David Cicilline

Mr. CICILLINE

Mr. CICILLINE. Madam Speaker, I rise today to speak about the most important issue facing our country. Guess what? It has nothing to do with repealing ObamaCare. It is about jobs. Instead of bringing the American Jobs Act to the floor, an act which would create nearly 2 million new jobs, my Republican colleagues remain obsessed with trying to repeal ObamaCare. This may be the only job in America at which you can try to do something more than 50 times and still have a job. It is time to move on and pass a bill that will help to create jobs. In my home State of Rhode Island and across the country, unemployment rates remain unacceptably high. It is time to stop rehashing old political battles and to move on to the issues that will help grow our economy and get people back to work. The American Jobs Act will boost consumer demand and hiring by cutting taxes for struggling families and small businesses, and it will invest in infrastructure and education. It is fully paid for. Why would my colleagues on the other side oppose a bill that independent analysts, including Moody's Analytics, say would create up to 1.9 million new jobs? Madam Speaker, it is time to take up this legislation to get our economy back on track and to help Americans get back to work.

Mr. CICILLINE

Mr. CICILLINE. I thank the ranking member for his extraordinary leadership and for developing a budget proposal that actually reflects our Nation's values and priorities. Mr. Chairman, this Republican budget, offered by my colleague from Wisconsin, is another attempt to impose a failed economic theory on the American people. This budget would damage economic growth in the short term and it disinvests in our future in the long term. It is absolutely the wrong course. Millions of Americans continue to struggle to find work. Congress should be investing in priorities that will create jobs, priorities like education, rebuilding our crumbling infrastructure, and investing in advanced manufacturing and innovation that will help set the platform for a 21st century economy. The Ryan Republican budget does exactly the opposite. According to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, compared to current law, the Ryan Republican budget would stifle our economic growth, reducing gross national product per capita by about 0.5 percent in each of the next 3 years. Let that sink in. If you are searching for work or struggling to get by in this difficult economy, the message from this budget is clear: it is about to get a whole lot worse. What could possibly be their rationale? To my colleagues who say we need to make this sacrifice in the short term so we can experience long-term economic gains, they have it backwards. We need to invest in the short term to have long-term economic prosperity. How does a budget that freezes Pell grants and slashes funding for higher education by approximately $260 billion grow our economy in the long term? Our Nation's infrastructure is the backbone of our economy and is essential to move goods and services in the short and long term. So how does a budget that cuts investments in transportation by $52 billion next year alone help our economy? How can you say a budget that singles out for elimination bipartisan programs like the Manufacturing Extension Partnership will boost our economy in the long term, a program that leverages Federal funding to provide small- and medium-sized manufacturers the capacity to grow, innovate, and prepare for a 21st century focus on advanced manufacturing? The answer is you can't. Let's be clear: this budget cuts from today and disinvests from tomorrow. And for what purpose? To pay for another round of tax cuts for the wealthiest of Americans, amounting to about $4 trillion in the next 10 years. But it is okay, they claim, because the benefits will trickle down to the middle class. This budget goes after Medicare, Medicaid, and nutrition programs for hungry children, all to pay for another round of tax cuts for the wealthy. This is immoral. And we know, from past experience, it is the wrong strategy for our economy. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to reject this budget because it will hurt jobs and inflict unnecessary pain on working families and our economy.

