David Cicilline

Mr. CICILLINE

Mr. CICILLINE. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Michigan for yielding and for his leadership on this Special Order hour. Madam Speaker, 5 weeks ago President Obama fulfilled his constitutional responsibility and nominated Judge Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court. Judge Garland is eminently qualified for this position. In 1997, he was confirmed to the United States Court of Appeals in the District of Columbia with a majority of both parties supporting his nomination. He oversaw the prosecution of Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols for the Oklahoma City bombing. Before Judge Garland's nomination to the Supreme Court, Republican Senator Orrin Hatch said he would be a consensus nominee and that there was no question he would be confirmed in the Senate. Now, one month after President Obama nominated Judge Garland to the Supreme Court, Senate Republicans are refusing to hold hearings on his nomination or give him an up-or-down vote. President Ronald Reagan said: The Federal judiciary is too important to be made a political football. But that is exactly what Senate Republicans are doing. They are denying the American people a fully functioning Supreme Court and choosing to turn the Federal judiciary into a political football. The Supreme Court was designated by the Founders of our country to make major decisions of law and to protect the rights of all Americans, but the Supreme Court can't function as it was designed without a full slate of nine Justices. The Constitution makes clear that the President's job is to nominate Justices to the Supreme Court, and the Senate's job is to advise and consent on those nominations. The President has done his job. It is outrageous and deeply offensive that Senate Republicans are saying they won't do their job for the remainder of the year. This is yet another example, maybe the most consequential example, of Republican obstruction. The American people deserve more from their elected officials. Leader McConnell and Members of the Senate Republican caucus, do your job and consider Judge Garland's nomination as swiftly as possible. The American people deserve nothing less.

Mr. CICILLINE

Mr. CICILLINE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I want to particularly thank the gentleman for his extraordinary leadership on this very important issue of forced arbitration, which is denying many, many Americans the right to have their grievances heard. I want to thank both Mr. Johnson and Mr. Conyers for not only the legislation, but for continuing to raise this issue. As many of my colleagues have said, forced arbitration denies individuals the most basic right to have their grievances heard fairly. No court, no lawyer, no judicial proceedings, all the things that we have over many centuries recognized as essential to the fair and impartial resolution of disputes. But there is an area that I want to speak about in particular where forced arbitration, I think, is particularly damaging and particularly unfair. In the coming weeks, I will introduce legislation that will protect the rights of our troops to pursue justice in our courts. My legislation will simply clarify the original intent of the Uniformed Services Employment Rights Act of 1994, also known as USERRA, and allow veterans and servicemembers to have their claims heard in court. This legislation was intended to protect the men and women of the Armed Forces from losing their jobs as a result of their service to our country. It specifically prohibits employment discrimination due to military service and guarantees benefits and reemployment rights to those who leave their civilian jobs to serve. However, these rights have rapidly eroded in recent years. Employers are requiring their employees to sign forced arbitration agreements barring access to justice for servicemembers. As my colleagues have discussed this evening, these agreements are often heavily tilted toward the parties who insist upon them. In mandatory arbitration, the employers can select the arbitrator and the location of the forum, and the avenues for appeal are entirely closed off. In many instances, these clauses are imposed by employers without the knowledge or consent of their employees. While USERRA explicitly prohibits any agreement that limits any right or benefit provided under the statute, some Federal courts have misinterpreted the law to exclude procedural rights. As a result, many of the 1.3 million brave men and women who serve in our military may return to civilian life without their jobs and without the ability to fully assert their rights in the courts. This includes servicemembers like Javier Rivera, an Army Reservist who was deployed for 6 months only to learn that his job had been filled in his absence. Despite 900 job openings, his former employer claimed that he could not find a single open position for him upon his return. Under these circumstances, USERRA should have provided some relief. At the bare minimum, it should have guaranteed him the opportunity to have his claim heard in a fair, objective forum. However, because of a forced arbitration clause in his contract, he had no access to the courts at all. Denying our servicemembers and veterans this essential right directly conflicts with the intent of USERRA. By limiting their access to legal recourse, it represents a direct affront to all who serve in our military. Our troops face many potential threats in service to our country. The last thing they should be concerned about is whether they will be able to keep their job. A Nation that asks young men and women to defend this country with their lives should protect them from losing their livelihoods when they come home. So I urge my colleagues to support this legislation to help preserve access to justice for our servicemembers and veterans and to recognize this is just one very powerful example of what the real damage and the gross unfairness of forced arbitration clauses do to millions of Americans. I thank Mr. Johnson again for yielding, for his extraordinary leadership on this issue, and for his fight to ensure that all Americans have access to the courts and fair resolutions of their grievances.

