Louise Slaughter

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell) to discuss our proposal.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 2 minutes to the gentleman.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, this is the 38th closed rule allowing no amendments that House Republicans have brought to the floor this year alone, and it is only June. At this rate, the majority is well on its way to becoming the most closed Congress in history. Regular order seems to be a thing of the past under this leadership, with bills coming to the House floor, as these two are, for a vote without even going through the committee process. The immigration bills we considered this week didn't even go through regular order. The disastrous healthcare repeal bill, which would impact one-sixth of the Nation's economy, didn't get a single hearing, and hardly anybody saw it. No experts were ever called to discuss its impacts, and it was jammed through the Chamber last month without even a score from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office outlining its costs or its impacts. The Senate has also completely bypassed the committee process. I was proud to bring the Affordable Care Act, as I said earlier, to the House floor in 2009, as chair of the Rules Committee. That process couldn't have been more different. Let me remind those watching today that the House held 79 bipartisan hearings and markups on health insurance reform in 2009 and 2010. During this time, House Members heard from 181 witnesses from both sides of the aisle, considered 239 Democratic and Republican amendments, and accepted 121 of them. That process was entirely different from what we go through today. In fact, a lot of the Members of the House are really cut out of most of the process. The idea of getting an amendment is really pretty rare. The legislation we consider here should be able to withstand scrutiny, but, more and more, the Nation's business is done in the dark, or by a few people. Let's get out of the back rooms, Mr. Speaker, and let legislators of both parties do their job under an open process. That is what the Speaker promised when he took the gavel, and it is what all the books and Rules of the House of Representatives desire, and it is certainly what the American people deserve. Mr. Speaker, we should not consider a bill that would cost tens of millions of people to lose health insurance, and not consider the anti- immigration bills before us today. So I am going to urge a ``no'' vote on the previous question, on the rule, and the bill, and hope for better days. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commemorate the service of two members of the Rochester, New York community, Rochester Institute of Technology President William Destler and his wife Doctor Rebecca Johnson, Associate of the University. The Rochester area is home to an intelligent and curious community, thanks to residents who have dedicated their lives to the advancement of higher education. Doctors Destler and Johnson are no exception and thanks to their efforts, Rochester continues to be home to some of the finest institutes of higher learning that have produced notable alumni for generations. Assuming the Presidency in 2007, Doctor Destler became responsible for a world-renowned university that includes nearly 19,000 students from all 50 states and more than 100 foreign nations. One hundred and twenty one thousand alumni around the world are proud to call RIT their alma mater and, at one point, Rochester as their home. RIT is also the third largest producer of undergraduate degrees in science, technology, engineering, and math among all private universities in the United States. During his tenure as President, Doctor Destler recognized the symbiotic relationship between RIT and the city of Rochester, serving on multiple civic engagement boards including the Greater Rochester Chamber of Commerce and the Golisano Family Foundation. Leading his students by example, Doctor Destler is an international authority on high-power microwave sources and is best known for his pioneering work in the collective acceleration of heavy ions. Under his watch, female enrollment has increased 25 percent and international enrollment has increased an astounding 120 percent. Forty-one percent of the freshman class is deaf and hard of hearing, international and African, Asian, Latino, and Native American. These numbers alone are a testament to the strength through diversity of RIT. Doctor Destler is one-half of an unparalleled team. He is joined by his wife, Doctor Rebecca Johnson, Associate of the University. In a time when bipartisan discussion is often contentious, Doctor Johnson has served on the committee for the Gray Matter series, which aims to promote civil discussion of divergent views on important topics. She is also the former president of the Board of Directors of the M.K. Gandhi Institute for Nonviolence and continues to serve on the board in leadership roles. Her passion also extends to civic engagement, best demonstrated through initiatives such as RIT's 2016 ``Roar the Vote.'' Thanks to her efforts, RIT has made impressive strides toward energy sustainability though programs like the greenRITnetwork and FoodShare. Over the course of their ten-year term, Doctors Destler and Johnson have truly come to embody the mantra of RIT, ``The making of a living and the living of life.'' It is with sincere appreciation that we thank Doctors Destler and Johnson for their selfless dedication to higher education, RIT, and the proud city of Rochester. We wish them the best in their future endeavors and affirm that they will always be at home in our community.