Sheila Jackson Lee

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for again articulating the really egregious opinions, judicial approach, and temperament of Judge Gorsuch. I will conclude my remarks with a focus on the issues of women's rights as well as some cases dealing with immigration. Immigration, Mr. Speaker, is a crucial issue that we are addressing now. In fact, I will cite an incident that happened in our district--or in my district or in my community just a few days ago, which means, as we proceed, there may be a number of cases coming to the Federal courts and the district court because I think, as my colleague has indicated-- both of us have indicated--that the courts are for petitioning. That is what the courts are for. It seems that Judge Gorsuch wants to slam the door. And this is a-- how should I say it--a metaphor. It is not a precise comment by the judge, but annoyed that people have to come and use the courts. As he has indicated, minorities and women and others want to use the court for their social agenda. And for fear of being redundant, I feel moved--my passion is so strong because, Judge Gorsuch: Have you walked at any moment in your life in my shoes as a woman and as a minority? Have you walked in the shoes of the little children who made the plaintiffs of Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka? Were you in any way discriminated against with respect to education? Have you ever been a victim of stop and frisk? Have you ever been incarcerated for something you did not do? Have you ever been a woman who had been subjected to sexual harassment or discrimination? Do you understand the purpose of title VII? Do you understand the value of affirmative action both in policy and in law? Just a few weeks ago we got an effective and important decision on affirmative action out of this Supreme Court, in a court that is 4-4. I don't think that is the case. And I just, again, want to take this as I cite these cases. I just want to, again, cite Amanda Bronstad, that some of his decisions may have favored one or two plaintiffs. I am not going to deny that. But Gorsuch's careful judicial reasoning and parsing of statutory language has more than often led him to side with the defense. That is not the role of a Supreme Court Justice. It is not to side with anyone. It is to have the view on the basis of the appeal within the context of precedence and others how a decision should be rendered. So these are Judge Gorsuch's decisions: In Strickland v. UPS, Gorsuch dissented from a ruling giving a female UPS driver a chance to prove sex discrimination, arguing that the plaintiff had not provided evidence that she was treated less favorably than her male colleagues, even though in the documents submitted in the lower court, her coworkers testified and gave written testimony detailing the level of mistreatment they witnessed her receiving while employed by UPS. In Hwang v. Kansas State University involved a professor employed by Kansas State University who was diagnosed with cancer, and after treatments, requested an extension of her disability--another woman-- due to a flu outbreak on campus which could potentially compromise her health. And Judge Gorsuch talked about ``showing up'' as an essential job function, and that the Rehabilitation Act should not be used as a safety net for employees who cannot work. I think her request was an extension, not a forever. Two women, among others, that he found no reason to be supportive of. He could not find no legal precedent, nothing that would give him the ability to make a decision that was within the law and humane, even though he was in the dissent. And then in Planned Parenthood Association of Utah v. Herbert, the Governor of that State, again, he dissented against the court's majority, impacting women's health, to decline a full court review of the case--the court's majority decision to decline a full court review of the case, in which Governor Herbert of Utah stripped Federal funding away from Planned Parenthood. Neither party requested a full court review; however, Judge Gorsuch decided to deviate from court practices and norms to signal his favor of Governor Herbert's decision. Other women--he continues to show hostility toward women's rights and his willingness to overlook institutions that discriminate against women. His record indicates that. Let me finish with this comment on immigration--and if I might, Mr. Speaker, how much time is remaining?

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Madam Speaker, $880 billion cut from the insurance of hardworking, low-income families; $600 billion going to the top 1 percent of the richest people in America. Those were the singular features of the TrumpCare bill: not caring for any one of you, but simply taking away and providing for the rich. Health care in my district and in America is very serious. I heard the testimony for many years of mothers who had autistic children or children with severe disorders, or visited nursing homes where elderly who had worked were there on Medicaid, or maybe heard the pleas of cancer survivors who would not have lived but for the Affordable Care Act and having insurance. This is nothing to play with. Any suggestion that health care is easy, Mr. Trump, or that we can get together with the moderates is not a direction to go. If you are serious, we are serious. But we are serious about people whose lives are in jeopardy, and we are serious about providing access and health care to all of America, including our rural hospitals and our children's hospitals, who beg for us not to pass TrumpCare. We are prepared to work on behalf of the American people. Health care is not easy, but it is essential, it is lifesaving. I want to be on the side of saving lives of all Americans. It is not easy and it is not something to fool around with.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, the question we raise this evening is about governance. In the debacle of last Friday, when the administration failed to carry forward on its promise to pass the worst healthcare bill in the history of the United States, the administration offered a definition or an explanation: the ACA was exploding. It is not exploding. The CBO has indicated that the ACA needs improving, but it has insured some 20 million-plus people and protected children--unlike the administration's bill, Mr. Trump's bill which, in fact, would throw 24 million people off of health care and cut $880 billion. It is about governance. That is why it is important to have a full investigation of the Russian collusion of all of those who are involved in Mr. Trump's campaign, and in his administration, including very close members of his senior staff. That is why we should have a full investigation, which would include the Judiciary Committee. I demand that the classified documents that we have requested in a bipartisan letter should be given to the Judiciary Committee, and we should begin investigations on whether there are any questions of criminality. It is about governance, Mr. Speaker; and the House of Representatives must know the truth so the American people can know the truth.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule governing House consideration of H.R. 1628, the ``American Health Care Act of 2017,'' better known as ``Trumpcare.'' I oppose the rule, and the underlying legislation, for the following reasons: 1. The rule under consideration is brought pursuant to ``martial law'' rule passed yesterday which suspends the normal House procedure and allows for same day consideration, debate, and vote of legislation that will adversely affect the lives of everyone in America except for the top 1 percent; 2. The underlying bill is less than 2 weeks old and has not had a single hearing in any of the Committees of jurisdiction; and 3. The underlying bill does not reflect the input of nearly half the Members of this body because the legislation was drafted in secret, marked up in a single overnight session, and brought to the floor without incorporating a single amendment or idea proposed by the minority. Mr. Speaker, none of us here has had a meaningful opportunity to review the bill, ``Trumpcare 2.0'' we are being asked to vote on. This bill has undergone significant revision from the one marked up just last week by the Budget Committee of which I am a member. Trumpcare 2.0 no doubt contains many sweeteners and olive branches granted by the Administration and House Republican leaders in backroom deals in a last ditch effort to secure the necessary votes of Republican members to take away health care from 24 million Americans, many of whom are among the most vulnerable persons in society. None of these changes to the bill before us has been scored by the Congressional Budget Office so we do not know exactly how many more millions of Americans will be hurt. But what is unlikely to change is that 14 million Americans will lose Medicaid coverage and more than 52 million persons will be uninsured by 2026 under this Republican plan. In addition to terminating the ACA Medicaid expansion, the ``Trumpcare'' converts Medicaid to a per-capita cap that is not guaranteed to keep pace with health costs starting in 2020. The combined effect of these policies is to slash $880 billion in federal Medicaid funding over the next decade. In short, Trumpcare represents a clear and present danger to the financial and health security of American families, and to the very stability of our nation's health care system overall. We should follow regular order in the consideration of all legislation, but especially in a matter with great importance to the American people that could impact nearly 300 million people. For these reasons, I believe the House should reject this rule and the underlying bill. Instead of trying to enact the largest transfer of wealth from the bottom 99 percent to the top 1 percent in history, House Republicans should work with Democrats to strengthen the Affordable Care Act which has and continues to make life-affirming differences for the better in the lives of more than 300 million Americans.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentleman of the Budget Committee for his leadership. Our mothers and our doctors have warned us about poison pills. Well, let me say that, this morning, the Republicans are giving to the American people a poison meal that would affect my friend, the senior citizen, with $175 billion being taken away from Medicare; a poison meal that will affect a young child who is being seen by a doctor. The Children's Hospital Association, including the Texas Children's Hospital, has said to vote ``no'' on this bill because 30 million children will have no health insurance. This will impact working families making $31,000 a year. They will have to pay $4,000 more out of pocket. In 2026, under pay more for less, $52 million Americans will be uninsured. This poison meal is getting worse and worse. Then, in the dark of night, what did they do? They took away hospitalization. They took away pregnancy, maternity, and newborn care. They took away mental health and substance abuse care. Those States that are experiencing the opioid abuse and epidemic, what are they going to do? They have threatened community health centers. They are closing rural hospitals. What is this disaster of TrumpCare? It is injuring my good friend who is sitting there in the hospital room. It is injuring Anna Nunez. It is injuring small businesses who say that they can live better under the Affordable Care Act, and the youngster that is a junior in college who said she would not be alive had it not been for the Affordable Care Act. More than half of the American people--and it is growing--are against this bill done in the dark of night. It is the poison meal that is keeping those who need health insurance away from health insurance. I ask my colleagues to vote ``no.'' Don't feed the American people a poison meal. Mr. Speaker, as a member of the Budget Committee and the representative of a congressional district that has benefited enormously from the Affordable Care Act, I rise in strong and unyielding opposition to H.R. 1628, the so-called ``American Health Care Act,'' which more accurately should be called ``Trumpcare, the Pay More For Less Act.'' Seven years ago yesterday, March 23, 2010, President Barack Obama signed into law the landmark Affordable Care Act passed by the Democratic controlled 111th Congress. Seven years later, the verdict is in on the Affordable Care Act; the American people have judged it a success and are adamantly opposed to any effort to repeal a law that has brought to more than 20 million Americans the peace of mind and security that comes with knowing they have access to affordable, high quality health care. Before the passage of the Affordable Care Act, 17.1 of Americans lacked health insurance; today nearly nine of ten (89.1%) are insured, which is the highest rate since Gallup began tracking insurance coverage in 2008. Because of the Affordable Healthcare Act: 1. insurance companies are banned from discriminating against anyone, including 17 million children, with a preexisting condition, or charging higher rates based on gender or health status; 2. 