Louise Slaughter

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, the Securities Act of 1933, which, obviously, was put into effect after the Depression or while it was going on, governs current law regarding the sale and purchase of securities like stocks, bonds, or options. The intent behind this law is to require that investors receive necessary information about the securities and to prevent fraud when they are sold. To achieve this, the Securities and Exchange Commission currently prohibits the sale or delivery of securities that have not been registered with the agency, with some limited exemptions. Today, these exceptions are usually limited to those transactions made with sophisticated investors who understand the associated risks. H.R. 2201 would weaken the Securities Act unnecessarily by adding an entirely new exemption for certain issuers while removing important disclosure requirements. Let me say that again: while removing important disclosure requirements, in other words, to know what you are buying. It would leave investors vulnerable to fraud by allowing companies to sell unregistered securities without the important guardrails that apply to these transactions today. It is part of the majority's agenda that prioritizes deregulation above all else. Through the Congressional Review Act and many other bills, the majority has been relentlessly attacking safeguards that protect consumers--risking our health, our safety, and our finances. This is all in order to make it easier for corporations to engage in questionable business practices. Who loses in the giveaway to big corporations and bad actors? The American people do. Mr. Speaker, I have always believed that a bad process leads to a bad product. This week has put the majority in the history books for all the wrong reasons. Closed rules completely block Members from offering amendments on the House floor, and just yesterday, with the 49th closed rule of the year, this majority broke the record for becoming the most closed session of Congress in history. That is a long time. Let me repeat that. This session of the 115th Congress is the most closed session ever. In fact, our present Speaker has not had an open rule. This is not some arcane matter. More than 1,300 amendments have been blocked this year through the restrictive rules. It has prevented action on matters that touch nearly every sector of society. This week we saw another mass shooting in a church. Families gathered together in a small Texas town, and a man with a gun came in and killed 26 of them and wounded 20 more. One family lost eight of its cherished members. Those killed in that attack equal 7 percent of the small town's entire population. Now, this Congress could work together and actually stop these tragic murders because this is the place where we can do that, but under the majority, we can't even get a vote on any measure that would do anything about it. If you care about whether we send troops to war in Afghanistan and Syria--if you care--then closed rules matter. If you care about protecting whistleblowers or reducing government spending, then closed rules matter. If you care about whether we build the President's offensive border wall with Mexico or strengthen ethics in the executive branch, then closed rules matter. If you care about protecting the nearly 800,000 young DREAMers nationwide, then closed rules definitely matter. The majority has used restrictive closed and structured rules to prevent debate and votes on these and many, many other important matters from ever happening here on the House floor. Each of us has been elected to do our job representing our constituents by amending legislation on this floor, but because of the closed process, we are being prevented from doing our jobs. Bills routinely come before the Rules Committee that haven't even been fully considered by the relevant committees. Such a bill is before us today. When Speaker Ryan took the gavel 2 years ago, he said: ``Only a fully functioning House can really, truly do the people's business.'' Well, Mr. Speaker, we are not doing the peoples business. We are unable to do the job we were sent here to do. We are unable to take action on the things our constituents care about most. It is no wonder that this Congress is the most unpopular Congress in recent memory. It is past time that we return to regular order and start tackling the major issues that we face. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to bring up H.R. 3440, the Dream Act. This bipartisan, bicameral legislation would help thousands of young people who are Americans in every way, except on paper. Democrats have tried numerous times to protect DREAMers. We voted over and over to try and bring the Dream Act, and we have offered amendments, only to be blocked by this record-breaking closed Congress. There is bipartisan agreement that something must be done to help these young people. Let's do it today. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my amendment in the Record, along with extraneous material, immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Aguilar) to discuss our proposal.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, unnecessary, partisan bills like this one take up valuable floor time when we could be considering important legislation to extend expired programs like Perkins loans, which help low-income students finance their education, or to address gun violence. The American people are frightened of an agenda that prioritizes deregulation and corporations above all else. Democrats have been pushing for votes on the House floor on amendments that would actually address the major problems we are facing today. That includes everything from climate change and our military's role abroad to protecting the DACA recipients and addressing the gun violence epidemic that is tearing communities apart. But we have been blocked at every turn. The majority has gone to unprecedented lengths to prevent any kind of real debate from happening. We have proof of that because they have used closed and structured rules to block more than 1,300 amendments so far this year. So far, this session is the most closed session of Congress since Congress began. It is no wonder that just 13 percent of the public approves of Congress under this leadership. That is according to the latest figures from Gallup. The bill before us just continues that dangerous and unpopular agenda. Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote on the previous question, the rule, and the bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