Mr. CICILLINE

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

Mr. CICILLINE. Mr. Chairman, the most important issue confronting our Nation today is the jobs crisis, something my constituents and I know all too well as my home State of Rhode Island continues to be plagued with the highest unemployment rate in the Nation, currently 9 percent. While most Members would agree that the best way to address this jobs crisis is to pass legislation that gets our economy growing more quickly, we clearly have different ideas on how best to achieve such growth. But we will have that important conversation in great detail next week as the House is scheduled to consider the Republican budget authored by Chairman Ryan and the substantive alternatives on the floor. Today, however, we have before the House a bill that modifies the budget process. Specifically, this bill changes the rules that our independent umpire, the Congressional Budget Office, uses to determine the costs of implementing major pieces of legislation, defined as those impacting gross domestic product by more than approximately $40 billion. While your new rules would supplement--not replace--existing scoring rules, let's be clear, the macroeconomic impact analysis, or dynamic scoring process, that is called for under the bill is something my colleagues and I on this side of the aisle view with great apprehension and serious concern, as it relies upon much more uncertain and subjective analytical principles, procedures, and assumptions than what the Congressional Budget Office currently utilizes for scoring the costs of legislation. So while my colleagues across the aisle pursue what they believe is an ideal set of scoring rules, I rise today with a proposal to give a more targeted and specific picture of the impact pending legislation will have on jobs in our communities. The amendment I offer does not change your desired dynamic scoring analysis; it merely requires production of a separate estimate, using CBO's existing analytical principles and procedures, of the number of jobs that will be created, sustained, or lost, including regional- and State-level estimates when practicable, for the same proposals my colleagues wish to score using their preferred set of rules. Keep in mind, this is not a partisan proposal. This amendment is derived from legislation, the Jobs Score Act, which I introduced along with Senator Manchin, and has received balanced, bipartisan support in both Chambers. So I urge my colleagues to support my amendment and help ensure that Members of Congress are fully prepared to conduct their due diligence and have the most complete understanding possible of how the major bills considered in Congress impact jobs in our communities. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CICILLINE. Well, I thank my colleague for his kind words, but I think he is actually missing the point. The dynamic scoring, in fact, does allow you to assess the employment impact, and, obviously, we think it does that through a tainted lens because such analysis will be subjective and uncertain, and we have made the arguments about dynamic scoring. But it doesn't impact that at all. That remains in the bill. This simply adds a provision that would require an analysis be done under the traditional methods that the CBO uses. It will ensure that CBO conducts the same kind of analysis of jobs impact when using the static method currently used by CBO. And we can and should do both. The fact of the matter is this is an opportunity to be sure that we have as much information as possible about the impact of actions that we take on job creation, on the ability to sustain or cost jobs. In fact, providing this amendment will only ensure that that analysis happens in both places. You have recognized in the underlying bill that jobs impact matters-- we agree--but let's not limit that information. Let's be sure there is a jobs impact both in the static analysis that is done by CBO as well as in your new provision for dynamic scoring. Let's have an assessment in both of those side by side. It will provide a full picture of the potential range of likely employment effects in our communities. We certainly have a responsibility to understand that and to deal with as much information as we can about the impact on jobs. There is no more urgent issue, and we have heard lots of conversations this morning about how important it is that we have good data, good information. This simply supplements that. Let's make sure that jobs analysis happens in both places at the CBO. With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. CICILLINE

Mr. CICILLINE. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall Nos. 149, 150, 151, had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. CICILLINE

Mr. CICILLINE. Mr. Speaker, I join my colleagues in Congress in condemning attacks on the Syrian Armenian population in Kessab by extremist fighters connected to al-Qaeda. On March 21, al-Qaeda affiliated terrorists out of Turkey attacked the peaceful Christian- Armenian community in a town that has served as a place of refuge for those trying desperately to escape the bloodshed of the past three years. This brutal assault is yet another consequence of the increasingly dangerous violence in Syria that leaves innocent civilians with no choice but to again flee as they have already done from their homes in Aleppo. This war and the escalating brutality in the past months have put far too many innocent civilians at risk and I am deeply troubled that recent events including mass exoduses and violent strikes upon the peaceful Armenian communities hark back to the early days of the Armenian Genocide under Ottoman rule nearly 100 years ago. No innocent civilian in any part of the world should be targeted because of their ancestry, ethnicity or religion, and I want to work with my colleagues to find a way to bring an end to such brutal attacks and the increasingly violent civil war ravaging the region that has left over 100,000 dead and forced over 2 million to flee their homes and communities. I will work with my colleagues on the House Foreign Affairs Committee to help find a diplomatic solution to this crisis and ensure that Armenians of Kessab and Aleppo can return to their peaceful lives.