Mr. CICILLINE

Mr. CICILLINE. Mr. Speaker, on Saturday, at 3:30 p.m., I am hosting a public discussion at the Community College of Rhode Island Lincoln campus to highlight financial aid opportunities for students and the work we need to do in Congress to address the crisis of student debt. Our young people are drowning in student debt. It is projected that 65 percent of the job openings by 2020 will require postsecondary education or training beyond high school, so this will become even more urgent. The cost of education in a 4-year university has increased 250 percent since 1979, while real wages have stayed about the same. Compared to 1979, students pay $26,000 more per year for a private university and $11,000 more each year at a public university. The average Rhode Island college student has over $31,000 in student loan debt, the fourth highest in the country. We need to guarantee young people that they can graduate from college debt free. We need to allow students to refinance existing debt at lower rates, and we need to increase Pell grants and other investments in higher education. This needs to be a national priority. We need to do it now. Our future depends on it.

Mr. CICILLINE

Mr. CICILLINE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I thank both the gentleman from Massachusetts and the gentleman from Texas for their extraordinary leadership on this important resolution. Yesterday, the world saw the face of evil in a series of cowardly and despicable terrorist acts that claimed the lives of 34 innocent people in Brussels. I, too, extend my thoughts and prayers to all of the families affected by this horrific violence. At the same time, Mr. Speaker, here in Congress, we must renew our commitment to keep Americans safe from terrorism, continue to support our intelligence services and law enforcement agencies in their critical work, and do all that is necessary to defeat and destroy these terrorists wherever they are. Today the United States and the entire world are standing shoulder to shoulder with the people of Belgium. The ISIS terrorists who perpetrated these attacks did so in an attempt to strike fear into the heart of anyone who does not share their radical world views. We have seen these same tactics tried before in our own country: in San Bernardino, at the Boston Marathon, the Pentagon, the World Trade Center, and in a field in Pennsylvania. But for each time they have tried, terrorists have failed to shake the resolve of those they have targeted, and we will not allow them to succeed this time. The motto of the country of Belgium is ``eendracht maakt macht,'' ``unity makes strength.'' Let there be no doubt. We stand today united and strong with the people of Belgium. We will do whatever it takes, no matter how long it takes, to help Brussels rebuild and to bring all those responsible to justice.