6.6 million young-adults up to age 26 can stay on their parents' health insurance plans; 3. 100 million Americans no longer have annual or life-time limits on healthcare coverage; 4. 6.3 million seniors in the ``donut hole'' have saved $6.1 billion on their prescription drugs; 5. 3.2 million seniors now get free annual wellness visits under Medicare, and 6. 360,000 Small Businesses are using the Health Care Tax Credit to help them provide health insurance to their workers; 7. Pregnancy is no longer a pre-existing condition and women can no longer be charged a higher rate just because they are women. We are becoming a nation of equals when it comes to access to affordable healthcare insurance. The President and congressional Republicans call this enviable record of success a ``disaster.'' The American people do not agree and that is why they reject overwhelmingly (56%-17%) this Republican attempt to repeal the Affordable Care Act according to the latest Quinnipiac poll. Americans know a disaster when they see one and they see one in the making: it is called ``Trumpcare,'' masquerading as the ``American Health Care Act,'' which will force Americans to ``pay more for less.'' And they are right to be alarmed at what they see. This ``Pay-More-For-Less'' bill is a massive $900 billion tax cut for the wealthy, paid for on the backs of America's seniors, the vulnerable, the poor, and working class households. This ``Robin Hood in reverse'' bill is unprecedented and breathtaking in its audacity--no bill ever tried to give so much to the rich while taking so much from the poor and working class. Trumpcare represents the largest transfer of wealth from the bottom 99% to the top 1% in American history. This callous Republican scheme gives gigantic tax cuts to the rich, and pays for it by taking insurance away from 24 million people, leaving 52 million uninsured, and raising costs for the poor and middle class. In addition, Republicans are giving the pharmaceutical industry a big tax repeal, worth nearly $25 billion over a decade without demanding in return any reduction in the cost of prescription and brand-name drugs. To paraphrase Winston Churchill, of this bill, it can truly be said that ``never has so much been taken from so many to benefit so few.'' The Pay-More-For-Less plan destroys the Medicaid program under the cover of repealing the Affordable Care Act Medicaid expansion. CBO estimates 14 million Americans will lose Medicaid coverage by 2026 under the Republican plan. In addition to terminating the ACA Medicaid expansion, the bill converts Medicaid to a per-capita cap that is not guaranteed to keep pace with health costs starting in 2020. The combined effect of these policies is to slash $880 billion in federal Medicaid funding over the next decade. The cuts get deeper with each passing year, reaching 25% of Medicaid spending in 2026. These steep cuts will force states to drop people from Medicaid entirely or ration care for those who most need access to comprehensive coverage. The Pay-More-For-Less plan undermines the health care safety net for vulnerable populations. Currently, Medicaid provides coverage to more than 70 million Americans, including children, pregnant women, seniors in Medicare, people who are too disabled to work, and parents struggling to get by on poverty-level wages. In addition to doctor and hospital visits, Medicaid covers long-term services like nursing homes and home and community-based services that allow people with chronic health conditions and disabilities to live independently. To date, 31 states and D.C. have expanded Medicaid eligibility to low-income adults, which, when combined with the ACA's other coverage provisions, has helped to reduce the nation's uninsured rate to the lowest in history. Trumpcare throws 24 million Americans off their health insurance by 2026 according to the Congressional Budget Office. Low-income people will be hit especially hard because 14 million people will lose access to Medicaid by 2026 according to CBO. Trumpcare massively shifts who gets insured in the nongroup market. According to CBO, ``fewer lower-income people would obtain coverage through the nongroup market under the legislation than current law,'' and, ``a larger share of enrollees in the nongroup market would be younger people and a smaller share would be older people.'' The projected 10% reduction in premiums is not the result of better care or efficiency--it is in large part the result of higher-cost and older people being pushed out of a market that is also selling plans that provide less financial protection. People with low incomes suffer the greatest losses in coverage. CBO projects the uninsured rate for people in their 30s and 40s with incomes below 200% of poverty will reach 38% in 2026 under this bill, nearly twice the rate projected under current law. Among people aged 50-64, CBO projects 30% of those with incomes below 200% of poverty will be uninsured in 2026. Under current law, CBO projects the uninsured rate would only be 12 percent. Being uninsured is not about ``freedom.'' Speaker Ryan has argued that people will happily forgo insurance coverage because this bill gives them that ``freedom.'' The argument makes as much sense as the foolish claim that slaves came to America as ``immigrants'' seeking a better life. The freedom to be uninsured is no freedom at all to people in their 50s and 60s with modest incomes who simply cannot afford to pay thousands of dollars toward premiums. They do not really have a choice. The claim of our Republican friends that Trumpcare provides more freedom to all Americans calls to mind the words of Anatole France: ``The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread from the market.'' Trumpcare raises costs for Americans nearing retirement, essentially imposing an ``Age Tax.'' The bill allows insurance companies to charge older enrollees higher premiums than allowed under current law, while reducing the size of premium tax credits provided. Again, these changes hit low-income older persons the hardest. A 64-year-old with an income of $26,500 buying coverage in the individual market will pay $12,900 more toward their premiums in 2026, on average. Trumpcare raises costs for individuals and families with modest incomes, particularly older Americans. A recent analysis found that in 2020, individuals with incomes of about $31,000 would pay on average $4,000 more out of pocket for health care--which is like getting a 13% pay cut. And the older you are, the worse it gets. An analysis by the Urban Institute estimates that for Americans in their 50s and 60s, the tax credits alone would only be sufficient to buy plans with major holes in them, such as a $30,000 deductible for family coverage and no coverage at all of brand-name drugs or many therapy services. Another reason I oppose the Trumpcare bill before us is because its draconian cuts in Medicaid funding and phase-out of Medicaid expansion put community health centers at risk. Community health centers are consumer-driven and patient-centered organizations that serve as a comprehensive and cost effective primary health care option for America's most underserved communities. Community health centers serve as the health care home for more than 25 million patients in nearly 10,000 communities across the country. Across the country, 550 new clinics have opened to receive 5 million new patients since 2009. Community health centers serve everyone regardless of ability to pay or insurance status: 1. 71% of health center patients have incomes at or below 100% of poverty and 92% have incomes less than 200% of poverty; 2. 49% of health center patients are on Medicaid; and 3. 24% are uninsured; 4. Community health centers annually serve on average 1.2 million homeless patients and more than 300,000 veterans. Community health centers reduce health care costs and produce savings--on average, health centers save 24% per Medicaid patient when compared to other providers. Community health centers integrate critical medical and social services such as oral health, mental health, substance abuse, case management, and translation, under one roof. Community health centers employ nearly 190,000 people and generate over $45 billion in total economic activity in some of the nation's most distressed communities. Community health centers serve on the front lines of public health crises such as the Zika virus and the opioid epidemic. Mr. Speaker, community health centers are on the front lines of every major health crisis our country faces, from providing access to care (and employment) to veterans to addressing the opioid epidemic to responding to public health threats like the Zika virus. We should be providing more support and funding to community health centers, not making it more difficult for them to serve the communities that desperately need them by slashing Medicaid funding. Trumpcare Republican plan leaves rural Americans worse off. Mr. Speaker, health insurance has historically been more expensive in rural areas because services cost more and it is hard to have a stable individual market with a small population. Under the Affordable Care Act, premium subsidies are tied to local costs, which helps keeps premium costs down. But they are not under the Republican plan. So, under the Republican plan residents in rural areas, who tend to be older and poorer, will pay much more and get much less health insurance. At the end of the day, Mr. Speaker, the powerful and compelling reasons to reject Trumpcare lies in the real world experiences of the American people. Let me briefly share with you the positive, life affirming difference made by the Affordable Care Act in the lives of just three of the millions of Americans it has helped. Joan Fanwick: ``If Obamacare is repealed, I don't know if I'll live to see the next President'' ``After nearly a decade of mysterious health scares, I was diagnosed with an autoimmune disorder called Sjogren's Syndrome last year, when I was a junior at Temple University. ``It's a chronic illness with no known cause or cure, and without close medical surveillance and care, it can lead to life-threatening complications (like the blood infections I frequently experience). ``For me, having this disorder means waking up every morning and taking 10 different medications. ``It also means a nurse visiting my apartment every Saturday to insert a needle into the port in my chest, so I can give myself IV fluids throughout the week. ``Without insurance, my medical expenses would cost me about $1,000 per week--more than $50,000 per year. And that doesn't even include hospitalizations. ``My medical bills aren't cheap under Obamacare, but I can afford them. ``Under Obamacare, insurance companies aren't allowed to cut you off when your costs climb so right now, the most I personally have to pay out of pocket is $1,000 per year.'' Brian Norgaard: ``I am a small business owner and leadership trainer who Obamacare has helped tremendously.'' Brian Norgaard, a Dallas, Texas resident, called my office to express his opposition to Trumpcare and to offer share how the Affordable Care Act has helped small business owners like himself: ``I am a small business owner and leadership trainer who Obamacare has helped tremendously. ``My wife and I both own small businesses in the Dallas, Texas area and as a result of the huge savings we received after paying lower [healthcare] premiums under Obamacare, we were able to reinvest those saving into both of our businesses and the community. ``And the healthcare we received was quality, at that.'' Ashley Walton: ``For cancer survivors, we literally live and die by insurance'' Ashley Walton was 25 when a mole on her back turned out to be melanoma. She had it removed, but three years later she discovered a lump in her abdomen. She was then unemployed and uninsured, and so she put off going to a doctor. She tried to buy health insurance. Every company rejected her. Ashley