Mr. CICILLINE

Mr. CICILLINE. Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize Building Futures, a Providence-based work training program that prepares Rhode Islanders for careers in the construction industry. This program has made a real difference in the lives of 145 Rhode Islanders by placing them in registered apprenticeships as bricklayers, carpenters, electricians, plumbers, and other construction trade apprenticeships. This success is due, in large part, to its dedicated and talented staff, led by director and founder Andrew Cortes. I was pleased to stand with Andrew as mayor of Providence in 2007 to help launch Building Futures, which has become a national model for work training programs, and recently to be with him and many others to celebrate their success at Building Futures and to hear directly from so many who have benefited from this program who are now holding good- paying jobs in my State. Addressing the skills gap is one of Rhode Island's and our Nation's most pressing challenges. We know that too many people are searching for good-paying jobs, but too often, even though they are hardworking, they lack the particular skills they need for the jobs that are available. Building Futures is helping to restore opportunity by bridging the skills gap and strengthening Rhode Island's workforce. Today, I am proud to salute their efforts and congratulate them on a job well done.

Mr. CICILLINE

Mr. CICILLINE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Master Sergeant David Poirier, a Rhode Islander who served in the New Hampshire National Guard. On February 28, Master Sergeant Poirier died in a noncombat-related incident while serving in the United States Air Force in Qatar in support of Operation Enduring Freedom. He was laid to rest on March 10 with military honors. Master Sergeant Poirier was from North Smithfield, Rhode Island. After serving in the United States Air Force, he joined the Rhode Island National Guard, where he was trained as a life support journeyman. In 1995, he transferred to the New Hampshire Air National Guard and continued his service as a member of the 157th Operations Support Squadron for over 19 years. Our Nation calls upon our brave men and women in uniform to protect our great democracy. There are no greater heroes than the men and women who answer this call and make the ultimate sacrifice to keep us safe. It is because of their service that we are able to enjoy the great freedoms, privileges, and rights we have here at home. Master Sergeant Poirier will be remembered for his friendly personality, warmth, and enduring selflessness, and I extend my thoughts and prayers to Master Sergeant Poirier's family--his wife, Kim, four children, and two grandchildren.

Mr. CICILLINE

Mr. CICILLINE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for his support, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. CICILLINE. Mr. Chairman, clearly as my colleagues have noted, the ENFORCE Act is a deeply flawed piece of legislation. It would give any legislative majority a blank check to challenge in court by filing a lawsuit any decision of the executive branch that it disagrees with. Instead of considering legislation to create jobs, to fix our broken immigration system, repair our crumbling infrastructure or raise the minimum wage, today the majority has brought to this floor a partisan measure to increase only one thing: congressional litigation. The bill raises serious constitutional questions, and fails to put in place responsible safeguards to prevent abuse. This is a dangerous attack that threatens the careful balance of power developed by our Founding Fathers. At a time when the American people have lost so much confidence in Congress, my Republican colleagues are offering yet another bill that will do nothing to improve the lives of Americans. Instead this bill will only add to the American people's scorn and ridicule of Congress. Just what we need, more contention, more division here in Congress by encouraging congressional lawsuits. In addition to its questionable purpose and substantive defects, the ENFORCE Act also fails to adequately protect taxpayer money, as it would open the floodgates to litigation for nearly any executive branch decision that a majority in either chamber disagrees with, and it would do so without a transparent accounting of taxpayer money spent. That is why I am offering this amendment today which simply requires quarterly reporting of the costs associated with the litigation under this act. Specifically, it would require the Comptroller General of the United States to issue quarterly reports to the House and Senate Judiciary Committees on the cost of civil actions brought pursuant to this act, including any attorney fees. Since many of my colleagues have previously and routinely expressed significant concern about ensuring taxpayer dollars are used appropriately and carefully, one would expect the ENFORCE Act to have clear oversight and transparency provisions in place. However, it does not. That is why I urge my colleagues to support my amendment, which would provide a transparent, quarterly accounting of the costs of pursuing legal action under this act. As many of my colleagues know, litigation can be extremely expensive. So let's ensure Members of Congress and the public are aware of exactly how much taxpayer resources are being spent on pursuing legal action under this act. While disbursement reporting requirements already exist for Federal expenditures, recent experience underscores their inadequacy to provide timely, transparent disclosure of precisely how much has been spent on litigation. For example, over the last few years, the House of Representatives, at the direction of the majority and over strong objections by Leader Pelosi and Whip Hoyer, hired outside counsel to defend the Defense of Marriage Act in court. What began as a contract for up to $500,000 in legal services to defend DOMA has grown through a series of contract extensions to be up to $3 million, and it is hard to determine at what point and at what cost the majority's pursuits will end. Today, nearly 9 months since the United States Supreme Court struck down section 3 of DOMA as unconstitutional, we still don't have an adequate accounting of how much the House majority has spent on defending this discriminatory law, or whether it continues to spend taxpayer funding on this matter. As minority members of the House Administration Committee reported during this legal challenge in 2012: No one seems to know where the funds are coming from. There has been no appropriation for this expense. There has been no mention of the funding source in the contract extensions. There is no record of a payment being made in the statement of disbursements. Clearly, the existing reporting requirements are insufficient to inform Members of Congress and the general public of its litigation disbursements. While Members may disagree on the merits of DOMA, as well as the legislation before us today, we should all recognize that neither side, nor the public interest, is served by obscuring the disclosure of litigation expenses. Therefore, I urge my colleagues to support my amendment, a simple reporting requirement that will safeguard and provide transparency to ensure that spending under this very misguided legislation is made clear. I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. CICILLINE

