David Cicilline

Mr. CICILLINE

Mr. CICILLINE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I rise to support H. Res. 351, which condemns the violence and persecution against LGBT or perceived-to-be LGBT individuals in Chechnya. This resolution is an example of the strong bipartisanship of the House Foreign Affairs Committee under the leadership of Chairman Ed Royce and Ranking Member Eliot Engel. I thank my good friend, Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, who has long been a champion of the dignity of all people around the world, for introducing H. Res. 351. I also thank the chairman and ranking member for working with us to ensure this resolution was passed without delay and with the support of the full committee. On April 1 of this year, the Novaya Gazeta, one of the few independent Russian newspapers, posted a chilling report detailing a concerted campaign by Chechen authorities to identify, round up, torture, and murder gay or perceived-to-be-gay men and women in the Chechen region of Russia. Dozens of suspected LGBT men and some women have been rounded up with estimates of more than 100 people being detained, and at least three murdered, maybe many more. Chechen leader Ramzan Kadyrov has denied the reports. When confronted with accusations, his spokesman denied there were any gay people in Chechnya, and explained that, ``If there were such people in Chechnya, law enforcement agencies wouldn't need to have anything to do with them because their relatives would send them somewhere from which there is no returning.'' In fact, there have been credible reports that Chechen authorities have forced family members of those detained or those suspected of being gay to commit ``honor killings'' or face violence and retaliation against their entire families. Chechnya is a small, conservative region of Russia, and LGBT people there face a level of isolation and danger that is unthinkable to those of us living in the freedom of the United States. Even those who have managed to escape Chechnya continue to face danger from extended family members or Chechen authorities within Russia and even parts of Europe. That is why it is so important that the United States work with our partners in Europe and assist in making sure that those fleeing the violence in Chechnya are relocated somewhere they can be safe. H. Res. 351 condemns the violence and persecution against LGBT individuals in Chechnya and calls on Chechen officials to immediately cease the abduction, detention, and torture of individuals on the basis of their actual or suspected sexual orientation, and hold accountable all those involved in perpetrating such abuses. Furthermore, this resolution calls on the government of the Russian Federation to protect the human rights of all its citizens, condemn the violence and persecution, investigate these crimes in Chechnya, and hold accountable all of those involved in perpetrating such abuses. We must remember that President Kadyrov is a close ally of President Putin, and that the Russian Government has essentially sanctioned the atrocities that are being carried out on its soil. That is why it is so important that representatives of the United States Government, at the highest levels, raise this issue with President Putin and other Russian officials. I was extremely disappointed when Secretary of State Tillerson appeared before the Foreign Affairs Committee earlier this month and admitted that neither he nor the President had raised this issue with anyone in the Russian Government. The United States must make it clear that human rights abuses will not be tolerated. The President, the Secretary of State, and other senior officials must raise this issue consistently with the Russian Government and make it clear that they must protect the lives and safety of all Russian citizens. Additionally, the Trump administration must take steps to ensure that any Russian officials involved in these atrocities are being sanctioned under the Sergei Magnitsky Act and the Global Magnitsky Human Rights Accountability Act, which we passed last year. Events like these are exactly why these bills were passed, to ensure that government officials involved in gross human rights abuses do not have the privilege of accessing American markets or traveling to the United States. Furthermore, the administration should be working in concert with our European allies to ensure that Russia is being held to its international obligations and treaties. The lives of vulnerable men and women are at stake, and every day that we remain silent, we condemn more to a dark fate. I am pleased that the House is considering this resolution tonight. I urge my colleagues to support it. I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. CICILLINE

Mr. CICILLINE. Mr. Speaker, today, June 21, is National Asking Saves Kids Day, or ASK Day. Every 6 days in our country, a child under the age of 15 dies from an accidental gunshot. Each year, more than 600 children sustain nonfatal injuries from an unintentional gunshot, and 80 percent of all unintentional firearm deaths of children under the age of 15 occur in a home. This is a national crisis, and we need to stop it. Since 2000, the ASK Campaign has encouraged parents to ask before their child visits another home whether there is an unlocked gun in the House. Today is the first day of summer, the season when kids spend more time at a friend's house, so later today I will be introducing a resolution to officially designate June 21 as National ASK Day, to promote children's health and gun safety. This is not a Democratic issue or a Republican issue. This is an issue important to every family all across our country. Let's get the job done and do something that will save the lives of children all across our country. Just ask.

Mr. CICILLINE

Mr. CICILLINE. Mr. Speaker, on June 12, 2016, 49 Americans were gunned down at the Pulse Nightclub in Orlando. Tonight we remember the beautiful lives lost and all those who suffered injury in this horrific attack. Sadly, LGBT Americans continue to be the target of horrific hatred and violence here and around the world. Don't let anyone tell you that we have full equality in this country. We don't. There is too much hatred in this country. Anytime an LGBT American is mocked or treated as less than equal, it is an attack on the values that all of us share as Americans. These expressions of bigotry and intolerance only serve to exacerbate hatred and violence. We cannot let them go unanswered. Over the last few days, so many have joined in showing their support for the LGBT community and remembering the victims in Orlando. We are strongest when we stand united toward a common purpose of equality for all Americans. It is my sincere hope that we will build greater understanding toward one another and move closer toward ensuring that every American can live free from discrimination and violence of any kind and in a world where everyone is valued and treated with dignity and respect.

