David Cicilline

Mr. CICILLINE

Mr. CICILLINE. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to H.R. 1009, the OIRA Insight, Reform, and Accountability Act, yet another radical bill, part of a corporate agenda designed to eviscerate public protections under the Clean Water Act and other laws designed to ensure the safety of American families. As the ranking member of the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Regulatory Reform, I have several serious concerns with this measure. First, H.R. 1009 would eviscerate the independence of agencies that are critical to holding corporations accountable and protecting consumers, such as the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, the Federal Trade Commission, and the Securities and Exchange Commission. Congress established these expert agencies with the express purpose of exercising independence from the policy whims of the White House. Section 3423 of H.R. 1009, however, would task the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, OIRA, with a governmentwide review of significant regulatory actions, effectively placing this obscure entity as the gatekeeper of the rulemaking system. Currently, OIRA only reviews a small portion of significant regulatory actions, allowing it to effectively allocate its finite resources to review the most pressing rules. But by substantially expanding OIRA's mandate to include every significant regulatory action, this legislation would simultaneously water down agency oversight while also subjecting independent agencies to the influence of the Trump administration, facilitating political interference in the rulemaking process. One of the overriding goals of OIRA review is to ensure that the President's policies are reflected in agency rules. Greater Presidential control over rulemaking, particularly in this administration's hands, could have devastating consequences in terms of public health and safety. It would not only provide special interests with an additional tool for regulatory capture, but it would also allow the White House to substitute its own policy preferences for those of Congress. As Senator Ron Johnson, the Republican chair of the Senate committee with jurisdiction over administrative law, observed in a report last year: ``Limits on the President's power over independent agencies--like the Federal Communications Commission--demonstrate the importance of maintaining the agency's independence.'' Furthermore, because President Trump has made the outrageous and unprecedented choice not to divest his business holdings, I am also very concerned that H.R. 1009 would only serve to convert the regulatory system into his own personal investment account. Robert Weissman, the president of Public Citizen, recently noted: ``The Nation's golfer-in-chief'' owns or brands businesses across the country that would be affected by protections promulgated under the Clean Water Act. Increasing the White House's role in the rulemaking system will only serve to undermine what little transparency exists into the President's regulatory conflicts of interest. The Government Accountability Office has reported in multiple studies that OIRA has not addressed transparency concerns that GAO has raised, and for this reason I offered an amendment. I was pleased to hear my friend from Utah talk about the transparency benefits, but I offered an amendment to H.R. 1009 that was designed to ferret out crony capitalism by requiring that OIRA reports whether a significant regulatory action would financially benefit the President or his senior advisers. That seems like a really sensible idea if you really want to get at the issue of transparency. Very disappointingly, my Republican colleagues refused to make my amendment in order, really tacitly acknowledging their concerns with what this type of transparency might mean for the Trump administration. Finally, while supporters of this proposal argue that it merely codifies executive orders that were issued under Democratic administrations, the reality is that H.R. 1009 was drafted without Democratic input, contains several poison pill provisions designed to ensure its partisan and unworkable nature, and would only have been vetoed by the Obama administration. As the Obama administration noted in the context of a veto threat of another antiregulatory bill, agencies already adhere to the robust and well-understood procedural and analytical requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act, the Regulatory Flexibility Act, the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act, the Paperwork Reduction Act, and the Congressional Review Act. Passage of antiregulatory legislation to ``replace this established framework with layers of additional procedural requirements,'' the Obama administration cautioned, ``would undermine the ability of agencies to execute their statutory mandates.'' Because H.R. 1009 does this very thing, I urge my colleagues to oppose this legislation. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.

Mr. CICILLINE

Mr. CICILLINE. Mr. Speaker, like the main characters in ``Stranger Things,'' we are now stuck in the ``Upside Down.'' Right is wrong. Up is down. Black is white. The White House deceives the American public for weeks about their contacts with Russia, but an Attorney General who followed her conscience is fired. Executive orders are signed to ban Muslims in order to keep us safe, while top secret national security conversations are held out in the open. President Trump showers praise on a thug like Vladimir Putin, while threatening and bullying our longstanding allies. President Trump signs an executive order to spend $20 billion on a border wall, while Flint, Michigan, still goes without clean drinking water. Mr. Speaker, mornings might be for coffee and contemplation, but Chief Jim Hopper is not coming to rescue us. This is not a TV show. This is real life. We have a President unlike any we have ever known. And like Mike, Dustin, Lucas, and Eleven, we must remain focused on the task at hand and hold this administration accountable so we can escape from our own version of the ``Upside Down.''

