David Cicilline

Mr. CICILLINE

Mr. CICILLINE. Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday the President gave a State of the Union Address that was short on details but long on hypocrisy. His remarks were long, self-absorbed, and divorced from reality. Much like 1 year ago, his speech was noteworthy for the things he didn't say. He didn't mention that we live in a time of the greatest income inequality since the 1920s. He didn't mention the environment and our responsibilities to respond to climate change, to strengthen Social Security, or education for young people. These are the real challenges facing working people today. They are also the things that the President has ignored during his time in office. The people of this great country deserve better. Democrats are committed to delivering for the people. That means: Cracking down on corruption in Washington and reducing the influence of money in our political system; Raising wages by rebuilding our infrastructure; Lowering healthcare and prescription drug costs; Ending the epidemic of gun violence; and Taking on the challenge of climate change. Let's get the job done and restore government of, by, and for the people of this great country.

Mr. CICILLINE

Mr. CICILLINE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding, and I particularly thank the gentlewoman for her leadership on this issue and for organizing today's Special Order hour. One of the great blessings of being in the majority is wonderful new colleagues who are bringing their incredible intellect and passion and commitment to the issues facing the American people, and the gentlewoman from California is obviously a magnificent example of that, so I thank her for the courtesy. Mr. Speaker, the numbers speak for themselves. On average, 100 Americans are murdered with firearms every day. Three hundred more are shot and wounded. In 2017, the number of gun deaths in this country hit 40,000, the highest level in 20 years, according to the Centers for Disease Control. Globally, we have the highest rate of gun violence of any developed Nation on Earth. We have a gun violence epidemic in this country. The U.S. is now the world leader in child gun deaths, with death by gunshot being the second highest cause of death among children. This is a public health crisis. People are being killed at schools, at houses of worship, in restaurants, at homes, and everywhere in between. There is no place safe from the threat of gun violence in this country. We have seen it at the Sandy Hook Elementary School and Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School; at houses of worship in Charleston, Oak Creek, Sutherland Springs, and Pittsburgh; at a nightclub in Orlando, a movie theater in Aurora, and a country music concert in Las Vegas. But under GOP control for the last 8 years, Congress did nothing. We had moments of silence for 30 minutes. We stood. We said nothing and did nothing. Fortunately, Mr. Speaker, this is about to change. Yesterday, the House Judiciary Committee held its first hearing on gun violence prevention in nearly a decade. The room was filled with parents who lost their children and young people who lost their friends to gun violence. They are determined to make sure that no one else has to live through such senseless tragedies. Particularly the young people, whose passion and commitment and dedication to making sure that we do something to reduce gun violence in this country, have changed the conversation in America. It was a great pleasure to have the opportunity to thank these young people, because their voices are making a difference. I used my 5 minutes at the hearing in part to apologize to these young people, because we have failed them. The adults in this country and the adults in this Congress have failed them. They are asking us to do our jobs at the very basic minimum: Keep them safe. Allow them to lead their lives and reach their full potential. I am very proud that I am introducing a number of bills that will reduce gun violence in this country--a bill to ban assault weapons, a bill to ban dangerous bump stocks and 3D-printed guns. I will also be introducing a bill to improve the background check system by requiring States to establish better reporting systems for mental health professionals to identify individuals who pose a risk to themselves or others if they have a gun. I plan to introduce a bill that will require notification to law enforcement if a prohibited purchaser buys or attempts to buy a gun. Mr. Speaker, there are dozens of commonsense proposals that will be introduced in this Congress. Sadly, almost all of them will be introduced by Democrats. I hope we can have some bipartisan support on this, because the American people want us to do something before another horrible tragedy occurs and before another deadly weapon ends up in the wrong hands. There are many good ideas on how to do it. Our Republican colleagues, as I know the gentlewoman from California will agree, always say there isn't one bill that will stop every instance of gun violence, and so, they argue, we shouldn't do anything, because we can't stop it all. Of course, that is a ridiculous argument against taking action, because there is no question that we can take action on a number of bills that, taken together, will substantially reduce gun violence in this country. We have the responsibility to do it. The American people are demanding that we do it. We will take up a bill to close the background check loophole that allows nearly 22 percent of guns sold in this country to happen without a background check. We are going to take up legislation to fix the background check system and make certain that all sales of guns undergo a background check, so we can make sure criminals don't have access to firearms. That is just the beginning. That is the first thing we will do. We are going to move forward on a whole series of commonsense proposals that will help stop the carnage being caused by gun violence in this country. With that, Mr. Speaker, I will yield back to the gentlewoman and again thank her for her leadership and accommodation this evening. I thank her for organizing this very important Special Order hour to continue to raise this issue and demonstrate to the American people that we are committed to getting something done to reduce gun violence in this country to protect our constituents who sent us here to do just that.