Mr. CICILLINE

Mr. CICILLINE. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, in April, the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in the United States v. Texas, a case that has been repeatedly litigated by our colleagues in the halls of Congress. And this resolution is absolutely about immigration policy. Let's be clear. Numerous hearings have been held in our committee challenging the constitutionality of Deferred Actions for Parents of Americans. Our colleagues, instead of moving forward on comprehensive immigration reform and fixing our broken immigration system, have instead insisted on putting forth a resolution, a resolution that has no substantive findings, makes no legal arguments against the executive action, and exists only in the hopes of securing time before the Court during oral arguments. If our colleagues do find themselves before the Court in this case, it would be helpful if they remember the settled Constitutional law on this subject. DAPA is a lawful exercise of executive discretion well within the bounds of the Constitution. It is based on laws enacted by Congress that grant broad discretion to the Secretary of Homeland Security. Since 1952, Congress has authorized the executive branch to establish such regulations, issue such instructions, and perform such other acts as it deems necessary for carrying out its authority. And within that authority, it is a reasonable exercise of the discretion delegated by Congress to do what it is doing. The executive action focuses the limited resources of the Department of Homeland Security on public safety priorities, ensuring that we are deporting felons, not families. It is important to recognize that Congress appropriates enough to remove less than 4 percent of the unauthorized immigrants now in our country. The Secretary of Homeland Security has the statutory responsibility to set enforcement priorities and to adopt policies necessary for meeting these priorities. It is consistent with the actions of Presidents of both parties for the last decades, including President Eisenhower, President Reagan, and President George Herbert Walker Bush. In fact, the strongest historical precedent for DAPA was the Family Fairness program implemented by President Reagan and President Bush. These executive actions will strengthen our communities, keep families together, and grow our economy. This resolution is not about limiting executive authority. It is about attempting to reverse immigration policy set by the executive branch. I understand why my friends on the other side of the aisle don't want to admit that, or they want to frame it in the context of a Constitutional question, but it is really about changing policies that are keeping families together, that are making sure that we properly allocate resources to the most serious individuals who should be deported, those who have committed crimes, and keep families together while we work to fix our broken immigration system. This is about a fundamental change in immigration policy that will rip families apart, that will undermine our values as a country. We ought to call it what it is. I urge my colleagues to vote against the rule and vote against this resolution.

Mr. CICILLINE

Mr. CICILLINE. Mr. Speaker, today I want to bring attention to another myth about gun violence: the suggestion that more guns are the key to reducing gun violence. On December 4, just days after San Bernardino, Senator Ted Cruz said, ``You stop bad guys by using our guns.'' We hear similar comments from gun advocates and allies all the time, but the facts tell a much different story. Not one of the 62 mass shootings from 1982 to 2012 was stopped by an armed citizen. A 1998 study in the Journal of Trauma, Injury, Infection, and Critical Care found that a gun in the home is 22 times more likely to be used against a friend or family member than used in self-defense. A 2003 study found women in homes with a gun were 2.7 times more likely to be murdered. A 2013 study found, for each percentage point increase in a State's gun ownership rate, firearm homicide rates increased by 0.9 percent. Facts are stubborn things. But the facts are clear. More guns will not end our country's epidemic of gun violence.

Mr. CICILLINE

Mr. CICILLINE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from New Jersey for leading this Special Order hour on this very important issue. As my colleagues have mentioned, the Supreme Court is scheduled to hear Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt next Tuesday, challenging HB2, a Texas law that has already led to the closing of more than 20 abortion providers in the State. Now, this is just the most recent example of the attack which is underway all across this country on women's health, not just in the State of Texas, but in many other places around our country. As was just mentioned, politicians are passing laws and enacting regulations to deny women full reproductive health care. In fact, just last Sunday, Ohio Governor John Kasich signed a law defunding Planned Parenthood. During his time in office, half of Ohio's abortion clinics have closed. One in three women will have to make a decision in their lifetime if an abortion is the right decision for them. I am very proud to be a member of the Pro-Choice Caucus in the Congress. I know this is an extremely personal decision for women, a decision that should be made between a woman and her physician, and a decision the government has no right to intrude upon, a constitutionally protected right as established in our law. It is absolutely critical that women in every part of this country have access to full reproductive health care, including safe abortion services. If the Court upholds Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt, there will be only ten clinics available to the women in the State of Texas. Some would have to travel 7\1/2\ hours roundtrip to get the health care that they need. This is settled law in our country. The Court addressed this issue in Roe v. Wade and again in Planned Parenthood v. Casey. It reminds us of the importance of the decision that our Supreme Court will make in connection with this case that they will hear on Tuesday. Doctors are being required, under Texas provisions, to affiliate with nearby hospitals, and it also limits abortions to ambulatory surgical centers. These measures are designed to reduce or even eliminate, in some circumstances, access to abortion services. Although there are arguments made that these are medically necessary or they are, in fact, intended to improve women's health, Nancy Northup, who is the president of the Center for Reproductive Rights, said it best when she said, the ``laws . . . pretend to be about women's health but actually are designed to close clinics.'' And that is exactly what they intend to do. These regulations and requirements are very disputed medical value. There are things like limits on nonsurgical drug-induced abortions, mandated building standards for clinics, or 2- or 3-day waiting periods. All of these things are intended to infringe upon a woman's right to choose and to make it more difficult for women to access full reproductive health care. We all have responsibility in the Congress to stand up against this. I am proud to join my colleagues tonight to say that we will continue to fight to ensure that women have access to all of the reproductive health care they need and that we will resist any effort to infringe upon this important constitutional protection.