Mr. CICILLINE

Mr. CICILLINE. Mr. Speaker, less than 10 years ago in 2008, bad actors on Wall Street brought the economy of our country to the brink of collapse. Because of their greed, recklessness, and deceit, millions of Americans lost their jobs, families were thrown out of their homes, and seniors saw their life savings evaporate before their very eyes. Washington bailed out the big banks and they said they were too big to fail, but the American people never got a bailout. The American people were told: You are on your own. And in seven States, including my home State of Rhode Island, we are still working to recover jobs that were lost in this Great Recession. That is why it was so important 2 years later when Congress passed and President Obama signed into law the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010. This law was a landmark victory for the American people, especially the American consumer. That is why it is so disturbing that Republicans now want to take us back to the days of too big to fail, a time when powerful Wall Street special interests exploited consumers and small investors, and our entire economy was put at risk. The bill before us today, which I call the ``Wrong'' CHOICE Act, will turn Wall Street into the Wild West again and it will empower the big banks to do what they want at the expense of honest, hardworking families. This bill takes us back to an era when financial institutions could wipe out someone's retirement and foreclose on innocent homeowners completely unchecked. This bill repeals commonsense requirements that require financial advisers to act in the best interests of their clients. It will allow bad actors to push bad products on working people and seniors in exchange for paybacks. This bill protects forced arbitration clauses and allows companies to require their customers to waive their right to a jury trial, and deny them their day in court when their rights are violated. By the way, that includes servicemembers, brave men and women who have worn the uniform of the American Armed Forces. Unfortunately, servicemembers and veterans are often targeted for financial fraud and unscrupulous creditors because they are held to a higher standard of debt repayment. In addition, their frequent time away from home makes it harder for our servicemembers to identify scams. The CFPB has already taken at least 12 major enforcement actions directly protecting servicemembers and their families. In 2016, the CFPB fined Navy Federal Credit Union $28 million for illegal debt collection tactics. The CFPB took action against two for-profit colleges, ITT Technical Institute and Corinthian Colleges, both of which have been linked to predatory treatment of servicemembers and veterans. The now-defunct Corinthian was ordered to provide $480 million in debt relief to defrauded students, including servicemembers. In 2013, the CFPB ordered high-cost, small-dollar lender Cash America to pay up to $14 million in restitution and a $5 million penalty for violations of the Military Lending Act. Just 2 months ago, CFPB sanctioned an auto lender that harassed and preyed on servicemembers. Security National Automotive Acceptance Company threatened that they would contact commanding officers about debts that our veterans incurred, and lied to our brave men and women in uniform about their obligations, and they have been held accountable because of the CFPB. The CFPB was created to protect families and small businesses, and since 2010, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau has returned nearly $12 billion to 29 million consumers in all 50 States. More than 1 million consumers have used the CFPB's complaint database, and nearly all of them have received a timely resolution to their issues. The CFPB held Wells Fargo accountable to the tune of $100 million after they opened millions of fraudulent accounts for customers without telling them. Wells Fargo surreptitiously collected fees from these victims, and every dime was returned to consumers because the CFPB was on the job. The sole purpose of CFPB's existence is to ensure that bank loans, mortgages, and credit cards are fair, affordable, understandable, and transparent. That is exactly what it is doing. Republicans want nothing more than to kill it. No honest, hardworking American should be exploited when they are taking out a mortgage, trying to pay off their college debt, buying a car, or opening a bank account, but that is what is going to happen if Republicans get their way today. Passage of this bill will confirm what so many Americans believe: that Washington works for big business, the very rich, and powerful special interests, but not for them. Let's remind ourselves that the American people sent us to Washington to work for them. They didn't send us here to fight for the big banks and credit card companies that already have too much power here in Washington. Reject this bad bill. Vote for the American people. Protect consumers, and very strongly vote ``no.''

Mr. CICILLINE

Mr. CICILLINE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in recognition of the 100th anniversary of Lions Clubs International, the largest service club organization in the world. With more than 46,000 clubs and 1.4 million members, including 31 clubs and over 1,100 members in my home State of Rhode Island, Lions Club members are transforming lives through dedicated service to communities across the country and around the world. Since 1917, Lions Club members have dedicated themselves to living up to founder Melvin Jones' inspiring words: ``You can't get very far until you start doing something for somebody else.'' In Rhode Island, Lions Club members have transformed the lives of visually impaired and blind Rhode Islanders by hosting Camp Mauchatea for children and working to expand access to high-quality, affordable vision care. The incredible support of Rhode Island Lions for the Ronald McDonald House has unquestionably saved lives, and their efforts to raise awareness of the need for foster parents, offer scholarships, and so much more have made a real difference. So on behalf of the people of Rhode Island, it is my privilege to honor Lions Clubs International for their century of service.

Mr. CICILLINE

Mr. CICILLINE. Mr. Speaker, it has been said that a budget is more than a series of statements or line items. It is really a statement of your values and of your priorities. If that is true, then Donald Trump's anti-working families budget shows he doesn't understand the challenges facing honest, hardworking Americans. Let's be clear: the Trump budget was written by some of the wealthiest Americans for the benefit of the wealthiest Americans. This budget is a major setback for the middle class, and it makes life even harder for anyone who is trying to punch a ticket to the middle class. This budget eliminates hundreds of millions of dollars for job creation, it zeros out funding for workforce training and good-paying manufacturing jobs, and it makes it even harder for young people to succeed by cutting teacher training, eliminating afterschool programs, and making it harder to pay off student loans. The American people deserve better. This is not a budget that any Member of Congress should be comfortable supporting. Democrats are speaking out today against the Trump budget. It is time Republicans do the same.

Mr. CICILLINE

Mr. CICILLINE. Mr. Speaker, our Nation is in the middle of a public health crisis. Drug overdoses are now killing more Americans each year than car accidents. And 336 Rhode Islanders died last year as a result of a drug overdose. That is up from 290 in 2015 and 238 deaths in 2014. Nationwide, overdose deaths involving prescription and illicit opioids have quadrupled since 1999. This is a crisis that threatens Americans of all different backgrounds--young and old, Black and White, urban and rural. It is a crisis, plain and simple. All of us who serve the government have a responsibility to stop it. That is why I was so alarmed earlier this month when I learned that President Trump is considering slashing funding for the Office of National Drug Control Policy by 95 percent. Slashing funding for the lead Federal agency in this fight would have a devastating impact on families in Rhode Island and all across our country. Let's work together. Let's work across the aisle, Democrats and Republicans, to defeat this short-sighted proposal and, instead, advance real, comprehensive solutions to this public health epidemic.

