Debbie Wasserman Schultz

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commemorate Suicide Prevention Month and to honor those of our veterans who tragically took their own lives after bravely fighting to protect ours. These courageous men and women fought valiantly so the rest of us could enjoy the freedoms and liberties secured by our forefathers. We must honor their dedication and sacrifice by supporting them through the physical, emotional, and psychological challenges they face upon returning home. One veteran committing suicide is one too many, and with an estimated twenty veterans committing suicide each day, we must do better and ensure that our actions mirror the unwavering gratitude we feel in our hearts. We must ensure they are welcomed home with the respect, dignity and support they deserve, and that we address the mental health issues of each veterans population with careful consideration to their unique needs. It is with a heavy heart that I recognize Suicide Prevention Month and urge every Member of Congress to honor our veterans with actions that reflect our nation's eternal gratitude for their service.

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Mr. Speaker, I rise today with a heavy heart. I rise to honor the memory of an extraordinary young man who worked in dedicated service at the Democratic National Committee, Seth Conrad Rich. Seth was just 27 years old when he was killed this past weekend in our Nation's Capital, the victim of an unknown shooter. He was a dedicated, selfless public servant, protecting one of our most essential freedoms: the right of all Americans to vote. He carried out this work because he believed that together we could make the world a better place. We were fortunate to know and work with him. Just last Friday, Seth wrote a response on Facebook to the terrible shootings in Dallas. He wrote: Stop hating each other. . . . We have to be better and more true. . . . Please, stop killing each other. I hope the Members of this body will join me in offering our deepest thoughts and prayers to the Rich family today, but thoughts and prayers are simply not enough. In Seth's prescient words: We must stop the hate. We must be better and more true.

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ

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

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Mr. Speaker, this is the final amendment to the bill, which will not kill the bill or send it back to committee. If adopted, the bill will immediately proceed to final passage, as amended. S. 304, the Conscience Protection Act, is yet another extreme attempt to block women's access to health care. This dangerous legislation, which the President has threatened to veto, would strip away patient protections and permit employers to override a woman's personal medical decisions. It is the 113th House GOP vote in this Congress alone to attack women's health care. This bill is an attempt to make permanent the so-called Weldon amendment, which pressures any Federal agency or program, or any State or local government, with the potential loss of all of its Labor and Health and Human Services funding if it doesn't allow a healthcare entity to provide, pay for, cover, or refer for abortions. The majority purports that this legislation would protect religious liberty, but, in reality, it is a thinly veiled attempt to restrict women's access to safe and legal abortion. To be clear, religious liberty is one of our Nation's most fundamental and cherished values, but it does not, and should never, mean the freedom to discriminate against or harm others. This bill would unduly limit women's healthcare choices by allowing a broad set of health providers, including many employers, to deny their female employees access to legal medical services based on any and all objections. This legislation could not possibly have been written more broadly. Specifically, the Conscience Protection Act would allow employers and insurance companies, among other ``healthcare entities,'' to refuse to ``facilitate,'' ``make arrangements for,'' or ``otherwise participate in'' abortions. Women of color, low-income families, LGBTQ individuals, young people, and those living in rural areas already experience widespread and systemic barriers to health care. This vague and overly broad language will exacerbate the significant barriers to care that they already face. Additionally, the bill would give virtually any individual or entity standing to sue for an actual or threatened violation. As civil rights organizations have noted: This broad right of action would chill State, local, and Federal Government's ability to advance pro-women's health policies by exposing them to frivolous, resource-draining lawsuits by opponents of safe, legal abortion. Undoubtedly, this bill is a wolf in sheep's clothing. In the name of religious liberty, the majority is continuing its campaign to deny women access to safe and legal abortion and create a healthcare system that is legally permitted to discriminate against women. Women and all Americans deserve access to the care and coverage that is right for them. The Conscience Protection Act threatens that access and is another attempt by the majority to insert themselves into a decision best left between a woman and her doctor. This motion to recommit prevents the harmful provisions of the bill from applying to any area in the U.S. where it would reduce access to healthcare services to prevent, prepare for, or respond to the Zika virus. More than 3,600 Americans, including more than 600 pregnant women in 45 States, D.C., and 3 U.S. territories, have already been diagnosed with the Zika virus, and more transmission is expected. In my home State of Florida, there are more than 250 people that have contracted Zika, including 43 pregnant women. During pregnancy, the Zika virus can cause a serious birth defect called microcephaly, as well other severe fetal brain defects. The Zika virus is primarily transmitted through two types of mosquitos, and according to a recent article in the Journal of Medical Entomology, 40 States and D.C. have reported the presence of one or both of those mosquitos. Public health experts have made clear that it is not if we will have local transmission of the Zika virus in the continental U.S., it is when. Despite that risk, our Republican colleagues are on the floor today playing politics with women and children's access to federally supported healthcare services like Medicaid. Through Federal healthcare services, women can visit healthcare providers to better understand how to prevent contracting the Zika virus, and children born with severe fetal brain defects can receive the healthcare services that they need. Threatening receipt of Federal healthcare services by women and children in need of care to advance the harmful Republican war on women is unconscionable. It is shocking that anyone would even consider taking any action that would cut off federally supported healthcare services when the threat of the Zika virus looms so large in this country, especially during the summer, the height of tourist and mosquito season. This bill is dangerous and irresponsible. Pregnant women who contract the Zika virus and infants born with microcephaly or severe fetal birth defects as a result should have the federally guaranteed healthcare benefits and services that they need and not be punished because the Republicans wanted to score more political points. Enough is enough. I urge my colleagues to support the motion to recommit. I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. I am, in its current form.