Mr. CICILLINE

Mr. CICILLINE. Mr. Speaker, a lot of history was made last night. I, too, want to join my New England colleagues to say congratulations to the New England Patriots on an extraordinary victory at Super Bowl LI. A lot of history was made. This was the greatest comeback in Super Bowl history where our team was down by 25 points in the third quarter to come on to victory. It is the only team to win in Super Bowl history in overtime; and it is an incredible display of the extraordinary talent of Tom Brady, the only quarterback in history to win five Super Bowls. This establishes Tom Brady unequivocally as the greatest quarterback ever. Also, congratulations to Bill Belichick for his extraordinary coaching, to Jonathan and Robert Kraft, and the whole Patriots organization for all that they have done. This was a great and wonderful night and an important example and display of determination and persistence. It is really a lesson for all of us to never stop fighting and, for young people, the importance in believing in yourself. Mr. Speaker, the victory last night by our great team, the New England Patriots, raised the spirits of our entire Nation. Congratulations to the Pats. Thank you for a great season and thank you for a great victory last night.

Mr. CICILLINE

Mr. CICILLINE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Raskin) and the gentlewoman from Washington State (Ms. Jayapal) for organizing tonight's Special Order hour on this very important topic. I join my colleagues in expressing my strong opposition to the President's Muslim ban, a religious test. It is the first time we have seen this in modern times. We have been at war since 9/11 against terrorism, and our most urgent responsibility is to keep America safe, but President Trump's Muslim ban makes it harder to do this. The Muslim ban makes it harder to work with our allies. The Muslim ban makes it harder to recruit intelligence assets. The Muslim ban makes it harder to enlist allies in our fight against ISIS. We should help people who are fleeing ISIS rather than slam the door in their faces. Instead, President Trump's Muslim ban likens these individuals to terrorists. This isn't a plan, and it won't keep America safe. We need a real plan, a plan that honors our values and a plan that does not discriminate based upon a person's religion. We need a plan that keeps our country safe and respects freedom of religion, whether people are White, Black, Brown, Christian, Muslim, Jewish, young, or old. Immigrants and refugees have made incredible contributions to our great country, and it is time for our President to say this. In my home State of Rhode Island, like so many places around the country, when we watched on television news reports of an executive order being issued and people who are lawfully authorized to return home to the United States being held in detention and being prevented from coming back into America, we were sick to our stomach. People in Rhode Island rallied, like people did all across this country, to express their outrage, to say this is not America and these are not our values. This is inconsistent with our Constitution. While we saw this administration working to undo basic constitutional rights and civil liberties--including, most importantly, freedom of religion-- people all across America spoke out. In addition to recognizing that this didn't comport with our deeply held beliefs and faith and confidence in our Constitution, we also knew that these were families fleeing unspeakable violence as part of the refugee program who are also being denied access into the United States. People were fleeing ISIS and then coming to America only to have the door slammed in their faces. As has been said, the refugee program that we have in place is the single most difficult way for someone to be allowed to enter the United States. It is a 10- or 12-step process. If you go to the website, you can see what you have to go through to be authorized to come into the United States as a refugee, and included in that is a determination that you do not pose a danger to the national security or to the American people. So it is embedded in the process already. It is a process that takes anywhere from 18 to 24 months. It is a process which has been in place and has worked successfully. There hasn't been a single Syrian refugee who has been charged with having been engaged in any terrorist activity. By the way, the world is facing the largest refugee crisis since World War II. The U.N. estimates that 4.9 million refugees have registered, and there are about 6 million total if you include those that aren't registered. Turkey has taken 2.7 million refugees. Lebanon has taken 1 million refugees. Jordan has taken 655,000 refugees. Iraq has taken 228,000 refugees. Do you know how many the United States accepted last year? About 16,000. So, Mr. Speaker, we have a lot more to do to meet our responsibilities with respect to accepting refugees who go through this very rigorous process. I am here tonight to speak out as loudly as I can against the executive order that ends the Syrian refugee program that has worked so successfully and that puts in place a Muslim ban that is making us less safe. This isn't a Democratic or a Republican issue. There have been a number of Republicans who have knowledge that this is making us less safe. Senator Lindsey Graham and Senator John McCain said this may well do more to help terrorist recruitment than improve our security. There are a number of other national security experts who have said this will not make us safer. There are a number of veterans organizations that have said the same. Business leaders have said the same. This will not make us safer, and it has really brought the scorn of the world, as people have seen an America that has always stood for values of welcoming people and of diversity and being a place that people come to--like my great-grandfather did--to build a better life to suddenly be slamming its doors and instituting a test based on religion. It does violence to our history and to our Constitution. I want to just ask the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Raskin), who is not just an ordinary lawyer, but a scholar, a professor of law, whether or not he has done an analysis as to the constitutionality of the President's Muslim ban. There have been, I think, four courts now who have, in fact, entered orders invalidating key parts of these orders based on their assessment that they don't comport with our Constitution. I ask the gentleman to share his assessment as to whether or not my view of this--and, I think, the view of these courts--is the correct one.