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

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, and I thank the gentleman for yielding me the customary 30 minutes. Mr. Speaker, the Independent Payment Advisory Board was created, in fact, by the Affordable Care Act, as we have heard. It will be a 15- member panel composed of Presidentially appointed and Senate-confirmed experts charged with developing proposals to prevent Medicare costs from getting too high. It is about fiscal prudence. The majority and its allies, however, spread many mistruths about the board. It has even been called a death panel, if you remember that. In reality, nothing could be further from the truth. Its recommendations may not increase cost-sharing premiums or taxes, or reduce benefits. They have no way to do that. Not a single soul has been nominated to the board. It is not yet instituted as an entity. Today, in the absence of an appointed board, the Secretary of Health and Human Services is directed to submit recommendations to Congress if a trigger is met. The independent Medicare actuaries predict that this board will not be triggered until at least 2021, 4 years from now. Mr. Speaker, I think we have to ask: Why are we spending time today, with everything facing us, addressing a problem that could exist 4 years from now? Is the majority so desperate to undermine the Affordable Care Act that they are repealing a panel whose sole purpose is keeping Medicare costs in line? According to Gallup, 55 percent of the public approves of the healthcare law. They want to see it strengthened, not eviscerated. In contrast, under the majority's leadership, Congress has an approval rating of just 13 percent. Should 13 percent be telling 55 percent what they need to do? Instead, since the majority has so far been unable to repeal it, they are going to undermine it brick by brick. The President is even sabotaging the Affordable Care Act administratively, slashing the budget to publicize the law by 90 percent, and cutting the open enrollment period in half. In the interest of public service, let me say that the enrollment period started yesterday and continues to December 15. Please go and take care of your health insurance. What the White House has done is make a direct attempt to cause chaos to weaken signups under the open enrollment period that began this week. The Kaiser Family Foundation estimated that, as a result of the Affordable Care Act, Medicare growth has been historically low. The growth in healthcare prices is at its lowest level in 50 years. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office projected that Medicare growth rates will remain beneath this panel's targets until 2021, hence the reason for not doing a panel for 4 more years. It is really too bad that this Congress and the majority insist on sabotaging the Affordable Care Act, chipping away at its benefits. We should be strengthening it. Remember that every President since Theodore Roosevelt just about has tried to do a healthcare bill like the one that we have today. Perhaps just because Barack Obama did it that there is so much problem with it in the majority. There is a bipartisan Senate bill crafted by Senator Alexander and Senator Patty Murray that the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office found last week would save money, stabilize the insurance marketplace, and reduce the debt by $3.8 billion. That is all without anyone losing their insurance. Why won't we take up that bill? We never get an answer for that question. What is it about trying to take healthcare away from poor people or that we won't put a bill on the floor that has all the advantages and savings that we know and that is totally bipartisan? Is it because the majority knows it will pass? Our Nation has urgent problems. Our infrastructure is crumbling, education costs skyrocket so high so fast that it is unattainable to many students. We desperately need to stabilize our health insurance markets by passing the compromise by Senators Alexander and Murray. That is what we should be doing here today. There are Members on both sides of the aisle who want to see improvements to the board, but that is not what the bill does. It terminates it altogether. It is the wrong approach at definitely the wrong time. Regardless of what you think about this board, we should be able to agree that this Congress has more important things to do than address a problem that might not exist for 4 years, if at all. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute. Mr. Speaker, I am very troubled by this. I don't want to insult my learned colleagues, but it plainly says in the legislation that IPAB cannot ration healthcare, cannot raise taxes or increase deductibles and copayments. Under the current law, section 1899A, 42 U.S.C. clearly states: ``The proposal shall not include any recommendation to ration healthcare; raise revenues or Medicare beneficiary premiums; increase the cost sharing, including deductibles, coinsurance, and copayments; or otherwise restrict benefits or modify eligibility criteria.'' I regret I have to do that, because it is a direct contradiction of what my good friends on the other side have told the country and what I assume that they believe. Mr. Speaker, Russia interfered with our 2016 election. That much is clear from special counsel Mueller's investigation, which led to indictments against two Trump campaign aides. The legitimacy of our electoral system is at stake, and it is time the Republican-controlled Congress sets aside the partisan politics and treats this threat with the gravity it deserves. If we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to bring up Representative Swalwell and Representative Cummings' bill, which would create a bipartisan commission to investigate the Russian interference in the 2016 election. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the amendment in the Record, along with extraneous material, immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, one of the worst political stories I have heard in my lifetime is what we just talked about, the ``death panel,'' what it is going to do, even though it is prohibited by the written law to do the things that it has been accused of being able to do. Most of that, PolitiFact talked about the death panel part of it and said that that was the 2009 lie of the year. But here we are, 8 years later, and we keep hearing mistruths about the panel and its intent. The board is about keeping Medicare growth in line, nothing more, nothing less. So let's be honest about what the bill really is about: attacking the Affordable Care Act. Regardless of what you think about the Independent Payment Advisory Board, the Nation has immediate problems today that deserve our attention, from healthcare to education, to infrastructure. We should not be taking this valuable House time talking about a board that may or may not come into existence 4 years from now. That is not what we need to deal with today. So I urge a ``no'' vote on the previous question and the rule. I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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, and I thank the gentleman for yielding me the customary 30 minutes. Mr. Speaker, 33 days ago, funding for the Children's Health Insurance Program, which 9 million children rely on for their healthcare and well-being, expired after the program was allowed to lapse. States crafted budgets, assuming Federal CHIP funding would arrive on time as it has always done, and they are now scrambling to develop a patchwork solution