Mr. CICILLINE

Mr. CICILLINE. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding, and I am particularly delighted to be here in support of this legislation with the Speaker pro tempore on the rostrum, who understands the value of scenic byways in our beautiful country. I rise today in strong support of this bipartisan legislation, Reviving America's Scenic Byways Act. The National Scenic Byways Program was established by Congress in 1991 in order to recognize, preserve, and enhance designated roadways throughout the United States. Since that time, 150 roads across the country have received the scenic byway designation. However, no new designations have been made since 2009. Under this program, the Secretary of Transportation designates certain roads as all-American roads or national scenic byways based on one or more archaeological, cultural, historic, natural, recreational, or scenic qualities that capture the unique characteristics of a region. The National Scenic Byways Program is a national asset that showcases our Nation's natural grandeur, our history, and our culture, as well as being a very significant economic driver of tourism. It has been identified by Brand USA, the organization created by Congress to promote travel to the United States, as a core element in promoting international visitation to the United States and creating tourism- related jobs. According to the National Scenic Byway Foundation, State departments of transportation report approximately 60 State scenic byways, and nearly 30 States are interested and prepared to seek designation as a national scenic byway or an all-American road. For example, in my own State, roadways such as Paradise Avenue on Aquidneck Island in Newport and Route 102 are really excellent candidates for designation and all the benefits that will follow. This bill will allow those States to once again apply for scenic byway designations and directs the Department of Transportation to announce new designations within 1 year of requesting nominations. I thank the chairman of the committee and the ranking member for their work. I urge passage of this legislation, and conclude by, again, thanking the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Graves), who is the lead Republican on this legislation, for his partnership, his passion about this issue, his presence here today, and his words in support of the legislation.

Mr. CICILLINE

Mr. CICILLINE. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of Mr. Clyburn's resolution condemning white supremacy and white nationalism. Congressman Steve King's recent comments asserting that terms like ``white supremacist'' should be acceptable have rightly drawn strong condemnation from both sides of the aisle in this Chamber. Sadly, these comments are part of a well-documented history of embracing the far right and making racist and anti-immigrant remarks for more than a decade. As all of us know, more and more people are feeling emboldened today to publicly voice bigoted and evil views like these. We have seen it in discussions around Charlottesville, the current debate on immigration, and in criticism of football players silently and peacefully protesting police brutality. These views are contrary to our country's founding values of fairness and equality. America was founded on the simple but powerful idea that all are created equal and are worthy of dignity and respect. White nationalism and white supremacy are a vile assault on that magnificent ideal. These views belong on the ash heap of history. That is exactly where this resolution will put them. Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes.''

Mr. CICILLINE

Mr. CICILLINE. Mr. Speaker, in 9 days, we are going to face another government shutdown. The American people want a responsible Federal Government that works for them, but yesterday President Trump said that he will be proud to shut down the government. The President believes that his idea for an ineffective, $70 billion, 1,000-mile long border wall is more important than keeping the government open for business. Our constituents are sick of this stuff. The President told them that Mexico would pay for the wall, and now he is threatening to close the government if he doesn't get what he wants. This is exactly why our constituents voted to put Democrats in control of Congress last month. They don't want their hard-earned money wasted on an expensive, ineffective border wall. We should listen to them. Democrats and Republicans need to come together and work together to meet their needs, not President Trump's. While the President throws another Twitter tantrum, let's keep the government open and work on solutions for the real challenges facing our constituents: good-paying jobs, lower healthcare costs, and ending the corruption in Washington. That is what Democrats are committed to doing. It is time for Republicans to stand up to this President and work with Democrats for the benefit of the American people.