Mr. CICILLINE. Mr. Speaker, I join my colleagues in urging President Trump to rescind both of these unconstitutional executive orders.

Mr. CICILLINE

Mr. CICILLINE. Madam Speaker, I was proud to join thousands of women in the Women's March, both here in DC and in my home state of Rhode Island. We marched to demand that women's rights be respected and that women should be trusted to make their own decisions. However, a mere three days later, the GOP seeks to trample on women's rights by considering H.R. 7, a bill that will deny access to basic healthcare to millions of women. This bill is also just another pathetic attempt by some politicians in this town to get between a woman and her doctor. Under current law, no federal money can be used to fund abortion. And it's been that way since 1976. This bill is a Trojan horse that effectively bans abortion coverage even for women who use their own money to pay for health insurance. It penalizes small business owners who offer their employees health care coverage for abortion. And it tells doctors who are employed by the federal government that they can't provide the care that is in the best interests of their patients. Madam Speaker, the women of this country do not need Congress telling them how to make their health care decisions. Having an abortion is a decision that should be left between a woman and her doctor. None of us has a license to legislate our own personal morality in this chamber. I urge my colleagues to vote no on H.R. 7.

Mr. CICILLINE

Mr. CICILLINE. Mr. Chairman, for 8 years, House Republicans have wrongly claimed that the Affordable Care Act will be catastrophic for hardworking Americans. Here are the facts: since its passage, the ACA has helped cover 20 million previously uninsured Americans; 95 percent of America's children are now covered; almost 130 million Americans with preexisting conditions now have the peace of mind to know that they will not be denied health services; and healthcare costs have been growing at the slowest rate in 50 years. But as Republicans prepare to take control of the White House, it is clear they don't have an actual plan to replace ObamaCare. Not only will their repeal and displace plan cut off millions of Americans--men, women, and children--from quality, affordable health care, but it will also have devastating impacts on our economy. Repealing the Affordable Care Act will cause the loss of 2.6 million jobs, a majority of which will be non-health industry jobs. It is projected that my home State of Rhode Island will lose more than 12,000 jobs. This budget resolution will not only increase prescription drug prices for our seniors, raise premiums and out-of-pocket expenses for Americans who buy insurance, but will lead to significantly larger yearly deficits and contribute more than $9.5 trillion in debt over the next decade. I urge my colleagues to oppose this budget resolution, to protect the American people's access to quality, affordable health care, and to vote ``no.''

