David Cicilline

Mr. CICILLINE

Mr. CICILLINE. Again, I don't know about the legal proceedings. I know that the litigation was begun by the people in the local community.

Mr. CICILLINE. I am not aware of the information they had.

Mr. CICILLINE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak in strong opposition to H.R. 312, the Mashpee Wampanoag Tribe Reservation Reaffirmation Act. This bill will allow the Mashpee Tribe to open a massive off-reservation casino right on the border of Rhode Island and Massachusetts, nearly 40 miles away from their historic Tribal lands in Cape Cod. The Mashpee Wampanoag Tribe became federally recognized in 2007. Under the Indian Reorganization Act, the United States Department of the Interior is only allowed to take land into trust for Tribes recognized before 1934. In 2009, the U.S. Supreme Court confirmed this Federal standard in the Carcieri v. Salazar decision. In 2015, the U.S. Department of the Interior ignored the Indian Reorganization Act and the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling and took land into trust for the Mashpee Tribe. A year later, the residents of Taunton, Massachusetts, sued and won in U.S. district court to stop the casino from being built in their town. The district court ruled that the Department of the Interior should not have taken land into trust for the Mashpee Tribe and instructed the Department to conduct a further review of the Tribe's eligibility. After reviewing the Mashpee Tribe's application last year, the U.S. Department of the Interior rejected the Tribe's claim based on the finding that the Tribe was not under Federal jurisdiction in 1934, which meant the Department lacked authority under Federal law to take land into trust on their behalf. Today's bill would reverse this final decision of the Federal court and the Department of the Interior and disregard the U.S. Supreme Court precedent in allowing the Tribe to build an off-reservation casino in Taunton, Massachusetts. If H.R. 312 passes today, it would be the first time--I repeat, the first time--Congress ever reversed a final Federal court ruling that determined a Tribe did not meet the Federal standard to have land taken into trust by the U.S. Department of the Interior. The impact of this bill would be disastrous and would open a floodgate for Tribes to come to Washington to hire the biggest lobbyists they can to get their carve-out from Congress. Do we really want to go down this road? Does Congress want to be in the business of picking winners and losers? That is exactly what this bill does. The Tribal land system shouldn't depend on which Tribes hire the most expensive lobbyists. Instead, it should be based on fairness under our law and applied equally. Instead of this bill directly benefiting the Tribe, as some have suggested, the bill will bail out Genting, the Malaysian hedge fund that is financing this deal. Even if this bill passes today and the Mashpee build a casino, it is very unlikely, according to all the experts, that the Mashpee casino will ever be profitable for the Tribe because they owe Genting a half-billion dollars. Proponents of this bill have argued that Congress is the last hope for the Mashpee Tribe and that they will go bankrupt without this casino, but Genting Malaysia has already written off the half-billion dollars it gave to the Tribe as a loss on its financial statements. If today's bill fails, the Mashpee Tribe does not need to pay back this money because, under the agreement with Genting, it is contingent on the casino being built. The debt is erased. Regardless of what happens with this bill today, the Mashpee Tribe will still be a federally recognized Tribe and will continue to receive Federal benefits. Mr. Speaker, I started off opposing this bill because of the damage it would do to Rhode Island's economy. The casino in Rhode Island generates over $300 million in economic activity and is responsible for thousands of jobs in Rhode Island. I am very proud of my fierce defense for my State, and putting an off-reservation casino on the border will have a significant, negative impact on Rhode Island. But the more I learned about this legislation, the more I realized the dangerous precedent this bill would set if it became law. H.R. 312 would reverse a Federal court ruling, undermine the Indian Reorganization Act, ignore a U.S. Supreme Court ruling, and reject the 2018 decision by the U.S. Department of the Interior. Most perniciously, it is a special deal for a single Tribe, and that is just wrong. I stand here in opposition to this bill not only because of the impact on my State, and not because I am unsympathetic to the challenges the Tribe faces, but this legislation will continue their exploitation by a powerful foreign entity. I urge my colleagues to defeat this bill, and I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. CICILLINE. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. CICILLINE. Yes.