Mr. CICILLINE

Mr. CICILLINE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 2266, the ``Bankruptcy Judgeship Act of 2017,'' which authorizes the establishment of four additional permanent bankruptcy judgeships and converts 14 temporary bankruptcy judgeships to permanent status. I am pleased to be an original cosponsor of this legislation, which is a necessary response to alleviate the strain on certain bankruptcy courts that have experienced a significant increase in bankruptcy filings over the past decade or more. Importantly, this legislation adopts the recommendations of the Judicial Conference of the United States, the national policymaking body of the federal courts, and does not impose additional fees on ordinary consumer debtors or small businesses. As the Conference notes in support of this measure, while bankruptcy filings have decreased nationwide, the bankruptcy courts that would receive permanent or new judgeships under this legislation ``have seen weighted filings increase by more than 55 percent.'' Furthermore, without this legislation, all 14 temporary judgeships covered by this bill will lapse later this month on May 25. Allowing a lapse in these judgeships would have potentially crippling effects on the bankruptcy system. For example, five of the six authorized judgeships of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court of the District of Delaware--the preferred venue for corporate reorganization under Chapter 11--are temporary. Accordingly, I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation. I thank Ranking Member Conyers, the bill's sponsor, for his leadership on this bill, along with Judiciary Committee Chairman Goodlatte and Subcommittee Chairman Marino for their support.

Mr. CICILLINE

Mr. CICILLINE. Mr. Speaker, this is the cruelest and most immoral thing I have seen the Republican Party do to the American people. Tens of thousands of Americans will die if this bill passes. That is a fact. Republicans have been deceiving the American people for the last 8 years. They don't care about working people, and this bill proves it. They care about insurance companies and drug companies that fund their campaigns. They care about the millionaires and billionaires who get huge tax cuts in this bill. Don't try to tell me that they care about factory and construction workers who will be hurt by this bill. Don't try to tell me that they care about single moms who won't be able to put food on the table after you pass this bill. Don't try to tell me that they care about cancer survivors who are going to pay $140,000 more for health insurance. I don't know how anyone can look their constituents in the eye if they vote for this bill. Shame on you if you do. If you vote for this bill, there will come a day when you will have to answer for your vote, when you will have to look a friend, a family member in the eye, someone who is sick or dying, and say: I did this to you. Don't do it. Vote ``no.''

Mr. CICILLINE

Mr. CICILLINE. Mr. Speaker, throughout the Presidential campaign, Donald Trump promised to create good-paying manufacturing jobs, but nearly 100 days into his administration, we are learning that this is just another broken promise. Since taking office, President Trump has failed to use American steel for the Keystone pipeline, proposed $2.5 billion in cuts in the Labor Department, which will reduce funding for critical job training in advanced manufacturing, and proposed complete elimination of the Manufacturing Extension Partnership, a Federal initiative that provides critical matching grants to support regional manufacturing economies. If President Trump were serious about putting working people first, he would work with Democrats to pass bills we have already introduced to strengthen manufacturing, bills like Make It In America Manufacturing Communities Act that I have introduced to revitalize manufacturing economies and legislation to modernize and strengthen Buy America provisions. If Donald Trump wants to keep the promises he made to working people, then he needs to start working with Democrats to deliver results. We are ready to go. We have introduced bills to strengthen American manufacturing. All we need now is a real partner in the White House, a President who is more concerned with results than TV ratings.

Mr. CICILLINE

Mr. CICILLINE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Rhode Island for convening this Special Order hour and for his incredible leadership on this issue of the importance of the National Endowment for the Arts and the National Endowment for the Humanities, not only here in Congress, but for what the gentleman does back in Rhode Island to ensure that all Rhode Islanders have the ability to experience and enjoy the beauty of the arts and culture in our great State. As the gentleman knows, and I am sure he has referenced, we come from the State of the late Senator Claiborne Pell, the founder of the National Endowment for the Arts. So we feel a special privilege, and it is a great honor to stand and defend this great institution. As has been mentioned, art not only nourishes our soul, but it makes us more human and creates beauty in the world. We have had a number of events recently in Rhode Island where we have brought in invited artists and people who enjoy art to speak about what the impact might mean if we defunded the National Endowment for the Arts. There were so many beautiful words that were shared by a young woman who said: Art helped me find my voice. And she described kind of what her life had been before she became an artist. We know the economic impact of the arts. In my congressional district, there are 1,340 arts-related businesses that employ almost 7,000 people. We spend in this country a very modest amount, .004 percent, so four one-thousandths of 1 percent is the budget of the National Endowment for the Arts. So it is a very modest budget. Forty percent of the programming for the National Endowment for the Arts supports activities in high-poverty areas. So the contributions it makes are enormous to our economy. For every dollar that is invested in the arts, it yields $51 in economic activity. So there are tremendous economic benefits to this. In addition to that, as was referenced by Representative Price from North Carolina, arts, culture, and creativity are essential parts of the job skills for the 21st century. People want to employ people who are entrepreneurial, creative, problem-solving; and arts and music are some of the best vehicles to develop those skills. So it is something which is important to the future economy of our country, to the kind of civilization that we will be a part of. It adds to the lives of everyone that we will represent. I thank Representative Langevin for giving me an opportunity to reinforce the importance of funding the National Endowment for the Arts and the National Endowment for the Humanities. It makes all the difference in the world to the kind of art experiences people have in this country. We invest a very modest amount of money, and it yields so much more that it is hard to imagine America without the National Endowment for the Arts and the National Endowment for the Humanities. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend and colleague from Rhode Island (Mr. Langevin) for leading this effort and for convening this Special Order hour.

Mr. CICILLINE

Mr. CICILLINE. Mr. Speaker, in the 20th century, good-paying manufacturing jobs built the middle class in Rhode Island and across our country. But in recent decades, millions of these jobs have disappeared. Factories have been shuttered. Bad trade deals have moved American jobs to other countries. It is time to rebuild American manufacturing. It is time to support making things in America again. That is why I have introduced H.R. 1672, the Make It In America Manufacturing Communities Act, a bipartisan bill that will help revitalize American manufacturing and promote the creation of good-paying jobs in our country. This is a commonsense bill that incentivizes communities, together with the private sector, higher education, and other key stakeholders to work together to strengthen their manufacturing economies. It provides targeted investments and support to make regions and local communities competitive in manufacturing again--communities like those in my home State of Rhode Island, the birthplace of the American industrial revolution. Mr. Speaker, let's put America back to work at good-paying jobs. Let's get this done and pass H.R. 1672. Let's work to export great American goods and not great American jobs.

