Presidential Tax Transparency Act

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

(Mr. McGOVERN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman for yielding me the customary 30 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, this is the 28th closed rule we are considering in Congress. Let me repeat that. This is the 28th closed rule that we are considering in this Congress. That means that 64 percent of the rules that the Republican leadership has brought to the floor this year have been completely closed, with no opportunity for Democrats or Republicans to offer their ideas to expand upon or improve the legislation.

Under a closed rule, you can't even offer an amendment to fix a typo. If somebody is in their office listening to the debate on this bill and has an idea on how to improve it, they are denied that opportunity to offer any amendments on the floor--in short, no amendments.

Mr. Speaker, this place is called the people's House. Maybe it should be called the Russia House because this is the way they legislate in Russia, completely closed, no opportunity for different ideas to be brought before the Congress and debated.

I have never, in all my years in Congress, experienced a more authoritarian approach to legislating than I have in this Congress. I have never encountered a more closed Congress than this Congress is.

This is not right, and it should not be considered normal. Not only Democrats should be outraged, but Republicans ought to be outraged as well.

You know, I wish my Republican friends had learned something from the collapse of their healthcare bill a few weeks ago. They rushed to the floor a bill cobbled together in the dark of night, filled with bribes and backroom deals. In fact, to strong-arm Members into voting for the bill and to correct for all the technical drafting errors that occurred thanks to their secretive process, there were not one, not two, not even three, but five--that is right, five--separate manager's amendments filed with the Rules Committee.

Now, let me explain that.

Only the people who wrote the bill were allowed to amend it. They wrote it so quickly, so sloppily, that they had to amend their amendments. I mean, this would be laughable if it weren't so tragic. And even after all of that, they were not able to piece together votes within their own Conference, and the bill imploded.

Well, it was a mess from beginning to end; and, to put it bluntly, the process was a disaster. Don't take it from me. Listen to Sean Hannity of FOX News. Now, don't adjust your television set. I am actually going to quote FOX News--and Sean Hannity, at that. I can't believe that he and I agree on something.

Here is what he said. According to a CNN report, he said: ``Now, this legislation was flawed from the beginning. It was created behind closed doors. Not one single Member saw the bill until it was rolled out. And that made it a disaster.''

That is Sean Hannity, one of President Trump's biggest cheerleaders, one of the biggest cheerleaders of my Republican friends. Here he is trashing the Republican health bill. And if that is not a wake-up call for Republicans, I don't know what is. You know, if Republicans are being criticized on their process by Sean Hannity, they have a serious problem.

Now we are reading that Republicans are again huddling in back rooms in the Capitol in an effort to resurrect their terrible plan to repeal the Affordable Care Act, strip important protections away from our constituents, and put insurance companies in charge of our health care. There it is on the front page of today's Washington Post: ``GOP Presses for New Health Plan.''

Now, I haven't been invited to any of these secret backroom negotiations, but from what we are hearing, it isn't good. It seems that things are not looking good for hospitals. MassDevice alerted us to the fact that: ``Hospital Stocks Fall as GOP Looks to Revive TrumpCare Bill.''

It appears as though Republicans are still working to make their bill even more devastating. Mother Jones reported: ``TrumpCare 2.0 Still Isn't Cruel Enough to Satisfy Conservatives.''

Yesterday, Tribune Media Wire wrote about: ``How the Revised TrumpCare Plan Could Hit Americans with Preexisting Conditions.''

I include in the Congressional Record, Mr. Speaker, an article that appears in today's New York Times about how the latest health proposal weakens coverage for preexisting conditions.

[From the New York Times, Apr. 4, 2017]

Republican Health Proposal Would Undermine Coverage for Pre-Existing

Conditions

(By Margot Sanger-Katz)

Throughout the debate to repeal and replace the Affordable

Care Act, President Trump and Republican congressional

leaders have insisted they would retain a crucial, popular

part of the health law: the promise that people can buy

insurance even if they've had illnesses in the past.

