David Cicilline

Mr. CICILLINE

Mr. CICILLINE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I just want to again remind folks that, during the course of this argument, we have heard this narrative about the problems with the sue and settle, as Mr. Nadler described it, an imagined, concocted vast conspiracy, but without any evidence that it actually exists, a solution in search of a problem. Just to remind folks, there were two reports done by the GAO--I have them in my hand; they are thick--that, in fact, undermine the suggestion that there is any such problem. In response to requests from the Republican committee chairs, the Government Accountability Office has twice concluded that agencies cannot and do not circumvent the rulemaking system through settlements relating to statutory deadlines. Finally, we received testimony earlier this year from Attorney General Jeff Sessions' Justice Department that current agency policy, which was codified in 1991, prohibits circumventing the rulemaking process through deadline lawsuits. We have heard similar testimony from career Justice Department officials in prior administrations. I ask the question: How is H.R. 469 necessary in light of this complete lack of support for this so-called sue and settle phenomenon and the presence of controls against this from happening in the first instance? Mr. Chair, again, there is just no evidence to support the necessity for this. I think it has been articulated very well by my colleagues what the dangers are of moving forward with this legislation. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CICILLINE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Chairman, I just want to say I am baffled by the gentleman from Louisiana's assertion that this legislation improves accountability. It is very hard to imagine how undermining the enforcement of duly enacted legislation by Congress of the United States improves accountability. This is like the upsidedown world. How does that improve accountability, making it more difficult to enforce the laws passed by Congress of the United States? Mr. Chairman, I just want to say in closing that it is very important to note that my opposition to H.R. 469 is joined by a very broad spectrum of organizations, including the American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations, or AFL-CIO; the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees; Public Citizen; Consumer Federation of America; the National Consumer Law Center; the Natural Resources Defense Council; the Sierra Club; Earthjustice; and People for the American Way; among many others. Mr. Chairman, I think that is company, which should suggest to my colleagues that this legislation does not benefit the American people, it will undermine the actions of Congress. Mr. Chairman, I urge everyone to vote ``no,'' and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. CICILLINE. Mr. Chairman, I seek time in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. CICILLINE

Mr. CICILLINE. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. CICILLINE. Mr. Chair, if I might just say briefly, the notion that Congress can just do these appropriations itself sort of misses the point. It is the responsibility of Article III courts to hear disputes, supervise litigation, and enforce settlements. It is an odd moment for Congress to take on the work of another branch of government when we can't even do our own work here. Mr. Chair, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee).