Mr. CICILLINE

Mr. CICILLINE. Mr. Speaker, last weekend, six people were murdered by a gunman on the streets of Kalamazoo, Michigan. So far this year, we have had more than 1,800 people die at the hands of a gun and more than 30 mass shootings. Congress has done nothing in the face of this continued bloodshed. What will it take for us to act? Today I will introduce the Hate Crimes Prevention Act, a bill that closes the hate crimes loophole and will prevent those convicted of hate crimes from possessing or purchasing a gun. I have proposed the assault weapons ban, a bill to end the purchase of firearms by dangerous individuals, to close the fire sale loophole. My colleagues have introduced many other bills to fix our broken background check system. It is important that we take up this legislation and vote on these bills to let our constituents know where we stand in this fight to reduce gun violence in our country.

Mr. CICILLINE

Mr. CICILLINE. Mr. Speaker, last Sunday 5 people were killed and 25 injured in four mass shootings in New York, Florida, Illinois, and Mississippi. Yet, Congress has done nothing to reduce gun violence in America. While this is happening, opponents to commonsense, responsible gun safety legislation are spreading misinformation and sharing myths, myths such as: criminals don't exploit loopholes to buy guns; there is no gun show loophole; the assault weapons ban that was previously in place didn't work; and strong gun laws don't reduce gun crimes. It is time that we start calling out these myths and correcting the record with the facts. In the coming days, I will be doing just that on my Web site and through social media to help build support for commonsense, responsible gun safety legislation. After all, Mr. Speaker, facts should guide us in doing our work and doing all that we can to reduce gun violence in America.

Mr. CICILLINE

Mr. CICILLINE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Dorian Murray, an 8-year-old boy from Westerly, Rhode Island, who was diagnosed with a rare tissue and bone cancer. After learning in December that his disease was no longer treatable, Dorian told his father that his goal was to become famous all around the world. In recent weeks, after his parents posted his request on Facebook, the world has responded. People in China, Italy, Brazil, Germany, and other countries have come together to post their messages of support for Dorian during his courageous fight against cancer. Dorian's hashtag, #DStrong, has now been viewed on social media platforms by millions and millions of people. I am keeping Dorian, his mom Melissa, and his dad Chris in my thoughts and prayers. Today the United States House of Representatives is D-Strong.

Mr. CICILLINE

Mr. CICILLINE. I am opposed to the bill in its current form.

