Elissa Slotkin

Ms. SLOTKIN

Ms. SLOTKIN. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 3669) to require the Secretary of Homeland Security to conduct a collective response to a terrorism exercise that includes the management of cascading effects on critical infrastructure during times of extreme cold weather, and for other purposes.

Ms. SLOTKIN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous material on this measure.

Ms. SLOTKIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of my own bill, H.R. 3669, the Weatherizing Infrastructure in the North and Terrorism Emergency Readiness Act of 2019 or, as we like to call it, the WINTER Act. Terrorism is a persistent threat to the United States. We need to be prepared to confront terrorism in all situations, even during extreme weather events. As climate change continues to change weather patterns, extreme winter storms will become more common. The effects of climate change produce more snowfall during winter storms as a warmer planet evaporates more water into the atmosphere, and that moisture means heavier snowfall and worse storms. Given what we know, we must make sure we are prepared to act if a terrorist attack were to take place during an extreme cold event. This is why I introduced H.R. 3669, the WINTER Act. In recent years, the Nation has experienced several extreme cold weather events, such as the polar vortex during the winter of 2019. This one was very specific and personal to the State of Michigan. Last winter, in my State, temperatures reached as low as negative 43 degrees Fahrenheit during the polar vortex. During that time we had a fire, an accidental fire at one of our gas facilities, causing it to shut down, and resulting in a gas shortage in our State. As a result, our Governor had to go on television and ask all Michiganians to turn down their thermostats below 65 degrees to ensure that we didn't lose power across the State and were able to keep our warming stations, our hospitals, our homeless shelters open. The dangers that result from cold weather aren't unique to Michigan. Across the U.S., over 6,000 people died from hypothermia or exposure to cold between 2006 and 2010, equating to over 1,000 deaths per year. During these extreme cold weather events, infrastructure and emergency services are critical, and any disruption poses a serious threat to the health and safety of Americans in the affected area. Last winter's events made me realize that if we had a critical infrastructure attack in the middle of winter, particularly in places in the northern half of the country, we would be extremely vulnerable. If terrorists choose to take advantage of any of these circumstances to amplify the deadly impacts of an attack, our elderly, our families, and our first responders could be put in the most danger. This bipartisan bill directs the Department of Homeland Security to develop and conduct a terrorism training exercise that addresses the effects of a successful terrorist attack on critical infrastructure during extreme cold weather. This exercise will help determine the best way for emergency managers, State and local officials, and community stakeholders to mitigate the impacts of such an attack and help keep people safe. Mr. Speaker, this is an important bill. I urge my colleagues to support it, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. SLOTKIN. Mr. Speaker, I have no more speakers, and I am prepared to close after the gentleman from Louisiana closes. I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. SLOTKIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. The passage of the WINTER Act would ensure that the Department of Homeland Security is doing its part to improve preparedness and response to terrorism in the event of extreme cold. I ask my colleagues to support H.R. 3669; winter is coming; and I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. SLOTKIN