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the achievements of Ms. Sophie Septoff, recent graduate of the Nova Southeastern University School and recipient of the Miami Herald's Silver Knight Award for the category of Music and Dance. Sophie, who is legally blind, founded the ``Dance in the Light'' program at the Lighthouse of Broward through which she teaches blind and visually impaired children the art of dance. Her love for the arts and passion to help others succeed has helped countless children in our community. Sophie is a talented, smart and poised young woman with a kind heart. I applaud Sophie on her achievement and I am grateful for her compassion to those around her. She represents the best in our community and has set forth a stellar example for other young adults on how to be a caring citizen. I am confident Ms. Septoff will be incredibly successful in her future endeavors at Georgetown University and wish her all the best.

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of Alzheimer's and Brain Awareness Month. During the month of June, we recognize the more than five million Americans living with Alzheimer's and recommit ourselves to supporting those affected by the disease and their caregivers. Alzheimer's is the sixth leading cause of death in the United States, with someone developing the disease every 66 seconds. As an Appropriations Committee Member, I have made it a priority to properly fund the National Institutes of Health so they can continue their cutting-edge research on diseases like Alzheimer's. As a Representative of South Florida, this issue hits home for my constituents and me. Florida has the highest percentage of older adults in the U.S., as well as residents living with intellectual and developmental disabilities that are older than the national average. These populations are concentrated in South Florida, where nursing home costs are 50 percent above the national average. This is a sobering reality for many of my constituents and their families, which is why I will continue working to ensure that the NIH has the funding it needs to find better ways to treat the disease, delay its onset, and prevent it from developing. Recognizing Alzheimer's and Brain Awareness Month is a small step forward in the fight against this deadly disease, and I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting federal investments in finding a cure.

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Assistant Special Agent in Charge (ASAC) Kelly M. Darden, Jr. as he retires after 32 years of service to the Federal Bureau of Investigation. ASAC Darden has devoted his career to protecting the citizens of the United States, working in various capacities within the Bureau, and tirelessly contributing to our nation's most critical intelligence and security programs. ASAC Darden has demonstrated an unwavering commitment to serving the American public and most recently, our South Florida community as the Assistant Special Agent in Charge within the Miami Division of the FBI. It is with great pleasure that I thank ASAC Darden for his dedication to South Florida and our nation.

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Mr. Speaker, colleagues, we stand before you as the congressional women's softball team. Our bipartisan team, which we are very proud of, has won the Congressional Women's Softball Game for the last 2 years in a row, and we are looking to three-peat against the Bad News Babes press team tonight. So we encourage all of you to come out tonight. Tell your staffs and anyone that is interested in helping to raise money to beat cancer to join us tonight at 7 at Watkins Recreation Center near Eastern Market. You are going to see a phenomenal competition. We are raising money for the Young Survival Coalition, which is an organization that helps young women under 40 years old who are diagnosed with breast cancer. I know many of you know that I was diagnosed with breast cancer at 41 years old, 8\1/2\ years ago, and continue to be a survivor who is very proud to be healthy, and continue to spread the message that women need to pay attention to their breast health. I stand here with my sisters in Congress, sisters in the fight against breast cancer. I yield to the gentlewoman from the great State of Alabama (Mrs. Roby), my friend and cocaptain.