Mr. CICILLINE

Mr. CICILLINE. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend from Pennsylvania for his comments, but the assertion that this does nothing to frustrate or jeopardize food safety is not true. This creates 60 new procedural and analytical requirements to agency action, and that will invite frivolous litigation, empower special interests, emphasize cost saving over public protection, and make implementation of these rules almost impossible. It is important to remember, Mr. Chairman, when issuing a rule, Federal agencies already are required to adhere to a rigorous analytical process of considering alternatives, justifying the cost of the rule, and considering input from stakeholders. I gave two examples in my earlier comments that demonstrate that there is a real role for the Federal Government in the implementation of rules to protect food safety. There are real consequences not only to the individuals harmed but to our economy by these sorts of events. This bill will not only frustrate that, in many instances, it will make it impossible. I urge my colleagues to support this commonsense amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. CICILLINE. Mr. Chairman, the bill before us today promises to update the ways that agencies make and enforce their rules and regulations. But in many ways, it is a solution in search of a problem. When issuing a rule, Federal agencies must already adhere to rigorous analytical process of considering alternatives, justifying the cost of a rule, and considering input from stakeholders. Within this framework, agencies have been granted the necessary latitude to react quickly to urgent crises in consumer safety. It has preserved the safety of our food and our drinking water and has protected our families from defects in the products that we rely upon every day. However, the passage of this bill would put that safety and that protection at risk. With H.R. 5, we are getting six reform bills rolled into one. This sweeping regulatory bill would cumulatively add 60 new procedural and analytical requirements to the agency rulemaking process, invite frivolous litigation against agencies, empower special interests, and emphasize cost-saving over public protection. If enacted, H.R. 5 will needlessly create such an enormous burden on the rulemaking process that it threatens to hamstring agencies and discourage them from pursuing new rules at all. In its present form, this bill endangers our Nation's environmental, public health, workplace safety, and consumer financial security protections. My amendment would offer critical protection by exempting rules pertaining to the prevention of the transmission of foodborne illness or assistance to food facilities to meet preventive-control requirements for safety. Protecting consumers from dangerous food contamination is a worthy goal in and of itself. And this amendment would go even further by protecting jobs and businesses. For example, in 2015, Blue Bell Creameries suffered a deadly listeria contamination crisis and had to recall 8 million gallons of ice cream. After the company shut down most of its production, Blue Bell was forced to lay off 1,450 employees from their jobs, or 37 percent of their workforce, and an additional 1,400 employees were furloughed. Chipotle is also still reeling from various outbreaks of E. coli, salmonella, and norovirus over 2015 and 2016, which caused widespread panic among customers and the company's shareholders. Despite marketing efforts to repair its reputation, Chipotle's sales have steadily declined, and it plans to open fewer stores in 2017. This, in turn, had a domino effect on Chipotle's paper bowl supplier who laid off 5 percent of its employees because of decreased demand from Chipotle. Afterward, both Blue Bell and Chipotle took aggressive remedial steps, such as conducting deep cleansing of equipment and facilities, changing food preparation procedures, hiring food safety consultants, training employees, and temporarily suspending operations. The FDA responded by proposing proactive rules, such as having manufacturers come up with a plan to identify potential food safety problems and how to respond to them. The FDA also proposed a rule to establish standards for growing, harvesting, packing, and handling produce. Both these rules could greatly assist businesses in minimizing future food contamination and having to deal with the economic aftermath of an outbreak. However, under H.R. 5 in its current form, similar such FDA rules could be delayed by years or halted entirely. We can't afford to put consumer safety and our economy at risk while Congress entangles any real possibility for immediate and preventative action. I ask my colleagues to support this commonsense amendment to ensure that we protect the public and health and safety of our constituents. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CICILLINE

Mr. CICILLINE. Mr. Speaker, for almost 8 years, we have heard about Republicans' plans to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act. During that time, the House has voted dozens of times to repeal or defund ObamaCare; but now as Republicans prepare to take control of the White House, it is clear that Republicans don't have a plan to replace ObamaCare. Instead, they will repeal and displace millions of hardworking Americans, cutting them off from quality, affordable health care and making it even harder to get ahead. The Republican repeal and displace plan will take away health insurance from 30 million Americans and will increase prescription drug costs, premiums, and out-of-pocket expenses for American families; and it will end health coverage for millions of Americans in order to give a huge tax cut to the richest Americans. Repealing ObamaCare will also cause a loss of 2.6 million jobs, including 12,100 jobs in my home State of Rhode Island. Mr. Speaker, let's be clear: the Republicans' repeal and displace plan is just wrong. It is time for Republicans to end this charade and get back to doing the people's work by partnering with Democrats to strengthen and improve the Affordable Care Act and stop threatening all these harms on the American people.