Mr. CICILLINE

Mr. CICILLINE. Madam Speaker, 2 years ago, our Republican friends voted to repeal the Affordable Care Act. They brought in cases of beer to celebrate. They piled into luxury buses that ferried them to the White House, where they had a second party with the President to celebrate their attempt to kick millions of Americans off their health insurance. Fortunately, we stopped them. That bill never became law. But 2 years later, they are up to the same old tricks. The President is asking a Federal court to strike down not just protections for more than 130 million Americans with preexisting conditions, but the entire Affordable Care Act. Talk about not getting the memo. The American people sent a message to President Trump in November and to my Republican colleagues on the other side of the aisle. They want government to stop working for special interests and start working for the people again. That is why House Democrats are about to pass legislation to strengthen protections for folks with preexisting conditions, H.R. 986. While President Trump continues his assault on the Affordable Care Act, Democrats are going to continue our work for the people by passing legislation to make sure every American has access to the quality, affordable healthcare they deserve.

Mr. CICILLINE

Mr. CICILLINE. Mr. Chairman, I am a proud sponsor of the Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act of 2019. Violence against women is one of our country's greatest shames. For over 20 years, VAWA has provided critical protections for survivors of violence, while also helping them rebuild their lives. VAWA grants help survivors to access vital resources such as legal assistance, safe housing, and counseling. VAWA also facilitates important partnerships between advocates, law enforcement, and the courts, which further helps survivors in times of crisis and reduces future violence. In 2018 alone, because of VAWA grants, the Rhode Island Coalition Against Domestic Violence served over 8,500 individual victims of domestic violence, assisted over 2,900 victims in obtaining a restraining order, and answered over 13,000 crisis line calls. H.R. 1585 improves upon VAWA by prohibiting persons convicted of dating violence or misdemeanor stalking from possessing firearms. And let's be honest. This is the principal objection of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, because the powerful gun lobby is scoring this bill because of that provision. This bill protects employees from being fired because they are survivors of sexual assault or domestic violence and ensures survivors' eligibility to receive unemployment insurance. Survivors of violence and their families cannot wait any longer as VAWA continues to stay lapsed. Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to support this bill in a bipartisan way so that the American people can see action by Congress, Republicans and Democrats who are standing up, loudly condemning violence against women, and reauthorizing VAWA in a new and improved way so that we can really take on the issue of domestic violence and all the pernicious consequences of violence against women in this country. Stand up to the gun lobby. Do what is right for women in America.

Mr. CICILLINE

Mr. CICILLINE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by thanking Congressman DeSaulnier not only for organizing this important Special Order hour and saving local news, but for his enthusiastic and really passionate leadership on this issue. I think the graphs that my friend from California presented tonight are an illustration of how grave the problem is and how essential it is that we develop a solution to help preserve our local newspapers, because I think we all recognize that our democracy is strongest when we have a free and diverse press that informs citizens, holds concentrated power accountable, and roots out corruption. There are examples all across the country of local newspapers doing heroic investigative work uncovering corruption, holding power to account, and sharing important information with folks at the local level. As Justice Brandeis wrote in 1927, those who won our independence believed that public discussion is a political duty, that the greatest threat to freedom is an uninformed citizenry, and that the freedom of thought and speech are indispensable to the discovery and spread of political truth. But today, as you have so eloquently argued, these bedrock constitutional values are facing existential threats by the new gatekeepers of information, the dominant platforms. Last year, Facebook and Google amassed more than $60 billion from online advertising, the majority of all online ad revenue. Despite record levels of online readership, news publishers have seen a steep decline in revenue during the rise of these technology giants. This bottleneck is bleeding publishers dry. In an editorial published last year, my local newspaper, The Providence Journal explained that: ``Google and Facebook now harvest the majority of the advertising that is supposed to sustain that journalism. It's essentially parasitism: newspapers and other journalistic enterprises do all the work, while Silicon Valley sucks out the profits.'' In the absence of a competitive marketplace, newsrooms across the country are laying off reporters and editorial staff or folding altogether. This is happening to legacy news companies and digital publishers alike. There is no question that we have reached a tipping point. If this trend continues, we risk permanently compromising the news organizations that are essential to uncovering corruption, holding the government and powerful corporations accountable, and sustaining our democracy. That is why Mr. DeSaulnier and I have introduced the Journalism Competition and Preservation Act, a bill that would strengthen journalism by allowing news publishers to collectively negotiate with dominant platforms to improve the quality, accuracy, attribution, and interoperability of news online. It is critical that news publishers, both large and small, have a seat at the table and equal bargaining power when negotiating with dominant platforms. Whether it is an online publisher or your local newspaper, we cannot have a democracy without a free and diverse press. Our country will not survive if we do not have shared facts, if corruption is not exposed and rooted out at all levels of government, and if power is not held to account. It is simply not possible. So, Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his support and cosponsorship of the legislation, his passionate advocacy for moving forward with it and for organizing tonight's Special Order hour to bring attention to this really critical issue which is really at the center of preserving our access to quality, reliable, and trustworthy news information which is essential to the survival of our democracy.