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in memory of those whose lives were lost in my home State at Pulse nightclub in Orlando. Floridians, Americans, and people around the world are in mourning today, grieving for those young lives lost and for their families. When will this body finally say ``enough''? Gun violence is a public health crisis, and we must do better. No one needs an AR-15 assault rifle. This was the weapon of war that was used in Newtown, Aurora, and San Bernardino. We need to reinstate the assault weapon ban to reduce the chances that we have more tragedies. People on the terrorist watch list should not be able to get a gun. This is common sense, but the majority continues to block this critical security measure. I also rise to commend our law enforcement and healthcare professionals whose lifesaving work is ongoing. Acts of love like these will always conquer hate. They always have. The American people will continue to stand with our LGBTQ and Latino brothers and sisters, and we will work that much harder and that much smarter and that much faster to ensure their safety and equal rights in their communities. Love will win. Hate will be defeated.

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Mr. Speaker, I rise to join my colleague, Congressman Joaquin Castro, to urge the majority to finally allow the House to strike a destructive political provision that has made its way into the Legislative Branch Appropriations bill. If those listening are wondering why we are talking about the pejorative term ``illegal aliens'' on the bill that funds the legislative branch, then you are not alone. This legislation's accompanying report includes language that would have the Library continue to use the term ``illegal aliens,'' ``to the extent practicable''--even though the Library itself has said that there is no practicable means to continue to use the term ``illegal aliens.'' The Library changes thousands of subject headings each year without interference from Congress. Why this one? Why now? The Library once used the subject heading ``Negro,'' then moved to ``Afro-American,'' and now ``African American.'' They didn't wait until the entire U.S. Code was free of the pejorative term ``Negro'' before they changed their subject heading. As a matter of fact, Congress only recently removed the last vestiges of the terms ``Negro'' and ``Oriental'' from the U.S. Code in May of 2016. That bill passed with a unanimous vote, including the ``yes'' vote of the chairman of the Legislative Branch Subcommittee. If we removed ``Negro'' and ``Oriental'' in the subject headings of the Library of Congress before we changed the U.S. Code, then we should do the same for the now-pejorative term, ``illegal alien.'' The Library of Congress is our Nation's first established cultural institution, and it is hard to fathom why my colleagues on the other side of the aisle would try to tie its hands to the slow-moving wheels of the U.S. Code. Entering into an immigration debate on the Legislative Branch Appropriations bill is a terrible precedent. If the majority is really serious about debating the U.S. Code, then let's have the Republican Rules Committee bring up the Castro bill that would remove the hurtful and inaccurate term ``illegal aliens'' once and for all from the U.S. Code. We are Members of Congress, not captains of the word police. Free the card catalog and depoliticize this bill.

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Madam Chair, the Office of Congressional Ethics is crucial to ensuring accountability and transparency in this body. Any attempts to cut its budget would only serve to erode our constituents' trust and faith in Congress, which certainly has already suffered a significant amount of erosion. As many of my colleagues will recall, the House created the Office of Congressional Ethics nearly a decade ago to improve the integrity of the ethics process in the House. The House was recovering from the Mark Foley scandal, and it was clear that we needed to do something to rebuild the American people's trust in their elected Representatives. That is why OCE's core ``mission is to assist the U.S. House in upholding high ethical standards with an eye toward increasing transparency and providing information to the public.'' I acknowledge that there are proposals to improve the operations of the Office of Congressional Ethics, and we should certainly take a look at those, Madam Chair, but it is common sense that these improvements can't be made by cutting funding for the office that we are actually seeking to improve. Moreover, the issue of congressional ethics is far too important to reduce to a 10-minute debate on the House floor. For these reasons, I urge my colleagues to oppose this misguided amendment. Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Madam Chair, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment.

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Madam Chair, while I can appreciate the gentleman's concerns, he has listed a number of substantive differences of opinion with the way the Office of Congressional Ethics handles their work. This appropriations bill is not the appropriate place to address those. The Office of Congressional Ethics was created through legislation. It is a substantive issue, and it is one that should be debated and discussed on an authorizing bill, not on the funding of the legislative branch. You don't just cut the budget of an office with whose decisions you disagree. We can debate and discuss these concerns, but cutting $190,000 out of the OCE's budget is not the way to address that. For those reasons and the fact that the public already has some pretty significant concerns with the way we do business here, this would send the wrong message. If we are going to have this discussion, we should do it in a forum that allows for more robust discussion and debate over how to address those challenges long term. Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Madam Chair, how much time do I have remaining?

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Madam Chair, I support the gentleman's amendment. This is a commonsense amendment which would prohibit funding in this bill from being used to pay contractors engaged in fraud or tax evasion. As the gentleman said, similar amendments have been adopted on other appropriations bills. I urge Members to vote ``aye.''