to keep the program alive. Six States and the District of Columbia have warned they will run out of funding by December, next month. Thirteen States say they will soon have to tell enrollees they could lose coverage without immediate congressional action. Utah officials have even considered sending letters to enrollees as early as this week letting them know the program is being forced to wind down. The Kaiser Family Foundation has found that 32 States are expected to run out of funding by March if Congress fails to act. I am glad we are here today with a bill to reauthorize CHIP and other public health programs, but they are woefully inadequate. This bill is paid for by eviscerating funding from one of the most important parts, again, of the Affordable Care Act that helps to keep people well: the Prevention Fund. This fund focuses on children's health, expanding access to lifesaving vaccines and reducing the risk of lead poisoning, among many other things. This is a particularly heartless cut when you consider that many residents of Flint, Michigan, still can't get a clean glass of water from the faucet or bathe in uncontaminated water 3 years after the water crisis began. Children there in Flint will be forced to live for the rest of their lives with impacts ranging from neurodevelopmental damage and behavioral changes to hypertension and anemia, damage caused by a government that failed to act. If it fails to adequately fund Medicaid for Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands as they continue to try to rebuild following the devastating recent hurricanes, that would be a compounding of the tragedy. This bill fails to waive the requirement that both of those islands match Federal investment before they can access any of the Medicaid funding, and we don't deal with that at all, even for CHIP. Seventy percent of Puerto Rico doesn't even have power 6 weeks after Hurricane Maria hit. I am proud to say that a lot of New York utility workers are down there now, and I am sure we will see results soon. Residents of Puerto Rico are washing clothes and bathing in contaminated streams and rivers, and drinking it as well. A million people there still don't have any running water. They don't have the ability to put up millions of dollars, either, to match these funds because they are struggling to survive. We don't address that. These are American citizens, and we have an obligation to help them. These reauthorizations are a chance to really work together and deliver, but we are worried about this opportunity because there is no indication that this bill could pass the Senate with the cuts that it has made to the Affordable Care Act. I am referring, of course, to the ones that relate to preventive care. That would be a major tragedy. As I have already said, so many States are right at the edge of not being able to fund the program at all. Other States are ready to tell both community health services and CHIP that they are no longer providing for them. This partisan approach will only delay the extension of the programs even further. I consider that a major dereliction of our duties. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Matsui), a distinguished member of the Energy and Commerce Committee.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentlewoman from Connecticut an additional 30 seconds.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone), who is the distinguished ranking member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentleman from New Jersey.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Texas.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, in May, the Republican majority recklessly passed their healthcare repeal bill without any analysis at all from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, finding out a month later that it would have taken insurance away from 23 million people. I fear the majority is going to make the same dangerous mistake with their tax bill. The New York Times reported that some sections of the bill released today are placeholders that will ``allow Republican leaders to work out the details of a new set of revenue-raisers that would be inserted in the bill before the full House votes on it''--in other words, they will be a surprise. After the Ways and Means Committee marks up the bill, they will rewrite the bill in a back room and jam it through the House. It is beyond irresponsible to vote on a bill of this magnitude without knowing how it will impact hardworking Americans. We employ dozens of well-qualified, nonpartisan expert economists and public policy analysts with advanced degrees in the Congressional Budget Office precisely for moments like this, and it appears the majority is again, this year, prepared to move so fast that no Member will have the benefit of their nonpartisan advice. So if we can defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule that will prevent this massive tax cut bill from coming to the House floor unless nonpartisan analysis from the experts at the Congressional Budget Office has been available for at least 2 days. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my amendment in the Record, along with extraneous material, immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Madam Speaker, we don't have time to spare playing games here with the CHIP program. It is on life support in many States, with officials scrambling to try to keep it alive. This is a program, you have heard before, that 9 million children rely on. And 2,800 community health centers are at risk of closing their doors if we do not reauthorize the community health centers. That would leave millions of people without healthcare, cost more than 50,000 jobs, and already the centers nationwide have been forced to consider cutting services following the majority's failure to reauthorize the program before it expired on September 30. Everybody knows that these centers do remarkable work. They deliver quality care at lower cost. More than 330,000 veterans relied on them for healthcare last year alone. They could be reauthorized under a clean bill in seconds. Instead, the majority is putting them at risk through this partisan bill, which seems unlikely to pass the Senate, and we will then be nowhere. If you want to know why only 13 percent of the public approves of Congress under the leadership, just look at the bill before us today. Republican leaders have turned even the most bipartisan programs into endeavors that seem unlikely to become law. They have disallowed the Democratic Party to have any substitute with any other ideas that they did not have before so that we can, as Ms. DeLauro mentioned, have an honest debate. We see that time after time in the Rules Committee, the inability for our side to even get amendments passed. But not to allow a substitute bill of this magnitude is, I think, really a dereliction of duty. It speaks volumes about the inability to get things done. And lastly, Madam Speaker, I want to recognize George Agurkis. He is sitting here with me. George has been on the Rules Committee staff for 9\1/2\ years. He is leaving us at the end of the week to take a wonderful new job and new project. He is a Pennsylvania neighbor we always could count on. He is a lot of fun. We are going to miss that and his aunt, Rose, who works in the cloakroom. And we know that she gives the best birthday parties in the world, and we don't know what we are going to do. We hope that George will come back and celebrate those with us and Rose will once again delight us with every kind of sweet thing in the world.