eventually became eligible for California's Medicaid program, which had been expanded under the Affordable Care Act. The 32-year-old Oakland resident credits her survival to the ACA. Without it, ``I would likely be dead, and my family would likely be bankrupt from trying to save me.'' Before any of our Republican colleagues supporting this bill cast their vote, I urge them to reflect on the testimony of Joan, Brian, and Ashley, and to on this question posed by a constituent to Sen. Cotton of Arkansas at a recent town hall: ``I've got a husband dying and we can't afford--let me tell you something. ``If you can get us better coverage than this [Obamacare], go for it. ``Let me tell you what we have, plus a lot of benefits that we need. ``We have $29 per month for my husband. Can you beat that? Can you? With all the congestive heart failures, and open heart surgeries, we're trying. $29 per month. And he's a hard worker. $39 for me.'' I urge all Members to reject Trumpcare, one of the most monstrously cruel and morally bankrupt legislative proposals ever to be considered in this chamber. To paraphrase a famous former reality television personality, ``believe me, Trumpcare is a disaster.'' We should reject it and keep instead ``something terrific'' and that is the Affordable Care Act, regarded lovingly by millions of Americans as ``Obamacare.'' March 24, 2017. Re Changes to the Affordable Healthcare Act. The President of the United States of America, The White House, Washington, DC. Greetings Mr. President: Today is a very crucial and important day for the residents of the City of Houston's District D, where I serve as the elected City Council Member, which also falls under Congressional Districts 18 and 7. As a local elected official whose mother is on a fixed income, this will not only impact her but many other senior citizens who I represent. In the news, we see how the Affordable Healthcare Act is proposed to be changed. Under the new revisions to the healthcare bill, which is called The American Health Care Act, about $337 Billion will be cut from the current plan over a 10 year period causing 24 million Americans, including Democrats, Republicans, Independents, poor and the middle class, to lose their healthcare. This proposed health care bill is receiving criticism from the health care providers, some conservatives and a united Democratic Party. The Congressional Budget Office even showed how this current proposed plan will negatively impact everyone. What is most concerning to me in regards to this program is the impact that it will have on our senior citizens. 52% of my District is made up of Senior Citizens who are on fixed incomes. These senior's will have to pay more for their health care under this proposed American Health Care Act. In no way is this acceptable. I am an advocate for my seniors and I refuse to quietly sit back while this is being considered. I have encouraged everyone to reach out to their Members of Congress to let them know that this isn't something that we stand for and to work on their behalf to vote this item down today. Sincerely, Dwight Boykins, Houston City Counsel, District D.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I think the American people have seen the scrambling and the unraveling today, the seventh anniversary of the Affordable Care Act which allowed more than 20 million people to achieve opportunities and access to health care that many have never had. Throughout America, the Affordable Care Act provided hardworking Americans access to wellness care, hospitalization, care that they could not have before because it eliminated the barrier for those who had preexisting disease. Now, tomorrow we will be debating this fast-moving, thoughtless, and devastating legislation that will see, in 2026, some 52 to 54 million Americans without insurance and undermine the opportunity for those in nursing homes, disabled, the blind, and many others, children, that are in great need of health care eliminated. So I don't know what the purpose of this bill is tomorrow, but we will be here to debate it and hopefully defeat it, because I believe that the quality of life for all Americans truly is based upon their access to good, strong health care. That is what the Affordable Care Act is, helping rural hospitals, providing hospital resources for uncompensated care. So, Mr. Speaker, tomorrow we will be debating a bill that, hopefully, will be defeated because it will not save lives.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, this morning I came in contact with two mothers of two young boys who are homebound with catastrophic illnesses. My heart broke as I listened to them say: The only way that I survive to see their happy face and I can work is because they have insurance through extensive Medicaid. And so I come today to ask my friends on the other side of the aisle not to worry about threats about losing your office or your job. This is about patriotism and being an American. Vote against this horrible TrumpCare debacle that will create higher cost, less coverage, and an age tax that will hurt the old and devastate the young. This is a time for the flag to be waved and for patriots to stand and to be heard across America. Vote down TrumpCare not for self and selfishness, but really to be able to stand with those who cannot help themselves. I wanted to embrace those mothers as a mother, as a grandmother, because we are giving life to those beautiful children, now 9 and 10, living because they got health care under the Affordable Care Act. Stand as a patriot against TrumpCare.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, as a senior member of the House Committee on Homeland Security I rise in support of H.R. 1302, Terrorist and Foreign Fighter Travel Exercise Act of 2017 to require an exercise to terrorist and foreign fighter travel. This bipartisan bill would expand the scope of the Federal Emergency Management Agency's National Exercise Program by requiring additional scenarios to address emerging terrorist threats. Among the scenarios to be included are those involving U.S. citizens enlisting with or providing support to terrorists organizations abroad, as well as terrorist infiltration in the United States. A nationwide exercise would be held within a year of enactment to evaluate the threat of individuals traveling from the United States to join a terrorist organization. The exercise would also test scenarios involving terrorist infiltration into the U.S. by United States citizens and foreign nationals. DHS would coordinate with other federal departments, foreign governments, state and local governments, and the private sector to conduct the exercise. The growing complexity of the threat may be creating unseen gaps in our defenses, yet it has been years since any large-scale ``stress test'' has been conducted against terrorist travel. Federal officials suspect that Todd Wolfe, an American citizen from Texas, planned to fly his family to Europe where he would meet up with an ISIS handler and take them all to Syria. In March of 2014, Hanad Abdullahi Mohallim, an American from Minnesota, entered Syria at Tel Abyad and recruited other fellow Somali-Americans in Minnesota to leave the United States and join ISIS. Also in 2014, Abdi Nur left the U.S. for Syria to join ISIS. He was later reported to have attempted to recruit other men here in the U.S. to join the terrorist organization. We need to be gravely concerned about Americans leaving the country to train overseas with terrorist organizations who then return to the United States as foreign fighters. I ask my colleagues to join me in supporting H.R. 1302.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 1238, ``Securing Our Agriculture and Food Act.'' This bipartisan bill amends the Homeland Security Act of 2002 to make the Assistant Secretary of Homeland Security for Health Affairs responsible for coordinating the efforts for the DHS related to food, agriculture, and veterinary defense against terrorism. The coordination program under the measure would include: 1. Overseeing and managing DHS's responsibilities under the presidential directive; 2. Integrating activities related to veterinary public health, food and agriculture security; 3. Leading the department's policy initiatives relating to food, animal, and agriculture incidents, as well as domestic preparedness for and collective response to agricultural terrorism; and 4. Coordinating with other parts of the federal government. Agro-terrorism is defined as the deliberate introduction of an animal or plant disease for the purpose of generating fear, causing economic losses, or undermining social stability. Killing livestock and plants or contaminating food can help terrorists cause economic crises in the agriculture and food industries. Agriculture comprises the largest single sector in U.S. economy, making agro-terrorism an attractive opportunity for many terrorist organizations. Attacks directed against the cattle, pork, or poultry industries or via the food chain pose the most serious danger for latent, ongoing effects and general socioeconomic and political disruption. Food availability becomes a matter of immediate life and death in such circumstances, and significant national and global resources need to be dedicated to emergency relief efforts. Any attacks of agro-terrorism would be particularly devastating for the citizens of Texas. In Texas, the largest source of agricultural revenue comes from the sale of beef cattle. Texas produces roughly 20 percent of the nation's cattle and ranks first in the country in the value of cattle raised. It is crucial that we have preparedness policies in place to quickly respond to events threatening U.S. agriculture or food production systems. I ask my colleagues to join me in supporting H.R. 1238.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, as a senior member of the Homeland Security Committee, I rise in support of H.R. 1365, the ``Department of Homeland Security Acquisition Innovation Act'' which authorizes the DHS to expand the use of acquisition innovation. This bipartisan bill will guarantee new acquisition methods and practices are considered to ensure taxpayers get the most for their money. This bill would permit DHS's undersecretary for management to: 1. Designate an official to manage acquisition innovation; 2. Test and develop best practices that are consistent with acquisition rules and directives; 3. Measure how innovation in acquisition processes have affected cost, operational efficiency, the timeframe for executing contracts, and collaboration with small businesses and other private-sector companies; and 4. Obtain and incorporate feedback from the private sector. From fiscal 2018 through 2022, DHS would provide Congress with information on acquisition innovation activities during the previous fiscal year, including: 1. Best practices that were tested, used and distributed, including through web-based seminars, trainings and forums; 2. Effects on the private sector, including small businesses; 3. Criteria to indemnify acquisition programs that would be appropriate for innovation; and 4. Recommendations for enhancing innovation at DHS. Innovation is the American way and this bill makes sure the Department of Homeland Security finds new ways to do its job effectively and efficiently. At the Tenth Annual Border Security Expo in Texas, officials from the Department of Homeland Security observed some of the latest innovations that can help to protect our border. This included 3D holographic images, portable biometric testing kits, and underground seismic signal detectors. In Texas, U.S. Customs and Border Protection agents deter, detect, and interdict smuggling along the Texas/Mexico border through the deployment of an integrated network of detection and communication technologies. In 2016, the Texas of Department of Public Safety provided direct assistance to U.S. Customs and Border Protection in the arrest of over 37,000 criminals deemed a high threat risk. Frontline personnel securing our borders, protecting our airports, and defending our shores must have the tools to successfully accomplish their mission. I ask my colleagues to join me in supporting H.R. 1365.