Mr. CICILLINE

Mr. CICILLINE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 6691, the so-called Community Safety and Security Act. This legislation would dramatically expand the definition of a crime of violence in the Federal criminal code, with many, many unintended consequences. The gentlewoman from Texas spoke about fleeing. That is just one example of one of the unintended consequences of this. This is partly happening because this legislation is being rushed through the House without any meaningful debate or committee consideration. It was introduced just last week before the Labor Day weekend when most Members were home for the district work period. We have had zero markups, zero hearings on this bill, and this bill has never been considered in the previous Congress. So not in this Congress, not in the previous Congress. It has not been considered through regular order, and that means key stakeholders, like outside experts and criminal justice reform advocates, have been given little chance to provide input on the bill. It is a demonstration, frankly, of the arrogance of this body. We don't even think we need to listen to anybody about the implications of this bill. We know best. We are not going to have a hearing. We are just going to bring it to the floor. In the very short time that the public has had to analyze it, groups like Families Against Mandatory Minimums, the ACLU, and the National Immigration Justice Center have expressed opposition to the bill. It is basically fast tracked, even though changing the definition of a crime of violence will have a domino effect on our laws, given its prevalence in Federal criminal law and its application in immigration law. This so-called Community Safety and Security Act could lead to more criminalization, harsh sentencing, and unfair results. It is overly broad and will open the doors to massive incarceration and people being unjustifiably detained, both pretrial and post-conviction. It could exacerbate racial disparities that already exist in policing and in the courts, and it could accelerate the number of immigrant detentions and deportations. I really don't understand why my Republican colleagues are scrambling to push this through, this just-introduced bill, without careful consideration. We do have to respond to the Supreme Court decision. We need to do it properly, and after careful deliberations, with a full understanding of all of the consequences. This bill will have far-reaching effects, not only on citizens of this country, but on people who are here in the United States.

Mr. CICILLINE. Mr. Speaker, passing this bill today without a full understanding of these effects would be irresponsible. We have been able to engage in really deliberative, thoughtful consideration of criminal justice reform. This May we passed the FIRST STEP Act. There was a lot of good bipartisan collaboration. There were hearings and discussions and listening to experts. That is how we should be doing business. This will affect people's lives. We have a lot more work to do. I encourage my colleagues to reject this legislation so that we can get back to working in a bipartisan way to get rid of mandatory minimums, to making investments in reentry programs, to ending racial profiling, and so many of the other reforms that I know we can work on together. That is how we should be doing the business of the American people, not jamming things through in the dark of night with no hearings, no witnesses, no understanding of the bill that just passed.