Mr. CICILLINE

Mr. CICILLINE. I would be honored to. I thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Garamendi), my friend, for organizing this Special Order hour and for giving us an opportunity to speak more about what seems to be a recurring fight here in Congress between Democrats who are committed to preserving access to high quality, affordable healthcare and to our Republican friends who are committed to undoing the progress we have made. I know the gentleman will remember this. In the last Congress, I think, we were confronted with 50 or 60 votes to repeal the Affordable Care Act in its entirety. And we were able to defeat each of those efforts. Then President Trump was elected, that effort continued, and the administration began to administratively sabotage the Affordable Care Act, and even proposed TrumpCare, which would have cost 23 million Americans their healthcare in its entirety. So now having lost that battle, Democrats ran an agenda for the people of this country. The first item on that agenda was driving down healthcare costs, driving down the cost of prescription drugs, and preserving coverage for preexisting conditions. We won the election. We were put into the majority, in part because the American people rejected the Republican's relentless effort to destroy healthcare in this country and wanted Democrats to come to Congress in control to build on the success of the Affordable Care Act and make sure that we continue to protect access to quality, affordable healthcare. Having lost in this body on this issue, now what do the Republicans do? They take the battle to the courts. Let's use the courts to strike down the Affordable Care Act. And we should be very clear, as I know the gentleman from California knows, President Trump has claimed over and over again that he wants to protect access to healthcare. In fact, just in the last couple of days, he now claims he has a secret plan. It is so good he is going to share it with the American people after the 2020 election. But what we know is, unfortunately, what the President says and what he does aren't always the same. Because the truth is, the President has asked his Justice Department to go to court and fight to eliminate every single protection and benefit that the Affordable Care Act has provided. So that means if President Trump gets his way and our Republican colleagues, there will no longer be caps on out-of-pocket expenses, there will no longer be savings by closing the donut hole, so prescription drug costs are reduced for our seniors. Medicaid expansion will end. The limits that prevent insurance companies from limiting the total coverage over your lifetime, that ban will no longer exist. You will be able to deny access to healthcare for people with preexisting conditions. And the insurance company will be free to sell junk plans that offer little or no real coverage at all. And so we are back to the same fight. Democrats have legislation that has already been introduced to build on the success of the Affordable Care Act: To drive down premiums; to expand access for more working men and women; to drive down the costs of prescription drugs. But we are back at it where our Republican friends are now joining this Republican President in an effort to use the courts to undo all the progress we have made on the Affordable Care Act. This is going in exactly the wrong direction. We remain committed to make sure that we do everything we can to protect access to care and drive down costs, because we believe healthcare is a right. It is not a privilege for a small group of people. It is a right of every single citizen of this country. And I thank the gentleman for convening this Special Order hour, because amidst the noise, people should know there is one party here in Washington, the Democrats, who are fighting to protect and expand access to healthcare and drive down costs. There is another party that is continuing their effort to repeal the Affordable Care Act in its entirety, to take away coverage for preexisting conditions, to drive up the cost of prescription drugs. And the American people have the right to know who is fighting for them and who is not.