Mr. CICILLINE. Mr. Chair, I rise in support of my amendment, which would exempt from H.R. 732 any settlement agreement that directs funds to reduce the effects of the mortgage foreclosure crisis through foreclosure prevention assistance programs. There is little debate that predatory and fraudulent activity in the residential mortgage securities market was the primary cause of the mortgage foreclosure crisis. As U.S. District Court Judge Max Cogburn observed in 2014, one need not ``be an expert in economics to take notice that it was the trading of toxic RMBS''--residential mortgage-backed securities--``between financial institutions that nearly brought down the banking system in 2008.'' The financial crisis blighted entire cities and communities, resulting in more than 13 million Americans losing their homes between 2006 and 2014, an average of 850,000 per year. Beyond the life-changing hardship and stress placed on families by unlawful conduct in the housing market, the exponential rise in foreclosures imposed significant external costs on families and communities across the Nation. Fraudulent activity in the housing market depressed home and commercial real estate values, undermined economic development and municipal revenue, deprived communities of public services, and resulted in increases of violent crime in communities of significant foreclosure activity. Leading studies have also documented the contagious effects of foreclosures, and not just the neighborhood immediately affected by the foreclosures, but nearby vicinities as well, underscoring the diffuse and systemic impacts of unlawful mortgage securities practices. In response to the financial crisis, President Obama announced in 2012, the creation of an investigatory unit within the Justice Department to: `` . . . hold accountable those who broke the law, speed assistance to homeowners, and help turn the page on an era of recklessness that hurt so many Americans.'' This unit secured more than $40 billion in civil penalties, compensation, and consumer relief through settlement with five financial institutions for alleged misconduct involving the packaging, marketing, and sale of residential mortgage-backed securities. Geoffrey Graber, who directed this effort within the Justice Department, testified in 2015 that these settlements meaningfully addressed the vicious cycle of harm caused by fraud in the housing market by achieving accountability from financial institutions that engaged in wrongdoing related to residential mortgage-backed securities, and to the extent possible, bringing some measure of relief to homeowners who suffered as a result of the financial crisis. In addition to civil penalties, these settlements included statements of fact describing the pervasive fraud that permeated the mortgage market. In just one example, a bank employee stated that he would not be surprised if half of these loans went down, and that the banks should start praying. The settlements also included consumer relief provisions designed to enable many Americans to stay in their homes by directing funds to distressed homeowners, community reinvestment and stabilization, and income-based lending for borrowers who lost homes to foreclosure. The Department's settlement with Citigroup and Bank of America additionally directed $50 million in funds to charitable housing council programs and legal aid organizations to provide counsel to homeowners entitled to relief under the settlement because they were directly affected by the fraudulent and predatory conduct of the settling banks. As the Center for American Progress has noted, these funds account for less than 1 percent of the overall amount of each settlement, and will support services provided by housing counselors and other trusted intermediaries that enable consumers to access the consumer relief to which they are entitled under the settlements. We should be doing everything in our power to keep American families in their homes and off the streets, not letting big banks off the hook for their predatory and fraudulent practices, and so I urge my colleagues to adopt this amendment that will address this very important issue. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CICILLINE. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. CICILLINE. Mr. Chair, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to H.R. 732, the inaptly titled Stop Settlement Slush Funds Act of 2017, which would flatly ban the enforcement of any settlement agreement that seeks to remedy the general harms caused by unlawful conduct. This prohibition would broadly apply to all civil and criminal settlements with limited exception, encroaching on the Justice Department's longstanding legal authority to negotiate and enter settlement agreements. Since its establishment in 1870, the Justice Department has possessed plenary authority to litigate on behalf of the government in all civil and criminal litigation except as otherwise provided by law. Since at least as early as 1888, the Supreme Court has upheld this broad grant of authority, holding that it extends to settling litigation on behalf of the government or making enforcement decisions in light of priorities and resources. In Heckler v. Chaney, for example, the Court held in 1985 that, in many cases, enforcement decision within the Justice Department's expertise make it ``far better equipped than the courts to deal with the many variables involved in the proper ordering of its priorities.'' This rationale also extends to the terms of settlement agreements, which ``involve numerous complicated technical issues as well as important judgments respecting the use of limited prosecutorial resources'' and are ``best left in the hands of expert agencies and prosecutors, rather than dictated by Congress or the Federal courts,'' as environmental law professor Joel Mintz has noted. H.R. 732 undermines this longstanding policy by strictly curtailing the enforcement discretion of the Justice Department and the other enforcement agencies when resolving a party's civil or criminal liability on behalf of the Federal Government. As the Justice Department observed last Congress in the context of a substantively similar bill, ``limiting the Department's discretion to negotiate appropriate terms of settlement, which are voluntary and agreed to by the parties, may result in fewer settlement agreements, protracted litigation, and delays for victims who need the relief.'' Without this discretionary authority, the Department concluded that, ``the government may not be able to adequately address the full scope of the harms that a defendant's illegal actions caused.'' In contrary to the arguments of the gentleman from Virginia, despite 2 years of investigation by the Judiciary Committee into the Justice Department's use of settlement agreements, no evidence was found to show that the mortgage fraud settlements contain terms that were politically motivated. But we did learn that the sole mission of the Justice Department's settlements under the prior administration was to aid the families whose economic security was jeopardized by reckless Wall Street behavior and prevent them from losing their homes due to fraudulent mortgage practices. There are many examples where generalized harm is impossible to calculate or impractical to quantify in the courts. Without this ability by the Justice Department to enter into these settlement agreements, corporate wrongdoers are going to be free to do whatever they want. I give you one example: Deepwater Horizon, which destroyed the coastline. As part of that settlement, there was State-based cleanup that was provided. There was funding for the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation for remediation; things that were directly responsive to the harm caused. But you couldn't quantify to an individual person, and that is what this legislation will prevent. Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to oppose this measure.

Mr. CICILLINE. Mr. Chairman, I just want to ask the gentleman a question. You made reference to the decision of--I forget the word you used to describe bureaucrats.

Mr. CICILLINE. I think you said some pejorative word describing bureaucrats. But I just want to ask the gentleman--the settlements that are described or the subject of this legislation, of course, are settlements that would require court approval and enforcement. So I think in fairness, when you say it is so that a bureaucrat doesn't get to decide this, this is pursuant to litigation which the parties come to an agreement that then the court must approve. So this is really about respecting the ability of the court to assess the propriety of a judgment. And I think there was a very famous decision where one of the courts said the purpose of the Clean Water Act was not to endow the Treasury, but to prevent harm. So the idea is not just to generate money for the government, but to actually remediate and respond to the harm that was caused by the corporate wrongdoer. I think that is why Mr. Johnson's amendment is important, brilliant, and deserves our support.