Their efforts foundered last month, when a House health

bill had to be pulled from the floor after it failed to

attract enough support. Late Monday night, word emerged that

the White House and the group of conservative lawmakers known

as the Freedom Caucus had discussed a proposal to revive the

bill. But the proposed changes would effectively cast the

Affordable Care Act's pre-existing conditions provision

aside.

The terms, described by Representative Mark Meadows,

Republican of North Carolina and the head of the Freedom

Caucus, are something like this: States would have the option

to jettison two major parts of the Affordable Care Act's

insurance regulations. They could decide to opt out of

provisions that require insurers to cover a standard, minimum

package of benefits, known as the essential health benefits.

And they could decide to do away with a rule that requires

insurance companies to charge the same price to everyone who

is the same age, a provision called community rating.

The proposal is not final, but Mr. Meadows told reporters

after the meeting that his members would be interested in

such a bill. To pass the House, any bill would need to find

favor not just with the Freedom Caucus, but also with more

moderate Republicans. It would also need to attract the

support of nearly every Republican in the Senate to become

law.

The ability to opt out of the benefit requirements could

substantially reduce the value of insurance on the market. A

patient with cancer might, for example, still be allowed to

buy a plan, but it wouldn't do her much good if that plan was

not required to cover chemotherapy drugs.

The second opt-out would make the insurance options for

those with pre-existing conditions even more meaningless.

Technically, the deal would still prevent insurers from

denying coverage to people with a history of illness. But

without community rating, health plans would be free to

charge those patients as much as they wanted. If both of the

Obamacare provisions went away, the hypothetical cancer

patient might be able to buy only a plan, without

chemotherapy coverage, that costs many times more than a

similar plan costs a healthy customer. Only cancer patients

with extraordinary financial resources and little interest in

the fine print would sign up.

There is a reason that many conservatives want to do away

with these provisions. Because they help people with

substantial health care needs buy relatively affordable

coverage, they drive up the price of insurance for people who

are healthy. An insurance market that did not include cancer

care--or even any cancer patients--would be one where

premiums for the remaining customers were much lower. The

result might be a market that is much more affordable for

people with a clean bill of health. But it would become

largely inaccessible to anyone who really needs help paying

for medical care.

We do not have to speculate to know what the world looks

like without essential health benefits and community rating.

It was how most state insurance markets worked before

Obamacare. Back in 2009, most sick people who did not get

insurance through work or a government program were excluded

from coverage if they had a history of health problems like

allergies or arthritis. Plans that did not cover pregnancy

care or drug addiction treatment were widespread. (The data

about individual market insurance premiums is a little

spotty, but it appears that they were substantially lower in

most states.)

One idea Republicans have about how to care for the sick

was also in effect pre-Obamacare. Many states had ``high-risk

pools,'' where people shut out of the traditional insurance

markets could buy special plans with the help of state

subsidies. The Freedom Caucus proposal is likely to include

some money that states could use to set up such pools.

``The fundamental idea is that marginally sick people would

pay with risk associated with their coverage,'' Mr. Meadows

said Monday. ``Those that have, you know, premiums that would

be driven up because of catastrophic illness or long-term

illnesses, we've been dealing with that for a long time with

high-risk pools.''

But insurance in the old high-risk pools tended to be

expensive, and often came with long waiting periods or

benefit limitations, even for the very sick.

The main difference between the policy environment in 2009

and today is that the federal government would now be

offering tax credits to help healthy people buy what would

probably be relatively skimpy plans. That would mean that

more middle-income Americans would probably have health

coverage than before the Affordable Care Act, since the

combination of policies would tend to make insurance much

more affordable for people who are young and healthy.