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

Ms. SLAUGHTER

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

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Patricia and Peter Gores of Mumford, New York. They recently donated a more than 100-year- old clock which had been a centerpiece in the Gores' family home for more than 40 years. The clock was manufactured in New York State by the Self-Winding Clock Company, built with casing made from Quarter Sawn Oak, and remains in good working condition to this day. This clock was formerly located in Rochester, New York, at the Claude Bragdon train station where it served as the New York Central Railroad's Master Clock to ensure a consistent time among the clocks around the station. The donation of this clock will allow it to be proudly displayed in Rochester's new train station. The Claude Bragdon station opened its doors in 1914 and was a paragon of design. This station was where our community bid farewell to local soldiers as they were sent to serve our nation. It was a gathering place for suffragettes organizing for the right to vote. It was also where our community welcomed dignitaries, including Presidents. This clock represents that era and the importance rail travel has played in our nation's history. While the Claude Bragdon station is no longer standing, Rochester opened the doors to its brand new train station this fall which borrows heavily from the design of the old station. The new state-of-the-art, ADA compliant station will dramatically improve service for the more than 130,000 passengers that utilize passenger rail in Upstate New York. Whether you're a student traveling to Rochester to attend one of the great colleges or universities or an entrepreneur visiting the city for the first time, this Master Clock will stand as a reminder of Rochester's proud history. On behalf of the Rochester community, I want to thank Patricia and Peter Gores for their generous donation and commitment to returning the Master Clock to its former home.