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Madam Chair, I have tremendous respect for the gentleman from New Mexico and his concerns for the operation of the Office of Congressional Ethics. However, all that we would be doing here, if his amendment were to pass, is to send a $190,000 message to the Office of Congressional Ethics. It would not achieve any of the gentleman's goals. If we do need to take a look at the way the office functions, then there is a process for doing that. The only thing we achieve here by adopting this amendment is cutting their budget by $190,000. So, if the majority believes that it is important to take a look at the function of this office, then there is a process for doing that and to take up legislation to change the way they do business. That is certainly appropriate. But we don't accomplish any of the gentleman's goals by cutting $190,000. In fact, the public has certainly already sent multiple messages to the United States Congress that they don't have a whole lot of confidence in the business that we are doing here. This would send the absolute wrong message back to them--that we don't get it. So I urge Members to oppose the amendment because it would not achieve the gentleman's goals and because we have a more appropriate place to actually achieve those goals in the authorizing committee. Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. I rise in support of the amendment to revive the Office of Technology Assessment. When I was chair of the subcommittee, we tried to restart it within the Government Accountability Office. In fiscal years 2008 to 2010, I included $2.5 million in this bill with GAO to support that initiative. However, the supporters of the amendment make an impassioned case that the Office of Technology Assessment should be a part of Congress itself, rather than GAO, in order to provide objective analysis of complex, scientific, and technical issues which certainly, I think we can all agree, actually exist today. We are not trying to go back to 20th century technology. We have important issues that need to be reviewed, and we don't always have the expertise in Congress necessary to be able to make sure we can get that cogent analysis, particularly when we are still at funding levels back to 2010 in the Legislative Branch Appropriations bill. This is a bill in which we are tackling copyright modernization, specifically dealing with technology challenges, and an OTA would add to the rigor of our analysis on that topic and others. I urge support of the amendment.

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Mr. Chairman, first of all, I want to acknowledge the presence of Chairman Graves' lovely daughter, because it is always nice as a parent to have your children with you while you are doing your work. So welcome to the House of Representatives. I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey), our ranking member of the full Appropriations Committee.

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. I thank the gentleman. Will the gentleman point out to the House of Representatives what is referenced in the U.S. Code to which the report refers?

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. I have, and it refers specifically to the term ``illegal alien.'' That is how it is referenced in the United States Code.