What states would choose to do with this set of options is

hard to predict. Before Obamacare, few states required

community rating of health plans. And few states required

insurers to cover all of the benefits deemed essential under

Obamacare, though most did require a few types of treatments

to be covered. State governments would face a difficult

choice: either take away the requirements, and leave sick

patients without insurance options, or keep them and see

people unable to afford coverage under the new subsidy

system.

Under Obamacare, states can already waive many of the law's

insurance rules if they can show that an alternative program

would cover as many people with comprehensive coverage at a

lower cost to the government. But that standard is difficult

to meet. Mr. Meadows suggested that the waivers under

discussion should be ``very easily granted'' to states.

The politics of health care in the United States have

shifted since the Affordable Care Act was passed seven years

ago. In recent months, the law has grown more popular, and

the pre-existing conditions policy is among its best-known

protections. That could create political pressure for states

to keep the insurance rules, even if they are not required by

law. But it is likely that at least some states might decide

to eliminate them if they are made optional. Shifting norms

about health insurance regulation may also affect the idea's

reception in Congress.

Mr. Meadows said that the proposal presented to the Freedom

Caucus would retain the pre-existing conditions policy. But

that would be true in only the most literal sense. The mix of

policies could allow insurance companies to charge sick

people prices that few of them could pay. And it could allow

them to exclude benefits that many healthy people need when

they get sick. The result could be a world where people with

pre-existing conditions would struggle to buy comprehensive

health insurance--just like before Obamacare.

Thomas Kaplan contributed reporting.

Mr. Speaker, I mean, preexisting conditions. Oh, my God. What are my friends thinking about?

And we are reading that essential health benefits are still on the chopping block.

You know, these are some of the main provisions of the ACA that people like, that people need, and that people deserve.

Protecting essential health benefits in people with preexisting conditions is our moral obligation. Taking these protections away from people would be cruel and unjust and immoral. I would say to my Republican friends: You don't have to do it.

But I guess we will have to wait and see until these secret negotiators emerge from their back rooms with details to share. And I will start getting ready for the next emergency Rules Committee. I am looking forward to that meeting because that will probably be the only time we will have to talk about the bill because I think it is probably too much to expect that my Republican friends would actually, this time around, hold a hearing. Maybe they will bypass a markup, but they will have to go to the Rules Committee in an emergency meeting, and we will probably look forward to another martial law rule.

But we are doing this bill today that no one has ever heard of. It was a noncontroversial suspension bill last year, but now we lift it up like it is the most important piece of business that we are facing in America today. You know, what about the urgent priorities facing our country?

I think it is clear that Speaker Ryan and the majority leader are grasping for filler legislation to keep us busy on the House floor so that the American people really don't see really how dysfunctional this majority really is.

Representative Mario Diaz-Balart, a Member of the Republican Conference, said, and I think he said it best last week when he said: ``It's pretty evident that we don't have the votes among Republicans to do, in essence, anything that's real.''

Maybe that is why we are wasting our time this week on these bills instead of moving an infrastructure package or finishing the FY17 appropriations process, which should have been finalized last year.

I will remind my Republican colleagues that our government runs out of funding on April 28. That is 5 legislative days from now, since we are going on break at the end of this week. Now, maybe, again, this is a radical idea, but maybe we should be dealing with that today.

I am beginning to give up hope for regular order in the appropriations process under the Republican leadership, but I would have thought we would at least have some insight about a funding bill by now. Again, 5 legislative days from now, the government potentially could be shut down.

Maybe some of you think that the underlying legislation that this rule would allow us to consider, a bill to increase the number of companies that are exempted from certain SEC regulations, is vitally important. Maybe you are being inundated with calls about this issue. I don't know. Maybe your townhalls are overflowing with people

demanding this SEC suspension bill, but I am certain that no Member of this body could say with a straight face that this is somehow more important than keeping the entire Federal Government open.

For the life of me, I don't understand why we always have to get right up to the edge of the cliff, but here we are again. Today is just the latest example that the priorities of this Republican leadership do not serve the American people.