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

Mr. CICILLINE. Mr. Speaker, this is the final amendment to the bill. It will not kill the bill or send it back to committee. If adopted, this bill will immediately proceed to final passage here on the floor, as amended. This amendment is very simple. It would exempt from the requirements of the underlying bill a rule prohibiting discrimination by Federal contractors or subcontractors on the basis of sex, sexual orientation, or gender identity, and require such contractors to take affirmative measures to prevent discrimination on those bases from occurring. This amendment is consistent with the executive order signed by President Obama on July 21, 2014, that added sexual orientation and gender identity to the list of protected categories covered by Federal contractors--protections that were originally put in place by President Lyndon Johnson, a leader who did so much to advance equality in our country. Today, while we have made great strides in terms of marriage equality, members of the LGBT community still face significant discrimination in employment as well as a variety of other important areas of life. As many of my colleagues are aware, it is still legal in most States to fire a qualified person from a job that they are performing well simply because of their sexual orientation or gender identity. Today, in many places across the country, a gay couple can get married on Saturday, post pictures online on Sunday, and get fired from their jobs or kicked out of their apartments on Monday. This is contrary to everything this country stands for, including the principle of equality upon which our country was founded. I would like to point out, contrary to the sentiments of the American people, a majority of Americans, nearly 70 percent, support antidiscrimination laws to protect LGBT individuals. Unfortunately, there are those who would continue to stand in the way of full equality for all Americans, who think that it is okay that hardworking men and women simply trying to support their families suffer discrimination because of their sexual orientation or gender identity. That is why it is important to support the President in his effort to protect the LGBT community from discrimination in Federal contracting. Just as businesses should not be able to discriminate based on race, ethnicity, gender, or disability, no entity that benefits from government money should be able to discriminate based on sexual orientation or gender identity. The underlying bill we are discussing today would hinder the implementation of these nondiscrimination efforts, putting everyday Americans at risk of losing their jobs based on nothing more than who they are. I am reminded of the story of Carter Brown, a young man from Texas who had built a thriving career in real estate in Dallas, Texas. Carter had received three promotions in 2 years, was earning a great salary and loved his job. But when he was outed as transgender by a colleague, Carter found himself harassed, ostracized, and ultimately fired from his job, and there was absolutely nothing he could do, because he was not protected under the law. Carter bravely told his story earlier this year in the Lyndon Johnson Room of the Capitol Building as we announced the introduction of the Equality Act, which would place important protections for the LGBT community throughout our Federal Code. The Equality Act would ensure that members of the LGBT community are protected from discrimination in areas of employment, credit, housing, education, Federal funding, jury service, and public accommodations. I am very proud that 171 of my colleagues in the House have joined in this effort and cosponsored this bill, and I urge the rest of my colleagues to sign on as well. But until full equality is passed into Federal law, at the minimum, we should ensure that Federal money is not being used to discriminate against LGBT Americans by companies who receive Federal contracts. That is why I urge my colleagues to support this motion to recommit and ensure equality in our Federal contracting. Our Federal Government should not be used to promote or tolerate discrimination. It is contrary to the founding principles of our great country. Mr. Speaker, I urge you to vote in support of this motion to recommit. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. CICILLINE. Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.

Mr. CICILLINE

Mr. CICILLINE. Mr. Chairman, that may well be the purpose of this bill, and I don't think anyone would disagree with reviewing regulations and making recommendations. That may be the purpose of the bill, but that is not what the bill does. What the bill does--and we have to understand the implications, and I will repeat it--it prohibits any regulatory agency from issuing any new rule or informal statement, including nonlegislative and procedure rules, even in the case of an emergency or imminent harm to the public, until the agency first offsets the cost of the new rule or guidance by eliminating an existing rule identified by the commission. So it is not that anyone is suggesting everything is perfect and a review isn't necessary, but it is the procedure that the bill sets forth which will become law that requires agencies to delay doing anything until they find something to undo. In the context of the requirements and the responsibilities of the Department of Homeland Security, this has potentially life-threatening implications. So it is not that anyone is suggesting everything is perfect and a review isn't necessary. But the bill does much more than that. It says to agencies like the Department of Homeland Security, you may not act, even if it is necessary to protect the public, until you repeal or rescind a corresponding amount of regulation. That is a danger. It is what this bill will do. This amendment relieves that and provides an exemption so that, at least on issues of defending the homeland, we do not delay implementation of the rules. I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. CICILLINE. Mr. Chairman, I rise as the designee of the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee) to offer an amendment.