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to join the Congressional Progressive Caucus, on which I serve as a vice chair. I remember this experience less than a decade ago when we worked so hard to have the Affordable Care Act. For many, you are seeing this poster for the first time. I think I need to give you a little journey down memory lane as we talk about why we are so vigorously opposing what would seem to be new and fresh ideas. First of all, let me say the good thing about the Affordable Care Act is that it is not a respecter of economic standing as relates to the benefits of health insurance. We were able to grant every American the right to have insurance that did not penalize you for being a woman, penalize you for having a preexisting condition. In fact, it did lower premiums. We realize that in certain areas that is one of the beginning aspects of a bill that is only 7 years old, but one of the important points is that we have given you insurance that has more benefits than it ever had 10 years ago, 15 years ago. More importantly, working people who happen to be of low income and who are no less able or dignified or equal in this Nation now have insurance. It is insurance. The underpinning of it is Medicaid, but it is insurance. It allows families, pregnant women, and children to have insurance, people who are working. Then, on the other side, it has help for the blind, the disabled, as well for those in nursing homes. Remember, people in nursing homes have worked. We give them the ability to live in dignity. Unfortunately, to the contrary, what I am seeing now, just coming out of the Cloakroom, is a hustle and bustle of negotiations and meetings, going in and out of meetings, going to the White House, trying to corral these last votes. Some of these individuals want it to be made worse, and they are holding their ground. But I tell you what is missing in all of this. What is missing is that what we did almost 10 years ago was have hundreds, maybe thousands, of hearings or townhall meetings in our districts. We had 79 bipartisan hearings in the House, 453 hearings in the Senate. In the House, we had over 181 witnesses and 239 considered amendments. We believed in listening to the American people, many of whom did not understand, but we wanted to get it out. In the dark of night, this bill has come. There are amendments coming by the day. I will be leaving here and going to the Rules Committee to try to understand what is in the bill. To the American people, what you can clearly see that is in the bill right now is that we are paying more for less. You are getting $880 billion taken out of the Medicaid that is used to keep people whole after they have worked--those in nursing homes, the blind, the disabled, or other things that may have occurred--as well as those who are taking care of children and who are pregnant women. Twenty-four million will lose their insurance right now, today, as that bill is passed. Overall, in 2026, 52 million Americans will be uninsured. You can't be plainer than that. Then what saddens me the most, besides the $880 billion coming out of your insurance, they give a $600 billion tax cut to 1 percent of the richest Americans, whom I would venture to say, getting $57,000 per family, they would say to you: Take it back and help all of America. The age tax, if you are 50 to 64, you are paying a penalty--not 85, but 50 to 64. They can't get rid of that. How are you going to pass a bill that penalizes? I have indicated about $880 billion for Medicaid. Then, of course, the tax relief for people who do not want it. I say that your patriotism today is letting this see the light of day. Let's debate it and discuss it. Let's talk to States like Kentucky and West Virginia and those States that have taken expanded Medicaid. Let's talk to families, like I have just done today, with children who are only being taken care of with their catastrophic illnesses, with smiles on their face, and homebound, because they have Medicaid as their insurance. That is why we oppose the TrumpCare bill. No matter how many backdoor meetings President 45 can take care of--I wish, maybe, it started earlier, before he attacked President Obama. But, in any event, with all of these meetings, we are still at a point where we don't know what the bill is doing for people that is good, but we do know what it is taking away from people. I just ask that we stop and do this right to save lives. I thank the gentlewoman for her leadership.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, let me thank the gentleman very much for his leadership. I acknowledge the chairman of the committee for his, as well. I thank the gentleman for yielding to me, and although I will make the points that I think are important, I wanted to take the time to thank Mr. Conyers for the thoughtful legislation that he has introduced over the years. This leads me to call this the Conyers bill because of the important contributions it makes to ensuring that our health care is competitive, our health insurance is competitive, and his thoughtfulness in this legislation. As it comes to the floor, I am reminded of Mr. Conyers' influence on this legislation. It is an interesting time at which it comes, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I rise to acknowledge the importance of H.R. 372, the Competitive Health Insurance Reform Act of 2017, a proposal to remove the antitrust exemption in the McCarran-Ferguson Act as it applies to health insurance. Overall, the proposed legislation, as well as previous attempts by the Judiciary Committee to repeal the McCarran-Ferguson Act's antitrust exemption for health insurance, does not raise new or pressing issues. Opponents of repeal assume problems that cannot be documented, unlike the very tangible and real economic and competitive costs that will be incurred if the exemption is allowed to continue. As the Justice Department has explained, where there is effective competition, coupled with transparency, in a consumer-friendly regulatory framework, insurers will compete against each other by offering plans with lower premiums, reducing copayments, lowering or eliminating deductibles, lowering annual out-of-pocket maximum costs, managing care, improving drug coverage, offering desirable benefits, and making their provider networks more attractive to potential members. That sounds, of course, like the Affordable Care Act, which we will celebrate tomorrow, for that was the day it was signed. That is what health insurance should be for the American people. This legislation is a very thoughtful legislative initiative, and I am hoping that its coming to the floor is not like trying to put lipstick on a pig. That, of course, is the latest configuration of the meaningless TrumpCare, and which the amendment that will be coming forward will, again, in essence, throw people off health insurance. It will take away all that we are intending it to do, but this legislation has reason. Other current enforcement tools and regulatory policies already in place address competition issues at the State and Federal level to police health insurance competition. In this and numerous other ways, effective regulation can promote improved healthcare delivery and improved cost control by ensuring that all insurance companies are required to follow certain basic consumer-friendly rules of the road. Again, wouldn't it be great to have this very thoughtful legislation with all of the points of the Affordable Care Act: it eliminates preexisting conditions, has lowered premiums and continues to lower premiums, and is lowering or eliminating deductibles. All of those were thoughtful of Mr. Conyers, and they would have been the right complement to the Affordable Care Act. However, the additional risks of adding new regulatory uncertainty, increasing boundary-testing litigation, and distracting policymakers from more important ways to reduce healthcare costs and improve healthcare competition suggest that further caution and delay on this front is inadvisable, given present circumstances and conditions. But let us not fool ourselves into thinking that the legislation before us is a panacea that will lead to affordable, accessible, high- quality health care for all Americans. If that worthy goal is the objective sought, the best way to achieve it is to retain and strengthen the Affordable Care Act and abandon the misguided effort of House Republicans to repeal this landmark legislation and replace it with the pay more for less act masquerading as a healthcare bill. The Affordable Care Act works. I think we in the Judiciary Committee know it full well. We held hearings and briefings; we heard from the victims of those who did not have insurance, who had lost insurance, did not have enough insurance, or the insurance would not cover them. I am reminded of a very emotional story of an 8-year-old girl in the office of an insurance company where her family was begging for coverage because she had leukemia; obviously, a preexisting condition. It is sad to say, but I understand that she lost her life. The Affordable Care Act has significantly improved the availability, affordability, and quality of health care for tens of millions of Americans, including millions who previously had no health insurance at all. Americans are rightly frightened by Republican attempts to repeal the ACA without having in place a superior new plan that maintains comparable coverages and comparable consumer choices and protections, not throwing off 24 million Americans who will have no insurance. It is beyond dispute that the pay more for less plan proposed by Republicans fails this test miserably. The Republican pay more for less act is a massive tax cut for the rich, paid for on the backs of America's most vulnerable: those who work and who happen to be of low income. This Robin-Hood-in-reverse bill is unprecedented and breathtaking in its audacity. No bill has ever tried to give so much to the rich while taking so much from the poor. One number comes to mind: $880 billion taken away from Medicaid insurance covering nursing homes, patients, the blind, the disabled; again, then giving a great plus and a great refund in tax credits to the richest in America. They will be happy. It won't be health care. They have got private health insurance. But it certainly will be a big check that they get in the mail. This pay more for less bill represents the largest transfer of wealth from the bottom 99 percent to the top 1 percent in American history. This Republic scheme gives gigantic tax cuts to the rich, and pays for it by taking insurance away from 24 million. In addition, Republicans are giving the pharmaceutical industry a big tax repeal, worth nearly $25 billion over a decade, without demanding in return any reduction in the cost of prescription and brand-name drugs. That is very important. To paraphrase Winston Churchill, of this bill, it can truly be said that never has so much been taken from so many to benefit so few. The pay more for less plan destroys the Medicaid program. CBO estimates 14 million will lose Medicaid. In 2026, 52 million Americans will be uninsured. We know that these combined policies will not help to cure some of the thoughtful deliberations that went into the underlying bill. We want more competition. We want the insurance products to be the kind of products that we can be sure provide health care. In short, the Republican pay more get less plan represents a clear and present danger to the financial and health security of American families and to the very stability of our Nation's healthcare system. Mr. Speaker, the healthcare marketplace is complex in how it operates and how it motivates providers, insurers, and consumers. If I can quote the 45th President, he said: ``I didn't know how difficult this would be.'' Well, we know how difficult it can be, and was. Mr. Speaker, Democrats held some 79-plus hearings. We had 181 witnesses-plus. We had hundreds of hours of hearings. We held thousands, I might imagine, of townhall meetings. We didn't hold one here and one there. I myself held 11 townhall meetings. We continue to hear from not only the consumers, but the rural hospitals, the major hospitals, the senior citizens, and particularly those senior citizens on dealing with the cost of prescription drugs. I am proud to say that we saved the dastardly Medicare part D by closing the doughnut hole, which is closed today, so that seniors under the Affordable Care Act do not fall into an abyss, a deep ocean, and have to, in essence, not take their drugs because they don't have enough money. An effective regulatory framework is needed to shape this complex environment--and this is a word to the administration--to help safeguard consumers, help keep costs under control, and help make a full range of healthcare services. But our country's long experience shows that we cannot expect a healthcare system to run effectively on market competition alone. Markets can and do fail when proper regulation is lacking. So the goodness of this bill has to go along with--a good example is recognizing what happens in the ACA's provision, banning insurance companies from denying coverage of preexisting disease--we had to help them along--preexisting conditions. We had to help them along. You have to help them along to be a good steward of the insurance that the American people need. This is a key consumer protection that the free market demonstrates time and time again that it could produce and needed to do. That is where regulation and the antitrust laws come in to protect consumer choice. Let me go back and say that it could not produce on its own. It is a per se violation of antitrust laws for competing companies to agree to divide markets or to fix prices. The other sectors in the healthcare supply chain are already subject to antitrust laws, and it will be beneficial to the healthcare marketplace and to consumers if the healthcare industry joins them. That is why I said this bill is a thoughtful, important bill to dealing with the complex issues of insurance and health care. I am sad to say that tomorrow, as we celebrate the Affordable Care Act, we will be looking toward Thursday, where we will be, in essence, debating a bill that takes 24 million people off of health insurance, period. 