Ms. SLOTKIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak about a bipartisan resolution I am introducing today, together with a group of Democrats and Republicans, recognizing the global coalition to defeat ISIS. This resolution recognizes the critical contributions of the counter- ISIS coalition partners; the value of those partnerships to countering threats, both today and tomorrow; and the importance of building and maintaining trust among partners for the sake of future fights--as well as reaffirming Congress' commitment to defeating ISIS. It is important to remember how this coalition of 60-plus countries came together in the first place. Take yourself back 5 years. ISIS had taken over wide swaths of Iraq and Syria. They had huge amounts of territory. They were systematically slaughtering the opposition. They were targeting ethnic groups. They were targeting Christians. They were targeting Yazidis. They were systematically raping women. They were setting up bureaucratic structures, charging taxes, and extorting people. They were projecting violence and threats out of that territory into places like Europe, into places like Russia, and into places like the United States. So the Department of Defense and the Department of State pieced together 60 nations to contribute to a coalition. Some of those countries provide F-16 air cover. Some provide overhead imagery. Some provide human intelligence. Some train the Iraqi security forces and police. Everyone has a part to play. Today, as I speak, Secretary Pompeo is convening the counter-ISIS coalition at the highest levels in an emergency session to discuss the future of the counter-ISIS mission, following President Trump's decision to pull out U.S. forces from northern Syria. Our allies and partners are rightfully questioning the future of this coalition. The President surprised these nations, all 60 of them, with the pullout. Many of our partners found out about the pullout, in which they are involved, via tweet and via the media. As the counter-ISIS coalition partners come to Washington, I, therefore, want to take a moment to recognize their partnership, their contributions, and their commitment to the counter-ISIS fight. Why is it important to have a coalition? Why is it important that 60 nations come together to fight this terrorist group? It is not just for show. For every airman, marine, soldier, or sailor from the U.K., Spain, France, or Norway who comes to contribute to the fight, that is one fewer soldier, airman, marine, or naval officer who needs to come from the United States. For every piece of intelligence that they risk their lives to collect, that is one fewer piece that we need to collect and risk our lives for. Most importantly, working in coalition keeps the American homeland safer than it would be simply if it were up to us to defend. In an era of globalized threats that can come from anywhere, we need a global coalition before the threats land on our shores. As we know in Michigan, our handshake is our bond; our word is our reputation; and we are stronger together than we are apart. I am, therefore, proud to be introducing this resolution, together with a bipartisan group, as a signal of our appreciation and our word and as a sign of our commitment to our counter-ISIS partners today and into the future.

Ms. SLOTKIN

Ms. SLOTKIN. Madam Speaker, I thank Congresswoman Schakowsky and Congresswoman Spanberger. Madam Speaker, I rise today to speak in support of my bill, the Real- Time Benefits Act, which has been incorporated into the bill before us today. The bill started with a very simple request from seniors in my district. People want to know how much a prescription will cost before they pick it up at the drugstore, and they deserve to know that it is the best possible price that they can get. This bill does that very thing. It provides Medicare patients with the information they need about the cost of the prescription and whether there are generic alternatives, as well as the best pharmacy for the best deal before they even leave the doctor's office. Right now, here is how the system works. A patient goes to the doctor, gets a prescription, and walks out. Then they take it to a local pharmacy, fill it, and pick it up. It is right then, at the counter, in front of everyone else, that they actually find out the price of their bill. There is no advanced warning, no comparison shopping, no offer of generics, and no way of knowing if a different pharmacy could have it cheaper. By the time you get to the pharmacy, they have you over a barrel. This bipartisan bill would fix that. Here is how it works. Insurers would be required to provide information to a common system, a real-time benefits tool, which doctors would access through their electronic prescribing program. Doctors and patients could then sit together to receive real-time updates, right in the doctor's office, on the price of the drug based on the patient's insurance plan, as well as the price of any other cheaper drugs available. This real-time benefits tools will also list the price differences at each pharmacy--Rite Aid versus CVS--to allow physicians to make sure that the patients are getting the lowest possible prices. This not only lowers out-of-pocket costs for seniors, but it increases much-needed price transparency into our system. Imagine if, every time you went to the doctor, both you and your physician could see the differences in the prices of drugs. This is the kind of all-American competition we need when it comes to our prescription drugs. To be clear, the cost of prescription drugs is the number one issue I get asked about in my district. People come up to me in the grocery store. They grab my arm. They ask me why their medication has increased by 200 percent in cost in the past 5 years. Connie, a constituent of mine in Brighton, spends $10,000 a year on Humira for her Crohn's disease, even though she is on Medicare. Joanna, who lives in my hometown of Holly, Michigan, was hospitalized for several days due to complications because she could not afford her inhaler. Her complex health needs require a number of medicines, so she literally rations her medicines in order to keep them manageable, and she still spends hundreds of dollars each month. This is wrong, and our constituents, regardless of party, are asking us to do something about it. Democrats and Republicans have both said the right things about the cost of prescription drugs. They have talked the talk. They now must walk the walk. I am incredibly proud to have brought forth this bipartisan legislation tonight. I urge my colleagues to join me in voting ``yes'' to promote transparency and competition.

