Baltimore operations, leaving nearly 100,000 working families to reach deeply into their hearts, pull themselves together, and chart new courses for their lives. Fred Mason also knew the empowering strength of education that provides needed skills and justifies a living wage, a health care plan and a secure retirement. Throughout his career, he worked tirelessly to expand the job training and tuition assistance that has allowed so many of his brothers and sisters to build better lives. From his earliest days as a student at Morgan State College (now University), Fred Mason also understood that an integrated America, both racially and socio-economically, is a stronger and more prosperous nation. And although he will be laying down the gavel as President of the Maryland-DC AFL-CIO, I am confident that Fred Mason will carry on in the cause of universal civil and human rights. I hold this conviction because, like Fred Mason, I, too, am a son of labor and a civil rights worker. And like Fred Mason, we all must understand that the civil rights movement of our own time is not limited to issues of race or gender or freedom of conscience--as critically important as those struggles remain. The civil rights movement of our time, Mr. Speaker, is also about whether parents can afford to feed and house their children--and provide those children with the education and health care that they need and deserve. The choice is ours. Will America once again become a nation of opportunity for everyone willing to work hard? Or will hard-working Americans continue to be squeezed past the breaking point by policies, enacted from afar, that devalue our people, our economy and the nation that we love? Mr. Speaker, this is the message that Fred Mason has lived and taught to others for more than five decades--and the same message that has become central to the national debates of our own time. It was at Morgan State College that Fred first came to understand that organization matters and is critical to progress in our country in the area of Civil Rights. At Bethlehem Steel and on the assembly lines of General Motors, Fred Mason came to realize that working people can become empowered if they organize. Now, in retirement, Fred also knows that the struggle to organize America must continue. He knows that political democracy in America is irrevocably linked to the expanded economic and social democracy that has carried so many closer to the American Dream. And above all, Fred Mason has taught us that our struggle for the American Dream continues despite the attacks of recent years. I have faith that dedicated, strong Americans like Fred Mason will always be there on the front lines. And for all of these contributions, we should thank Fred Mason and his wonderful wife, Jennifer, and wish them well.

Mr. CUMMINGS

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding and for his kind words. I thank Mr. Russell also for his very kind words. The bill before us, the Federal Intern Protection Act, would close a loophole in Federal employment law that currently leaves unpaid interns open to discrimination and sexual harassment with no legal recourse. It is interesting. As I listened to Mr. Connolly, he is absolutely right: it is surprising that they don't already have this protection. Last year, the Oversight and Government Reform Committee held a hearing at which we heard testimony about sexual harassment and retaliation in an EPA regional office. During the hearing, both Chairman Chaffetz and I expressed our disgust at the exploitation of these young women and demanded action to prevent this abuse in the future. Unfortunately, the act of harassing unpaid interns on the basis of race, religion, age, or, in this case, sex is not prohibited by Federal law. Under current law, victims rely on the discretion of managers to prevent this behavior, which is something that doesn't always occur. As one witness testified before our committee: ``Even after finding out about the numerous harassment victims, the direct reporting manager continued to feed the harasser a steady diet of young women.'' That is a very sad commentary. As I have often said, we are better than that. We saw at our hearing that allowing this kind of behavior to go unchecked can have serious consequences on the lives and careers of those who are interested in government service. What we want to do is encourage young people to come into government service. We want them to come in and do what will feed their souls by making life better for the general population. The last thing we want to do is anything that would cause them to say this is something they don't want to do. Many interns are willing to work for the Federal Government without receiving any pay. That is the other piece: so many of these young people come looking for experience, looking for opportunity. They simply want a chance to get their foot in the door. We must protect them from this kind of despicable behavior. Our bill will afford Federal interns protections in the same manner and to the same extent as Federal employees. I want to take this moment to thank the chairman for moving this bill expeditiously through our committee, where it was adopted unanimously, and for bringing it to the floor today.

Mr. CUMMINGS

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, 2 weeks ago at a townhall in Baltimore, a young lady came forward. She was 28 years old. She said: I have stage IV cancer. I got married just a few years ago. My husband and I were considering having a baby, but now I have discovered that that won't happen. The Affordable Care Act saved my life. The last thing she said--and she begged--was: You have got to act now because, if you don't, I will be dead. Mr. Speaker, the last thing I said to her was that I will give it everything I have got. Just a few moments ago, when I heard the other side of the aisle cheer as the bill was passed, it gave me great pain. But I want to say to her and to the American people: I will fight until my death to make sure that we get you the care that you need. Health care is a right, not a privilege.