Mr. CICILLINE. Mr. Speaker, I stand to congratulate Olneyville New York System, an iconic Rhode Island restaurant which last week received the James Beard Foundation's America's Classics award--a prestigious national award. The America's Classics award honors ``restaurants that have timeless appeal and are beloved for quality food that reflects the character of their community.'' Despite its name, this restaurant is a uniquely Rhode Island culinary treasure and is beloved by Rhode Islanders and visitors alike. This national recognition confirms what Rhode Islanders already knew: we have some of the best food and restaurants in the country, and Olneyville New York System is a classic. Every Rhode Islander knows the distinctive smells and sights of this local business. As mayor of Providence, I was proud Olneyville New York System played a leading role in my Main Street initiative to improve Providence's commercial districts. Indeed, for nearly 70 years, three generations of the Stevens family have run this local establishment at the same location in Providence. Although the neighborhood has changed over time, only the Olneyville New York System has remained an iconic part of this community. So I am saying congratulations to Greg Stevens and his sister, Stephanie Stevens Turini, on the well-deserved honor. I know that their dad is looking down on them very proudly today. Congratulations.

Mr. CICILLINE

Mr. CICILLINE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commemorate the 250th academic year of Brown University. This prestigious institution has been a source of pride for Rhode Island since 1764 and was one of the first colleges in the country. Throughout its history, Brown has attracted some of the best and brightest talent from around the world, and is known for a student body that is driven by a desire for free thought and self-determined education. Brown University is a treasured Rhode Island institution, and I am honored to recognize the integral role it has maintained in our community for the last two and a half centuries. As one of the oldest universities in the United States, Brown University has infused its students with a deep and abiding dedication to public service. Brown's student body is remarkably intelligent and high-achieving. But this institution also challenges its students to be more than intelligent; it challenges students to sincerely consider how they can make the world a better place. Brown University encourages its students to explore their interests while serving local communities in Providence, the State of Rhode Island, the United States, and throughout the global community. With its famed Open Curriculum, this renowned university stands as a monument of free thought, allowing students to challenge themselves to grow not only academically, but also as citizens of the world. Brown University has long drawn premier talent from a wide range of academic disciplines to historic College Hill. For example, the Brown University BrainGate research team was recently recognized for its work developing neurotechnology for individuals with neurologic disease, injury, or limb loss. Researchers and students at Brown have also been recognized for their work related to the discovery of the Higgs Boson, Superfund cleanups in Rhode Island, and important advances in public health. In addition to generating top-notch work on campus, Brown has also graduated alumni who excel in the arts, government, technology, medicine, business, athletics, and a diverse set of other professions. Some notable alumni include Horace Mann, the father of American public education, philanthropist and businessman John Rockefeller Jr., President of the World Bank Dr. Jim Yong Kim, and the Honorable Janet Yellen, who is the first woman to serve as Chair of the Federal Reserve. And in my home state of Rhode Island, alumni such as Governor Lincoln Chafee, Lieutenant Governor Elizabeth Roberts, and former Attorney General Patrick Lynch have served in important positions in government. Over the past 250 years, Brown University's history has been deeply intertwined with our nation's story. Brown has evolved during moments of tremendous transition--our fight for independence, the Civil War, the Great Depression, the Industrial Revolution, and the digital age-- but it continues to reflect the principles of nondiscrimination and freedom of conscience rooted in Rhode Island's founding. I am confident that Brown will continue to grow in the next 250 years, and its hallowed halls will welcome brilliant and curious students for generations to come. Finally, on a personal note, I am proud to have attended and graduated from Brown University, and I am even more proud to represent this fine institution in the U.S. House of Representatives. Congratulations on 250 years.