Mr. CICILLINE

Mr. CICILLINE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak out in support of international press freedom and to highlight, in particular, two egregious cases of government assaults on the rights of journalists. This Saturday, a court in Egypt will decide whether to execute an award-winning photojournalist for doing his job. While in Myanmar, formerly known as Burma, the Nobel Prize-winning former political prisoner, Aung San Suu Kyi, has overseen the imprisonment and sentencing of two Reuters reporters who were attempting to shed light on the atrocities committed by the Burmese military against the Rohingya minority. In Egypt, Mahmoud Abou Zeid, who is known professionally as Shawkan, was taken into custody along with two other journalists while photographing the violent dispersal of a protest in Rabaa Square on August 14, 2013. The other journalists were foreign nationals and were released within hours, while Shawkan, an Egyptian, has been abused and beaten, denied his freedom, due process, and adequate medical treatment ever since--simply for doing his job. In 2016, the U.N. Human Rights Council Working Group on Arbitrary Detention issued a report on his case, calling his detention ``arbitrary'' and recommending that he be released immediately. Shawkan received the 2018 UNESCO Freedom Prize and has been recognized by press freedom organizations worldwide for his outstanding contributions to the profession in the face of danger. In July, I sent a letter to President Sisi of Egypt urging him to support the immediate release of Shawkan or, at the very least, to support an individual trial instead of the mass trial that serves as a basis of his detention so that evidence specific to his case can be heard and considered. The Egyptian Government has not responded to this letter, and they are planning to sentence Shawkan as early as this weekend. Unfortunately, Egypt is not alone in its harassment and imprisonment of members of the press. Just this week a Burmese court sentenced Wa Lone and Kyaw Soe Oo, reporters working for Reuters, to 7 years in prison following their arrest while reporting on the mass killing of 10 Rohingya Muslim men in the village of Inn Din, Rakhine State, last September. This decision is a significant step backward in Burma's transition to democracy and reflects poorly on the Aung San Suu Kyi government's commitment to those same democratic ideals for which he was punished not so long ago. The freedom to express oneself is a fundamental right enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The freedom of the press and the public's right to information are paramount to the success of a democracy. The censorship and degradation of the press is among the most effective tools for oppression and control. Thomas Jefferson captured this sentiment when he said, and I paraphrase, if forced to choose, he would prefer newspapers without a government rather than a government without newspapers. Today, authoritarian rule has targeted members of the press in order to stifle dissent and maintain power. According to Freedom House, only 13 percent of the world's population enjoys a free press. Global press freedom has declined to its lowest point since 2013 amid unprecedented threats to journalists in major democracies and attempts by authoritarian states to control the media, even beyond their borders. We are witnessing a new era in press suppression as even politicians in democracies attempt to shape news coverage by undermining traditional media outlets, exerting influence over public broadcasters, and favoring friendly private outlets. Unfortunately, the current President of the United States has led the charge against the press with nearly daily tirades against the media, branding them as the enemy of the state and rejecting the news media's role in holding public servants accountable. Just yesterday, President Trump suggested he would like to change libel laws in order to prevent negative news stories about himself, a tactic more suited to Russian or Iranian leadership than the world's greatest democracy. And let there be no doubt that leaders around the world take note of the President's attacks on the press. They know that the Trump administration has no interest in lecturing them about their human rights abuses and no leg to stand on if it did. So the Egypts and Burmas of the world will continue to ignore national norms while the Trump administration looks the other way or worse. That is why, as Members of Congress, it is absolutely imperative that we remind the world that, no matter what the President says, we have not forgotten our values, those universal values that apply to every man, woman, and child. We must remain vigilant and defend against even the smallest attacks on the free and independent press, because the loss of this freedom creeps slowly like a cancer on our democracy. I urge the Governments of Egypt and Burma to do the right thing and end their attacks on the media and release Shawkan, Wa Lone, Kyaw Soe Oo, and all other political prisoners. I will continue to use my voice to advocate for them and the hundreds of other journalists around the world whose freedoms are at risk because of their work and because of what they do every day, and I hope my friends on both sides of the aisle will join me in this effort.

Mr. CICILLINE

Mr. CICILLINE. Mr. Speaker, they say a picture is worth a thousand words. This is a the moment when Judge Brett Kavanaugh refused to shake the hand of Fred Guttenberg, a man whose 14-year old daughter was murdered during a school shooting at Parkland, Florida earlier this year. Instead of shaking his hand, Judge Kavanaugh buttoned up his jacket, turned and walked away. That moment said all I need to know about Judge Kavanaugh. It is clear he doesn't possess the empathy necessary to serve on the highest court in the land. Yesterday, Judge Kavanaugh said he wants both parties in his cases believing he gave them a fair shake. And yet, when facing a man who lost his daughter in one of the most horrific school shootings in our country's history, he wouldn't even shake his hand. As a judge, Brett Kavanaugh said he believes a ban on the sale of semiautomatic assault weapons is unconstitutional. That is his record. On the Supreme Court, he will allow the unrestricted sale of weapons like the one used to kill Mr. Guttenberg's daughter. But as a person, his actions toward Mr. Guttenberg on Tuesday speak louder than any legal opinion he could write. The Senate must reject his nomination.