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

Mr. CICILLINE

Mr. CICILLINE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Arizona for yielding and for his leadership in organizing this Special Order hour. There is no more sacred responsibility that we have than to ensure that the children in this country have access to quality, affordable healthcare. So I rise this evening to speak in support of the vital Children's Health Insurance Program, also known as CHIP. As you know, Mr. Speaker, CHIP authorization expired on September 30, 2017--this past September. This program assures that 9 million children, including 27,000 children and pregnant women in my home State of Rhode Island, are provided with low-cost health insurance, which covers essential services such as routine checkups, immunizations, doctor visits, prescriptions, dental and vision care, inpatient and outpatient hospital care, laboratory and x-ray services, and emergency services. This historically bipartisan program has been successful in lowering the percentage of children who are uninsured from nearly 14 percent when it started in 1997 to 4.5 percent in 2015. Historic achievements. If not extended by Congress soon, many States will no longer be able to fund the program and will begin limiting coverage, some as early as the end of this year. In fact, the Kaiser Family Foundation recently concluded that, without an extension of CHIP, ``States would face budget pressures, children would lose coverage, and implementation of program changes could result in increased costs and administrative burden for States as well as confusion for families.'' If not extended by Congress soon, many States will no longer be able to fund the program and will begin limiting coverage. Congress must also act with urgency to extend and reauthorize the other programs that were enacted in the Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act of 2015, including extending funding for community health centers; the Personal Responsibility Education Program; the rural and Medicare-dependent hospitals program; Teaching Health Centers; Maternal, Infant, and Early Childhood Home Visiting Program; and the Special Diabetes Program for type 1 diabetes and for Indians. These critical programs, as well as CHIP, are vital to the American healthcare system, and they support access to high-quality, affordable care. I want to again thank the gentleman from Arizona for providing this Special Order. This is urgent and should be an urgent priority for the Congress of the United States to reauthorize this critical program to absolutely insist that children--as I said, 9 million children across this country--have access to quality, affordable healthcare, including 27,000 children and pregnant women in my home State. Democrats are urging our Republican colleagues to reauthorize this bill immediately so that the families who are so anxious about whether or not they will continue to have the ability to access quality, affordable healthcare can rest comfortably and know that this work is done. I thank the gentleman again for his leadership and for yielding to me on this very important issue.

Mr. CICILLINE

Mr. CICILLINE. Mr. Speaker, this week, the fourth round of NAFTA renegotiations will begin. President Trump will have an opportunity to deliver on his promise last year to get a better deal for American workers. I hope he does. Our current trade deals are rigged in favor of the largest corporations in this country and against working people. In my home State of Rhode Island, we have lost 41,000 manufacturing jobs since NAFTA and the WTO took effect. That is more than half of the manufacturing jobs in my State. The folks who kept their jobs have seen their paychecks get smaller. Rhode Islanders know, most importantly, that we need a trade deal that is fair; but they know that trade deals that we have now help powerful corporations, but they are killing American jobs, helping corporations outsource jobs at the expense of working people. This week I am asking President Trump to demand a new NAFTA agreement that has strong labor and environmental protections, that end foreign tribunals that allow corporations to sue the U.S. Government and force taxpayers to pay the bill, that has better Buy American requirements, that has strict protections against currency manipulation, that has strong rules of origin on manufactured goods, and that has provisions that bring down the cost of prescription drugs. These are commonsense provisions that will empower American working families, and they should be included in any new trade agreement.

Mr. CICILLINE

Mr. CICILLINE. Mr. Speaker, 58 innocent people were murdered in Las Vegas. Their killer used 12 bump stocks to convert his semiautomatic weapons into the equivalent of a machine gun. No one should possess one of these devices, let alone 12 of them, and that is why I am introducing legislation to ban them. But I am mindful, Mr. Speaker, that we have been here before after Newtown, Aurora, San Bernardino, Orlando, and other mass shootings. Each time, my Republican friends have refused to act. Now, in the wake of the worst mass shooting in modern history, our Republican colleagues are not only refusing to act, but they are going to make the problem even worse by pressing proposals that will make the problem worse, making it easy to carry a concealed weapon, making it easier to buy a silencer. I mean, this is insane. I get it. Elections have consequences. You won last November so you get to do what you want, but this is wrong. Let's come together and do something. And I promise you, if Congress fails to respond to the demand for commonsense gun safety legislation, we will be held to account by those we serve, and rightly so. So let's work together and do something.