Ms. SLOTKIN

Ms. SLOTKIN. Mr. Chair, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding, and thank her for all the work she has done on the SHIELD Act. As a former CIA officer and Pentagon official, as the wife of a 30- year Army officer and the stepmom of a current Army officer, I know that when our country sees a threat, we have the responsibility to act and to consider ways to protect our country. I think we have all said it many times here today, no matter who you are, what political party you are from, we can all agree that foreigners have no role in our political process. I am incredibly proud to be supporting the SHIELD Act. Certain portions of it are modeled off legislation I have been working on since I first started in Congress in January, the PAID AD Act, in particular. It is the very basic idea that foreigners should not be able to buy an ad for or against a candidate in an American political election. That should be illegal, plain and simple. Michigan was particularly targeted by these ads. They are divisive. They are hateful. They are meant to split us apart and stoke fears in our community. It is a classic in the playbook the Russians have used in Eastern Europe, and now they are using it here in the United States. The SHIELD Act closes these loopholes that currently allow foreign entities to purchase campaign ads. I am thrilled to support it.

Ms. SLOTKIN. Madam Chair, I rise today in support of this amendment to the SHIELD Act, the digital citizenship and media literacy amendment. We have said it before. No matter who we are, Democrats, Republicans, or Independents, we should all agree that we don't want foreigners manipulating our citizens, sowing discord in our society, and playing in our political process. We know that foreign entities continue to target social media ads and disinformation at voters, particularly in swing States like mine, Michigan. These ads are horrible. They seek to divide us and influence our political process. The Senate Select Committee on Intelligence released a bipartisan report late last month and said that the public needs to be informed and both understand and identify disinformation that is critical to preventing foreign influence. This means our citizens, and especially our kids, need to have the tools to spot this disinformation. In this new age of digital warfare, we need education. Education is critical. This study helps us get at this so that we can all understand how to identify propaganda and flag it.

Ms. SLOTKIN. Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Ms. SLOTKIN. Madam Chair, I rise today in support of an amendment to the SHIELD Act, which takes a step toward solving a tough, complicated, outstanding challenge in preventing foreign influence in our elections, and that is closing loopholes that currently allow lobbyists of foreign governments to contribute to U.S. campaigns. Again, no matter who we are or what party we are from, we can all agree that we don't want foreigners playing in our political process. I am very proud that the SHIELD Act includes legislation--we have discussed it earlier--that closes loopholes so that foreigners cannot buy ads for or against a candidate in an American election. That idea was very simple. Particularly on social media, this is important. So why, then, if we are not letting foreign entities buy ads in our political process is it okay that lobbyists for foreign governments are able to contribute to candidates, campaigns, and otherwise influence U.S. elections? There is some work to be done on this. It is, admittedly, complicated. But in order to properly close these loopholes, we need to first understand what those loopholes are and how they impact foreign entities' ability to influence our elections. My amendment directs the Government Accountability Office to assess existing law to identify loopholes in FARA, the Foreign Agents Registration Act, and then recommend the right legislative fixes. The SHIELD Act does a great deal to meet the threat of foreign influence and interference with robust legislative responses. This amendment will help us continue that work and get us closer to a solution to an outstanding vulnerability in our system. Madam Chair, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. SLOTKIN. Madam Chair, I am just shocked because I have them running, jumping up and down over there. I continue to think that the gentleman from Illinois doesn't understand that when he calls our bills wonky and our amendments wonky, we are deeply proud of that over here. I am thrilled that he is supportive. There actually is a bipartisan agreement on the need to reform FARA, as reflected, I think, by Senator Grassley's bipartisan bill, very similar language. I am thrilled. I thank the gentleman for his support and for jumping up and down, giving us a little energy. Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. SLOTKIN

Ms. SLOTKIN. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 3670) to amend the Homeland Security Act of 2002 to ensure access to appropriate temporary shelter, food, and water for individuals apprehended by U.S. Customs and Border Protection, and for other purposes, as amended.

Ms. SLOTKIN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous material on this measure.