Mr. CICILLINE

Mr. CICILLINE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from New York for her co- chairmanship of this caucus. Both Mr. Bilirakis and Mrs. Maloney have been great champions on this issue, and I am honored and privileged to work with them. Mr. Speaker, I rise to join both of my colleagues in celebrating the important relationship between the United States and Cyprus and in highlighting the critical role our partnership with Cyprus plays in advancing both of our nations' national security interests. The Republic of Cyprus is a strategic partner to the United States in the eastern Mediterranean region and an effective ally combating threats posed by terrorism and nuclear proliferation. Through information sharing, training programs, counterterrorism activities, and increased cooperation on energy policy, our relationship with Cyprus allows us to advance our Nation's interests, defend against the rise of terrorism and regional actors who seek to take steps counter to American interests, and to promote the ongoing close cooperation between the United States and Europe. The U.S. participates in a number of joint exercises with Cyprus, including annual multinational search and rescue and crisis management exercises, and we coordinate training programs for Cyprus in explosives management and disposal, cybersecurity, counterterrorism, and maritime safety and security. We work closely with our Cypriot allies to combat the spread of weapons of mass destruction and foster an effective international nonproliferation regime. In 2015, we joined Cyprus as members of the Proliferation Security Initiative in cohosting a regional nonproliferation workshop focusing on inspecting and identifying proliferation material. We are also joining Cyprus in providing more secure sources of domestic energy for Cyprus and all of Europe. American companies are playing a valuable role in energy exploration activities in Cyprus' exclusive economic zone in order to help provide Europe with potential alternatives to Russian gas and oil. Yet, despite this critical partnership between our two countries, the United States has had in place an arms embargo against the island of Cyprus since 1987. This policy was initially intended to prevent an arms race on the island with Turkey, following Turkey's 1974 invasion of Cyprus and its subsequent occupation of the northern territory, in order to provide space for reunification talks. However, more than 30 years since the embargo was first implemented, Turkey still has more than 30,000 troops occupying the northern territory of Cyprus, reunification talks have not produced intended results, and the U.S. is unable to maintain a full security relationship with a key partner in combating terrorism. On top of this, Turkey continues to threaten Cyprus' energy exploration by continually harassing drilling vessels in the EEZ. Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs, Wess Mitchell, has said that this harassment cannot be tolerated. We need to enact policies that strengthen our relationship with Cyprus and counteract dangerous elements in the region which threaten our national security interests and the interests of our allies in the eastern Mediterranean. Last year, I introduced legislation to lift the three-decade-old embargo on Cyprus, which would allow us to strengthen the partnership that we have built with the Republic of Cyprus. Our inability to provide Cyprus with necessary equipment needed to defend its sovereignty and its economic interests threatens our own national security. Lifting the arms embargo will allow Cyprus to better establish itself as a frontline state for Western security interests, defend itself from external threats, and ensure Cyprus is no longer forced to seek assistance for its defense from countries like Russia. Cyprus is an invaluable partner, and we need to make sure that we are treating it as such. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleagues for organizing this opportunity to highlight the importance of the U.S.-Cypriot relationship, and I look forward to working with them, with our State Department, and with the Cypriot Government to continue to partner in important ways.

Mr. CICILLINE

Mr. CICILLINE. Listing out protected characteristics helps those making determinations about membership understand their obligations, and helps those seeking membership understand their rights. There is no reason to refuse to include gender identity as a protected characteristic. While I do not oppose H.R. 4100, I hope that we can continue to discuss and take into account the issues that impact the lives of LGBTI individuals and will work toward a charter that protects everyone from discrimination.