Mr. CICILLINE

Mr. CICILLINE. Mr. Speaker, today we commemorate the 26th Anniversary of the horrific Sumgait Pogroms. On February 27, 1988 organized mobs of Azerbaijanis aimed at killing and driving Armenian Christians living in Sumgait from their homes. Armed with sticks, axes and iron rods, they attacked Armenian men, women and children by breaking into their homes and brutally beating and killing them just because of their ethnicity. Despite Sumgait's 30 minute proximity to Baku, police allowed the pogroms to go on for 3 days, during which Armenians were burned alive and thrown from windows. These acts were merely a continuation of the Azerbaijani authorities' unswerving policy of racism towards Armenians and ethnic cleansing of the Armenian population, with unpunished killings and deportations. The Sumgait massacre is a black mark on history and sadly, this event sparked further violence as Armenians would be targeted less than 9 months later in Kirovabad and again in Baku in 1990. The Azerbaijani Government has shamefully continued to undermine prospects for a lasting peace in the Southern Caucuses, recently in 2012, pardoning an Azerbaijani military officer Ramil Safarov who brutally murdered Armenian military officer Gurgen Margaryan during a NATO-sponsored Partnership for Peace exercise in 2004. Safarov confessed and was convicted in Budapest for brutally axing Margaryan while he was sleeping. Safarov never showed remorse for the murder and stated that he wished he had killed more Armenians. Immediately after his pardon Safarov received a promotion in the Azerbaijani military, an apartment, and years of back pay for his time spent in prison. For more than 20 years, the people of Nagorno Karabakh have fought and died for their independence. From the earliest days of its formation, the Republic's freely elected governmental bodies have helped build an open democratic society through transparent elections and it is critical that the United States support their independence and autonomy. As we reflect on these horrific outbreaks of ethnic violence, I join with Armenians in Rhode Island, and across the world in remembering these victims and renewing our commitment to justice, independence and finding lasting peace. I am proud to say Rhode Island was the first state in our nation to pass a resolution to recognize the Independence of the Nagorno Karabakh Republic and set an example for other legislatures to follow, like Massachusetts, Maine and Louisiana. The time has come for the United States Congress to do the same.

Mr. CICILLINE

Mr. CICILLINE. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to clause 1, rule I, I demand a vote on agreeing to the Speaker's approval of the Journal.

Mr. CICILLINE. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. CICILLINE

Mr. CICILLINE. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of raising the minimum wage and passing H.R. 1010, the Fair Minimum Wage Act, which would give approximately 28 million Americans an overdue pay raise, promote economic growth, and strengthen the middle class. In America, if you work hard and play by the rules, you should be able to provide for your family and provide them with a decent quality of life. But for about 4.6 million Americans living in poverty, this is not the case. It has been 5 years since those working for the minimum wage have seen an increase in the minimum wage and, according to one study, the minimum wage today is worth $2 less than in 1968. This is shameful, and we have the responsibility to address growing income inequality by increasing the minimum wage immediately. Unfortunately, some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle oppose this commonsense legislation, arguing that it will hurt jobs. But as The New York Times noted this past weekend, this position is contrary to decades of economic research that shows increases in the minimum wage have lifted pay without hurting employment. Americans deserve a raise, and raising the minimum wage will help to protect U.S. workers, grow our economy, and build ladders of opportunity into the middle class.