Ms. SLOTKIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of my bill, H.R. 3670, the Short-Term Detention Standards Act. This legislation is very simple. It requires humane conditions for migrants detained in short-term detention facilities at our ports of entry. This legislation is premised on a very simple idea that defending our country's security and upholding humanitarian standards are not mutually exclusive. Anyone who believes that we can have only one or the other misunderstands America's core values. Under current law, the Homeland Security Act of 2002 only requires that migrants in short-term detention have ``adequate access to food and water.'' But we know from the heart-wrenching images that we have seen on TV and in news reports, and the findings of the Department of Homeland Security's own inspector general, that, too often, migrants are going without basic necessities. In the last 2 months alone, the DHS inspector general released two management alerts, detailing poor conditions and extreme overcrowding in El Paso and in the Rio Grande Valley of Texas, where I just visited. That is why I have introduced this bill, which expands the current requirement under law so that Customs and Border Protection must also provide migrants not only food and water but bathroom and shower facilities, appropriate nutrition, hygiene, personal grooming items, and sanitation needs. Based on the reports we have all seen and the outcry from constituents in my district, I traveled to the southern border last week in one of the only bipartisan trips to have made it to the border. What I saw, from beginning to end, was tragedy and misery for every link in the chain. It was misery for migrants, who were fearing death and persecution at home and risked their lives to walk 1,000 miles, often with their children, in the heat to seek asylum in the United States. It was misery for the thousands of additional migrants who were just seeking a better life and to come to work in this country but have no easy, legal way to do that. It was misery for the Customs and Border Protection officials and the Border Patrol officials who were not stood up and set up to do this, who have been demonized in the press, many of whom are first-generation Americans, in a situation they were never trained for. It is misery top to bottom. That misery, for me, turned to anger because it is because of the inability of Washington to produce comprehensive immigration reform that that misery is happening. There is so much more to do to alleviate the crisis at our southern border. I think all of my bipartisan colleagues, when we traveled to the border, felt that it was our duty to work on bipartisan legislation so that we can create a situation where people who we need in this country can come here legally, people who are seeking asylum can do it legally, and we do not have to put our customs and border officials in this kind of stressful situation. I thank my Republican colleagues on the Homeland Security Committee who voted unanimously with me on this bill. I believe this is the first bill on standards at our southern border to be bipartisan. I am very proud of that. It is a commonsense proposal that I think Democrats, Republicans, and independents can all support. To my colleagues who have not yet made up their minds, the standards outlined in this bill are simply the same standards for our inmates in our prisons that the Bureau of Prisons upholds. They are the same standards under the Geneva Convention that any U.S. soldier must uphold when we take in a prisoner of war. Those are our bare minimum standards that represent our values, and I offer they should also be the exact same standards we afford people coming over our southern border. The number of migrants coming over our southern border is overwhelming. It would overwhelm any administration, any political affiliation, but it does not abrogate our responsibility to maintain basic humanitarian standards in alignment with our values. The Department of Homeland Security must do better. From my own trip last week, I know they want to do better. As I said, I am particularly grateful to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle who voiced support for this bill and who came on as cosponsors. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to do the right thing, help our country aspire to higher standards, and support H.R. 3670, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. SLOTKIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I want to address the specific points raised by the gentleman across the aisle. The gentleman is correct. This bill is not meant to fix everything. It doesn't get to the root of the problem. What it does is establish very basic humanitarian standards similar, almost exactly, to what we have for our prisoners of war and our prisoners. That is taken from the Geneva Convention. That is the international standard, and I want to meet those standards. In many cases, the men and women of Customs and Border Protection and Border Patrol are absolutely meeting those standards. I think probably, at this point, most areas are. So, then, it shouldn't be a problem to enshrine it in actual law. I also agree that we have a major problem in our immigration system. I believe that strongly and even more strongly after I went to the border this past week, and I look forward to my colleague working with us on bipartisan immigration reform. I think this is a minimum standard. It is a humanitarian standard in line with our values. It is what our law enforcement officers and our uniform military already have to provide whenever they are in a position of detention. I think this isn't difficult if we are already achieving, in most cases, these standards across the board. Regarding the complaint that it doesn't solve every problem, it was never meant to. So let's focus on the bill at hand. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. SLOTKIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. In closing, I appreciate the gentleman's comments and the spirit with which they were delivered. Let me say, as someone who is from Michigan, we depend upon our Customs and Border Protection agents, our Border Patrol agents, every single day for our own security, for awareness of what is coming over our border. Mr. Speaker, we are a border State, so you are never going to find a bigger fan of Customs and Border Protection and Border Patrol. I was visiting with them in the past 10 days. They are doing yeoman's work, and I asked for their advice before I went to the southern border. But we know that, despite their best efforts, the overwhelming number of people, combined with the complete inability to be prepared for such numbers, means that people were going without showers, and people were going without access to medical care. People were going without. That is not what anyone wanted. I do not believe at all that people wanted that, but that was the reality. So I felt it was important to lay down a clear standard. I think the vast majority are adhering to that standard, and I think it is the bare minimum. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. SLOTKIN