Mr. CICILLINE

Mr. CICILLINE. Mr. Chairman, my amendment to H.R. 26 would exempt rules concerning public health or safety from the burdensome requirements of this legislation. Simply put, when a rule is necessary to protect the health and safety of the public, it is critical that the rule be put into effect without unnecessary delay. If this legislation is enacted without this amendment, it will create an untenable regulatory environment that will make it nearly impossible for agencies to safeguard the public welfare. This legislation could bring to a grinding halt critical rulemaking such as rules relating to the transportation of hazardous materials by the Department of Transportation, clean air regulations by the EPA, and worker-protection standards by OSHA. For example, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration implemented an economically significant rule that, by May 2018, all new vehicles must have rearview cameras. This regulation will help drivers have better visibility behind their car, greatly reducing the likelihood of backover crashes which largely involves small children. But under the REINS Act, this rule would require a joint congressional resolution with an unrealistic timeline for implementation. For every year this rule would be delayed, the Traffic Safety Administration estimates that there would be, on average, 15,000 injuries and 267 fatalities resulting from backover crashes. Proponents of this legislation may argue that H.R. 26 contains an emergency exemption which allows a major rule to temporarily take effect following an executive order stating that there is an imminent threat to public health and safety. Even when the threat is not imminent, the danger to the public health and welfare may be great and the fundamental responsibility to protect the public remains. This legislation would substantially hinder the ability of agencies to fulfill this obligation, placing Americans at greater risk for the benefit of powerful corporate interests. In its present form, the Coalition for Sensible Safeguards and the alliance of more than 150 consumer, labor, faith, and other public interest groups predict that, by allowing Congress to even veto uncontroversial rules that protect public health and safety, the REINS Act ``would make the dysfunction and obstructionism that plague our political process even worse.'' In echoing this sentiment, the American Sustainable Business Council, which represents over 200,000 businesses, opposes H.R. 26 because it would recklessly place the burden of proof on the taxpayers in order to protect themselves on environmental, health, and safety issues and would shift responsibility away from powerful corporate interests. While my amendment will not cure all that ails this legislation--and there is a lot--it will address one of its most glaring flaws and preserve the ability of agencies to protect public health and safety. I urge my colleagues to support my amendment. I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. CICILLINE. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman just made an assertion that, in fact, nothing in this legislation does anything to frustrate the goals of protecting health and safety; but, of course, it does. It prevents the implementation of rules which, in fact, protect public health and safety. If my amendment were to pass, that statement would be true--it would do nothing to frustrate it--but without this amendment, it prevents the implementation of a rule that would, in fact, protect public health and safety. It is a reasonable exemption that will ensure that we protect the well-being and the health of our constituents. I urge all of my colleagues to support the amendment. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. CICILLINE

Mr. CICILLINE. Mr. Speaker, I stand in opposition to this rule, which was pushed through the Rules Committee as a closed rule and did not make in order an amendment, which I support, offered by my colleagues, Mr. Price, Mr. Connolly, and Mr. Engel. Their amendment, like H. Res. 11, objects to the U.N. Security Council Resolution 2334, which I believe was an unfair and one-sided resolution that placed undue blame upon the State of Israel for the impasse on peace negotiations. Like the Obama administration, I am frustrated by the lack of progress in recent years toward achieving a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian crisis. However, I do not believe that the resolution passed by the Security Council contributes in any way to positively moving this process along. Let's not mistake the fact that the Palestinian Government, which currently includes the terrorist faction Hamas, has done little to support peace negotiations. By refusing to publicly recognize Israel's right to exist as a Jewish state, condoning terrorist activity and pursuing unilateral actions at international institutions in violation of the Oslo Accords, the Palestinians have continuously placed roadblocks to achieving peace. Let me be clear, the ongoing settlement activity sanctioned by the Israeli Government is also counterproductive to the peace process. If the Israeli Government wants to remain a beacon of freedom and democracy in the Middle East, they must recommit themselves to achieving a peaceful two-state solution where a Jewish Israel exists peacefully with the Palestinian state. With the events of recent years, I am extremely fearful that the two- state solution is, if not dead, in critical condition. There are those within both the Israeli and Palestinian Governments who are actively working to ensure its demise. I think, as Members of Congress who strongly support Israel, we should be doing everything we can to convey to both the Israelis and the Palestinians that we will not stand by and watch them torpedo the hope of a peaceful solution to this crisis.