Mr. CICILLINE

Mr. CICILLINE. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of H. Res. 447. As the tensions continue to rise in Ukraine about the future direction of this country, we understand that the people of Ukraine are hoping to secure basic democratic freedoms of association and speech for all citizens. I join my colleagues in stressing the importance of the adoption of democratic social norms in Ukraine and in the region. Over the past several years, we have seen some impressive improvements in the area of human rights. However, the situation for lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender individuals continues to cause serious concern. The rampant and unacceptable state-sponsored homophobia that we are witnessing in neighboring Russia is slowly invading Ukraine as well. Some individuals have sought to introduce legislation in the Ukrainian Rada, similar to Russia's, to ban so-called ``homosexual propaganda,'' which does nothing more than limit the fundamental freedoms of association, speech, and assembly for all Ukrainians, regardless of sexual orientation or gender identity. The citizens of Ukraine, including her LGBT citizens, deserve much, much better, and they should know we stand with them as they pursue a free, inclusive, and democratic society.

Mr. CICILLINE

Mr. CICILLINE. Madam Speaker, I rise today to applaud CVS Caremark's decision to stop selling cigarettes and other tobacco products in its more than 7,600 stores across the United States. CVS, which is headquartered in my district in Woonsocket, Rhode Island, is leading the way in promoting public health and wellness, and I hope other pharmacies will follow their example. I would particularly like to thank Larry Merlo, the president and CEO of CVS Caremark; Helena Foulkes, the president of CVS Pharmacy; and their board and their staffs for their commitment to putting people over profits. As one of the Nation's largest retail and pharmacy chains, CVS Pharmacy has helped countless Rhode Islanders and people all across this country better manage their health. The negative impacts of tobacco are well known--lung cancer, diabetes, emphysema, and chronic bronchitis--and cigarette smoking is the leading preventable cause of death in the United States. Taking this product off their shelves continues CVS Caremark's long tradition of helping people improve their health and wellness, and it undermines Big Tobacco's active marketing to future generations of Americans to persuade them to take up this deadly habit. I salute CVS Caremark in their efforts to help Americans live longer, healthier lives, and I am so proud of their decision and their corporate leadership.

Mr. CICILLINE

Mr. CICILLINE. Mr. Speaker, last night, the President addressed America and reminded us that America is a Nation of opportunity where, if you work hard and play by the rules and take responsibility, you can succeed. But he also recognized that many Americans don't feel that, in fact, this is working for them right now. He made very specific proposals to invest in infrastructure or innovation economy, early childhood education, additional manufacturing hubs, raising the minimum wage, fixing our broken immigration system, and extending unemployment benefits. The President expressed his willingness to work with Congress to achieve these goals. What I thought was particularly significant is these were specific proposals that are achievable if we work together. So, Mr. Speaker, let's get to work. Let's enact these proposals. Let's move our economy forward and put the American people back to work. As well, I wish to extend my gratitude to Trudi for her service.

Mr. CICILLINE

Mr. CICILLINE. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert my statement into the Record in support of extending unemployment insurance for 1.6 million Americans instead of this radical Republican assault on women's health care.