24 million will lose their coverage. Tax giveaways will continue again to the top 1 percent. That will be $600 billion in tax breaks to the rich and big corporations. In fact, the Republican bill gives $2.8 billion to 400 of the richest families in America. Then to add to the downside, the Affordable Care Act was known to create more jobs. Unfortunately, this will see 2 million jobs destroyed and lost. Families will be paying more for less. Young people will be hit with a millennial penalty. And we don't know if this formula that they have still stops the 50- to 64-year-olds from paying higher premiums. Women lose comprehensive care, middle-aged Americans pay the age tax, seniors see Medicaid and Medicare weakened, preexisting conditions and disabilities may suffer, and it does not reduce the deficit as the ACA does. My final point, if I can, we are glad to come to the floor and honor Mr. Conyers for this important bill and support H.R. 372. I believe this legislation before us does a lot more good than it does harm, but I hope that we can, in a bipartisan manner--maybe even in a nonpartisan manner--reflect on what is needed to really insure the American people and we can work with the Affordable Care Act, which has all of these positive elements, and move this country forward through competition and health care that saves lives. Mr. Speaker, overall, the proposed legislation, as well as previous attempts by the Judiciary Committee to repeal the McCarran-Ferguson Act's antitrust exemption for health insurance, does not raise new or pressing issues. Opponents of repeal assume problems that cannot be documented, unlike the very tangible and real economic and competitive costs that will be incurred if the exemption is allowed to continue. As the Justice Department has explained, where there is effective competition, coupled with transparency, in a consumer-friendly regulatory framework, insurers will compete against each other by offering plans with lower premiums, reducing copayments, lowering or eliminating deductibles, lowering annual out-of-pocket maximum costs, managing care, improving drug coverage, offering desirable benefits, and making their provider networks more attractive to potential members. Other current enforcement tools and regulatory policies already in place address competition issues at the state and federal level to police health insurance competition. In this and numerous other ways, effective regulation can promote improved health care delivery and improved cost control, by ensuring that all insurance companies are required to follow certain basic consumer-friendly ``rules of the road.'' It might be argued that increasing the federal government's role in regulating health insurance, through expanded antitrust enforcement, would appear to conflict with proposed reforms to delegate more responsibility to state governments. However, the additional risks of adding new regulatory uncertainty, increasing boundary-testing litigation, and distracting policymakers from more important ways to reduce health care costs and improve health care competition suggest that further caution and delay on this front is inadvisable given present circumstances and conditions. But let us not fool ourselves into thinking that the legislation before us is a panacea that will lead to affordable, accessible, high quality health care for all Americans. If that worthy goal is the objective sought, then the best way to achieve it is to retain and strengthen the Affordable Care Act and abandon the misguided effort of House Republicans to repeal this landmark legislation and replace it with their Pay More For Less Act, masquerading as the American Health Care Act. The Affordable Care Act has significantly improved the availability, affordability, and quality of health care for tens of millions of Americans, including millions who previously had no health insurance at all. Americans are rightly frightened by Republican attempts to repeal the ACA without having in place a superior new plan that maintains comparable coverages and comparable consumer choices and protections. It is beyond dispute that the ``Pay More For Less'' plan proposed by House Republicans fails this test miserably. The Republican ``Pay More For Less Act'' is a massive tax cut for the wealthy, paid for on the backs of America's most vulnerable, the poor and working class households. This ``Robin Hood in reverse'' bill is unprecedented and breathtaking in its audacity--no bill has ever tried to give so much to the rich while taking so much from the poor and working class. This ``Pay More Get Less'' bill represents the largest transfer of wealth from the bottom 99% to the top 1% in American history. This Republican scheme gives gigantic tax cuts to the rich, and pays for it by taking insurance away from 24 million people and raising costs for the poor and middle class. In addition, Republicans are giving the pharmaceutical industry a big tax repeal, worth nearly $25 billion over a decade without demanding in return any reduction in the cost of prescription and brand-name drugs. To paraphrase Winston Churchill, of this bill, it can truly be said that ``never has so much been taken from so many to benefit so few.'' The ``Pay More Get Less'' plan destroys the Medicaid program under the cover of repealing the Affordable Care Act Medicaid expansion. CBO estimates 14 million Americans will lose Medicaid coverage by 2026 under the Republican plan. In addition to terminating the ACA Medicaid expansion, the ``Pay More Get Less'' plan converts Medicaid to a per capita cap that is not guaranteed to keep pace with health costs starting in 2020. The combined effect of these policies is to slash $880 billion in federal Medicaid funding over the next decade. The cuts get deeper with each passing year, reaching 25% of Medicaid spending in 2026. In short, the Republican ``Pay More Get Less Act'' represents a clear and present danger to the financial and health security of American families, and to the very stability of our nation's health care system overall. Mr. Speaker, the health care marketplace is complex in how it operates and how it motivates providers, insurers, and consumers. An effective regulatory framework is needed to shape that complex environment, to help safeguard consumers, help keep costs under control, and help make a full range of health care services available. But our country's long experience shows that we cannot expect a health care system to run effectively on market competition alone; markets can and do fail when proper regulation is lacking. A good example is the ACA's provision banning insurance companies from denying coverage of preexisting conditions. This is a key consumer protection that the free market demonstrated time and again that it would not produce on its own. And that is where regulation and the antitrust laws come in to protect consumer choice. It is a per se violation of antitrust law for competing companies to agree to divide markets or to fix prices. The other sectors in the health care supply chain are already subject to the antitrust laws, and it will be beneficial to the health care marketplace, and to consumers, if the health insurance industry joins them. For these reasons, I believe the legislation before us does more good than harm and, accordingly, I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting H.R. 372.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I, too, am excited to celebrate the signing of the Affordable Care Act signed by President Barack Obama. In the hearing last Thursday of the Budget Committee, we noted that Medicaid that provided health insurance in this bill, now the TrumpCare bill, will be cut $880 billion for working people, for seniors in nursing homes, for the blind, and for the disabled. We note that this meaningless TrumpCare amendment, for which the President is now rallying his troops, coming up to the Hill two and three times--maybe he will be here tomorrow--is as meaningless as the first part of it was: 24 million Americans will lose their insurance-- TrumpCare will double that amount in 2026; 52 million will not have insurance--giveaways to billionaires, 1 percent of the rich people in America; and destroying 2 million jobs. But what I am most concerned about is my constituent in the Heights who could not take her medicine before the Affordable Care Act. Tragically, a young woman had a stroke and a heart attack and now is in a nursing home. She uses the health insurance of Medicaid, $880 billion, to provide for her lifeline, but yet TrumpCare comes to destroy that. I want to celebrate the Affordable Care Act because it saves lives.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I am going to take just a moment. This is an excellent presentation. I think our constituents should be aware, and our colleagues, of your enormous knowledge as the former State insurance administrator in California, years of service to the people of California, and we are grateful for that analysis because you are right on the money, if you will, on the disaster or the questioning that comes about through two points: the existing bill, and then now an amendment which has been called meaningless that will be on the floor on Thursday, meaning that this bill has been amended by those who want to make it worse. We sat in the Budget Committee on Thursday with Ranking Member Yarmuth most of the day trying to debate these numbers. So I just want to make points about wellness, about some of the criteria that maybe is misrepresented as making the insurance product more expensive. To the Republicans, 10, 20 years ago, the product you had may not have been worth what you paid. In the product we have now, preexisting condition, stay on your parents insurance until you are 26, certain criteria that the insurance companies must have, by the nature of the market, premiums go up to take in the idea that there are ``better benefits.'' I would argue that those benefits should have been there, but they are better benefits. The other thing is that there was a formula which pushed millennials into the market or into the pool of people and persons that will purchase insurance. Now, let me be very clear. I think we have not seen the end of the story. I believe that 10 years, 15 years, the young population will buy insurance. It is an educational curve. And so as they buy insurance, they will create that cushion. Now, let me make this other point. Premiums are raised under this Republican bill, really raised, and then there are smoke and mirrors to say, oh, at a certain point it will go down 10 percent. But it goes down on the raised amount. If you allow the Affordable Care Act to continue, we have a very large piece of wellness. Talk to your doctors. It is working. Individuals are coming in, taking advantage of the wellness check. So they are not coming in with metastasized cancer, with thyroid conditions. They are not coming in on a stretcher with strokes or a heart attack because they are getting wellness care. When you get wellness care, on the other side of the curve, premiums go down because you get more well people. I want to finish on this point of Medicaid that we were just debating. Over and over