Mr. CICILLINE

Mr. CICILLINE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I want to acknowledge the leadership of Congressman Colin Allred, who has been an incredible advocate for his community in Dallas and for millions of Americans whose healthcare President Trump and our Republican colleagues are trying to take away. President Trump has claimed over and over again that he wants to protect access to healthcare, and he has even announced recently that he has a secret plan that he will make available to the American people after the 2020 election. But as is true with any con man and charlatan, when you dig a little past the surface of the President's words, the facts tell a much different story. Last week, the President's Justice Department asked a court to eliminate every single protection and benefit that the Affordable Care Act has provided. Democrats won the majority because the American people understand that we are fighting to protect their healthcare. And now Republicans have moved away from the Congress to try to take away healthcare from millions and millions of Americans in the courts. Let's be clear about what this means. President Trump wants to repeal the caps on out-of-pocket costs, he wants to eliminate the prescription drug savings for seniors and end the Medicaid expansion. If he succeeds in this litigation, it will be legal for insurance companies to limit the amount of coverage someone can get in their lifetime, it will deny access to people with preexisting conditions, and it will allow insurance companies to sell junk plans that offer no real coverage for the American people. Democrats have a better plan, and the minority leader will be happy to know there are actually bills to do it. We are going to strengthen the protections for people with preexisting conditions, we are going to expand access to insurance for more working men and women, and we are going to bring down the costs of prescription drugs with bills like my legislation, the CREATES Act, to allow more generic drugs into the marketplace. Look, we take a lot of complicated votes in this Chamber. This is not one of them. This vote is very simple. A vote in favor of this resolution is a vote for access to quality, affordable healthcare. A vote against it is a vote for the interests of insurance companies at the expense of working people. I know where members of the Democratic Caucus stand. We ran on this, we are committed to it. We are fighting every day to protect the Affordable Care Act and to build on its success and to improve it. The Republicans' last vote was TrumpCare, which took away health coverage from 23 million Americans, and that is why they were rejected in the midterms. People want Members of Congress to stand up and fight to protect their access to quality, affordable healthcare, to protect their access to coverage for preexisting conditions, to drive down the costs of prescription drugs, and to end these junk plans that, in fact, don't provide coverage to the American people. This resolution is a strong statement of our position on this. Mr. Speaker, I urge my Republican colleagues, don't be afraid of the resolution, don't be afraid that it is going to expose that you actually don't support efforts to protect access to healthcare, because you have an easy solution to that problem: vote for it. Show the American people you care about the quality of their healthcare, you want to expand access, strengthen the Affordable Care Act, and support this excellent resolution.

Mr. CICILLINE

Mr. CICILLINE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this resolution expressing opposition to President Trump's decision to ban transgender individuals from serving in the Armed Forces. I am proud to be a cosponsor of this resolution, and I thank my friend, Mr. Kennedy, for his extraordinary leadership on this issue. The President's decision in 2017 to prohibit transgender individuals from military service is disgraceful and wrong. Not only is the decision based on ignorance and bigotry, but the evidence shows there is absolutely no need for this discriminatory policy. America has the strongest and most effective military in the history of the world, and that is because of the brave individuals who serve in uniform. Excluding an entire group of highly qualified and skilled individuals from service undermines our national security. In 2016, the Obama administration removed the ban on transgender individuals after thoroughly and carefully studying how it would impact the military and military readiness. A year later, President Trump announced he would resume prohibiting transgender individuals from serving in a tweet and didn't even bother to tell his Secretary of Defense about it. The National Center for Transgender Equality estimates that over 15,000 trans people are currently serving in the military. In 2016, a study by RAND Corporation found that service by transgender individuals does not adversely affect readiness, and, in fact, many military leaders have acknowledged that the ban will degrade military readiness. This cruel ban seeks to force transgender members of our military back into the closet or out of service. It is a policy that is not based on any factor or any careful deliberation, but merely an attempt to score points with the hard right faction of his political base. By doing this, the President is hurting our military, making our country less safe, and making our country less just. Transgender individuals who serve our country in the Armed Forces are American heroes. They deserve our thanks, and they deserve more than to be used as a political prop by their Commander in Chief. We as a country are better than this. Mr. Speaker, quite simply, it is un-American and immoral to deny transgender individuals who want to serve our country in uniform the right to do so simply because of who they are, and I urge my colleagues to support this resolution.