Mr. CICILLINE

Mr. CICILLINE. Mr. Speaker, last week, Hurricane Maria hit the island of Puerto Rico. The damage on the island has been described as apocalyptic: buildings destroyed, a major dam at risk of collapse, and millions of American citizens looking for help. But 1 week later, we still have not addressed this extraordinary crisis. Congress is not planning to vote on providing aid until next week. President Trump tweeted about Puerto Rico owing money to Wall Street, as if that should be a priority right now. President Trump and my friends on the other side of the aisle who control Congress need to start treating this with the urgency it demands. My district is home to more than 20,000 Puerto Ricans. Over the last week, they have told me that they don't understand what is going on in Washington. Why is this taking so long? This President talks a lot about putting America first, but why isn't he doing more to help our fellow citizens in Puerto Rico? Mr. Speaker, on behalf of my constituents, bring a bill to the floor. Let's get this done, and let's address the humanitarian crisis that is besetting citizens in Puerto Rico.

Mr. CICILLINE

Mr. CICILLINE. Mr. Chair, I rise in support of my amendment which supports expanding access to Naloxone for first responders. Equipping police officers and EMTs with Naloxone means they can immediately save the life of a person who is overdosing. Although drug overdose deaths rose by 33 percent in the past five years, states, like Rhode Island, Maryland and Pennsylvania, are experiencing severe shortages of Naloxone. The cost of Naloxone has skyrocketed--rising by thousands of dollars in some cases--and it only has a shelf life of 18 to 24 months. States have had to find alternate sources of funding, including tapping into emergency funds and cutting state programs, just to keep Naloxone in stock. Some communities have also had to make extremely tough choices, like rationing funds and deciding how many lives they will save. We must make additional investments in Naloxone for our first responders in order to stem the rising tide of opioid deaths. I urge my colleagues to support my amendment.

Mr. CICILLINE

Mr. CICILLINE. Mr. Speaker, the American people deserve a better deal. They deserve better jobs, better wages, and a better future. That is what Democrats are committed to doing, and it starts with creating millions of full-time, good-paying jobs that give more Americans the opportunity to get ahead. That is why we have proposed doubling Federal support for apprenticeship programs. Apprenticeship training is one of the most cost-effective ways for getting workers started on a successful career path. Over their lifetimes, folks who completed an apprenticeship will earn $300,000 more than folks who don't. Now, you would think that a President who once hosted a game show called ``The Apprentice'' would see the wisdom of this approach, but that is not the case. Earlier this year, President Trump actually proposed a budget that cuts job training by nearly 40 percent. That is not a better deal. It is not even a good deal. It is a raw deal. We can do better. Let's make the expansion of apprenticeship programs a national priority. Let's give young people and folks who are changing careers the tools they need to get ahead. Let's give the American people a better deal.

Mr. CICILLINE

Mr. CICILLINE. Mr. Speaker, 2 weeks ago, on August 23, Army Specialist Matthew Turcotte was killed during a live ammunition exercise at Fort Carson in Colorado. Specialist Turcotte was a lifelong resident of North Smithfield, Rhode Island. He joined the Army 2 years ago and was assigned to the 4th Infantry Division. He died a hero, having earned numerous medals for his service to our Nation, including the Army Achievement Medal and the Global War on Terrorism Service Medal. Last Saturday, hundreds gathered in Providence to give Specialist Turcotte a hero's farewell at his funeral mass. All of us know, who serve in this Chamber, that our country owes an enormous debt of gratitude to all who have served, and especially to those who have made the ultimate sacrifice on the altar of freedom. My thoughts and prayers are with Specialist Turcotte's family today, especially his wife, Megan, and his parents, Raymond and Liza. President Trump's Decision to Terminate the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals Program