Ms. SLOTKIN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the NDAA. I want to thank Chairman Smith, the entire committee, Members on the other side of the aisle, and staff on the other side of the aisle. Funding our national defense is and should always be a bipartisan priority. We have created a bill that is strong on defense and stays true to our values as a country. This bill includes important provisions that all Americans can get behind: It funds our military at the highest levels in history and ensures the readiness of our forces; It includes a 3.1 percent pay raise for our servicemembers; It strengthens provisions to combat foreign information operations, protecting us from foreign adversaries that wish us harm; It enhances our military's resilience to climate change, which poses a growing threat to national security; and It ensures protections for military families. As a former Pentagon official, as an Army wife with a stepdaughter serving on Active Duty right now, I firmly believe that we have a solemn responsibility to our men and women to pass a bill that funds our military. Failure to do so, despite concerns about certain provisions, would be an abdication of that responsibility. This bill also funds priorities that are important to the economies and the safety of our local communities and our districts. I fought hard to include provisions that directly impact my community in Michigan and communities like ours across the country. The NDAA will reduce PFAS contamination by phasing out the firefighting foam with PFAS chemicals and ask the Pentagon to come up with a plan of action on how they plan to transition and clean up PFAS sites. This NDAA includes provisions that help States like Michigan capitalize on our unique capabilities in autos, cyber, robotics, and software to help fuel innovation at the Defense Department. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Ms. SLOTKIN

Ms. SLOTKIN. Madam Speaker, today I rise to honor Sergeant Donald Burgett, an American hero to whom the people of the 8th District of Michigan, along with the entire nation, are deeply indebted. As Congress has deemed, the United States Post Office in Howell, Michigan, shall henceforth be known as the Sergeant Donald Burgett Post Office Building, enshrining the legacy of this valiant champion of freedom for generations to come. Sergeant Burgett was born in Detroit in 1925 and served as a rifleman and machine-gunner in the 101st Airborne Division's 506th Parachute Infantry Regiment. His service took him throughout the European theater and included parachuting into Normandy in the opening hours of D-Day. His devotion to country did not end with his service, however, as he returned to Howell after the war and committed himself to bettering the community through veterans' organizations and civic leadership, and by chronicling the war's events in several highly acclaimed books. Sgt. Burgett was deeply committed to recording the experiences of his colleagues-in-arms so that their legacy would live on. Now, we have the distinct honor of doing likewise, by dedicating a public building in his name. I can think of no more fitting tribute on this Flag Day, which comes just days after the commemoration of the 75th anniversary of D-Day, than to honor the heroism of a man who lived and died under the flag and whose very name is synonymous with its ideals. Madam Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in paying tribute to Sgt. Burgett and his extraordinary life and legacy of service. May all who enter the building that now bears his name be inspired to the principles of service over self and love of country by which he lived.