again, it doesn't seem like there was any understanding that Medicaid is now part of people's insurance. And it is not a situation where I have seen many of my constituents stand on the street corner with a sign, saying, ``Give me Medicaid.'' You get Medicaid either through the expanded Medicaid. And for our colleagues, that means that you are in a State where your insurance comes through expanded Medicaid; or you are a sick and elderly person in a nursing home or a disabled person; or you are blind; or you are a pregnant woman; or you are a mother with children; or you are on the children's health insurance program, which I was here in 1997 when this miraculous bill came forward and we established the Children's Health Insurance Program, which is a Medicaid-based program that gives millions of children insurance. But under this bill, all of that will be capped. It will be per capita. So the $880 billion is being cut, my fellow Americans, ladies and gentleman, from your insurance. Then, finally, this bill could not be more cruel. Besides the ailing that are in nursing homes--and I do want to tell one story of an individual who got into the nursing home, Mr. Speaker, because they didn't have insurance to take their medicine, and it resulted in heart attack and stroke. They are not an old person, but they are totally disabled, and they are in the nursing home on Medicaid now. But in the Budget Committee, two amendments came up that I was just stunned. You worked very hard on the opioid legislation. Some of it came out of my committee, Judiciary Committee. Many Members have worked hard on this. They had an amendment saying no able-bodied man or person should get Medicaid. I don't know what that definition is. Are you an addicted young person, wholly addicted on opioids, that needs medical treatment? Are you an able-bodied person because you have all of your faculties and limbs but you are sick and addicted? And then, don't incentivize Medicaid. I am trying to find out what that means because all of my hospitals--and I think one of the things the Affordable Care Act has done is to question costs and to work hard to bring costs down in hospital care and to have an accountability assessment on that. But to finish, I have not heard my rural hospitals, I have not heard my public hospitals, I have not heard the Texas Medical Center talk about people being incentivized to get Medicaid. They are sick and they come in for whatever they have. The last point is someone gave an example that they were able to have a transplant because they were under the Affordable Care Act with expanded Medicaid. So I want to thank the gentleman for raising these very important points, but it baffles me that there is such a skewing of a very successful legislation, very difficult. It was a very difficult piece of legislation. It took years, the Affordable Care Act, and it is doing what it is supposed to do. As we have heard before, you can get more insurance companies. We have to do something with the premiums, and that is fixing or improving. But that is not what we are doing here. We are literally cutting people off of insurance. I will give you the number that I keep using: 2026, 52 million Americans will be uninsured, and that will be our constituents all over the Nation. That is because of the underlying bill, this bill that is coming up now--which there are those who want it to be even worse. I just heard a gentleman say he wants to take away all the mandates. It will be worse on the American people, and I don't want to make America sick again.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, as a senior member of the House Committee on Homeland Security I rise in support of H.R. 1353, the ``Transparency in Technological Acquisitions Act.'' This bipartisan bill requires the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) to provide more frequent and detailed updates on its strategy to invest in security technology. The five-year investment plan includes information such as: 1. Transportation security risks and gaps that could be addressed by technology 2. Current and expected trends in domestic and international travel 3. Opportunities for public-private partnerships and collaboration with small and disadvantaged companies, other government agencies, university centers of excellence and national laboratories 4. Resources required to protect technology from cyber theft, diversion, sabotage or attack 5. Potential effects on commercial airline passengers. This bill would require the updates to be submitted annually and to include information on acquisitions made during the previous fiscal year. Requiring TSA to provide annual updates on the acquisition plan and to notify Congress and industry stakeholders about any changes to the plan which will provide much-needed clarity, certainty, and transparency. In 2015, TSA screened more than 708 million passengers, which is more than 1.9 million per day. Of the 2,653 firearms discovered in carry-on bags, 82.8 percent were loaded. Houston George Bush Intercontinental Airport ranked 3rd among airports with the most firearms discovered in 2015. This last January, Esteban Santiago shot and killed five people inside Fort Lauderdale airport using a firearm stored in his luggage. Terrorism and cyberattacks are likely to remain a reality for the transportation industry for the foreseeable future. It is absolutely critical that we invest in minimizing transportation safety security risks to keep our citizens safe. I ask my colleagues to join me in supporting H.R. 1353.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, as a senior member of the House Committee on Homeland Security I rise in support of H.R. 1249, the ``DHS Multiyear Acquisition Strategy Act of 2017'', which requires the Department of Homeland Security to develop a multiyear acquisition strategy. H.R. 1249 seeks to streamline the Department of Homeland Security's acquisition process to promote strategic investment as well as cost savings for taxpayers. DHS would be required to provide Congress with the new strategy which needs to include: 1. A prioritized list of major acquisition programs 2. An inventory of investments and real estate assets 3. A plan to address funding gaps, prevent wasteful purchases, achieve efficiency, align prices for similar items, and use purchase timing and economies of scale 4. An identification of tests to support the acquisition of technology, leverage emerging trends and incorporate technology into DHS's operating doctrine 5. An assessment of how DHS could encourage appropriate risk-taking and minimize cost overruns, including when the department identifies needs, Develops cost assessments, Secures funding, Demonstrates technology maturity, and establishes its workforce 6. An assessment to improve collaboration with industry, small and disadvantaged businesses, intra-government offices, university centers of excellence, certification organizations, and national laboratories Although the DHS has taken measures to improve acquisition management, DHS programs still cost taxpayers over $7 billion per year. In its 2017 list of ``high-risk'' areas, GAO reported DHS needed to improve the affordability of its major acquisition programs and address staffing shortfalls. DHS acquisition programs may continue to be at high risk for waste, fraud, and abuse. This bill will assist oversight committees in better preparing men and women on the frontlines securing our borders, protecting our airports, and defending our shores by making sure we know what works and what is needed before taxpayer dollars are spent. Efficient use of resources within the Department of Homeland Security is crucial to the safety of all Texans, and all Americans especially in regards to border security. The Texas-Mexico border makes up 1,254 miles of the 1,900-mile-long U.S.-Mexico border. The more money wasted on unnecessary overhead costs, the less resources the Department has to fulfill its key mission of protecting our border and our homeland. By passing this bipartisan measure, we can ensure that the DHS operates in a more efficient manner and can better stay ahead of threats to our country. I ask my colleagues to join me in supporting H.R. 1249.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, in a methodical questioning of Mr. Comey today in the Intelligence Committee, let me recount for you and my colleagues the responses of Mr. Comey. Mr. Trump's tweet, March 4, 2017: Terrible. Just found out that Obama had my wires tapped in Trump Tower just before the victory. Nothing found. This is McCarthyism. Mr. Comey said: No, it did not happen. March 4, 2017: Is it legal for a sitting President to be wiretapping a race for President prior to an election? Turned down by court earlier. A new low. Mr. Comey said: No, it did not happen. Mr. Comey, the FBI director. Again on March 4, 2017: I bet a good lawyer could make a great case out of the fact that President Obama was tapping my phones in October, just prior to election. Again, Mr. Comey said: No. And then again on March 4, 2017, Mr. Trump said: How low has President Obama gone to tap my phones during the very sacred election process. This is Nixon/Watergate. Bad, or sick, guy. Mr. Comey, the FBI director, said: No. Definitively, Mr. Trump did not tell the truth. More investigations deliberatively to determine the status of the actions of the President of the United States accusing a former President of a criminal felony which did not happen. It did not happen.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, just a little bit of history. Let me, first of all, say happy St. Patrick's Day. Many know that the Irish fled in the 1800s, if my history is correct, because of the potato famine. We welcomed them as immigrants, and as an early member of the Immigration and Border Security Subcommittee, I remember the Irish sitting in our hearing room saying: Remember the Irish as relates to immigration. We all have come from someplace to do better. This last week, I sat in the Budget Committee listening to debate on the healthcare bill. I stand here today to argue vigorously against the Medicaid changes: $880 billion taken away from Medicaid for low-income, hardworking Americans; the language that was added to the bill to instruct that we should not incentivize or that we should make sure that able-bodied men do not get Medicaid. Well, let me say this. In the spirit of those who have come to this Nation, this bill cannot stand because it ignores the vulnerable and the people who need health insurance, who are, themselves, either addicted or have families. I want to stand for what America is right for: its values. Let us vote down a healthcare bill that does not help America become unsick.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise to commemorate the 20th year of Camp Fire's Absolutely Incredible Kid Day, which observed the third Thursday in March and is devoted to sending uplifting messages to the youth in their lives. Founded in 1910, by Luther Gulick, M.D., and his wife, Charlotte Gulick, Camp Fire is a leading national youth development organization that guides ``young people on their journey to self-discovery.'' As founder and Co-Chair of the Congressional Children's caucus, I understand the importance of encouraging and supporting our youth to grow and thrive in this world. Camp Fire's Absolutely Incredible Kid Day honors our nation's youth by asking adults to write letters of encouragement and inspiration to the incredible kids in their lives. This is a simple and impactful way to let the youth know how much people care and support them. There are numerous ways for adults to participate in this call to action including using social media to tag, tweet, post, and write letters of love and support to kids. The campaign has received the critical acclaim of child and family care experts, award winning authors, noted psychologists, and adults and kids everywhere, including Dr. Stephen R. Covey, author of The 7 Habits of Highly Effective Families; Tipper Gore, who is a leading child advocate; and the famous Astronaut, the late U.S. Senator John Glenn. Celebrities such as Oprah Winfrey, Jim Carrey, and Cindy Crawford have also given their support to Absolutely Incredible Kid Day. In Houston, Texas we know that it truly takes an entire community to raise a child. Houston has a distinct history of uplifting the youth in our community so they can excel in any area they choose. A few examples of Houstonians who have benefited from community support are: the entertaining Beyonce Knowles Carter; the hilarious Jim Parsons, from the Big Bang Theory; the talented actor Isaiah. Washington, from Grey's Anatomy; and Simone Biles, who set the record for the most gold medals in women's gymnastics at a single Olympic games. I rise to reaffirm my support for our youth and commend the Camp Fire organization on their Absolutely Incredible Kid Day initiative which reminds adults to let children know that they are loved and supported by their families and members of their community.