Mr. CICILLINE

Mr. CICILLINE. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 7, the Paycheck Fairness Act, long overdue legislation to close the gender wage gap and ensure equal pay for equal work. Too many Americans are not making enough to make ends meet, living paycheck to paycheck. We need to focus on strategies to raise family incomes. H.R. 7 does just that. H.R. 7 would limit pay secrecy, expand pay data collection, and create more employer accountability for pay differences. This legislation will build upon and improve the work of President Kennedy, who signed the Equal Pay Act, and President Obama, who signed the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act. Despite the progress we have made over the last 50 years, women are still earning less than their male counterparts across age, race, and socioeconomic groups. This stubborn wage gap, often exacerbated by employer-imposed pay secrecy policies, makes it clear that we must be intentional in our efforts to address persistent pay disparity. On average, women working full time lose a combined total of more than $900 billion every year due to the wage gap. If the annual gender gap were closed, a working woman would have enough money for an additional 13 months of childcare, a year of college tuition, more than 1 year's worth of food, or an additional 10 months of rent. Equal pay is not simply a women's issue. It is a family issue. When women bring home less money each day, it means they have less to take care of their family, including for groceries, rent, childcare, and healthcare. Opponents of this legislation argue--we just heard it--that this is a gift to attorneys representing employees and that their fees should be severely limited. Remember, rights are easily disregarded and violated if you don't have the ability to enforce those rights. This argument made by opponents is simply an attempt to avoid talking about the pervasiveness of wage discrimination. It is an attempt to decrease enforcement of the Fair Labor Standards Act and to lessen the penalties for employers who engage in discriminatory practices. If nothing else, we should call it out for what it is. We know that when women succeed, our country thrives. The Paycheck Fairness Act will take us forward to ensuring economic security for working women. I want to end by acknowledging the extraordinary leadership of Rosa DeLauro, the Congresswoman from Connecticut who has spent so much of her life dedicated to this issue. Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on H.R. 7.

Mr. CICILLINE

Mr. CICILLINE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that when the House adjourns today, it adjourn to meet at noon on Monday, March 18, 2019.

Mr. CICILLINE

Mr. CICILLINE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to remove Representative Tom Rice as a cosponsor from H.R. 1004.

Mr. CICILLINE

Mr. CICILLINE. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. CICILLINE. Mr. Speaker, this legislation that I introduced is an H.R. But if the point of the gentleman's question is is that a more effective way to do it, I would welcome support on my resolution. I haven't been as successful getting my Republican colleagues to join us. We are hoping that this resolution is a way for him to find his way toward transparency, democracy, and spirit of bipartisanship and letting the American people know the results of the investigation.