Mr. CICILLINE

Mr. CICILLINE. I thank the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro) for her extraordinary work and for her incredible passion on this very, very important issue and for giving me an opportunity to speak on this serious issue tonight. Mr. Speaker, the gentlewoman from Connecticut has been a great champion for policies that fight hunger and protect a crucial safety net for our Nation's most vulnerable children and families. I am very proud to stand with her tonight against these devastating cuts to the SNAP program. You don't end hunger by cutting nutrition programs; you make it worse. We should be working together to find ways to end hunger in America. We can do that. This is the greatest country on Earth. We should be certain that no man, woman, or child in this country goes hungry. Unfortunately, some of my colleagues filed the farm bill conference report that would be absolutely devastating to families struggling to get by. For just a moment, I would like to walk through some of the cuts being proposed. In States like mine with cold winters, many working families already struggling to buy food face the additional burden of expensive monthly utility bills to heat their homes. Faced with this reality, some parents are forced to decide what is more important for their child: a good, nutritious meal or a warm home. For decades now, the SNAP program has worked to provide additional benefits to struggling families facing both food insecurity and high heating or housing costs. For example, in my home State of Rhode Island, individuals who receive even nominal assistance through the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program, or LIHEAP, are also eligible for additional assistance under SNAP. This policy, often called Heat and Eat, makes sense for two reasons. First, this kind of policy helps prevent some of our most vulnerable families from having to face the difficult choice between a warm home and a good meal. Let's not forget, these families are living in the worst kind of poverty, the poorest and most needy members of our community, and they very often face the real threat of hunger and a freezing home. The second reason this program is important is because it makes both programs more efficient and streamlines the application process. Without this policy, the same family would be forced to navigate a maze of bureaucracies to access resources in a time of tremendous need. Instead, under this policy, struggling families can access critical resources more easily and focus on the things that matter, like getting back on their feet or finding work. In a time of limited Federal resources for the poor, Heat and Eat helps. It helps States coordinate assistance programs and leverages funding from SNAP and LIHEAP so no family is faced with that impossible choice. Many of my friends on the other side of the aisle have called this a loophole, but it is not a loophole. This is a policy, an effective policy, designed to address a real problem for families facing especially hard times. The conference report that was filed tonight cuts and undermines States' efforts to coordinate food and heating assistance, and it will make the lives of our neediest families even more difficult. I know many of my colleagues will think that this is an easy pill to swallow. Why? Because it places the burden of further reductions to nutrition problems on the backs of a smaller group of individuals in a limited number of States. Only 16 States administer Heat and Eat programs, primarily cold weather States like Rhode Island and Connecticut, and it is a cruel twist that my colleagues have decided to target cold weather States right after many parts of the country faced record-breaking cold and incredibly high heating costs. According to the previous estimates of this policy, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office said that about 850,000 households would see their benefits cut by an average of about $90 a month. Of course, many of the households affected by this cut will be low-income seniors, veterans, people with disabilities, children, and the working poor. In total, this cut impacts 1.7 million people struggling to put food on the table, and it imposes all of these cuts on only those families living in 16 States. The same people that are proposing these cuts in nutrition programs are more than happy to provide agricultural companies with extremely generous subsidies to purchase crop insurance. They are happy to spend $40 billion over the next 10 years in commodity programs. They are happy to undermine payment reform, like limits on total commodity payments for personnel, reforms that were approved and voted on by the full House last June and that could result in even higher subsidies for the wealthiest farmers. In fact, one of the architects of this bill has tried to make the case for maintaining certain agricultural subsidies by saying, ``The safety net still has to exist.'' Apparently, to protect the safety net, the wealthiest farmers, children, and families in 16 States will be forced to struggle even harder to put food on the table. It is a sad day in this country when the safety net for wealthy farmers is more important than the safety net for hungry families. I thank the gentlelady for all of the work that she has done and for the information she just shared about how effective and important this program is. I just want to end with two quotes from important religious groups who have spoken to this issue that I hope my colleagues will hear and rethink this decision and reject this proposal and speak to our values as a country. The National Association of Evangelicals said: As you determine the policies and appropriations for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, please maintain this vital program at or near its current level of funding, and refrain from enacting policies that could damage our most vulnerable citizens. And a U.S. Catholic bishop said: How the House chooses to address our Nation's hunger and nutrition programs will have profound human and moral consequences. I hope we will all hear those words and do what is right for families, will speak to our values as a country and protect those most in need from any additional cuts that will adversely impact their families and their ability to feed themselves. I thank the gentlelady for yielding.