Mr. CICILLINE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I am offering this amendment on behalf of myself and my colleague on the Judiciary Committee, Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee. Let me begin by expressing my appreciation to Chairman Sessions and Ranking Member Slaughter for their leadership and for making the Jackson Lee amendment in order. Thank you for the opportunity to explain this amendment to H.R. 1155, the Searching for and Cutting Regulations that are Unnecessarily Burdensome Act of 2015, referred to as the SCRUB Act. This amendment would exempt any rule issued by the Department of Homeland Security from the onerous mandates of this legislation. If enacted, the SCRUB Act would establish a retrospective regulatory review commission to identify existing Federal regulations that can be repealed to reduce unnecessary regulatory costs to the U.S. economy. This bill purports to reduce bureaucracy by establishing a new regulatory review commission charged with identifying duplicative, redundant, or so-called obsolete regulations to repeal. I am offering this amendment because I am concerned about the procedural process by which the SCRUB Act attempts to accomplish this worthy goal and the real and potential dangers this legislation presents to our public health and safety. If passed without this amendment, this legislation could really undermine and jeopardize public health and safety. In particular, this bill undermines the ability of agencies to act in times of imminent need to protect citizens. The SCRUB Act would prohibit any regulatory agency from issuing any new rule or informal statement, including nonlegislative and procedural rules, even in the case of an emergency or imminent harm to public health, until the agency first offsets the costs of the new rule or guidance by eliminating an existing rule identified by the commission. This regulatory CutGo process would force agencies to prioritize between existing protections and responding to new threats to the health and well-being of our people and the safety of our homeland. Such a sweeping requirement would endanger the lives of Americans by creating unnecessary delays in the Federal rulemaking process and creating additional burdens and implementation problems that will only divert critical agency resources and diminish agencies' ability to protect and inform the public in times of imminent danger and need. For instance, if an agency needed to respond to an imminent hazard to the public or environment, it would have to either rescind an existing rule that is identified by the commission's arbitrary and cost-centric process or choose not to act. This amendment is a simple solution to that problem, and it will protect the health and well-being of all Americans. It would ensure that the Department of Homeland Security is not unnecessarily burdened with regulatory mandates that would jeopardize its ability to carry out its mission to prevent terrorism, enhance security, manage our borders, administer immigration laws, secure cyberspace, and ensure disaster resilience. The Department of Homeland Security is the first line of defense in protecting the Nation and leading recovery efforts from all hazards and threats, which includes everything from weapons of mass destruction to natural disasters. You may recall the Nation's first documented case of Ebola last year in Dallas, Texas. It was an unforeseen and singular event that required DHS to develop new procedures and rules governing travel to the United States by individuals who had recently visited countries suffering through the Ebola outbreak. The Department of Homeland Security was also recently tasked with adjusting its efforts to secure the southern border when a wave of unaccompanied minors entered the country without notice. We do not need to be reminded of the heightened state of security that we are now in and the increasing demand upon our government agencies tasked with keeping our borders and citizens safe. The overall mission of the Department of Homeland Security is too critical and its function so essential that it would be irresponsible to impede the agency in the performance of its duties, as this bill would do. Now is not the time to undermine or slow the ability of the Department of Homeland Security to address growing threats and active acts of terrorism. The Department of Homeland Security must remain focused on the crucial mission of securing the homeland. This amendment will help them achieve that goal. I urge my colleagues to support the Jackson Lee amendment. I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. CICILLINE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Just to respond briefly, we have heard a lot about clearing the underbrush and about scrubbing the regulations. But the reality is, if this legislation passes, there will be certain implications; and it will, in fact, require the VA, who is in the midst of major reform, to not move forward on its regulations that are intended to improve the lives of our veterans until they find another regulation to repeal that someone has determined is of equal cost. So the reality is that it will delay implementation of these improvements. We can describe it as clearing the underbrush and scrubbing, but what it will mean for America's veterans in many instances is that they will be denied the quality care that they deserve and that they have earned in the defense of our country. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment that will carve out the Department of Veterans Affairs, the agency charged with honoring the service of our veterans, and ensure that the improvements that are underway and that we are all demanding will not be delayed because of the SCRUB Act. I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. CICILLINE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. My amendment to H.R. 1155 would exempt rules and regulations made by the Department of Veterans Affairs from the burdensome provisions of this legislation. The rules that are promulgated by the Department of Veterans Affairs serve the nearly 21.9 million veterans who have served our country, more than 9 million of whom are enrolled in the VA health system. These are the rules that will improve the VA, and these improvements are urgently needed to repair a system that is poorly equipped to handle the increasing numbers of veterans returning from overseas. These are the rules that will ensure that those who have served our country have access to critical and quality health care. However, in its current form, the SCRUB Act would delay or even block the implementation of these rules. For example, it would delay rules designed to provide care to the 2.6 million veterans who were potentially exposed to Agent Orange during the Vietnam war. To help these veterans, the VA issued a final interim rule in June of 2015 that would expand the class of veterans presumed to be eligible for treatment. The new regulation would include those who worked with C-123 aircraft known to have been sprayed with this herbicide during the war. But under the terms of this legislation, the VA would be required to go through additional hurdles to meet the procedural requirements of this legislation with absolutely no additional benefits. If this rule comes with any cost to the economy, the VA must repeal a rule of equal or greater cost. All of this means delays for our veterans who deserve better. In effect, the SCRUB Act asks the VA to choose between classes of ailing veterans. It would delay treatment and create a zero-sum game in which our veterans ultimately lose. This is completely wrong. It would delay essential reforms to improve the system, address existing flaws, and better serve our veterans. The problems that have plagued the system have been well-documented both in congressional hearings and in the press. Since the year 2000, at least 22 government reports have looked into patient wait times at VA facilities. One of these reports found that more than 57,000 of our veterans have waited longer than 90 days for health care. The audit found that staff were instructed to misrepresent data in 76 percent of VA facilities. The VA is in need of immediate attention and reform, and we are doing a disservice to our veterans by delaying these reforms and the rules that are necessary to accomplish these reforms. The SCRUB Act is based upon the faulty idea that it is more important to cut regulations than it is to move forward to improve care for our veterans. While my amendment will not cure all that ails this legislation, it will address one of the most glaring flaws and preserve the ability of the VA to effectively serve our veterans by ensuring that these reforms move forward without delay. So I ask my colleagues to support my amendment. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CICILLINE