Mr. CICILLINE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this resolution. Special Counsel Mueller's investigation has resulted in 199 criminal charges against 39 people and entities. Seven people have pleaded guilty, and five people have been sentenced to prison. This investigation has been conducted on behalf of the American people, and they are entitled to know the results of this investigation. This investigation was begun to safeguard our democracy, and the American people deserve to know the results of this investigation; and yet President Trump has repeatedly sought to attack and discredit the investigation, labeling it a witch hunt and even contemplating firing the special counsel. The President's pick for Attorney General, Bill Barr, has also made it clear during his confirmation hearing that he will only follow DOJ's policies that are convenient for the President. Therefore, it is up to Congress to make sure that documents related to the special counsel's investigation are preserved and published. That is why I introduced the Special Counsel Transparency Act, with Congressman Doggett, to require the publication of the special counsel's report. No one person should decide what the public gets to see. The American people have a right to come to their own conclusions and to know that justice was served. I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of the American people. Allow them to see the results of the investigation conducted on their behalf. Bring transparency to this process. Support this resolution and signal a willingness to respect the right of the American people to see the consequences and the results of this important investigation which, again, was begun to safeguard our democracy. This shouldn't be a Republican or Democratic issue. Mr. Speaker, I hope my colleagues on the other side of the aisle will join us in our effort to preserve our democracy. I thank, again, the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. CICILLINE

Mr. CICILLINE. Mr. Speaker, making registration automatic will ensure that everyone who wishes to be added to the voter rolls will not have to think twice about it, and I am proud that H.R. 1 will implement automatic voter registration. For too long, Mr. Speaker, Washington has acted on behalf of wealthy and powerful special interests. Last Congress, Republicans passed legislation to take away healthcare from 23 million Americans, to give billions in tax cuts to billionaires, and to ease gun restrictions in the wake of the deadliest shooting in modern America. Americans responded by voting them out and entrusting us to clean up this culture of corruption. Let us repay that trust by passing this landmark legislation. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the For the People Act, and I urge adoption of the rule.

Mr. CICILLINE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the rule and, of course, in support of H.R. 1, the For the People Act, which would provide the most significant reform to our democratic system in decades. This landmark legislation represents the fulfillment of a promise to the American people to restore our democracy by expanding access to the ballot, reducing the corrupting influence of corporate money and political campaigns, and restoring ethics, integrity, and transparency to government. We live in a time in our Nation's history where Americans have a deep sense that government does not work for them, and they are right. That cynicism is caused by policies that respond to the voices of the rich and powerful while ignoring those of ordinary Americans and practices that seek to reduce and restrict participation in our electoral process. Americans are sick and tired of corruption and mismanagement here in Washington, and they elected us with the expectation that we will take real steps to clean up the mess and return power to the people of our great country. H.R. 1 provides us with the opportunity to do this by offering the most sweeping reforms to our democracy since Watergate, and it makes real strides in rooting out corruption, strengthening voting rights, and restoring government by and for the people. I want to particularly thank you, Mr. Speaker, for your extraordinary leadership in shaping this bill and drafting it and working with our colleagues all across the Caucus and producing this product. H.R. 1 includes the DISCLOSE Act, which I introduced to shine the light on unlimited corporate spending that has overrun our elections. Without fixing our broken campaign finance system and taking power from the powerful special interests and returning it to the people of this country, it will also be impossible to make progress on the other issues that are important to the American people. The DISCLOSE Act will require organizations that spend money on elections to promptly disclose donors who give $10,000 or more during the election cycle and prevent political operatives from actions meant to conceal the identity of donors. I have also introduced legislation which would require motor vehicle registries to automatically register all eligible citizens to vote when they obtain services from their motor vehicle registries. In 2006, at least 32.6 million eligible Americans were not registered to vote and, thus, unable to cast a ballot.