Mr. CICILLINE

Mr. CICILLINE. I thank the gentleman for yielding and thank you for organizing this Special Order hour and for the power of your voice on this very important issue and for the work that you have done in your early days here in Congress. I thank your constituents for sending you here to fight, particularly to fight on behalf of the middle class and for the families who are really struggling in this still-recovering economy. I want to just spend a few moments tonight to speak about the expired unemployment insurance issue and the unwillingness of our friends on the other side of the aisle to address this issue, and the notion that we are going to leave tomorrow and go back home for a week, take another recess, without addressing this urgent issue which is impacting my State, the State of Rhode Island, but impacting Americans all across this country. What is so frustrating about the refusal to extend emergency unemployment benefits is that, first, it puts families in a very, very difficult position. These are folks who are looking for work, who are struggling to make ends meet as they navigate a difficult job market, who have relied on unemployment compensation, modest assistance to help put food on the table, to pay their bills, to keep a roof over their head, and have now seen their unemployment insurance cut off. This is impacting 1.5 million Americans, so far, and it will impact about 72,000 additional Americans every single week. 72,000 Americans will lose their unemployment insurance, according to analysis by the Ways and Means Committee. Tens of thousands of Americans living on the edge, relying on unemployment insurance to help get them through as they actively look for work, and they are being cut off. It is not only painful for the families, an incredible hardship and really devastating; it is also bad public policy. It hurts our economy because, as you know, Congressman Pocan, folks who are receiving unemployment insurance take that money and they inject it back into the economy. They buy goods that they need to survive--food, groceries, pay expenses, but they inject that back into the economy. In fact, the Congressional Budget Office estimates that our failure to extend unemployment insurance will cost the economy 200,000 jobs. The Economic Policy Institute predicts that the failure to extend unemployment benefits will cost 300,000 jobs. So this is not only devastating to families and really imposing terrible hardships, but it is also bad public policy. It is costing us jobs. It was reported today that 2 million children in America were living in families who were relying on long-term unemployment benefits, Federal unemployment benefits, in 2012--2 million children. So this has a real impact. In my home State, there are 4,900 Rhode Islanders who have lost their unemployment benefits, put out in the cold because Congress failed to act. To just give you some examples, I had the opportunity to speak with constituents who either wrote to me or called me or I met with in person. I just want to give you examples because we have heard a lot of conversation on the other side about who these folks are who are looking for work, and some of it has been unfair in describing who these individuals are. So I want my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to understand who we are talking about here. One is a constituent of mine, Erica, from North Providence. She is a graphic designer. She has been looking for work, has been laid off and looking for work, and it has been very difficult for her to find work. She wrote to me, and we met afterwards, and she said: 1 month of help can be the difference between someone getting a job and getting back on their feet or falling further into debt and hopelessness. So she talked about how unemployment has helped her continue her job search, and whether or not it was going to be that and, hopefully, landing a job, or whether it was going to be falling further behind into greater debt and a greater sense of hopelessness. I met with a constituent of mine, Rhonda, from Rumford, Rhode Island. She is 54 years old. She worked her whole life, sometimes two or three jobs at the same time, just to make ends meet and to take care of herself and her family. She has two children. She has lost her unemployment benefits and is worried about how she is going to take care of her family. I spoke just the day before yesterday with Margaret, mother of four, suffering from Parkinson's Disease, who has worked her whole life. She said: I have never asked for help from anybody, but this is the time I need it--and she lost her unemployment. So these are examples of individuals, and I know, Congressman, you have examples in your own district. All of our colleagues do. We saw today repeated efforts--we tried everything, unanimous consent consideration, previous question, we tried every tactical move we could to force our friends on the other side of the aisle to bring an extension of unemployment benefits to the House floor for a vote, and they blocked us every single time. They are not hurting the Democrats. They are hurting the American people. I am very proud, on the Senate side, my senior Senator, Senator Jack Reed, has led the fight in the Senate, relentlessly making the case of what this impact is for individuals, for families and for our economy. It is difficult to understand how, seeing the hardship that this expiration of unemployment benefits causes to families, and what it will mean to people who literally are wondering, Am I going to get to stay in my apartment? Am I going to be able to pay my mortgage? Am I going to be able to put food on the table? These are people who have exhausted their State benefits, and as a condition of these benefits, they have to continue to actively look for work. So this notion that they would rather get this modest check than have a job is absurd. Every single person I have met with says, I want a job. I want the dignity that comes from having work and being able to support myself and my family. For every job that exists, there are two or three people for that job, so we have got to do more to create jobs. When I hear my friends on the other side of the aisle say we need jobs bills, we have jobs bills. Bring them to the floor for a vote. Invest in science and research. Invest in rebuilding our country. Invest in the Make It In America agenda to help support the rebirth of American manufacturing. There are jobs that we can bring to the floor. We ought to do that. At the same time, we ought to protect people who are particularly hard hit. This is part of the American tradition. You know, on the one hand, we have this self-determination and this strong American individualism. We also have a collective sense of taking care of each other and looking after each other. That is what the extension of unemployment benefits means. I thank you for continuing to raise this issue, for giving us an opportunity to make the case to the American people and, hopefully, to our colleagues on the other side of the aisle who will hear from their constituents and will really demand that, before we leave tomorrow, that we take action to extend unemployment benefits. I thank the gentleman for yielding some time, and again, thank you for you leadership.