Mr. CICILLINE

Mr. CICILLINE. Mr. Speaker, yesterday, just a few hours after they attempted to kill the independent Office of Congressional Ethics and strip it for parts, Republicans backed down in the face of public outrage. It speaks volumes that the first thing Republicans attempted to do was weaken ethical standards and that they only changed course once their efforts were exposed to the public. This is not what the American people sent us here to do. It seems that, contrary to rhetoric, Republicans don't want to drain the swamp. They want to fill it up. This is wrong, and it is critical that Members of Congress be accountable and adhere to the highest ethical standards. In the weeks ahead, it is critical that all of us hold the majority accountable and prevent them from going back to the days when thinly veiled bribes, kickbacks, and worse were commonplace in this town. We need more ethical reforms in Congress, not less. That is why I have introduced the ETHICS Act, to require every Member of Congress to undergo the same annual ethics training that their staffs have to complete. That is why I am asking Members of both parties to demand better from our elected officials than what we saw over the last 48 hours.

Mr. CICILLINE

Mr. CICILLINE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in recognition of Airborne First Class Irving Munroe, a veteran of the United States Air Force from my district in Rhode Island. On June 1, 1951, just few days shy of his 20th birthday, Airman Munroe went missing in action after his aircraft was shot down over Kwaksan, North Korea. Airman Munroe was a devoted son and brother, and our Nation will never be able to fully repay his family for their loss. Airman Munroe was finally laid to rest at Arlington National Cemetery on October 13, 2016, in a ceremony attended by those closest to him. His family, which has accumulated more than 100 years of total military service over two generations, truly understands the meaning of service to our country. Americans are fortunate to live in a free and safe country because of the extraordinary sacrifices of those who have served in our Armed Forces. We owe all who serve and their families our genuine gratitude and deep respect. On behalf of a grateful Nation, I want to sincerely thank the Munroe family for their service.

Mr. CICILLINE

Mr. CICILLINE. Mr. Speaker, this is Trudy Willis. Trudy and her husband, William, are lifelong residents of Middletown in my district in Rhode Island. They have three children and four wonderful grandchildren. Like millions of Americans, Trudy relies on Medicare to pay for her healthcare needs. For Trudy, Medicare isn't an entitlement; it is a benefit that she and millions of Americans have earned and is a promise our government made. That is why I am disappointed that President-elect Donald Trump has announced he will appoint a Secretary of Health and Human Services who wants to end Medicare as we know it. Let me be very clear. President-elect Trump does not have a mandate to end the guarantee of Medicare. He lost the popular vote by about 2.5 million votes. We are not going to let him kill one of the most effective tools that seniors have to live their retirement years with dignity. If Republicans bring up legislation to end Medicare, we will stop this legislation dead in its tracks. We did it a decade ago when President George W. Bush tried to privatize Social Security, and we will do it again. And by doing so, we will maintain the promise we have made to Trudy and millions of seniors across our great country.

Mr. CICILLINE

Mr. CICILLINE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Barbara Wong, an incredible advocate for the arts, who has been executive director of Providence CityArts for Youth for 16 years. Throughout her career, Barbara has helped thousands of youth realize the importance of art in their own lives, as well as its extraordinary power to create social change. Thanks to her, the arts community in Providence is more vibrant, more diverse, and more accessible for children from all backgrounds than ever before. In 2014, her dedication to ensuring that all children have the same opportunities to learn about and pursue the arts helped Providence CityArts for Youth earn a trip to the White House to receive the prestigious National Arts and Humanities Youth Program Award. It is my honor to thank Barbara for her years of service to the children and young people of Providence, and I wish her all the best in the coming years.