Mr. CICILLINE

Mr. CICILLINE. Madam Chair, I thank the chairman for yielding. Madam Chair, I would just point out in further support of Mr. Nadler's remarks, on average, 20 veterans commit suicide every single day in this country, and two-thirds of those suicides are caused by use of a gun. So Mr. Nadler is quite right. Madam Chair, I rise in strong support of H.R. 1112 to close the Charleston loophole. We have heard a lot about what is at stake in terms of constitutional rights as it relates to possession of a firearm. There are other constitutional rights that are at issue here, and that is the right to life, liberty, the right to live free of gun violence and death, the right of a grandmother to sit on her porch and enjoy a summer evening free from the dangers of gun violence, the right of young children to play in a playground and play safely. So this legislation is very important because it closes a very significant loophole in our law. Over the last two decades, the Charleston loophole has allowed more than 60,000 purchases of guns by prohibited individuals. Let that sink in. Sixty thousand people who are prohibited from having a gun by law were allowed to get those guns because of this loophole. One of those purchasers was a white supremacist who used the gun that he purchased to kill nine worshippers at the Mother Emanuel Church in South Carolina. Even though he had a felony drug charge on his record, this killer was able to buy a gun because his background check wasn't completed in 3 days. And he isn't the only one, of course. A 2016 GAO report found that, between 2006 and 2015, guns were transferred to about 6,700 people with domestic violence convictions and more than 500 individuals with prohibiting protective orders. So there are many, many examples where the American people are less safe because criminals and disqualified people can access a firearm because the background check wasn't completed in 3 days. This is a very simple commonsense solution to that problem. Our laws will not work if we don't keep guns out of the hands of criminals, dangerous people, other disqualified purchasers, and this bill does that. This is a commonsense proposal. Madam Chair, I urge my colleagues to support this legislation. I thank Mr. Clyburn for his leadership, and I thank Mr. Nadler for bringing these bills before the Judiciary Committee so we can finally take some responsible action to reduce gun violence in this country.

Mr. CICILLINE

Mr. CICILLINE. Mr. Chair, we have a gun violence epidemic in this country. For 8 years, we have marked it with moments of silence and doing nothing, saying nothing and doing nothing. But today, that changes with passage of H.R. 8 for universal background checks. We know universal background checks work, because since the passage of the Brady bill, 3.5 million illegal gun sales were prevented. But, of course, there is a huge loophole. Millions and millions of gun sales happen without a background check at all. In fact, one in five, 22 percent, of guns are sold with no background check. That means criminals, domestic abusers, and people prohibited due to mental illness can get a gun. This bill changes that. We also know that States that have enhanced background checks have lower rates of gun homicides, gun suicide rates, and gun trafficking. This is a commonsense bill to protect the American people from the scourge of gun violence. Finally, after 8 years of pleading with our Republican colleagues to do something about gun violence in this country, to take up a bill--we had a sit-in to try to force a vote--finally, today, we are taking our first step to reduce gun violence in this country by passing H.R. 8. Finally, we will see Members of Congress standing up to the power of the gun lobby and doing what is right for the American people. Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes.''

Mr. CICILLINE. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. We are on the precipice of passing the first commonsense gun safety bill in this Congress in 25 years. I have been here for 8 years. We begged and pleaded and had a sit-in to try to force Republicans to take up some measure to reduce gun violence in this country. There are women, men, and families all across America who are demanding that Congress do something. We are about to do this, and you raise a motion to recommit on a phony issue to try to muck this up with this gimmick. If you were concerned about reducing gun violence in this country and passing commonsense gun safety legislation, you had 8 years to bring a bill to the floor. But if you are really concerned about this, I have good news for you. I have legislation, because, in fact, if someone buys a gun who is a prohibited purchaser, whatever their immigration status is, if they have committed a crime, then they should be arrested and prosecuted. Every single Democrat believes that. So I have a piece of legislation that says, if that happens, notify the field office of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the local law enforcement agency, and the State law enforcement agency, the agencies responsible for enforcing the criminal law, so they can arrest and prosecute that person. I am looking for a Republican colead. I look forward to hearing from you. Madam Speaker, defeat this phony amendment and pass universal background checks.

Mr. CICILLINE

Mr. CICILLINE. Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize Father Philip Salois, who delivered today's opening prayer. Father Phil is a native of Woonsocket, Rhode Island, and now lives in North Smithfield, Rhode Island, a community that I am proud to represent today in Congress. He served our country in uniform during the Vietnam war as a combat infantryman and earned the Silver Star for his valor. After his service to our country, Father Phil felt called to service in another capacity. He was ordained into the priesthood on June 10, 1984. A few years later, Father Phil joined the Veterans Administration in Boston, where he served as chief of the chaplain service from 1993 to 2005. Today, he continues to minister to veterans in Rhode Island and all across America. We owe all of our servicemembers and their families an incredible debt of gratitude. The men and women of the United States Armed Forces represent our country's most important values of service, honor, courage, and sacrifice. This is especially true of Father Phil, who represents the very best of our country and my home State of Rhode Island. I thank him for his service to our country and for being here today to offer the beautiful opening prayer. We are truly honored by his presence.