Ms. SLOTKIN

Ms. SLOTKIN. Mr. Chair, I rise today in support of the Protecting Americans with Preexisting Conditions Act. For me, this issue is particularly personal. It is a major reason why I ended up coming here to Congress. I believe that the sabotage, the attempts at legislating out protections for people with preexisting conditions, is something that is just out of touch with the American people, certainly in Michigan's Eighth Congressional District. It is particularly personal to me because of my mom. My mom passed away in 2011 from ovarian cancer. When she was diagnosed, she did not have healthcare. She had trouble with healthcare her entire life. She had breast cancer as a young 31-year-old mom, so for the rest of her life, she had a preexisting condition. My parents divorced, and she lost her job. Because of that preexisting condition, she could not afford health insurance. She went 5\1/2\ years without a checkup and no gynecological exam. We finally got her health insurance, my brother and I. It was $1,000 a month, with a $10,000 deductible, her highest bill in Detroit. In 2009, without us knowing, she let it lapse. Two months later, she walked into an ER and was diagnosed with stage IV ovarian cancer. I am sure my colleagues around the room know what it is like to have a loved one get a terminal diagnosis. Your life as you know it explodes. That same week and that same month that our lives were exploding was the same week and the same month we spent filling out the paperwork for her to declare bankruptcy. I think no matter whether you are a Republican, a Democrat, or an independent, it is essential that we support people with preexisting conditions, and I urge my colleagues to do so.

Ms. SLOTKIN. Madam Speaker, I claim the time in opposition.

Ms. SLOTKIN. Madam Speaker, I rise because this motion to recommit is simply another attempt to take away protections for people with preexisting conditions. Madam Speaker, at face value, the amendment appears to maintain protections for people with preexisting conditions, but make no mistake, no matter the language included in this MTR, the goal of the 1332 guidance expands and promotes junk plans that discriminate against people with preexisting conditions. These plans also make comprehensive coverage for people with preexisting conditions more expensive. It is not enough to say, my colleagues, that you protect preexisting conditions. It is what happens on the ground that matters. If my colleagues are serious about protecting Americans with preexisting conditions, I urge them to oppose this amendment, support the underlying bill, and join us in doing what the American public has made very clear they want. While Members of the other party may claim they are ready to work to protect individuals, their actions tell a different story. Madam Speaker, 2 years ago, exactly this week, most House Republicans voted overwhelmingly for a bill that would have gutted the ACA and weakened protections for people with preexisting conditions. My colleagues--including you, sir--stood on the White House lawn and celebrated that bill and would have made it more difficult for people with preexisting conditions. A few courageous Republicans, who I applaud--including the late Senator John McCain--joined Democratic Members and Senators in preventing this bill from becoming law. You can boo John McCain if you want. Since then, the administration has tried every play in the book to undercut, sabotage, skirt protections in the ACA, including protections for people with preexisting conditions. We currently have an open suit from your side that is meant to invalidate the entirety of the ACA, including protections for people with preexisting conditions. I stand in opposition to this motion because the issue of protecting people with preexisting conditions is deeply personal to me, as it is to so many people in this room and in our districts. My mom passed away in 2011 from ovarian cancer, and when she was diagnosed, she did not have healthcare. She had struggled to afford healthcare her entire life. She had breast cancer as a 31-year old mom, leaving her with a preexisting condition for the rest of her life. When she lost her job in 2002, she lost her insurance, and it was impossible to find coverage that she could afford. She went 5\1/2\ years with no insurance, no checkup, no gynecological exam, no one saying ``you should get tested.'' In 2008, we finally helped her get insurance. Because of her preexisting condition, it was $1,000 a month and a $10,000 deductible. She let it lapse and walked into an ER a few months later and was diagnosed with stage IV ovarian cancer. Now, I am sure my colleagues on the other side of the aisle know exactly what it is like to have a loved one get a terminal diagnosis. Your life as you know it explodes. And that same week and that same month that my life was exploding, was the same week and the same month that I spent filing the paperwork for my mom to declare bankruptcy. So, no one should be gouged because they happen to be born with a preexisting condition. We have evolved as a country, as a Nation, to see that, and I urge my colleagues to evolve as well. Madam Speaker, in my district protecting people with preexisting conditions is not a Democratic or Republican issue. It is what people of all political backgrounds are demanding of us as their representatives. That is our mission. That is our mandate. And to ignore the interest of our constituents at this point, is dereliction of duty, plain and simple. I urge my colleagues to join me in opposing this amendment that would hurt people like my mom. To my colleagues across the aisle, do the right thing. Put people before politics. Vote against this amendment. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. SLOTKIN