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, the Legislative Branch Appropriations bill is a total of $3.481 billion--$72 million above the fiscal year 2016 enacted bill. I thank our full committee chairman, Mr. Rogers of Kentucky, for understanding the challenges posed by years of cuts and providing an allocation to begin rebuilding the capacity of Congress to do the people's work. Chairman Graves funded critical investments with the additional allocation. He knows that if we were only discussing funding today, I would be with him in protecting the good work of the subcommittee. Specifically, I am pleased with the critical investments in the Copyright Modernization Project and the Historic Buildings Revitalization Trust Fund. The bill provides the Copyright Modernization Project with a 17 percent increase. This critical funding will enable the Copyright Office to hire the necessary staff to begin to make technological advancements to improve the way they do business. It is unacceptable in the year 2016 that copyright users have to make certain requests via paper in the 21st century. That is inefficient and a drag on commerce that is dependent on the copyright system. There is also report language included that makes it clear that the Library of Congress shall continue to defer to the Register of Copyrights on all copyright-related issues. While the Copyright Office is within the Library of Congress, it has unique functions that make it necessary to have a strong leader that can answer to Congress and the copyright community when issues arise. The Register of Copyrights should have the freedom to make decisions and be responsive to the copyright community. I am also happy to see increased funding for the Historic Buildings Revitalization Trust Fund. This is the same fund that we used to save for the downpayment on the Cannon Building Restoration. This bill provides $17 million for the fund, which is $7 million above fiscal year 2016 funding. I thank the chairman for working with me to sustain this important program. We started the trust fund after the construction of the Capitol Visitor Center. That project was over budget by fourfold, and its management was, frankly, an embarrassment. It was an example of ballooning government projects that pull resources away from other worthy initiatives. The trust fund was created to avoid the pitfalls of the CVC project by creating a reserve of funds that can be used for future large-scale projects. We must put on our forward-thinking caps and look 10 to 20 years down the road so that we save appropriately for large-scale projects. This long-term thinking will ensure that our smallest appropriations bill--the Legislative Branch Appropriations bill--does not have to absorb such large projects to the detriment of other worthy programs. While there are many positives in this bill, Mr. Chairman, there are also issues that must be addressed as we move through the process. One particularly troublesome issue is that the report accompanying this bill includes language seeking to influence the Library of Congress' process to change its subject headings related to immigration. The Library of Congress decided in March of this year to begin using the terms ``noncitizens'' and ``unauthorized immigration'' for cataloging purposes. They did so after being petitioned by Dartmouth College in 2014--a petition they turned down initially--and then again by the American Library Association earlier this year. In January of this year, the American Library Association adopted a resolution calling on the Library of Congress to change the heading ``illegal aliens'' to ``undocumented immigrants.'' Now, these are search terms. The Library of Congress uses subject headings to help researchers be able to find topics based on what they are appropriately to be called. The Library did not adopt the term ``undocumented immigrants'' but chose to begin to use the two phrases ``noncitizens'' and ``unauthorized immigration.'' These new subject headings are still in the process of being considered, as the public will have 60 days to comment on them. The fact that this project is ongoing makes the inclusion of report language even more problematic. How can the Library of Congress be expected to go through a fair and open comment period with this language included in the report accompanying the appropriations bill? My side of the aisle could have certainly pushed to have the Library of Congress reconsider its decision after the Dartmouth petition was turned down in 2014 because many Democrats and Republicans believe that the term ``illegal alien'' labels a group of people based on a misconception that an immigrant's presence in our Nation is a criminal violation, but we allowed the process to work because the Library of Congress is in the business of language and nomenclature and should be free to make these decisions without political interference. Congress should not be setting ourselves up as the word police. Let's be clear: this puts the Library of Congress front and center on one of our Nation's most contentious and emotional political issues. Over the years, as ranking member, this is certainly not the first time I find myself in disagreement with the chairman on a particular issue. However, I have been able to work closely with the chairman of this subcommittee to move the bill and the process forward. And though I have been committed as always to resolving our policy differences, the politicization of the Library of Congress in order to perpetuate a misconception about immigrants in our country is simply an issue on which my principles will not allow me to bend an inch. This language is not necessary, it is not appropriate, and it jeopardizes the work of our Nation's oldest Federal cultural institution and the research arm of this body. The Library of Congress makes thousands of changes to its subject headings every year. At one time, ``Negro'' was a subject heading, but when it became pejorative, they changed it to ``Afro American,'' and eventually the term used today, ``African American.'' The chairman and other Republican members emphasize that they are the Library of Congress--emphasis on Congress--and we should dictate to them what terms they use in their subject headings. Well, I ran for Congress, not word police. We should leave search terms for researchers to the experts and not politicize this bill that simply funds the legislative branch. I am also concerned that under this bill, the Capitol Police budget increases by $325.3 million. This would increase funding for the Capitol Police by 5 percent, above the 8 percent increase they received in the current fiscal year. We value and respect the officers on staff, but I think many Members will join me in raising a skeptical eye when they realize this bill would add 72 new officers and bring the total number of officers to close to 1,900. Just as mayors and city councils across the country have to balance law enforcement with other city services like repairing aging infrastructure, so must Congress. In the near future, the congressional leadership and committees of jurisdiction will need to have a serious discussion about the appropriate size of the Capitol Police. The officers I speak to don't complain about not having enough officers, but, rather, about decisions on how the officers they do have are deployed by police leadership. It is fiscally irresponsible to grow the police at this rate. Also, as Member and committee budgets have been cut, Congress has had to rely on support agencies to fill the gaps in staff expertise. One of those agencies, Mr. Chairman, is the Congressional Research Service, or CRS. CRS was funded in the bill at $107.9 million, $1 million above the fiscal year 2016 enacted level. At the level included in the bill, CRS remains $4.6 million below the fiscal year 2010 levels. According to CRS, recent funding levels have led to a loss of 13 percent of its purchasing power since 2010. The $1 million increase provided by this bill will not cover mandatory pay for CRS' current staff. CRS' budget request sought to rebuild the agency. They asked for two defense policy staff, five health policy staff, three education policy staff, two budget and appropriation staff, four technology policy staff, and two data management and analysis staff. None of those staffs will be funded under the bill before us, therefore, denying Congress of an unbiased analysis of these critical policy areas. Before concluding, Mr. Chairman, I also want to join the chairman in acknowledging the loss of our beloved Chuck Turner. I had the privilege of working with Chuck when I was the chairman of this committee, and he has served both sides of the aisle with integrity, commitment, and love of this institution. His loss was tremendous for the entire appropriations family, and he will be greatly missed on both sides of the aisle. I also want to issue a big thanks to Liz Dawson, the majority clerk and her staff, Jenny Panone and Tim Monahan. Many thanks as well to Jason Murphy with Chairman Graves' personal office. Thank you to my team, Shalanda Young on the committee's minority staff who has worked tirelessly on those issues. Last, but certainly not least, thank you to my personal staff, Rosalyn Kumar and Sarah Arkin. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition.