Elijah Cummings

Mr. CUMMINGS

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. This amendment does nothing to address the fundamental flaws in the underlying legislation. This amendment would simply add unfunded mandates as another basis for the commission to prioritize the review of certain rules. The underlying legislation contains no exceptions for rules, no matter how important. The commission the bill creates could recommend the repeal of rules such as the ones the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives finalized this week that strengthen background check requirements for buying firearms. Such important public safety rules could be jeopardized by this bill. I oppose the underlying bill, and I oppose this amendment, which does not improve the bill. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Chairman, in closing, I oppose this amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. My amendment, which is cosponsored by the Subcommittee on Government Operations' Ranking Member Gerry Connolly, would strike title IV of this bill. Title IV provides for judicial review of agency compliance with certain requirements of the bill, including regulatory CutGo procedures. The agency rulemaking process already provides interested parties with ample opportunity for participation. When an industry or special interest does not like the result of the rulemaking process, this bill gives them another bite at the apple. Judicial review provides opponents of rules with the opportunity to delay regulations by tying them up in court. No rules would be exempt. Corporate and special interests with deep pockets could use judicial review to delay critical regulations that would protect public health, safety, and the environment. Let me give you an example. In August of last year, the EPA finalized its Clean Power Plan rules. According to EPA, by 2030, the plan will cut carbon pollution from the power sector by nearly a third, yielding substantial health benefits to Americans. EPA estimates that, because of these regulations, Americans will avoid 90,000 asthma attacks and save 3,600 lives. These important rules were developed with industry and public input. EPA states that it received 4.3 million public comments and held hundreds of meetings with stakeholders. The final rules reflect this vigorous process. However, if the SCRUB Act were enacted, industry or special interests could use the judicial review provisions to stall important rules like the Clean Power Plan. The judicial review provisions of this bill are yet another attempt by the House Republicans to erect a roadblock for important public health and safety protections. This amendment removes this flawed provision from the underlying bill. I urge my colleagues to adopt this amendment. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. My amendment, cosponsored by Subcommittee on Government Operations' Ranking Member Gerry Connolly, would exempt independent agencies from the requirements of this bill. Independent agencies serve an important role in protecting the American people from a range of threats, including the collapse of our financial markets and health and safety risks. Agencies such as the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, the Securities and Exchange Commission, and the Consumer Product Safety Commission are designed to independently regulate the industries they cover. These agencies are not required to obtain approval for their rules from the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, as other executive branch agencies must do. The reason independent agencies are treated differently is to protect them from political interference in their rulemaking. The SCRUB Act would jeopardize the independence of these agencies by subjecting their rules to oversight by the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs. Section 203 of the SCRUB Act would require OIRA to review and certify the cost estimate for every new rule promulgated by an independent agency. This bill would also require independent agencies to comply with the bill's regulatory CutGo requirements. For example, the Consumer Product Safety Commission has a proposed rule that would establish safety standards for infant high chairs. How would the Commission choose which unsafe product to stop regulating in order to protect the approximately 10,000 children injured each year by unsafe high chairs? The Commission recently wrote a rule creating the strongest crib safety standards in the developed world. Would they have to repeal that rule? Under our amendment, independent agencies would not have to make this choice. Bank regulators are already subject to the Economic Growth and Regulatory Paperwork Reduction Act of 1996, which requires them to review all existing banking regulations and ``eliminate unnecessary regulations.'' The bank regulators are already required by law to remove all outdated, unnecessary, and overly burdensome regulations. They cannot save up outdated regulations for the purpose of promulgating new rules under the SCRUB Act, like other agencies. This bill would handcuff our bank regulators and make financial crises and the recessions that follow that much more likely. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment to keep the independent agencies truly independent. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. CUMMINGS

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding, and I thank the gentlewoman for her strong leadership. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to oppose H.R. 1737. If this bill is enacted, it will cost minority auto purchasers millions of dollars. Car purchases are extremely complicated transactions. Most Americans make only a few in a lifetime, and they are not familiar with the many detailed terms and procedures of these transactions. One thing that is not complicated is that charging a markup just because a buyer is a minority is simply illegal. The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau protects minority purchasers against auto dealers that seek to charge abusive and predatory markups. The purpose of the bill before us today is to eliminate this protection--that is exactly what it is--leaving minority consumers at risk of being charged abusive and predatory interest rates. In 2013, the CFPB ordered Ally Bank to pay $80 million in damages and $18 million in penalties for imposing higher interest rates on 235,000 minority borrowers. Just this year, the Bureau ordered Fifth Third Bank to pay $18 million in damages for permitting markups of as much as 2.5 percent for minorities. Because this bill would prevent the CFPB from carrying out its duty to protect minority borrowers, the administration has announced they would veto this bill. This House should reject H.R. 1737 and every repeated effort to undermine--and that is exactly what it is, to undermine--the CFPB.

Mr. CUMMINGS

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Chair, I thank Chairman Shuster and Ranking Member DeFazio for working with me on both of my amendments. The amendment I offer would require the Department of Transportation to submit a report to the House Transportation Committee and the Senate Commerce Committee on research managed by the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) to develop a system to measure vertical track deflection caused by a moving railroad car. Such a system should be able to identify a combination of factors that, individually, may not be able to cause a train derailment but that, together, could endanger safe train operations, such as deteriorated cross ties, fouled ballast, and other deficiencies in the structures that support rail tracks. The amendment authorizes the Department of Transportation to develop a plan for using quantitative inspection criteria to identify poor track support systems if such an approach is supported by the FRA's research. The amendment also authorizes the Department to develop a plan to install instruments to measure track deflection on its Automated Track Inspection Program geometry cars within 3 years of the date of enactment of this bill, if this approach is supported by the FRA's research. I developed this amendment in very close consultation with the families of Rose Louese Mayr and Elizabeth Conway Nass, who were tragically killed in a coal train derailment that occurred in Ellicott City, Maryland, in my district, in 2012. These families have worked tirelessly to understand the technical circumstances that led to the 2012 train derailment and to identify specific steps that can be taken to prevent future tragedies. I am deeply honored to have worked with them on this amendment. According to the National Transportation Safety Board's (NTSB) report on the Ellicott City accident, ``the point of derailment was a rail fracture several hundred feet'' before a bridge. After extensive laboratory analysis, the NTSB concluded that the broken rail segment, ``showed evidence of rolling contact fatigue, a gradual breakdown of the rail-head surface.'' The Ellicott City accident is one of several recent accidents that have involved rail-head wear and drawn attention to the ways in which the presence of multiple individual defects can eventually lead to a rail break. While track conditions are addressed in current Federal Track Safety Standards, there are no quantitative inspection criteria. Consequently, these conditions are rarely cited as defects to be remediated. I hope that we can build on the research foundation that my amendment requires and eventually develop rules that will address specific track conditions.

Mr. CUMMINGS

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding, and I also thank her for her leadership as the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Highways and Transit of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. This past week, our Nation paused to honor the extraordinary service of our Nation's veterans. The foundation of America's military is not ships or missiles, and it isn't tanks or jets. The foundation of our military is the men and women who voluntarily serve, the ones who give their blood, sweat, and tears to make sure that we have the freedom that we experience every day. Too often those who have served our country, particularly after the terrible events of 9/11, have faced significant challenges finding civilian employment. Earlier this year, the Bureau of Labor Statistics released a report on veterans' employment in 2014. According to the BLS, last year there were more than 21 million men and women who had served in our Armed Forces, or approximately 9 percent of our civilian population. The BLS found that in 2014 the jobless rate for all veterans was 5.3 percent, while the unemployment rate for veterans who had served since 9/11 was 7.2 percent. The BLS also found that the unemployment rate for veterans in my home State of Maryland was 8.5 percent, the highest among all 50 States. According to data drawn from the Census Bureau's Survey of Business Owners in 2007, there were nearly 2\1/2\ million businesses in the United States of which veterans comprised the majority ownership. Together, these businesses had receipts of approximately $1.2 trillion. Nearly half a million of these businesses were also employers, with a combined annual payroll of approximately $210 billion. Now, I agree with Representative Fitzpatrick that we must expand programs that help veterans find employment after their service ends and that we should expand contracting opportunities in the highway and transit programs for small businesses owned by veterans. I just don't think adding veterans to the existing DBE program is the right way to accomplish these goals. Adding veteran-owned small businesses to the DBE program would force the veteran-owned businesses to compete with disadvantaged business enterprises already participating in the program for contracting opportunities. The best way to help veterans is to establish a Federal participation goal that is specifically for veteran-owned small businesses and business concerns separate and apart from the DBE program. Today I and several of my colleagues introduced legislation to accomplish just that. Our bill, H.R. 3997, would amend the MAP-21 program to create a 10 percent aspirational goal for veteran-owned small-business concerns. Setting a specific and separate goal for veteran-owned businesses would be consistent with existing Federal contracting programs while ensuring that veterans do not have to compete with any other business under the aspirational goal. Setting a separate goal would also ensure that we do not make changes to the DBE program that could open the program to new legal challenges that could limit the program's ability to serve either DBEs or veterans. I hope that my colleagues across the aisle agree to work with us to create a program that will provide the maximum benefit to veterans, which is a Veterans Business Enterprise program with its own aspirational goals. To that end, I join Ranking Member Norton in urging Members to oppose the bill currently before us in favor of creating a program that will serve veterans and only veterans.

Mr. CUMMINGS

Mr. CUMMINGS. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of the Bipartisan Budget Agreement. I am very encouraged that this agreement includes provisions from my bill, H.R. 2391, the Medicaid Generic Drug Price Fairness Act, which I introduced back on May 18. My legislation requires generic drug manufacturers to provide rebates to Medicaid when they raise prices faster than the rate of inflation. My legislation will help Americans get lifesaving prescriptions they need. It will save $1 billion over 10 years, according to the Congressional Budget Office. Just this morning, the nonpartisan Kaiser Family Foundation issued a report finding that this issue, the skyrocketing prices of prescription drugs, is the number one healthcare priority for the American people. The report found that 77 percent of those surveyed, including Democrats, Republicans, and Independents, identified the issue as their top health concern overall. This legislation is a strong and welcome step to help keep drugs affordable, but we must do more. We need to investigate drug companies that are taking advantage of the American people by jacking up their prices just to boost corporate profits and make their executives rich. Over the past month, press reports have been filled with almost daily accounts of drug company executives trying to justify the obscene price increases while lining their pockets. My colleagues may have heard about the so-called ``pharma bro'' Martin Shkreli, who increased the price of a drug that treats life-threatening infections from about $14 to $750 overnight. He then called his price gouging ``a great thing for society.'' My colleagues also may have heard about Michael Pearson, the CEO of Valeant Pharmaceuticals, which increased the prices of two drugs used to treat heart failure and hypertension by 212 percent and 525 percent on the same day it acquired them. This company is currently obstructing congressional oversight and refusing to provide documents relating to its increases. I am very pleased to support this budget bill, and I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of it.

Mr. CUMMINGS

Mr. CUMMINGS. I thank Ranking Member Waters for yielding, and I thank her for her excellent and compassionate leadership not only on this issue but on so many others. I rise today to oppose H.R. 1090, the so-called Retail Investor Protection Act, which is anything but a protection for investors. Rather than protecting our constituents' investments, this Act would prevent the Department of Labor from finalizing a rule to establish a fiduciary standard for investment advisers until the Securities and Exchange Commission finalizes a rule first. In essence, the bill before us would prevent the Labor Department from finalizing any rule at all. The administration has already indicated it would veto this measure if it is passed by Congress. This past March, Senator Elizabeth Warren and I held a forum as part of our Middle Class Prosperity Project to consider the need for a strong fiduciary standard to protect Americans who are saving for retirement. We heard directly from Americans who had lost tens of thousands of dollars because they did not receive advice that was in their best interests. In some cases, people may not even realize they have placed their trust in advisers who are not fiduciaries and who have no obligation to act in their best interests. One study found that Americans who are saving for retirement lose more than $43 billion, on average, each year because advisers don't act in their clients' best interests. The real solution, as we learned in our forum, is to have a strong conflict of interest rule to ensure the advice Americans receive-- advice they receive as paying customers--directs their hard-earned retirement savings to investments that will work in their best interests. This House should not put roadblocks in the way of this commonsense reform, which would protect our constituents' money. I urge all of the Members of the House to oppose H.R. 1090.

Mr. CUMMINGS

Mr. CUMMINGS. I thank the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia for yielding and for her leadership. Mr. Chair, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 10. We have been told that the purpose of this bill is to help all D.C. children get a better education. I strongly support that objective, but this bill does not do that. Let me be crystal clear: public funds should support public education. But this bill proposes to spend more than $100 million over 5 years to fund vouchers to send public school students in the District of Columbia to private schools while House Republicans are proposing to cut $2 billion from public K-12 education nationally. Coming from the city of Baltimore, I understand firsthand the complexities of turning around struggling inner-city schools. Almost 10 years ago, I became deeply involved in improving one of my own neighborhood schools--and I am still involved in that--the Maritime Industries Academy High School. It takes vision, commitment, accountability, and, yes, resources to begin the process of turning troubled schools around. However, it is impossible to turn around public schools if we divert public resources to private schools. Put simply, H.R. 10 attempts to help a few students at the expense of the vast majority of the District's children. By dividing the funding it would provide among D.C.'s public schools, public charter schools, and private school vouchers, H.R. 10 provides a third of its total funding to a tiny fraction of the District's students. Specifically, the bill would fund vouchers to enable only 1,442 students--a tiny fraction of the District's 47,548 students--to attend private schools. The lack of equity is stunning. Our focus should be on maximizing the impact of the Federal Government's limited resources to serve all of the District's students. Since this bill last passed in 2011 over my strong objection and along party lines, studies of the program have demonstrated that the use of a voucher had no effect on academic achievement, as measured by math and reading scores, school safety, student satisfaction with their school, or motivation and engagement. Previous studies of this program show that 50 percent of the students from the first two cohorts of the D.C. voucher program eventually dropped out of the program. Students in the program are also less likely to attend a school that offers support programs for those that are academically challenged or have learning difficulties. In addition, this bill is a direct assault on D.C.'s home rule that was rushed through our committee shortly after Speaker Boehner announced his retirement, and the bill is not supported by D.C.'s elected representative in Congress or a majority of the D.C. City Council. So all the rhetoric justifying massive cuts to education funding--all the talk about budget constraints, about tightening our belts, and about making sacrifices--all that goes out the window when Republicans want to give $100 million in taxpayer funds to private schools. As a graduate of public schools and a longtime advocate of quality public education, I believe our highest priority must be to use limited taxpayer dollars to support programs that will truly meet the educational needs of all of our children. This bill does not do that. I urge our colleagues to reject H.R. 10.

Mr. CUMMINGS

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Frederick Douglass, a Maryland native who made tremendous contributions to our country. This year marks the 170th anniversary of his first autobiography, Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass, An American Slave, Written by Himself which gives us a first glimpse of his remarkable life. Born into chattel slavery on February 14, 1818 on the Wye Plantation near Tuckahoe, Maryland, Frederick Augustus Washington Bailey became internationally known as Frederick Douglass, a champion in his own time for eliminating slavery and an impassioned voice demanding freedom for all. In 1838, he married Anna Murray, a free born black woman who provided him with money to escape slavery. Together they settled in New Bedford, Massachusetts and raised four children. After escaping slavery, Mr. Douglass began to work for the abolition of slavery in the United States. In 1845, Mr. Douglass wrote and published the Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass, An American Slave, Written by Himself. It is the first of a trilogy of autobiographical writings. The second, entitled My Bondage and My Freedom, was published in 1855, and the final work, titled The Life and Times of Frederick Douglass, was published in 1881. The first autobiography, like its successors, described the system of chattel slavery and Mr. Douglass' rejection of its premise that he, like other slaves, was not a human being. Stunningly direct in its portrayal of friends and foes, the autobiographies present the conflicts between freedom and slavery. This book recounts the honors of slavery, his courageous efforts to educate himself, and his harrowing but successful escape. In 1847, Mr. Douglass published the North Star, a weekly abolitionist newspaper. It was the first of 4 newspapers he owned and wrote for as a journalist. A strong supporter of women's rights, in 1848, Mr. Douglass attended the critical Seneca Falls Convention in Seneca Falls, New York for women's suffrage and supported women's right to vote. In 1852, Mr. Douglass gave what is regarded as the greatest abolitionist speech, ``What to the Slave Is the Fourth of July?'' in Rochester, NY. In 1863, during the middle of the Civil War, Mr. Douglass met with President Lincoln and successfully persuaded him to allow black men to fight for the Union. This led to the formation of the 54th Massachusetts Regiment, the first all-black combat regiment. In addition to his writings, Mr. Douglass served his country in a number of government positions. In 1871, he was appointed by President Grant as Assistant Secretary to the Santo Domingo Commission. In 1876, he was appointed by President Hayes as United States Marshal for the District of Columbia. In 1881, he accepted an appointment from President Garfield as Recorder of Deeds for the District of Columbia. And in 1889, he was appointed by President Harrison as Minister and Consul General to Haiti. In 1894, at the Metropolitan African Methodist Church in Washington, D.C., Mr. Douglass delivered ``Lessons of the Hour,'' a searing critique of lynching. A year later, at the age of 77, Mr. Douglass died of a heart attack at Cedar Hill, his home in the Anacostia neighborhood of Washington, D.C. Today, Cedar Hill is a national historic site where visitors from around the world can learn about the many contributions of Frederick Douglass, an American treasure who dedicated his life to winning freedom for all Americans.

Mr. CUMMINGS

Mr. CUMMINGS. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding. As the ranking member of the Select Committee on Benghazi and the House Oversight Committee, I rise in strong opposition to this proposal by House Republicans to establish yet another new select panel to ramp up their baseless and politically motivated attacks against Planned Parenthood. Last week two senior Republicans, both of whom are now competing to become the next Speaker of the House, made stunning admissions on national television within 24 hours of each other. First, Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy admitted that House Republicans established the Benghazi Select Committee to use millions of dollars in taxpayer funds to damage Hillary Clinton's bid for President. The next day the chairman of the Oversight Committee, Chairman Chaffetz, admitted on national television that there is no evidence that Planned Parenthood has violated any laws, despite months of investigations. Let me repeat that. The chairman of the chief investigative committee that has been investigating Planned Parenthood for months admitted on national television that there is no evidence that Planned Parenthood violated any laws. His admission is consistent with the findings of multiple State investigations in Georgia, Indiana, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, Missouri, and South Dakota, all of which have cleared Planned Parenthood of wrongdoing. I ask my colleagues, if the top investigator in the House of Representatives says there is no evidence against Planned Parenthood, why in the world are we considering a proposal to set up a new select panel? I think the answer is the same here as it was with Benghazi. It is simply politics. These stark Republican admissions obviously argue against continuing with these taxpayer-funded political attacks. Yet, House Republicans are proposing exactly the opposite. They have already squandered more than $4.5 million on the Benghazi Select Committee in one of the longest, least productive, and most partisan congressional investigations in history. Now they want to use the same terrible model to attack the rights of millions of women across the country who rely on Planned Parenthood for cancer screenings, breast exams, and other critical healthcare services every year. Planned Parenthood has cooperated with every aspect of the congressional investigations to date. They have produced tens of thousands of pages of documents. Planned Parenthood president Cecile Richards testified voluntarily for nearly 5 hours before the Oversight Committee. Even Chairman Chaffetz conceded that she has been ``very cooperative with the investigation.''