Mr. CICILLINE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak about H.R. 4100. The Federal Bar Association is the Nation's premier association for practitioners in Federal courts and, as such, should, of course, be open to all, regardless of sexual orientation or gender identity. Currently, the FBA recognizes the importance of nondiscrimination and has adopted a diversity statement that includes race, gender, ethnicity, national origin, religion, age, disability, sexual orientation, and gender identity. Diversity statements are valuable, but they do not carry the weight of law. The addition of a nondiscrimination provision to the FBA charter is an important action, but it is really unfortunate that my Republican colleagues have excluded gender identity as an enumerated protected characteristic in the law. I am not sure if they are pandering to the most extremes in their party or to their political base, but it is wrong. Gender identity is an individual's personal and internal identification as a man, a woman, neither, or both. For transgender people, their gender identity may not match their biological or legal sex. Despite the efforts to exclude gender identity from H.R. 4100, transgender people will be protected from discrimination under Federal law. Discrimination on the basis of gender identity is a form of sex discrimination. Laws prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sex protect transgender people. Numerous Federal circuit and district court opinions have held that our Nation's nondiscrimination laws that prohibit discrimination on the basis of sex protect transgender people from discrimination. That includes title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, and title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission determined in Macy v. Holder that title VII's prohibitions on sex discrimination also prohibit discrimination on the basis of gender identity. This decision is binding on the Federal Government with respect to employment practices. While gender identity will be covered by the sex nondiscrimination provision, it is better to enumerate gender identity. Our laws work best when there are clear expectations.

Mr. CICILLINE

Mr. CICILLINE. * * *.

Mr. CICILLINE. I have asked the gentleman from Washington: Will he yield?

Mr. CICILLINE. Mr. Speaker, I ask that my colleague be permitted to answer the question. I have asked him will he yield.

Mr. CICILLINE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to amend the rule in order to make the Quigley amendment in order to restore urgently needed funds to prevent Russian interference in our upcoming elections. And I would just ask the gentleman from Washington if he would yield for purposes of considering this unanimous consent amendment so that we can, together, Democrats and Republicans, work together to protect the integrity of our elections. Restore funding so we can look our voters in the face and say, ``Your vote counted. We are going to protect it from Russian interference.'' I am imploring my friend on the other side of the aisle to permit this unanimous consent question so we can restore this urgent funding. This shouldn't be a Republican or a Democratic issue. It is an American issue. This is the integrity of our democracy. Will the gentleman yield to a unanimous consent request?

Mr. CICILLINE. I am sorry, Mr. Speaker?

Mr. CICILLINE. Mr. Speaker, does the vote on the matter pending before us include restoration of funding to protect our elections from Russian interference?

Mr. CICILLINE. Point of parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. CICILLINE

Mr. CICILLINE. Mr. Speaker, later today the House will vote on a spending bill for the Department of the Interior. This bill is a travesty that will do enormous damage to our environment. It cuts critical funding that keeps our air clean and our water safe. This bill eliminates $100 million in funding from the Environmental Protection Agency, $65 million from the Land and Water Conservation Fund, and $150 million from both the Clean Water State Revolving Fund and the Safe Drinking Water State Revolving Fund. It will make it more difficult to protect some bodies of water from pollution and endangered species from extinction. Perhaps most troubling of all, it actually eliminates protections that help keep lead out of our water. A vote for this bill is a vote to make our air more dangerous to breathe and our water less safe to drink. It is a reckless bill that should be opposed by all Members of this body. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' and to oppose this and to protect the quality of our air, our water, and our environment. Our constituents are depending upon us.