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I thank my colleague for yielding me the time. Mr. Speaker, 7 years ago, I brought the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act to the floor of the House as chairwoman of the House Rules Committee. This law was a statement from Congress on behalf of the American people that unchecked corporate greed will never again bring the United States of America to financial collapse. My colleague began his speech this morning by saying that this law had not worked, but I am not aware of major bank failures or bank failures of any kind since we passed it, and I would say, indeed, this law has worked. Since it has been enacted, our economy has had over 80 consecutive months of private sector job growth. That is pretty good. In fact, it is a record-setting streak. More than 16 million jobs have been created, and business lending has been increased by 75 percent. I am not getting all the complaints that I used to get that they could not borrow money from banks, particularly the small businesses. Along the way, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau established under this law has helped 29 million people in all of our 50 States to receive nearly $12 billion in relief from companies that engaged in irresponsible or predatory practices. One group that sent us a letter begging us not to do away with Dodd- Frank was the Veterans of Foreign Wars who said that far too often their veterans were the victims of predatory lenders--shysters, people not telling them the truth--and that is exactly what the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau was established to do. You can't argue about whether or not it has been a success if 29 million people in 50 States have gotten back $12 billion in relief of bad practices. But this legislation completely will do away with the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, the only thing we have left to protect Main Street and the small investors. These gains weren't a coincidence, Mr. Speaker. They were the result of the Dodd-Frank law. Gutting Wall Street reform will be a historic giveaway to special interests. The Wall Street firms who plunged our country to the brink, in 2008, would be free once again to take advantage of consumers and force middle class families to go it alone, without the protections this bill has provided them. The CHOICE Act is the wrong choice for consumers and families. Instead of standing with financial lobbyists, I urge the majority to uphold the trust of the people we all represent. Five years ago, Democrats and Republicans came together to almost unanimously pass my bill to end insider trading in Congress. The STOCK Act passed this Chamber by a vote of 417-2, one of the most bipartisan bills of that entire session of Congress. It wasn't easy. I led a 6-year fight to get it signed into law after learning that Members of Congress and their staffs were abusing their positions by making money from the information that they gleaned and that was not available to everybody else in America. They gleaned this information while working on behalf of the people whose information they were stealing. It took a ``60 Minutes'' investigation on television and a groundswell of public support, but the bill became a reality. For me, upholding the people's trust is the most sacred responsibility I have as a Member of Congress. That is why I am waging a new battle to strengthen the STOCK Act, after learning that some in this Congress have used legal loopholes to get around this law. Once again, we see the importance of investigative journalism and a free press, which has shined a light on the fact that some Members of Congress have purchased private, discounted stock deals and taken a part in initial public offerings outside of the United States. These special deals are not available to the general public. All this would have remained in the dark, had the STOCK Act not put into place a new requirement to timely disclose sales and purchases of stock. This is precisely the kind of outrageous conduct we intended to outlaw under the STOCK Act. It plays directly into the public's most cynical view of Congress. This, Mr. Speaker, comes at a time when just 20 percent of the public approves of how Congress is doing its job under the majority's leadership. That is according to the latest figures from Gallup. This Chamber put aside partisanship and took a strong, bipartisan stand against this abhorrent behavior just a few years ago. It has become increasingly clear that we need to act again today to hold ourselves accountable to both the letter and the spirit of the STOCK Act law. We are not doing that today. Once again, we are taking away the regulations because some people find them so terribly abhorrent, but they protect the small investor and the people in the banks. We surely will never, I hope, see the day where we will ask the taxpayers of the United States to bail out the enormously rich, big banks. One of the worst things of that whole era was not a single fraudulent banker went to jail. Just 535 of us in a country of more than 300 million people have been chosen to serve on the American people's behalf in Congress. It is a sacred responsibility, one we should not be squandering, doing the bidding of the financial lobbyists or Wall Street firms, who are the ones behind the CHOICE Act. The majority should stop fulfilling the wish list of Wall Street and act on behalf of millions of Americans outraged by insider trading and other chicanery that still permeates the halls of Congress today. This Chamber must take action so that Americans recognize we came here to represent them, not enrich ourselves. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett).

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Carolyn B. Maloney) the distinguished ranking member of the Financial Services Subcommittee on Capital Markets, Securities, and Investments.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentlewoman an additional 1 minute.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. Jayapal).

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional minute to the gentlewoman.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire of my colleague if he has further speakers?