Mr. CICILLINE. Mr. Speaker, addiction has many faces, and one of those is my friend from Rhode Island, Tom Coderre, who was elected to the State senate at the age of 25 and also oversaw 40 employees as the director of a local nonprofit. Already a heavy drinker, Tom soon started using cocaine as a way to cope with the stress of his responsibilities, and when he realized that drugs were taking hold of his life, he tried to quit on his own but was never able to maintain sobriety for more than a month or two. Eventually, he checked himself into an inpatient treatment at Butler Hospital. There he was able to get help and support and to maintain his sobriety and get his life back on track. Today, more than 10 years sober, Tom works as the chief of staff for the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. His victory over addiction is an inspiration for all who are struggling today. It is a reminder for those of us in Congress that we need to do more to provide resources and support for those who need it most. We need a comprehensive approach from the Federal Government that focuses on ensuring that those struggling with addiction get the support and treatment they need. That is particularly important in the area of opiate and heroin abuse. In 2012, of the 23.1 million Americans who needed treatment for drugs or alcohol, only 2.5 million received it through a specialty facility. There are millions of Americans who are in need of treatment. We have a responsibility to do all that we can. Heroin use has grown tremendously over the last decade, particularly in New England. It is an epidemic that cuts across all demographic boundaries--Black and White, rich and poor, young and old--and we need to do something about it.

Mr. CICILLINE. Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. CICILLINE

Mr. CICILLINE. Mr. Speaker, last year more than 13,000 Americans lost their lives because of a gun. More than 3,300 children were killed or injured. As the President said yesterday, the question of whether we address gun violence is really a question about who we are and what kind of country we want to live in. Do we want to be a country in which we have a mass shooting nearly every single day of the year? Do we want to be a country in which children in a school have to practice hiding silently under their desks or in a closet in order to avoid an active shooter? Do we want to be a country in which the National Rifle Association buys influence and drowns out the voices of concerned citizens? Do we want to be a country in which all Congress does after a mass shooting is hold another moment of silence instead of addressing the problem? That is the country we live in today, a country in which gun violence threatens lives every day, a country in which we are growing accustomed to atrocities that just don't happen as often in other developed countries. Mr. Speaker, we can do better. The President has done his job. Now it is time for Congress to do its job. Let's pass universal background checks. Let's do more to keep guns from criminals and from those with serious mental illness, such that possessing a gun would pose a threat to themselves or others. Let's get military-style assault weapons out of our communities. Let's do better.