Ms. SLOTKIN. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor a hospital that embodies the spirit, standard, and strength of the community it has now served for 90 years. As St. Joseph Mercy Livingston Hospital celebrates its 90th anniversary in the community, I would like to offer my congratulations and appreciation to the hospital's leaders, caregivers, and volunteers on this most extraordinary accomplishment. In its 90 years, St. Joseph Mercy Livingston Hospital has grown its healing mission from humble roots in a 3-story home to a state-of-the- art, modern hospital with two campuses in Livingston County. With a staff that today includes more than 500 physicians, St. Joseph Mercy Livingston is the county's only full-service hospital, and includes state-of-the-art robotic surgical services, a cancer center, 3-D breast imaging, a sleep disorders facility, and Michigan's very first short- stay center, which provides overnight care for patients not requiring hospital admission. St. Joseph Mercy Livingston Hospital has received numerous accolades for its dedication to patient safety, quality of care, and excellence. But the organization stands out not just for its commitment to the health of its patients, but for its devotion to the health of the entire region. Before a single patient enters the hospital, St. Joseph Mercy Livingston Hospital is reaching out to. As one of the county's main employers, the organization generously donates time, talent, and treasure to countless community events, school groups, and non-profits each and every year. The residents of Livingston County are so fortunate to have at their disposal this level of quality care and community support so close to home. I am honored to represent the fine men and women who work hard every day to make St. Joseph Mercy Livingston Hospital a source of pride. Madam Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me today to honor St. Joseph Mercy Livingston Hospital for 90 years of service, and to the promise of many more years of healing to come.

Ms. SLOTKIN

Ms. SLOTKIN. Mr. Chair, as the designee of the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Sarbanes), I have an amendment at the desk.

Ms. SLOTKIN. Mr. Chair, the legislation before us today, the For the People Act of 2019, represents a major step forward toward improving government transparency and accountability, expanding voting rights, and draining the corrosive influence of money in our politics. These are the very issues I hear about over and over again as I travel across my district in mid-Michigan, and these are the issues that my constituents sent me to Washington to address. Simply put, people in Michigan and across the country know in their bones that the current system isn't working and want a return to honesty and decency in our politics. Passing H.R. 1 is a huge step forward in increasing confidence in our system. Mr. Chair, my amendment today would add important provisions to close a loophole in our current campaign finance laws that allows foreign governments and foreign nationals to influence American elections through campaign ads. Right now, a foreign entity can legally buy an ad through social media that supports or attacks a candidate. Right now, a foreign entity can legally purchase an ad that focuses on an issue of legislative importance. My amendment would close this loophole by implementing new requirements to ensure that foreign governments don't influence our elections. The amendment specifically would prohibit a foreign entity from buying a campaign ad, on digital media or on TV, that supports or attacks a candidate or an ad that focuses on an issue that is meant to divide us rather than unite us. Mr. Chair, I am a former CIA officer, a former Pentagon official. I have spent my life preventing homeland attacks and preserving the democratic system that we all love. I am introducing this amendment because the attempts by Russia to interfere in the 2016 elections targeted vulnerable voters and took advantage of the lack of disclosure in our laws. During the 2016 election in my home State of Michigan, we were specifically targeted and witnessed disturbing evidence of Russian interference in our elections. It is important to remember what we are talking about. These ads, which I have a bunch printed out over here, purposely divide us. They sow discord. They target ethnic groups. And they generally attempt to influence American elections. Some may say that these ads were a relatively small number of the ads in our elections and that it is a relatively meager investment. As defenders of American interests and our national security, we must ensure that our laws do not allow this to happen at any level. I urge my colleagues to do the right thing: Support preservation of the American democracy. Reject foreign influence in our elections. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.