Mr. CICILLINE

Mr. CICILLINE. Mr. Speaker, earlier today, I led 168 of my colleagues in sending a letter to President-elect Donald Trump, asking that he rescind his decision to appoint alt-right leader Steve Bannon to serve as White House Chief Strategist. This appointment undermines the President-elect's pledge to bring our country together. As executive chairman of Breitbart News, Mr. Bannon repeatedly and aggressively pushed stories that promote anti-Semitism, xenophobia, and racism. During an interview last summer, Mr. Bannon bragged that Breitbart was ``the platform for the alt-right,'' a movement that upholds White nationalism while strongly rejecting diversity in any form. Under his leadership, Breitbart has referred to a leading Republican columnist as a renegade Jew. He suggested that young Muslims in the West are a ticking time bomb. He declared that the Confederate flag proclaims a glorious heritage, and he praised the alt-right as a smarter version of old-school racist skinheads. I hope that the President-elect and Republican Members of Congress will join us in good faith in rejecting Mr. Bannon's appointment and the ugly, divisive message it sends to so many across our country.

Mr. CICILLINE

Mr. CICILLINE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 6297, the bipartisan Iran Sanctions Extension Act. H.R. 6297 will extend the Iran Sanctions Act of 1996, as amended, for an additional 10 years through December 31, 2026. If we fail to act, these sanctions will expire at the end of this year. The Iran Sanctions Act was the first major extraterritorial sanctions on Iran which authorized U.S. penalties against third country firms. It has been an essential part of U.S. sanctions aimed at denying Iran the financial means to support terrorist organizations and other armed factions or to further its nuclear and weapons of mass destruction programs. We must confront Iran's dangerous behavior around the world and actions against its own people by extending the Iran Sanctions Act. Iran's ballistic missile program and support for terrorism threatens our regional allies, including Israel. Also, Iran's blatant disregard for human rights and the human rights of its own people and other nationals, including Americans, is horrific and violates well-established international standards of human rights. I want to emphasize that the Iran Sanctions Act does not violate the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, which remains an important instrument to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapons capability. Rather, this bill maintains the strong sanctions architecture to inhibit Iran from engaging in dangerous activities that are an anathema to international norms. We all recognize the significant challenges that remain in our approach to the Iranian regime. We must continue to condemn and work to end Iran's support for terrorists throughout the region, including Hamas and Hezbollah. This bill enables us to take these steps to accomplish our national security objectives. It is imperative that we impose sanctions for Iran's violations regarding support for terrorism, its ballistic missiles program, and human rights. I urge my colleagues to pass the Iran Sanctions Extension Act to maintain the current sanctions architecture and to send a strong bipartisan message that we will continue to hold Iran accountable for any terrorist activity.

Mr. CICILLINE

Mr. CICILLINE. Mr. Speaker, I rise to express my deep sadness on the passing of former Israeli President and Prime Minister Shimon Peres. Shimon Peres was devoted to the cause of the Jewish state and worked tirelessly to achieve a lasting peace in the Middle East. He was the founding father of the State of Israel and remained, throughout his life, one of its greatest champions. He was the central architect of the Oslo Accords and was respected around the world for his strong leadership as Prime Minister and President of Israel. His example should be an inspiration to us all, as he fought so long for peace. My thoughts are with his family and friends as well as the people of Israel, who have lost a beloved leader.

Mr. CICILLINE

Mr. CICILLINE. Mr. Chair, the chairman just made my point. This legislation, as currently written, would apply to all rules, including rules that would reduce the cost of health care for America's seniors. In fact, the OMB says--and I repeat--that a transfer rule merely ``implements Federal budgetary programs, as required or authorized by Congress, such as rules associated with the Medicare program and the Federal Pell Grant Program. So we know, in fact, that, according to OMB, the Medicare program is considered part of the transfer rule. So this legislation, as currently written, means that all rules, including any rule that is promulgated that would reduce costs for seniors would, in fact, be subjected to this delay. My amendment is necessary, by the chairman's own admission. We need this amendment so that we can at least exempt out those provisions that might produce real savings for America's seniors. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. CICILLINE. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.