Ms. SLAUGHTER. I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. With each passing day, we learn more about the tangled web of conflicts of interest and links to Russia and the Trump administration. Just last week we learned that President Trump's son-in-law, Jared Kushner, attempted to establish a back channel of communications with Russia and the Trump transition team before they were even inaugurated. Tomorrow, former FBI Director James Comey will likely testify that President Trump attempted to influence the FBI's investigation into possible collusion between his campaign and the Russian Government. Who knows what further ties to Russia we will uncover from his testimony. Without President Trump's tax returns, we simply have no way of knowing if he himself has financial ties to Russia, as news reports have suggested. The American people deserve to know whether or not our President has any business dealings with Russia or other foreign governments. It is imperative that we prevent the White House from becoming another arm of the Trump organization. Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to bring up Representative Eshoo's bill, H.R. 305, which would require Presidents and major party nominees for the Presidency to release their tax returns. If the President has nothing to hide, including financial interests or business dealings with Russia, then he should freely release his tax returns to reassure the American people. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to include in the Record the text of my amendment, along with extraneous material, immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, let me remind the majority why we enacted the Wall Street reform in the first place. Our country was plunged into the worst recession since the Great Depression after big Wall Street firms played Russian roulette with our future for years. During the 2008 financial crash, more than 8 million Americans lost their jobs, $13 trillion in wealth vanished overnight, and 11 million homes were lost. After years of excesses and dodging regulation, the financial firms were finally brought under control by the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act. The perverse notion of too big to fail was finally ended, and the financial playing field was tilted back toward consumers. We have all seen the results of the law in the form of record-setting private sector job growth, millions of new jobs, and historic rates of business lending. It is beyond me why anyone in the world would want to repeal this law and threaten this progress. Instead of doing the bidding of the financial lobbyists who don't really care for the law, we should be acting to uphold the trust of the people who sent us here. This begins with passing the End Congressional Stock Market Abuse Act to bring an end to the egregious use of exclusive stock deals and foreign initial public offerings by Members of Congress. The American people must be able to trust what we are doing here and trust that it is right for them without concern that we are using our position to enrich ourselves. My bill would enhance the STOCK Act, which passed the Chamber virtually unanimously--two ``no'' votes--in 2012, with provisions that I think we could all agree on: no exclusive stock deals for Members of Congress, no initial public offerings, regardless of where they are offered. Mr. Speaker, that is what we should be focusing on today, not dismantling a law that has brought financial security to millions of Americans. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose the rule, to oppose the underlying legislation, the ``Wrong'' CHOICE Act, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, the majority of Americans want us to work together to improve upon the successes of the Affordable Care Act. We should be expanding access to care and implementing the kind of reforms that will keep American families healthy, not kicking millions of Americans off their insurance to fulfill a deceptive campaign promise, as the Republican healthcare repeal bill will do. Expanding paid sick leave to the 45 percent of American workers who don't have access to it would be a great start. Each week, up to 3 million employees go to work sick, infecting their coworkers and customers and delaying their own recovery. The benefits of allowing working Americans to earn paid sick leave are undeniable. It slows the spread of disease, lowers healthcare costs, and increases productivity. If we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule that would allow us to also bring up Representative DeLauro's bill, H.R. 1516, which would allow Americans to have paid sick time. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my amendment in the Record, along with extraneous material, immediately prior to vote on the previous question.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, all of us in this Chamber today support the goals of this legislation. We can and we must do more to protect children from the plague of sexual assault and the prevalence of child pornography permeating society today. I am particularly glad to see such bipartisan support for H.R. 1973. The young athletes that represent the United States on the world's stage at the Olympics must not be taken advantage of by predatory coaches and doctors who should be mentoring them. In fact, no child anywhere should be taken advantage of; but this bill makes some commonsense changes that strengthen the reporting of abuse and puts in place policies that prevent future violations, and I am hopeful it will become law. It staggers the mind to believe that this assault on those children had gone on for 20 years, and some 400 children were victimized for it, and not a single adult anywhere around ever brought attention to it. In fact, we owe a great newspaper in Indiana for telling us about it, so be sure to read a good newspaper every day. Mr. Speaker, there is a lot of agreement about the goals of the bills before us today, but that wasn't the case 20 days ago when the majority rushed through its partisan, slapdash healthcare bill repeal to rip away healthcare from millions of people. They passed the bill without holding a single hearing, listening to any experts, or, most importantly, waiting for a score from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office. The Congressional Budget Office tells us what the bill will cost, how many people it will help, how many people it would hurt, something that, with healthcare, would have been vitally important. But while the lack of a score didn't prohibit them from holding a vote, it did, apparently, prevent the majority from sending the bill over to the Senate. Mr. Speaker, this process is completely backwards and a major breakdown of the integrity of the legislative process. Most schoolchildren know that, when a bill passes the House, you send it to the Senate. You don't hide it in a drawer for weeks until you finally get the information from the Congressional Budget Office that you should have had before you brought the bill to the floor for a vote. This is no way to develop a plan that will impact one-sixth of the Nation's gross domestic product, and the process has finally laid bare one of the biggest political hoaxes in recent memory: that notion of repeal and replace. How often did we hear that over the last 7 years? For the last 7 years, the majority voted more than 60 times to undermine the Affordable Care Act without having a thing in the world to replace it with, and now they are pushing the false notion that the Affordable Care Act is collapsing. The reality is that some States dealing with limited insurers never implemented the full benefits of the law or enacted the exchange under the Affordable Care Act, which would have cut their costs. Mr. Speaker, one of my proudest moments as a Member of Congress was chairing the House Rules Committee and bringing the Affordable Care Act to the House floor. Almost every President since Theodore Roosevelt had attempted to give healthcare to the American people. Millions of people are now waking up to the benefits of this healthcare, and our Nation's uninsured rate is at its lowest level in more than 50 years. Why would you rip that away? For the first time in a generation, we are actually slowing the yearly growth of healthcare costs. A poll released just this last month found that 61 percent of the public supports keeping and improving the Affordable Care Act. That is in stark contrast to the 17 percent approval rating for the repeal bill that was voted on here several weeks ago. Mr. Speaker, I wish the majority would stop turning a deaf ear to the people it represents. The American people have been marching and calling and writing against this bill in numbers none of us have ever seen before. A bad process led to a bad product. Mr. Speaker, none of us believe that the ACA was perfect. I urge the majority to take the bill out of the drawer and shred it. Let's get together, strengthen our healthcare system and the Affordable Care Act. It is exactly what our constituents deserve. I reserve the balance of my time.