Mr. CICILLINE

Mr. CICILLINE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the amendment offered by my friend and colleague, Congressman Langevin. I am proud to be an original cosponsor of my colleague's legislation, the Fishermen's Fairness Act, which serves as the basis for this amendment. This amendment would provide our home State of Rhode Island with representation on the Mid-Atlantic Fisheries Management Council. This move would allow Rhode Island fishing communities to have a voice on the council which manages stocks for species that are among the most valuable to fisheries in our State. Rhode Island fishermen account for nearly 56 percent of total summer scup landings and 54 percent of all Atlantic squid landings, both stocks being managed by the Mid-Atlantic Council. Squid landings are critical to Rhode Island's overall fishing economy, landing more squid than all other States combined and the second most of any other State in the country. In 2015, Rhode Island landed roughly 16 million pounds of squid, nearly 12 million pounds more than its nearest competitor. The following year was even more significant for Rhode Island, with nearly 23 million pounds in squid landings valued at more than $29 million. All told, Rhode Island accounts for more fish landings under the jurisdiction of the Mid-Atlantic Fisheries Management Council than any other State in the region, with the exception of New Jersey. Yet, despite all of this, my State does not have a seat on this council, leaving Rhode Island fisheries without a say in how a significant portion of its industry is managed. This amendment will provide a commonsense solution to this problem by adding two additional seats to the Mid-Atlantic Fisheries Management Council in order to represent Rhode Island's interests in the region. As Congressman Langevin said, this is not unprecedented. We have done this before. In 1996, North Carolina, which also had significant fishing interests in the mid-Atlantic region, was given a seat on the council. This amendment would extend this same right to a seat at the table to my State. I really want to thank my colleague for his work on this issue, and I strongly encourage adoption of this amendment, particularly out of a sense of comity, since we have done this in the past. Rhode Islanders deserve to be treated fairly. Our fishermen deserve a voice. I urge my colleagues to support this excellent amendment.

Mr. CICILLINE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to H.R. 200, the so-called Strengthening Fishing Communities and Increasing Flexibility in Fisheries Management Act, which would undermine the years of progress made in rebuilding fish stocks and setting effective catch limits under the Magnuson-Stevens Act. My home State of Rhode Island is home to a vibrant fishing community that relies on healthy fish populations in order to make a living. Traditionally, reauthorization of fisheries management programs through the Magnuson-Stevens Act has been done on a bipartisan basis with the goal of strengthening sustainable fisheries. However, this entirely partisan bill weakens critical tools, like annual catch limits, which ensure that fisheries remain full for years to come. This bill will gut science-based management for fisheries, roll back development of effective fisheries management techniques, and reduce accountability for recreational fisheries. H.R. 200 removes several species from science-based quotas which help ensure that catches are sustainable each year. Under this bill, hundreds of species of fish would no longer have catch limits, which would lead to drastic overfishing. The bill also harms efforts to rebuild fish stocks by including loopholes which remove rebuilding timeframes from many fish stocks and would extend recovery timeframes for others, thereby endangering healthy stocks of fish available to fishing communities. In the last week, I have heard from fishermen from all over my district, from Greenville to Portsmouth, who have reached out to my office to tell me that H.R. 200 will harm their way of life by threatening already depleted fish populations and increase the threat of overfishing. The fishermen in my State need legislation that would build on time- tested tools to strengthen fisheries and prevent overfishing instead of this bill, which would set management programs back and weaken effective conservation tools. I join with those fishermen in opposing this misguided approach to reauthorizing the Magnuson-Stevens Act. I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to vote ``no'' on final passage. Mr. Chairman, I again thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. CICILLINE