Mr. CICILLINE

Mr. CICILLINE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 1667, the ``Financial Institution Bankruptcy Act of 2017.'' In 2008, the United States economy nearly collapsed as a direct result of lending practices in the housing market that were predatory, unsafe, and in many cases fraudulent. Investments in toxic securities created a cycle of failure in the housing market: the declining health of the market undermined the value of these securities, which, in turn, devastated the housing market and caused the failure of several of the nation's largest financial institutions. With the financial system in near collapse, large financial institutions were essentially able to ``blackmail'' the government because these banks were so large that there was no way to break them apart, as then-FDIC Chair Sheila Bair testified in 2009. Although the true hardship caused by this widespread fraud is incalculable, we do know that it erased $10 trillion of household wealth and caused 8 million Americans to lose their jobs and 5 million Americans to lose their homes. Rhode Island, my home state, was hit particularly hard by the recession. When I took office, the unemployment rate in Rhode Island hovered at 11.2%, the fifth highest in the country. In the wake of this economic disaster, the Dodd-Frank Act was enacted to comprehensively reform the financial system. Because of this law--which includes some of the strongest consumer protections passed since the Great Depression--the banking system is stronger; there is more transparency in consumer lending; and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) continues to serve as an important watchdog to protect Americans against predatory lending and fraud in the financial system. Title I of Dodd-Frank provides stability in markets by requiring large financial institutions to have a ``living will'' to serve as a plan for the ``rapid and orderly resolution in the event of material financial distress or failure.'' Title II ends taxpayer bailouts of banks that are too big to fail by providing financial regulators with orderly liquidation authority where a bank's collapse ``would have serious adverse effects on financial stability in the United States'' and ``no viable private sector alternative is available.'' This process expressly requires a finding by the Secretary of the Treasury that the bankruptcy process would not be appropriate to resolve a distressed firm. Leading commentators agree, however, that the U.S. bankruptcy process is not designed to accommodate the orderly resolution of a large financial institution that poses systemic risk to the entire economy. H.R. 1667, the Financial Institution Bankruptcy Act,'' addresses this concern by establishing a ``single point of entry'' for the resolution of an insolvent financial institution with assets exceeding $50 billion. The goal of the bill is to establish a process where a distressed financial institution could voluntarily seek bankruptcy relief while its subsidiaries continue to operate. But while I support H.R. 1667 and am an original cosponsor of this bill, make no mistake: I will strongly oppose any effort to combine this measure with a repeal of the Dodd-Frank Act, or any part of this law for that matter. Since this law was enacted, the economic recovery has led to the creation of more than 15 million private sector jobs, a 60% increase in business lending, and record performance by the Dow Jones Industrial Average. It is critical that we build on this progress through education, training, and other initiatives to promote economic opportunity. Too many Americans are still unemployed or working two or even three jobs just to get by while Wall Street has never been better. We must also preserve and advance the protections established by the Dodd-Frank Act to ensure transparency and stability in the financial system while protecting consumers. The National Bankruptcy Conference agrees with this assessment, and has previously instructed that the Dodd-Frank Act should ``continue to be available even if the Bankruptcy Code is amended to better address the resolution of SIFIs because the ability of U.S. regulators to assume full control of the resolution process to elicit the cooperation from non-U.S. regulators is an essential insurance policy against systemic risk and potential conflict and dysfunction among the multinational components of SIFIs.'' Moreover, should this legislation become law, Dodd-Frank provides a valuable backstop to bankruptcy through its Orderly Liquidation Authority, which empowers the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) to act as a receiver for large financial institutions that are ``too big to fail.'' I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. CICILLINE

Mr. CICILLINE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding. I want to begin by thanking her for her extraordinary leadership on this issue. From the very day that I arrived in Congress, she has been a passionate, articulate, effective voice for working men and women and for the impact that bad trade agreements have had on the economy of this country and on her region, but on working families all across America. She has done it consistently and relentlessly. It has been a privilege to work with her, but I really do want to acknowledge her extraordinary leadership and thank her for convening this Special Order hour tonight. As Ms. Kaptur mentioned, the consequences of bad trade agreements have been felt by many regions throughout the country, but in my home State of Rhode Island, as an example, we lost more than 41,000 jobs since NAFTA was enacted. These are good wages. These are jobs that pay, on average, above nonmanufacturing jobs--jobs that really help build the economy of our State and of this country. When President Trump was elected, as Ms. Kaptur mentioned, during the course of his campaign he promised that he would do something different with our trade deals. He promised hardworking Americans that he would deliver results, but we are now 10 weeks into his Presidency, and we have seen a lot of talk and no action on fair trade. The President promised to label China a currency manipulator on day one. He hasn't done that. The President promised to use American steel for the pipelines. He hasn't done that. The President promised to make NAFTA work for American workers, but as Congresswoman Kaptur mentioned, there is a leaked letter from the White House that shows he is already looking to implement the same failed policies that are good for corporate America and bad for American workers. The executive orders that President Trump signed failed to address the real challenges that are facing hard working Rhode Islanders and hardworking Americans. Let's be very clear, Mr. Speaker, we don't need another report on trade policy. We need concrete actions that create good-paying jobs, that honor hard work with good wages and grow our economy. We need to end incentives that encourage corporations to ship jobs overseas and raise the Federal minimum wage. And while we should collect unpaid penalties, that is only going to happen if the President takes real action to clamp down on cheating, end job-killing trade deals, and create new standards that benefit working Americans. It already seems that President Trump's campaign promises to get tough on trade were all bark and no bite. If President Trump does indeed deliver on his promise to renegotiate NAFTA, any new agreement must include strong labor and environmental standards, strong Buy America provisions, prescription drug cost reductions, enforceable currency manipulation standards, and other pro-worker, pro-consumer requirements. Mr. Speaker, there is a terrific publication that I know you are aware of entitled ``The New Rules of the Road: A Progressive Approach to Globalization,'' prepared by Jared Bernstein, who is a senior fellow at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, a former chief economist and economic adviser to Vice President Biden; and Lori Wallach, a lawyer and someone who has been director of Public Citizen's Global Trade Watch since 1995. It really sets forth the kind of principles that should guide a new trade deal: that we need to ensure that, first of all, the way it is negotiated ensures that it is going to benefit working men and women. We cannot allow corporate elites to dictate how NAFTA is renegotiated. The agreement could potentially become more damaging for working families and for our environment in the countries that we work with. If done wrong, it could increase job offshoring, push down wages, and expand the special power and protections that NAFTA provides to corporate interests that are reflected in the original deal. What we have to ensure is that what President Trump doesn't do is make a bad trade deal worse and pander to corporate and multinational corporations and his sort of crony friends, and the process by which this will be renegotiated will help to determine that. The provisions that are in it need to be guided by what is good for American workers and what is good to help grow American jobs. So not unlike so many other areas, it is disappointing because there has been a lot of good rhetoric about this, but very little action by the administration. I think we are all here tonight to participate in this Special Order led by the gentlewoman from Ohio to let the administration know that we are not going anywhere, that we are going to demand that NAFTA be renegotiated, that it be a trade deal that works for American jobs and American workers, and we are not going to allow the President to simply use rhetoric but actually not do the hard work to strike a better deal for American jobs and American workers. I want to just end where I began, by thanking the gentlewoman for yielding. This is an issue of tremendous importance to my home State, where manufacturing is so important, the birthplace of the American industrial revolution, and one of the reasons I continue to work hard on the whole Make It In America agenda. We need to start creating conditions for the creation of good manufacturing jobs here in America so we can export American-made goods, not American jobs. I thank again the gentlewoman for yielding.