Mr. CICILLINE. Mr. Speaker, I also want to spend a moment to speak about President Trump's decision to terminate the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program. It is one of the cruelest in Presidential actions in recent memory. This was a shameful moment for our country. America has always stood as a beacon of freedom and opportunity, but not right now. The DACA program has allowed nearly 800,000 DREAMers to work, study, and serve their communities and Nation. That includes nearly 1,300 DREAMers in my home State of Rhode Island. The DREAMers are workers and taxpayers. They pay $3 billion in taxes each year, including $2.6 million in my home State. They contribute $2 billion each year to Social Security and another $470 million to Medicare. They didn't choose to come here. They were brought here by their parents as very young children. They love this country. They share our values. They are contributing to their communities every single day. They are young men and women like Lesdin Salazar, a 22-year-old Rhode Islander who came here from Guatemala with her parents when she was 7 years old. Lesdin was a high school junior when President Obama signed an executive order to establish DACA. She was later accepted to Rhode Island College, where she is paying out of pocket today to pursue a degree in teaching. Lesdin also works at Calcutt Middle School in Central Falls, Rhode Island, where she helps kids who need behavioral and emotional support, but she will have to give up this dream unless Congress acts. The same is true of Ana Abigail Molina, a 27-year-old Rhode Islander who came to the United States when she was just 6 years old. Today Ana works at Thundermist Health Center and has dreams of going back to school to become a surgical technologist. And like so many DREAMers, Ana doesn't really remember much of the country where she was born. She considers herself an American. Javier Juarez also considers himself an American, a young man who just graduated from Rhode Island College and is planning to attend graduate school on an academic scholarship at Brown University starting this fall. His dream is to one day attend Harvard Law School. Javier has been living in Rhode Island for 18 years. Before DACA, he couldn't drive, get a good job, or go to college, but now he is the first member of his family to graduate from a 4-year university. He, too, will have to give up his American Dream unless Congress acts. And finally, Maribel Rivera Sosa, who came to Rhode Island from Mexico at the age of 9. When she graduated high school 5 years ago, Maribel didn't think she would be able to attend college, but just days later, when President Obama established DACA, Maribel's opportunities became limitless. She was able to attend the Community College of Rhode Island while working three separate jobs. After earning an associate's degree, Maribel enrolled at Johnson & Wales University, and her dream is to earn a master's degree in health administration. Who among us thinks that someone who works three jobs shouldn't be able to follow their dreams? This is just cruel. President Trump is ripping apart hundreds of thousands of families and injecting chaos and uncertainty into the lives of members of our community who know no other home than America. If Congress doesn't replace DACA with the Dream Act, it will result in $460 billion in lost economic activity over the next decade, including $61 million in Rhode Island. Republicans in Congress need to bring the Dream Act to the floor right now. We need a permanent solution, and I am proud to be a cosponsor of the bipartisan Dream Act. We need to bring that bill to the floor. Every Republican who disagrees with President Trump's actions needs to tell Speaker Ryan to bring the Dream Act to the floor. This Congress must act in a manner worthy of a country that has inspired these young DREAMers and pass the Dream Act without delay.

Mr. CICILLINE

Mr. CICILLINE. Mr. Chair, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from the great State of Rhode Island (Mr. Langevin), my distinguished senior colleague.

Mr. CICILLINE. Mr. Chair, may I inquire how much time I have?

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

Mr. CICILLINE. Mr. Chair, I want to thank my colleagues: Congressman Beyer, Congressman Langevin, Congresswoman Bonamici, Congressman Keating, Congressman Ted Lieu, and Congressman Schneider, who are cosponsors of this amendment. This amendment would strike the harmful provision that prevents implementation of the National Ocean Policy. The National Ocean Policy has helped guide ocean management for over 7 years. NOP offers an opportunity to develop commonsense tools to manage the ocean economy. The Regional Ocean Council allows States throughout the Northeast to pool resources, strengthen the voice of businessowners, and facilitate coordination with Federal partners. The National Ocean Policy allows Federal agencies to coordinate implementation of over 100 ocean laws and allows State and local governments to have a say in the ocean planning process. My home State of Rhode Island, the Ocean State, has benefited greatly from the National Ocean Policy, and I want to take a moment to acknowledge the extraordinary leadership of my colleague, Senator Sheldon Whitehouse, who has championed this effort. As one example, with help from the National Ocean Policy, the Block Island Wind Farm was successfully completed and today is powering an estimated 17,000 homes. The Northeast depends on clean water for fishing, shipping, recreation, and tourism. Estuaries like Narragansett Bay, Cape Cod Bay, Buzzards Bay, and Long Island Sound need relevant data on water quality to guide future decisions and management actions. It is a terrible idea to undermine the development of good ocean policy and efforts to protect water quality. The National Ocean Policy does not create any new regulations, supersede existing regulations, or modify any agency's established mission, jurisdiction, or authority. Instead, it helps to coordinate the implementation of current regulations by Federal agencies to establish a more effective and efficient decisionmaking process. NOP gives life to a vision of stewardship through the thoughtful implementation of regulations and coordination in protecting our treasured oceans. Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment and to strike this ill-advised provision. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CICILLINE. Mr. Chair, I yield 45 seconds to the distinguished gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Schneider).