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, let me join my colleagues, first of all, and say that this country is made up of somebody else's babies; and I am very proud to be an American who sees the great talent of these babies who have become great leaders, such as teachers, scientists, doctors, lawyers, and members who do public service. Thank you to somebody else's babies. Let me also congratulate the district court in Hawaii, which has just rendered a decision to block the President's Muslim ban again. Thank you for that wise and deliberative decision. I rise today in particular to really ask and wonder where we are in this country that a President of the United States can, first, tweet out that a former President committed a criminal felony: wiretapping. In the last 48 hours, there is mish-mash of information coming from the press secretary or the director of communications and the President: Oh, maybe it was not wiretapping by the President of the United States formally, but it is generally wiretapping. Mr. President, let me be very clear: the words of the Commander in Chief are known to carry great weight. It is the American people that have to trust and believe and be commanded and led. I am saddened by the state that we are in right now. I am saddened that there is one position one day and another position another day. As a senior member of the Judiciary Committee, we cannot tolerate that kind of mismatched conversation. The truth must be told. The American people must know it, Members of Congress must know it. I believe committees should be investigating if there was a wiretap or not and if there was an action by the former President. If not, tell the truth.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. chair, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 725, the Innocent Party Protection Act of 2017. H.R. 725 is the latest Republican effort to deny plaintiffs access to the forum of their choice and, possibly, to their day in court. H.R. 725 seeks to overturn longstanding precedent in favor of a vague and unnecessary test that forces state cases into federal court when they do not belong there, and gives large corporate defendants an unfair advantage to cherry-pick their forum without the normal burden of proving proper jurisdiction. This bill would upend long established law in the area of federal court jurisicliction, specifically addressing the supposed overuse of fraudulent joinder to defeat complete diversity jurisdiction in a case. It was previously known as the Fraudulent Joinder Prevention Act; however, this bill is not about fraud. It is a corporate forum-shopping bill that would allow corporations to move cases properly brought in state courts into federal courts. If enacted this bill would tip the scales of justice in favor of corporate defendants and make it more difficult for injured plaintiffs to bring their state claims in state court. Corporate defendants support this bill because they prefer to litigate in federal court, which usually results in less diverse jurors, more expensive proceedings, longer wait times for trials, and stricter limits on discovery. For plaintiffs, who are supposed to be able to choose their forums, this legislation would result in additional time, expense, and inconvenience for the plaintiff and witnesses. H.R. 725 would effectively eliminate the local defendant exception to diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 1441(b)(2), which currently prohibits removal to federal court even when there is complete diversity when a defendant is a citizen of the state in which the action is brought. The current standard used by courts to determine whether the joinder of a non-diverse defendant is improper, however, has been in place for a century, and no evidence has been put forth demonstrating that this standard is not working. Rather, the Fraudulent Joinder Doctrine, is a well-established legal doctrine providing that: fraudulent joinder will only be found if the defendant establishes that the joinder of the diversity-destroying party in the state court action was made without a reasonable basis of proving any liability against that party. There is no evidence that federal courts are not already properly handling allegations of so-called fraudulent joinder after removal under current laws. H.R. 725 reverses this longstanding policy by imposing new requirements on federal courts considering remand motions where a case is before the court solely on diversity grounds. Specifically, it changes the test for showing improper joinder from a one-part test, (no possibility of a claim against a nondiverse defendant) to a complicated four-part test, requiring the court to find fraudulent joinder if: 1) There is not a plausible claim for relief against each nondiverse defendant; 2) There is objective evidence that clearly demonstrates no good faith intention to prosecute the action against each defendant or intention to seek a joint judgment; 3) There is federal or state law that clearly bars claims against the nondiverse defendants; or 4) There is actual fraud in the pleading of jurisdictional facts. What should be a simple procedural question for the courts, now becomes a protracted mini-trial, giving an unfair advantage to the defendants (not available under current law) by allowing defendants to engage the court on the merits of their position. By requiring litigation on the merits at a nascent jurisdictional stage of litigation based on vague, undefined, and subjective standards like plausibility and good faith intention, and by potentially placing the burden of proof on the plaintiff, this bill will increase the complexity and costs surrounding litigation of state law claims in federal court and potentially dissuade plaintiffs from pursuing otherwise meritorious claims. Further, taking away a defendant's responsibility to prove that federal jurisdiction over a state case is indeed proper alters the fundamental precept that a party seeking removal should bear the heavy burden of establishing federal court jurisdiction. The bill is a win-win for corporate defendants. At its most harmful, it will cause non diverse defendants to be improperly dismissed from the lawsuit. At its least harmful, it will cause an expensive, time-consuming detour through federal courts for plaintiffs. Wrongdoers would not be held accountable for the harm they cause, while the taxpayers ultimately foot the bill. For example: large corporate defendants (i.e. typically the diverse defendants) would be favored by the bill because, if the nondiverse defendant is dismissed from the case, they can blame the now-absent in- state defendant for the plaintiff's injuries. Smaller nondiverse defendants would also be favored because the diverse defendant does all the work for them. The diverse defendant removes the case to federal court and then argues that the nondiverse defendant is improperly joined. If the federal court retains jurisdiction, the nondiverse defendant must be dismissed from the case. If one or more defendants are dismissed from the case, it is easy for the remaining defendant to finger point and blame the absent defendant for the plaintiff's injuries. Even if a federal court remands the case to state court under the bill, the defendants have successfully forced the plaintiff to expend their limited resources on a baseless, time-consuming motion on a preliminary matter. While large corporate defendants can easily accommodate such costs, plaintiffs (i.e. injured consumers, patients and workers) cannot. Regardless of whether the case is remanded to state court or stays in federal court, this new, mandated inquiry will be a drain on the limited resources of federal courts. By mandating a full merits-inquiry on a procedural motion, H.R. 725 is expensive, time-consuming, and wasteful use of judicial resources. The bill would result in needless micromanagement of federal courts and a waste of judicial resources. Lastly, by seeking to favor federal courts over state courts as forums for deciding state law claims, this bill offends the principles of federalism. While it purports to fix a non-existent problem, it creates problems itself. The ability of state courts to function independently of federal courts' procedural analysis is a necessary function of the success of the American judiciary branch. For these reasons, I urge my colleagues to join me in opposing the underlying legislation, H.R. 725, the dubiously named, Innocent Party Protection Act of 2017.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the ranking member of the Committee on the Judiciary for his distinguished service and my good friend from Texas for his managing of this bill on which we have a vigorous and active disagreement, but realize that the role of the Committee on the Judiciary is to enhance justice for all Americans, no matter what size business, what ethnicity, racial background, what issue they bring, whether they bring a commercial issue or whether they are for criminal justice. That is why I rise to oppose this legislation, for it is important that we monitor, promote, coddle, and respect justice. I oppose the legislation that aims to restore a long-discredited version of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11, in effect from 1983 to 1993. I use as a premise of my argument a letter from the Committee on Rules of Practice and Procedure of the Judicial Conference of the United States, in particular written by two distinguished Federal judges from Arizona, the chair of the Committee on Rules and the chair of the Advisory Committee on Rules, both Federal district court judges. But more importantly, my luck was to meet with a series of judges in the past week, Federal judges, Republican appointees and some Democratic appointees, and there was a vocal outcry of the outrage of this legislation, asking and begging that this legislation not be put in place. Let me give you a description from the Federal courts, recognizing: ``We of course share the desire of the sponsors of LARA to improve the civil justice system''--and that is the Lawsuit Abuse Reduction Act-- ``in our Federal courts, including the desire to reduce frivolous filings. But LARA creates a cure worse than the problem it is meant to solve.'' ``Moreover, as we are both Federal trial judges, our perspective is informed by our ongoing daily experience with the practical operation of the rules.'' I, too, am concerned about small businesses. That is why we need to proceed as we are proceeding. It gives thoughtful judges the ability to protect those entities. The facts do not, according to the letter, support any assumption that mandatory sanctions deter frivolous filings. ``A decade of experience with the 1983 mandatory sanctions provision,'' they go on to say, ``demonstrated that it failed to provide meaningful relief from the litigation behavior it was meant to address, and instead generated wasteful satellite litigation that had little to do with the merits of cases.'' What good is that for the small litigant? What good will they have when they might be subject to satellite litigation? And so, Mr. Chairman, why would we want to return to the failed, discredited sanction regime rightly abandoned in 1993? H.R. 720 would require courts to impose monetary sanctions for any rule 11 violation, eliminating the safe harbor provision that currently allows attorneys to correct or withdraw a filing before rule 11 proceedings commence. That is justice: I made a mistake, I want to withdraw it. I am suing a small business, I have a different perspective. I know the facts, let me withdraw it. The cost-shifting provision was eliminated by the courts because it encouraged satellite litigation, and many cases required parallel proceedings. Here is the worst of it: Suppose we were back in 1954. Would Brown v. Board of Education be a frivolous lawsuit subject to sanctions, a landmark decision of the United States Supreme Court that declared State laws establishing separate public schools for Black and White students unconstitutional? What about Griswold in 1965? It would also be judged as a frivolous lawsuit.