Mr. CICILLINE. Absolutely.

Mr. CICILLINE

Mr. CICILLINE. Mr. Speaker, yesterday we learned that the Trump administration tried to limit former Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates' testimony on Russian interference in the 2016 election. As reported in The Washington Post, Sally Yates and former CIA Director John Brennan had made clear that their testimony would contradict statements that have been made by officials at the White House. The hearing at which they were to testify has now been canceled, and all of us have a responsibility to ask why. If there is nothing to hide about his ties to Putin's Russia, then why doesn't President Trump want Sally Yates to testify? If there is nothing to hide, then why does President Trump continue to withhold his tax returns? If there is nothing to hide, then why won't President Trump make public the visitor logs at Mar-a-Lago? We are now in day 68 of the Trump administration. Each day, more and more information emerges about ties between Vladimir Putin's regime and Trump's inner circle, and the Trump campaign officials. Each day, the White House scrambles to contain the damage. It is time for the President to come clean with the American people. Mr. President, let Sally Yates testify. Mr. President, release your taxes. Mr. President, let's see the guest logs at Mar-a-Lago. And Mr. President, support an independent, bipartisan commission to get to the bottom of this. The American people deserve answers.

Mr. CICILLINE

Mr. CICILLINE. Mr. Speaker, last night we watched the President and the House Republicans scramble to achieve political points at the expense of the American people, working through the night. Imagine if they worked this hard on a jobs bills or a bill that raised family incomes or a bill to rebuild our infrastructure. But instead they are trying to pass a tax cut for the rich disguised as a healthcare bill, a bill that will require us to provide big, gigantic tax cuts. To do that, they impose higher costs on families, higher premiums, higher deductibles. They strip 24 million hardworking Americans from health care, including 60,000 Rhode Islanders. They impose a crushing age tax. They steal from Medicare, and they will destroy nearly 2 million jobs, all so they can give the wealthiest Americans and the most powerful special interests a big, huge tax cut. Shame on President Trump. Shame on the Republicans. This is wrong for our country. We can do better than this. We need to protect access to health care, not rob millions of Americans from health care.

Mr. CICILLINE

Mr. CICILLINE. Mr. Speaker, we have heard this legislation described as a rescue mission and an act of mercy. Don't insult the intelligence of the American people. This bill is the cruelest and most immoral piece of legislation I have seen since I arrived in Congress. It will rip insurance from 24 million hardworking Americans, including 60,000 Rhode Islanders. It will put $600 billion in tax breaks into the hands of the powerful, wealthy special interests. This is not a healthcare bill. This is a tax-cut bill. Let's call it what it is. It is going to produce higher costs, higher premiums, and more out-of-pocket expenses. It imposes a crushing age tax on older Americans. It ransacks funds that seniors rely on for long-term care, and it will destroy nearly 2 million jobs. All of this harm to the American people, to settle a political score, and to reward your friends and wealthy special interests. Shame on President Trump and shame on the Republican Party for doing this to the American people.