Mr. CICILLINE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. Mr. Speaker, Congress is broken. Each day, more and more Americans are losing faith that their government actually works for them. More than 80 percent of Americans say they can't trust Washington to do what is right for them. More than two-thirds feel like our democracy is getting less responsive under Republican control. And they know what is going on here. They know they are caught in a system that is rigged against them. Their voices are ignored. Their concerns are dismissed. They don't even get a seat at the table. The Republicans who control this Chamber aren't going to fix it. They have given away all the seats at the table to corporate special interests, to billionaires, to the big banks, the big pharmaceutical companies, and that is why the interests of working people are not being protected. My Republican friends are advancing the interests of powerful special interests that fund their campaigns. The corruption of our political system in this way has become business as usual here in Washington. In this case, business as usual means billions of dollars in tax cuts for the wealthy and well- connected Republican campaign donors. It means endless attacks on workers' rights and consumer protections, and it means trying to deny the right to vote to millions of eligible citizens while, at the same time, letting corporations spend as much as it takes to keep Republicans in power. Business as usual for Republicans is a raw deal for the rest of us, and the American people are sick and tired of the raw deal that they have been getting. Democrats know that. We share their frustration. We know that Congress can do better. We know that we need to clean up Washington and get a better deal for our democracy. Democrats are committed to delivering real reforms to our political system that will restore government by and for the people of this great country, and that starts with fixing the way campaigns are run in America. We need to break the stranglehold that secret corporate spending has on our elections, and we have a chance to do it right now. If we defeat the previous question, we will have a chance to vote on the DISCLOSE Act, one of the key elements of delivering a better deal for our democracy. The DISCLOSE Act, which I have introduced, along with 162 cosponsors in this Chamber, will shine a light on the unlimited secret corporate spending that has flooded American elections in recent years. The DISCLOSE Act is simple. It requires that organizations that spend money in Federal elections have to disclose their donors. It closes one of the biggest loopholes that the Citizens United ruling opened, namely, that corporations, billionaires, and even foreign governments can secretly funnel hundreds of millions of dollars into 501(c)(4)s in order to covertly influence our campaigns. This is a huge problem. From 2004 to 2016, secret political spending in our Presidential elections increased by over 3,000 percent. Special counsel Robert Mueller is even reportedly investigating right now whether Vladimir Putin's regime in Russia secretly funneled money through the NRA to help elect Donald Trump. And closer to home for all of us, just a few weeks ago, Speaker Ryan's political fundraising group, the American Action Network, reported receiving a single $24.6 million contribution from an anonymous donor. I don't know who gave the American Action Network that money. You don't know who gave them that money. But I have a feeling that whoever did is expecting something in return. It is no secret that the American people have lost faith in this institution and in their government. They look to Washington and they see a ruling party that will do whatever it takes to help their friends on Wall Street get ahead, but they won't lift a finger for folks who are struggling to get by. It doesn't have to be this way. We can restore the faith that has been lost in this institution and in our government. We can build a government that is worthy of the people we serve. We can end the rule of big money and begin a new era where working people get all the seats at the table. If we want to do that, the first thing we need to do is to make sure that political spending happens out in the open and not in total secret. Let's defeat the previous question. Let's have a real debate about fixing what is wrong in Washington, and start by passing the DISCLOSE Act to shine some light on dark money in our politics.

Mr. CICILLINE

Mr. CICILLINE. Mr. Speaker, Rhode Island's commercial fishing industry provides thousands of good-paying jobs and hundreds of millions of dollars of economic activity every year; but later today, the House is voting on a bill that will jeopardize this critical sector of our State's economy. H.R. 200 undermines the science-based catch limits that we have used in recent decades to keep fisheries sustainable for the long term. We have seen this movie before. It was just a few decades ago that Congress first put the science-based catch limits in place. Congress had to do so because overfishing had brought America's fisheries to the brink of economic and environmental collapse. It turns out the science works. Since Congress put these science- based catch limits in place, dozens of fish stocks have been brought back to sustainable levels and overfishing incidents have been cut substantially. Good-paying jobs in the fishing industry have thrived. The industry now, as a whole, generates billions of dollars in economic activity every year. H.R. 200 will reverse this progress. We cannot let it pass. It is a terrible bill that will harm fishermen in my State and all up and down the coast. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to reject this bill.

Mr. CICILLINE

Mr. CICILLINE. Mr. Speaker, the Affordable Care Act improved access to quality healthcare for millions of Americans. One of the most important protections in this law is that insurance companies can no longer deny people coverage because they have a preexisting condition. Millions of Americans with arthritis, cancer, diabetes, mental illness, and other preexisting conditions have benefited from this requirement. And that is why it is so disturbing that earlier this month the Trump administration went to court to argue that insurance companies should no longer have to cover people with preexisting conditions. If they succeed, it will further unravel the Affordable Care Act. It will be harder for individuals and small businesses to buy health insurance. Some experts believe that there will be even more Americans without health coverage than ever before. This is wrong. The President is putting the interests of health insurance companies and health insurance company CEOs ahead of American consumers. Republicans in Congress should be demanding that this President stop. They should demand that their constituents have access to the best healthcare possible, but, instead, they are silent in the face of a President trying to take away coverage for preexisting medical conditions. It is wrong. We can do better.