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chairman, Griswold was a landmark case in which the Supreme Court ruled that we had a right to privacy. Or what about the famous case that was made into a movie, Loving v. Virginia? I think for almost 25 years this mixed-marriage couple could not live in their own State. A lawsuit would have been considered frivolous. Loving was a landmark case which decided Virginia's antimiscegenation statute was unconstitutional. New York Times Co. v. United States in 1971, the question was on the constitutional freedom of the press. It reinforced the First Amendment. Mr. Chairman, it is impossible to go back to the old days. I ask my colleagues to support the Jackson Lee amendment, to come up and to oppose the underlying bill in the name of justice for all. Mr. Chairman, I include in the Record a list of seven notable cases the Lawsuit Abuse Reduction Act may have barred from a courtroom. seven notable cases the ``lawsuit abuse reduction act'' may have barred from a courtroom Contrary to proponents' claims, LARA does not deter frivolous lawsuits. Rather it deters meritorious cases by imposing a one-size-fits-all mandate for federal judges. Mandatory sanctions inevitably chill meritorious claims particularly in cases of first impression or involving new legal theories, including cases to protect civil rights, the right to privacy, the environment, collective bargaining and the First Amendment. Our system of justice is a moving body of law, and novel legal theories have the ability to shift public policy and law. Below are seven notable cases that LARA may have prevented because the cases presented what--at the time they were presented to the court--would have been considered novel legal theories: Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, 347 U.S. 483 (1954): Brown was a landmark decision of the United States Supreme Court that declared state laws establishing separate public schools for black and white students unconstitutional. The decision overturned the Plessy v. Ferguson decision of 1896 which allowed state-sponsored segregation. The Court's unanimous decision stated that ``separate educational facilities are inherently unequal.'' As a result, de jure racial segregation was ruled a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution. This ruling paved the way for integration and the civil rights movement. Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965): Griswold was a landmark case in which the Supreme Court ruled that the Constitution protected a right to privacy. The case involved a Connecticut law that prohibited the use of contraceptives. By a vote of 7-2, the Supreme Court invalidated the law on the grounds that it violated the ``right to marital privacy.'' Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003): In Lawrence, the Supreme Court considered the issue of whether adult consensual sexual activity is protected by the Fourteenth Amendment guarantee of equal protection under the law. The Court found that the petitioners were free as adults to engage in the private conduct in the exercise of their liberty under the Due Process Clause. The decision decriminalized the Texas law that made it illegal for two persons of the same sex to engage in certain intimate sexual conduct. Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency, 549 U.S. 497 (2007): In this case, twelve states and several cities of the United States brought suit against the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to force the federal agency to regulate carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases as pollutants. The Supreme Court found that Massachusetts, due to its ``stake in protecting its quasi-sovereign interests'' as a state, had standing to sue the EPA over potential damage caused to its territory by global warming. The Court rejected the EPA's argument that the Clean Air Act was not meant to refer to carbon emissions in the section giving the EPA authority to regulate ``air pollution agent[s].'' Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967): Loving was a landmark civil rights case in which the United States Supreme Court, by a 9-0 vote, declared Virginia's anti-miscegenation statute, the ``Racial Integrity Act of 1924,'' unconstitutional, thereby ending all race-based legal restrictions on marriage in the United States. New York Times Co. v. United States, 403 U.S. 713 (1971): This case considered whether the New York Times and Washington Post newspapers could publish the then-classified Pentagon Papers without risk of government censure. The question before the Court was whether the constitutional freedom of the press, guaranteed by the First Amendment, was subordinate to a claimed need of the executive branch of government to maintain the secrecy of information. The Supreme Court ruled that the First Amendment protected the right of the New York Times to print the materials. Tennessee Valley Authority v. Hill, 437 U.S. 153 (1978) (The Snail Darter Case): In TVA, the Supreme Court affirmed a court of appeals' judgment, which agreed with the Secretary of Interior that operation of the federal Tellico Dam would eradicate an endangered species. The Court held that a prima facie violation of Sec. 7 of the Endangered Species Act, 16 U.S.C. Sec. 1536, occurred, and ruled that an injunction requested by respondents should have been issued. Mr. Chair, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 720, the ``Lawsuit Abuse Reduction Act of 2017,'' because it is both unnecessary and counterproductive. I oppose this legislation that aims to restore a long-discredited version of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11, in effect from 1983 to 1993. The current Rule 11 allows federal courts, in their discretion, to impose sanctions for frivolous filings and it encourages litigants to resolve such issues without court intervention. As written, H.R. 720 would change the sanctions for a violation of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 11 to a cost-shifting sanction payable to the opposing party, an antiquated version of the Rule in effect from 1983 until 1993. Why, Mr. Chair would we return to the failed and discredited sanction regime rightly abandoned in 1993? H.R. 720 would require courts to impose monetary sanctions for any Rule 11 violation, eliminating the safe harbor provision that currently allows attorneys to correct or withdraw a filing before Rule 11 proceedings commence. That cost-shifting provision was eliminated by the courts because it encouraged satellite litigation; many cases required parallel proceedings--one on the merits of the lawsuit and one on the Rule 11 motion. The 1983 rule had a particularly negative disproportionate impact on plaintiffs, especially plaintiffs in civil rights cases, because plaintiffs in such cases often raise novel legal arguments, leaving them vulnerable to a Rule 11 motion by a defendant. Reinstating this mandatory fee shifting rule, as H.R. 720 does, will again have a chilling effect on plaintiffs' claims, especially individual plaintiffs taking on large corporate interests. Sanctions were more often imposed against plaintiffs than defendants and more often imposed against plaintiffs in certain kinds of cases, primarily in civil rights and certain kinds of discrimination cases. A leading study on this issue showed that although civil rights cases made up 11.4% of federal cases filed, 22.7% of the cases in which sanctions had been imposed were civil rights cases. The imposition of mandatory fees and costs ultimately shifts the purpose of the Rule from deterrence to compensation, encouraging parties to always file Rule 11 motions in the hopes of gaining additional compensation. Both the Judicial Conference of the United States and the U.S. Supreme Court support preservation of the current version of Rule 11(c) and restoring the true balance between punishing unwarranted conduct and deterring unnecessary litigation. Given the highly problematic experience under the 1983 rule, which sparked extensive and costly litigation, the rule burdened already strained federal court system, adversely affecting cases of all types, including civil litigation among businesses. Congress should be looking for ways to decrease, not increase wasteful burdens on courts, and should avoid rule changes that have a discriminatory impact on civil rights, employment, environmental, and consumer cases. For these reasons and more, I oppose this bill.

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.