Mr. CUMMINGS. So, again, why do we need this new panel? Based on Planned Parenthood's exemplary record of cooperation, the tens of thousands of pages of documents the organization has produced in response to congressional requests, and the lack of any evidence that the group has violated any laws, there is simply no legitimate basis to adopt this proposal.

Mr. CUMMINGS

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton).

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time each side has?

Mr. CUMMINGS. I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Yarmuth).

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, since 1998, I have had the privilege of sending a group of high school students each year to Israel where they are paired with Israeli teens to learn about what life is really like in Israel. When these students return, they have learned life lessons that stay with them forever, but just as important, they have made friendships that will also last a lifetime. I am a proud and strong friend and ally of Israel, and I have been for a very long time. This is why I believe we must support the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action and why I am here to oppose the resolution. The world cannot tolerate a nuclear-armed Iran, and I will not stand by as Iran continues to gain ground towards that objective. This agreement puts real, concrete steps in place to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons, steps that have already begun to degrade Iran's ability to produce nuclear material. According to the independent experts, this deal ``effectively blocks the plutonium pathway for more than 15 years.'' These experts also assess that, without the deal, Iran may shrink its breakout time to a few weeks or even days. The steps outlined in the agreement complement existing prohibitions on the development of a nuclear weapon by Iran. Under this agreement, the international community will have unprecedented access to ensure that Iran never gets one. This agreement will not be monitored merely according to the goodwill of Iran. Its enforcement mechanisms are verifiable and transparent. Under this agreement, there will be more inspectors than ever in Iran. These inspectors will have daily access to Iran's declared nuclear sites and will be able to have access to undeclared sites that they suspect may be involved in nuclear activity. Inspections will be regular, and they will be invasive. They will not be oriented around Iranian convenience but, rather, around compliance, ensuring that the international community remains safe and, indeed, informed. If at any time Iran is found to be in violation of the agreement, the full brunt of international sanctions will snap back, once again hobbling the Iranian economy. It is important to note that many sanctions will still be in place. Relief will come only from those sanctions related to nuclear activities. Bans on technology exports, restrictions against the transfer of conventional weaponry and WMD technology, sanctions based on terrorism activities, and bans on foreign assistance will all continue. Without this deal, experts estimate that Iran will have enough nuclear material for weapons in 2 or 3 months. During negotiations, Iran stopped installing centrifuges, but they will resume if this agreement falls apart, potentially accelerating that timeline. The opponents of this agreement propose rejecting this deal and pursuing a stronger one, but that plan could have grave consequences. If the United States rejects this deal, Iran will continue developing more sophisticated enrichment technologies. By the time any new negotiations begin, Iran would likely already be a nuclear state. There is also no guarantee that Iran would return to the negotiating table after having wasted 2 years on this agreement. Is this worth the risk? I do not believe that it is. We should support this agreement. This agreement accomplishes a critical goal: establishing a set of verifiable provisions to prevent Iran from developing enough nuclear material to build a bomb. This deal does not change, in any way, our solemn commitment to protecting Israel, nor does this prevent us from using any other measures if Iran should violate this agreement, including using the full force of the strongest military in the world. But the United States must lead not only with our military might; we have worked diligently to achieve a peaceful resolution to this issue, and it is time for us to show our integrity and values for which we stand. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. DeSaulnier).

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Langevin).

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. Esty).