Mr. CICILLINE

Mr. CICILLINE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding. In a very short number of weeks here in Congress, she has already made her mark as a passionate advocate not only for her State, but in this important fight to protect access to affordable, quality health care, and she has been an extraordinary member of the Judiciary Committee. It has been an honor to serve with her, and I thank her for yielding and thank her for her great leadership. Mr. Speaker, we are here to continue our fight to protect access to quality, affordable health care and to defeat TrumpCare. TrumpCare will produce higher costs for our constituents, forcing families to pay higher premiums, higher deductibles, and higher out-of- pocket expenses. It also will provide less Americans coverage. According to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, 24 million Americans will lose their health insurance when TrumpCare becomes law. Thirdly, it imposes a crushing age tax. TrumpCare allows individuals age 50 to 64 to pay premiums five times higher than others pay for health care, no matter how healthy they are. It is higher premiums, higher deductibles, higher out-of-pocket expenses, 24 million people will lose insurance, older people will pay an age tax. And TrumpCare, in addition to all of those terrible things, shortens the life of the Medicare trust fund by 3 years and ransacks the funds that seniors depend on, particularly, to get their long-term care. And finally, the best estimates are that it will destroy nearly 2 million jobs in this country if passed. So why is this happening? Why would someone construct a bill that does this? Well, in large part, it is to finance an extraordinarily big tax cut, a tax cut for the wealthiest people in this country. The richest 400 families will receive a tax cut, each, of about $7 million. Then there are tax cuts for drug companies, insurance company CEOs. And to finance this tax cut, which totals $600 billion over the decade, in order to finance that, this bill robs 24 million Americans of health insurance, cheats seniors out of the care that they deserve in nursing homes, imposes higher premiums and higher deductibles on working families, and imposes a crushing age tax on older Americans. This is wrong. And, you know, the President ran on a campaign of helping working people and being for the middle class. This piece of legislation is a gift to the richest people in this country and the most powerful special interests and a betrayal of the promise to work for middle class and working families. I want to end, with the indulgence of the gentlewoman from Washington, you know, we talk about these numbers, and they are staggering: 24 million, $600 billion. Behind each of those numbers are real people whose lives will be affected by TrumpCare and by the repeal of the Affordable Care Act, individuals whose lives will be devastated, families who will be ruined because they no longer have access to the care that they need. In the richest, most powerful country in the world, this does not have to be the case, and I want to give you two examples. Just this week I heard from Sara from, Woonsocket, Rhode Island. She wrote to me: I am writing to you to encourage you to vote against the American Health Care Act proposed by Paul Ryan and the Republican Party. My brother has developmental disabilities and relies on Medicaid for insurance. Experts who have reviewed this bill have determined that it will ultimately cut funding for people like my brother, but the working class in this country cannot afford the burden that this bill would impose. And the wealthiest among us do not need any more handouts from the Federal Government. Please vote against this bill. I had correspondence, again, with another constituent, who talks about the important services that the ACA provided to her family. She was heartbroken at the death of her son Anthony who passed away on August 9 due to an overdose, and she describes Anthony as a compassionate and deep person who, unfortunately, like many Americans, suffered from severe anxiety and depression. To deal with his condition, he started self-medicating with prescription drugs. After returning home from a sober house, he, unfortunately, relapsed and took some designer drugs that he had ordered online, causing him to overdoes. She called me just this week. Anthony's sister Cara also suffers from anxiety and depression, in part because of the post-traumatic stress disorder that she suffered after discovering her brother who had died. Thanks to the ACA, she is able to receive coverage for critical mental health services since her mother doesn't have coverage through her employer. Like many of my constituents, Cara relies on the coverage she has gained, and she writes: I am worried for my future without my support system. The discontinuation of coverage would be detrimental to our efforts to combat mental health disorders and the opioid epidemic which continues to plague families and has been such a support to my family. These are just two examples. We have millions of examples all across this country of people whose lives have been protected and saved and helped because of access to quality, affordable health care. This will undo all of that progress. We have to do everything we can to stop it. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding and for leading this Special Order hour tonight so we can continue to make sure the voices of the American people are heard and we defeat TrumpCare and protect access to affordable, quality health care in this country.

Mr. CICILLINE

Mr. CICILLINE. Mr. Speaker, Republicans are planning to vote tomorrow to pass TrumpCare. This bill is a great deal for the superrich, it is a great deal for insurance companies, and it is a great deal for drug companies. But it is a bad deal for working men and women across our country. TrumpCare will raise premiums, increase deductibles and out-of-pocket expenses. TrumpCare ends coverage for 24 million people. TrumpCare destroys 2 million jobs. TrumpCare imposes an age tax on older Americans. And TrumpCare cuts Medicaid by $880 billion to give corporations and the wealthiest Americans a $600 billion tax cut--the single largest transfer of wealth from working people to the rich in history. This is wrong. The American people do not want this bill. They don't want to pay more for less. Donald Trump promised that he would be a great champion for the middle class. It only took him 2 months in office to break that promise and sell out to the wealthy and the special interests. Shame on him and shame on anyone who votes to take away health coverage from working men and women to fund a big tax cut for folks who don't need it. The working people of this country deserve better.

Mr. CICILLINE

Mr. CICILLINE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding and for his extraordinary leadership on this legislation. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 372, the Competitive Health Insurance Reform Act of 2017, would partially repeal a longstanding antitrust exemption established by the McCarran-Ferguson Act with respect to the business of health and dental insurance. To qualify for this limited antitrust exemption, an insurer must be engaged in the business of insurance regulated by a State that is not designed to boycott, coerce, or intimidate. While these requirements somewhat constrain anticompetitive conduct, it is clear that they do not preclude the most egregious antitrust violations, such as price fixing, bid rigging, and market allocation, by health insurance providers. Health insurers should not be immune from antitrust scrutiny, particularly when they collude to increase prices, reduce availability, or otherwise engage in anticompetitive behavior. That is why House Democrats passed a measure that is substantively similar to H.R. 372, in 2010, by a vote of 406-19, and in 2009, as well. In 1988, 1992, and 1994, Judiciary Democrats likewise favorably reported legislation to completely repeal the McCarran-Ferguson Act. While H.R. 372 is only a partial repeal of this exemption, I encourage my colleagues to support this measure. But let me be perfectly clear about three things: First, promoting competition in health insurance markets cannot occur at the expense of the strong protections established by the Affordable Care Act to make health markets more efficient and prohibiting discriminatory insurance policies. These protections are ``textbook measures that help promote competition in the insurance marketplace,'' as Professor Tim Greaney, a leading antitrust expert, testified in 2015. Second, contrary to President Trump's suggestions on Twitter, repealing McCarran-Ferguson's antitrust exemption for health insurance will not remove State barriers or create new pathways for insurance companies to compete and offer products across State lines. This simplistic approach to healthcare policy overlooks the fact that the Affordable Care Act already allows States to establish healthcare choice compacts to provide for cross-State insurance sales, while five States have already enacted out-of-State purchasing laws. But these laws have done little to encourage cross-State insurance sales because health insurers are simply not interested in selling these products across State lines. The barriers to entry into health insurance markets ``are not truly regulatory, they are financial and they are network,'' as Professor Sabrina Corlette of Georgetown University's Health Policy Institute has observed. Notwithstanding President Trump's exaggerated claims to the contrary, it is also clear that enacting this legislation is not a precondition for Congress authorizing cross-State insurance sales. My Republican colleagues on the Judiciary Committee agree, noting in their report on the bill that ``the general consensus, including among witnesses at the most recent Judiciary hearing on the Competitive Health Insurance Reform Act, is that if Congress decides to allow insurers to sell across State lines, such action does not necessarily require a repeal of McCarran-Ferguson.'' And third, there is no evidence that enacting this bill alone will improve the affordability or availability of health insurance. According to the Congressional Budget Office, the effect of H.R. 372 on health insurance premiums ``would probably be quite small,'' and enacting the bill will have ``no significant net effect on the premiums that private insurers would charge for health or dental insurance.'' Additionally, because the McCarran-Ferguson Act does not apply to mergers, H.R. 372 will not prevent further concentration in health insurance markets. The truth is, Mr. Speaker, if Republicans were serious about actually enforcing the antitrust laws, they would fully fund the antitrust agencies. But as we know from the Trump administration's budget blueprint, Republicans plan to make deep cuts to the funding of enforcement agencies like the Justice Department, likely to the detriment of economic opportunity and fair competition. In addition, President Trump has not even nominated heads to the antitrust agencies. According to the Partnership for Public Service, even though he has been in office for 60 days, President Trump has not picked a nominee for 497 of the 553 positions requiring Senate confirmation. Worse still, President Trump is reportedly considering appointing a former lobbyist for a health insurance giant to run the Justice Department's antitrust division, which is tasked by Congress ``to protect economic freedom and opportunity by promoting free and fair competition in the marketplace.'' Citing lobbying reports, the International Business Times notes that this particular lobbyist participated in the ``antitrust issues associated with Anthem's proposed acquisition of Cigna,'' and his firm received $375,000 in lobbying fees. Just last month, the Justice Department won an important lawsuit initiated under the Obama administration to block this merger, which, according to the Department of Justice, would have harmed consumers through increased health insurance prices, while stifling the exact innovation that is necessary to lower healthcare costs. It is unsurprising that President Trump's corporate cabinet will probably include yet another lobbyist that will pursue an extreme agenda on behalf of special interests. But the significance of this potential appointment cannot be overstated and absolutely will not result in lower prices or more choices for the American people. In closing, Mr. Speaker, while I support H.R. 372 as a complement to the Affordable Care Act, I agree with the ranking member that this bill is not a solution to improving the availability or affordability of health insurance.