Mr. CICILLINE

Mr. CICILLINE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding, and I rise in strong support of the rule and resolution to rescind the President's unnecessary and unconstitutional national emergency declaration. Mr. Speaker, having visited the southern border multiple times in the past year, including just last month when I met with Customs and Border Patrol officials, I can say without any question that there is no emergency at the border. We as a nation face serious challenges in reforming our immigration system and stemming the flow of illegal drugs into our country. However, a border wall will do nothing to address these challenges. Research consistently shows that the vast majority of illegal drugs coming to this country through the border are smuggled through legal ports of entry, and most illegal immigration is as a result of people overstaying their visas. All this declaration will do is divert $6.7 billion away from critical military construction projects and drug interdiction operations, hampering our Nation's military readiness and making it more difficult to address real challenges. These are funds that would be better used on projects to improve and build new military family housing or make improvements to National Guard and Reserve facilities throughout our country. Mr. Speaker, we should not be spending a single day wasting time on this ridiculous, misguided executive order from the President. There is no emergency at the border. Illegal border crossings are at a 40-year low. The President's own intelligence community, when they did their worldwide threat assessment, testified and didn't mention the southern border--and certainly did not identify it as an emergency. Instead of wasting time on this, we should be getting back to the work of driving down prescription drug prices, focusing on rebuilding the infrastructure of our country, and passing H.R. 1 to get government working again for the people of this country and not the special interests. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to approve the rule, vote for the resolution, and end the President's unconstitutional, excessive use of power attempting to circumvent the will of the American people. The American people decide through their elected Members of Congress how their tax money will be spent. The President is attempting to throw the Constitution away, circumventing that process, and we cannot permit that to happen. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.

Mr. CICILLINE

Mr. CICILLINE. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Madam Speaker, I want to begin by acknowledging the extraordinary leadership of the chairman of the Rules Committee and this very transparent and open process. I stand to support, strongly, H.J. Res. 37, which directs the President to remove American troops from their role in hostilities in Yemen. By taking up this War Powers Resolution, the House is, finally, reasserting our constitutional authority and responsibility over American military actions and sending an important message both to the Saudi-led coalition and to the Trump administration. The Iranian-backed Houthis have acted with complete disregard for civilian lives in Yemen, blocking humanitarian aid and mounting attacks into Saudi Arabian cities. There is no question that they bear much of the blame for the current humanitarian crisis. However, for nearly 4 years, the Saudi and Emirati-backed coalition has used American bombs, American planes with American logistical support, and, until recently, American refueling to further a conflict that has cost thousands of civilian lives and led to a humanitarian crisis in the country. There is no question in my mind that American involvement, to date, has exceeded the congressional authorization that exists to combat terrorists in the region. For too long, the United States has been directly involved in this war without proper congressional authorization or oversight. This bill, which passed the Senate last year with bipartisan support, specifically exempts actions that target al-Qaida and any other terrorist activity. My colleagues opposing this effort seem to forget that we have a responsibility under the Constitution to exercise our oversight authority over American military engagement. Nothing in this legislation prevents the administration from coming to Congress and presenting a strategy and asking for authorization to involve our military in Yemen. That is not something I would support, but they did not even try to make the case. Instead, we have become embroiled in a humanitarian nightmare and backed a flawed military engagement with no end in sight, all without proper authorization or oversight. It seems pretty obvious that it is time to exert our proper role as Congress. H.J. Res. 37 is an important first step of what I hope will be a concerted effort to bring the war in Yemen to an end and to reestablish Congress' role in overseeing our military's engagements overseas. Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the rule and to support this resolution.