Mr. CICILLINE

Mr. CICILLINE. Mr. Speaker, there are so many people that I have heard from in my own district, and I know colleagues have heard the same thing when we talk about these numbers: 24 million people will lose their insurance and billions of dollars in tax breaks for the richest people in this country. Behind every one of these numbers is a real person whose life will be destroyed or devastated because they don't have access to quality, affordable health care. This is the richest, most powerful country in the world. We are well on the way to having a system in which everyone can afford and have access to quality, affordable health care. We made huge progress in the Affordable Care Act. It is not perfect. We have always been willing to say: How do we make it better? How do we build on the success of it? The notion, in the midst of this progress, that we would deprive or pass a piece of legislation, this TrumpCare, that will take away insurance from 24 million people, that will raise premiums, raise out- of-pocket costs, undermine Medicaid and Medicare, and also give a big tax cut to the richest people in this country is just so wrong. I just think it is very important, as we speak about this, to remember, behind every one of these numbers is a story of a real person, a real family, just like the woman you described, just like Brenda in Lincoln, Rhode Island, whose lives are going to be really hurt and who are going to face devastating consequences because they don't have access to basic quality health care, which is a right in this country every American should have access to. This sets us back so far it is difficult to imagine what our colleagues on the other side of the aisle are thinking.

Mr. CICILLINE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Garamendi) for leading this Special Order hour where we can really talk about the impact of what is about to happen if the Republicans get their way and pass TrumpCare. I think it is important to recognize that this proposal that is currently before the House will substantially hurt the American people, beginning with, as your chart demonstrates, the loss of coverage, when fully implemented, for 24 million Americans who will no longer have access to affordable health care and will be uninsured by 2026. Those are our friends, our neighbors, our family members who no longer will have health coverage. In addition, it provides an enormous tax break for the wealthiest people in this country. In fact, the total value of these tax breaks over the decade is $600 billion to the richest individuals and the biggest corporations. It is the largest transfer of wealth for working families to the very rich in our Nation's history. To accommodate this tax break, to give this huge tax benefit to the richest Americans and the largest corporations, they achieve this by stealing health care from millions of families all across this country and by cutting billions of dollars from Medicaid and Medicare. As the gentleman from California (Mr. Garamendi) said, the 400 richest families will each enjoy a $7 million tax cut; and the way they paid for that is they take away health care from millions of Americans. There is also the impact on our economy. There is a new analysis from the Center for American Progress, and they conclude that TrumpCare will destroy 1.8 million jobs. We are all focused on: How do we get people back to work? How do we create good-paying jobs? This is a job killer. TrumpCare will cost 1.8 million jobs, a loss of an ability to provide for yourself, for your family, and for your future. As you said, people will be paying more money for less quality care. Deductibles and out-of-pocket expenses will skyrocket, leaving sick people unable to afford the care they need. Particularly, as you mentioned, there will be an age tax because older Americans will pay more. Their premiums will go up at an even faster pace because they are allowed to charge even more based on their age. Young people are also hurt. Young people are hit with a millennial tax. They put a 30 percent premium surcharge on those reenrolling after a lapse in coverage, which is often the case, particularly with young people where people may have lost a job and be out of work. So they are going to be penalized with a 30 percent premium. The impact of the Republican proposal, this TrumpCare proposal, on women is devastating. In addition to new restrictions on comprehensive health care for women, this Republican bill, TrumpCare, defunds Planned Parenthood and will make it much more difficult for women to access essential preventative care and affordable contraception. As I mentioned, the middle-aged American--the age tax--will pay more. For example, a 64-year-old individual with an income of $26,000 in the individual market will pay $12,900 more in their premiums each year. That is almost half their income under the Republican plan. So it is going to really get those who are above 55 but haven't yet hit the age to receive Medicare especially hard. Also, TrumpCare hurts our seniors by weakening Medicaid and Medicare. It shortens the life of the Medicare trust fund by 3 years. It steals $880 billion from Medicaid, which, as you mentioned, is the principal source of long-term care for seniors. Also, it does damage to the protection for people who have preexisting conditions, because someone who has a lapse in coverage will be subjected to a 30 percent premium on top of their base premium. So there is another penalty for people who have preexisting conditions. If you take all of this together, it is worse coverage, worse care, higher costs, huge tax cut for the richest people in this country--for drug companies, for insurance companies, CEOs. To pay for their tax cut, we take away insurance from the most vulnerable and working people in this country. We have all received both emails and phone calls and had conversations with those whom we have the privilege of representing, and they have shared with us these heart-wrenching stories of what it would mean to lose their health care. In my State, I am proud to say that, with the implementation of the Affordable Care Act, ObamaCare, we have the highest rate of coverage that we have ever had in our State's history. Ninety-seven percent of Rhode Islanders have access to quality, affordable health care. It is great. It makes a difference in the lives and quality of the lives of everyone. I want to share with the gentleman from California (Mr. Garamendi) an email that I got from a constituent, just recently, from Lincoln, Rhode Island. Brenda said: If all goes well, I am literally going into surgery for hip replacement on March 16 of this year. Though hip replacement is seen as elective, the pain I deal with now interferes with my quality of life. Without it, I will end up in a wheelchair in a few years once I can't handle the persistent pain. Without the ACA, I would not be able to have this operation. I do not own a home for collateral and have a 19- year-old car. I work full-time in a hotel for $12 an hour. I have not had a raise in 4 years. We have no benefits at all, including health care. We have no paid time off at all for sick days, personal days, or vacation. I am not confident enough to move to another job with my current physical limitations, which have reached a point where it interferes with every activity, including sleeping. My doctors, who are aware that I get my medical through the ACA, have been helpful and diligent about getting me in soon, knowing there is a major threat for those whose only way for medical coverage is through the ACA. My condition may not be life-threatening, but left untreated, it would limit where I can live, if and where I can work, and, most likely, leave me on permanent disability or Social Security, which most people can't live on. I am only 52. I still have several functional, productive years ahead of me, and I receive a subsidy to help make my coverage affordable. Brenda is just one example of someone whose life is literally being preserved. Her quality of life is being protected because she has access to health care. She can have the surgery she needs. She can eliminate the pain she is suffering and lead a productive life. There are millions and millions of Americans who have the same kinds of stories, who have benefited from the Affordable Care Act, who will be deeply harmed when that insurance is ripped away if Republicans get their way and pass TrumpCare. I want to end by just saying thank you again to the gentleman from California (Mr. Garamendi) and to also mention that he referenced, in his remarks, the process that has produced this very, very troubling piece of legislation, unlike the process that produced the Affordable Care Act that occurred over many, many months and many hearings, where 121 Republican amendments were accepted into the bill and it still didn't earn a single Republican vote. Yet, through TrumpCare, over 100 Democratic amendments were offered in three committees of jurisdiction and not a single Democratic amendment was accepted. So even efforts to try to improve a terrible bill were rejected in the committee process, and that is because they are intent on making sure they deliver this big tax cut to the special interests who sent them here to Washington, and they are going to try to do it on the backs of the hardworking people of this country. We have to continue to stand up and fight and do everything we can to prevent it from happening.

Mr. CICILLINE

Mr. CICILLINE. Mr. Speaker, right now Republicans are racing to pass TrumpCare, legislation that repeals and replaces the Affordable Care Act. They are racing to pass it to because they know when the American people find out what is in this bill, they won't support it. But let me tell you what TrumpCare does, Mr. Speaker. It gives huge tax cuts to insurance companies and the top 1 percent. It allows insurance companies to raise premiums by 25 percent for older Americans. It eliminates funding for Planned Parenthood, denying millions of women critical care. It cuts lifesaving support for the most vulnerable: children, Americans with disabilities, the frail elderly, and nursing home residents. And it slashes funding for Medicaid. TrumpCare is a great deal for the wealthy. TrumpCare is a great deal for insurance companies and drug companies. It is a raw deal for everyone else. Millions will lose healthcare coverage. And let's be clear, people are going to die when this happens. Millions more will end up paying for more lower quality care, and Republicans don't even have a plan to pay for their proposal. After 7 years, this is it. This is the best they have got: tax cuts for the rich and bad health care for everyone else. Working families deserve better.

Mr. CICILLINE

Mr. CICILLINE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to H.R. 985, the Fairness in Class Action Litigation and Furthering Asbestos Claim Transparency Act of 2017. Mr. Chairman, there can be no doubt that this legislation is an assault on the civil justice system. By effectively banning class actions, H.R. 985 would give wrongdoers a permission slip to avoid public scrutiny or liability for their unlawful conduct. Worse still, this legislation also contains the text of the so-called FACT Act, which is designed to delay justice for asbestos victims and deny accountability for corporate defendants. As the ranking member of the House Judiciary Subcommittee that exercises jurisdiction over this bill, I am strongly opposed to this dangerous and offensive measure. For decades, medical experts have closely linked asbestos exposure with mesothelioma, a form of lung cancer, and other forms of lung disease. Asbestos manufacturers have also known about the deadly effects of asbestos exposure; but, as a Federal judge noted in 1991, there is compelling evidence that these companies sought to conceal this information from workers and the general public. Instead of sharing this critical information, which could have saved countless lives through exposure prevention, asbestos companies ``continued to manufacture one of the most widely used asbestos products without informing workers or the public,'' as the nonprofit Environmental Working Group has reported. Real examples of this widespread corporate deception are legion, but one in particular stands out. In 1966, the senior executive of a corporation that currently operates as a subsidiary of Honeywell wrote that, if asbestos victims ``enjoyed a good life while working with asbestos products, why not die from it.'' In the wake of numerous lawsuits related to asbestos-related deaths, Congress amended the bankruptcy code in 1994 to authorize the use of trusts for the settlement of asbestos liability. In 2001, the nonpartisan Government Accountability Office conducted an exhaustive study of these trusts but did not find a single example of fraudulent conduct. Despite this finding, proponents of H.R. 985 now make the outrageous and totally unsupported claim that victims of asbestos exposure have committed fraud--more alternative facts. In the name of what they describe as transparency, the bill would force trusts to publicly disclose asbestos victims' sensitive personal information, including their names, partial Social Security numbers, and the like. Beyond the obvious consequences these requirements would have in the form of hacking and identity theft, this information is already available to relevant parties on a confidential basis through the discovery process, as both the GAO and the RAND Corporation have reported. I agree with the majority that asbestos trusts must be accountable and transparent to both present and future claimants, but there is no evidence to suggest any wrongdoing or any fraud. This legislation would only make it easier for wrongdoers to get away with harming others and to make it harder for Americans to be compensated for these injuries. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to oppose H.R. 985.