I would urge my colleagues to think about this as we spend time in our districts over the next 2 weeks. Maybe, when we get back, Congress can actually do its job and fund the government and focus on things that are important like a jobs bill or an infrastructure bill instead of more of the same Republican messaging bills.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I am glad the gentleman from Michigan believes that closed rules are regular order--maybe in Russia, but that is not supposed to be the norm here in the people's House. We have an obligation to actually debate serious bills.

Right now, my Republican friends are behind closed doors somewhere in the Capitol debating healthcare legislation. And what I am against is this whole process. This is backwards. My Republican friends ought to be out in the open debating health care. They ought to be doing hearings. This is what I am objecting to.

In the scheme of things, this is a relatively minor piece of legislation, compared to my Republican friends' plans to repeal the Affordable Care Act.

Yes, we should be debating Russia and all the ties that the Trump administration has with Russia. The question

used to be: Who in the administration has ties with Russia? Now the question is: Who in this administration doesn't have ties with Russia? Yes, those are important things we ought to be talking about. But, come on.

What we are objecting to is you bringing filler to the floor while, in secret, you are trying to dismantle health care in a way that we believe will harm millions and millions of Americans; that will take away their protections, those who have preexisting conditions; that will throw millions of people off of their insurance; that will take away essential health benefits. Yeah, that is important to us, and it is important to the American people.

What we are objecting to is a process where you debate these issues in secret and you bring stuff like this to the floor.

Mr. Speaker, this week, President Trump signed a bill to allow internet service providers to sell their customers' sensitive information. This information includes location, financial and health data, information about customers' children, Social Security numbers, web browsing history, app usage history, and the content of their customers' communications, such as emails and video chats.

Yet, amazingly, President Trump's tax return information is still off limits to the American people. Every President since Gerald Ford has disclosed his tax return information. These returns have provided a basic level of transparency that has helped to ensure the public's interest is placed first.

So the message from President Trump and the Republican Party is clear: It is okay for companies to profit off your medical and financial information, or information contained in your private emails, but the American voter is not allowed to know if the President has any conflicts of interest. That is right. Donald Trump's privacy matters, but your privacy doesn't.

Internet companies can auction off your private, personal information to the highest bidder. But information related to Donald Trump's business life must be kept secret.

Mr. Speaker, the American people deserve better, and it is incumbent upon us, as the people's elected Representatives, to hold the executive branch accountable.

So I am going to ask people to vote ``no'' on the previous question. And if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to bring up Representative Eshoo's bill, which will require Presidents and major party nominees for the Presidency to release their tax returns.

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.

Mr. Speaker, this is a big deal. The American people have a right to know because the American people are concerned that this White House is on a collision course with corruption. It is time to let a little light shine on the President's tax returns so the American people know what his dealings have been and know what, quite frankly, they have been able to know about every other President and every other major party nominee.

I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from California (Ms. Eshoo) to discuss our proposal.

Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentlewoman from California an additional 2 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to be clear so that my good friend from Colorado understands where I am coming from.

I don't really care about this bill. I think it is a noncontroversial bill that, quite frankly, probably could be approved by voice vote if it were brought up that way.

The point I am trying to make is that this is a relatively minor bill compared to some of the important issues that we need to deal with. It is troublesome to me that, on this bill, which my friend from Colorado said involved years of hearings and where the sponsor of the bill consulted with Democratic colleagues--I favor all of that. But what I am really outraged about is that, while we are talking about this relatively inconsequential bill and about how wonderful this process around this bill is, there are meetings going on in secret, right now, with my Republican colleagues, on dismantling health care in this country, conversations that might result in tens of millions of Americans losing their health insurance, conversations involving taking away essential benefits from insurance packages, conversations that would basically remove protections for people who have preexisting conditions.

All of this is going on in secret. We are reading about it in the press. I am sure my colleagues know about it because they are reading about it. Maybe they are proud of these secret meetings. I want to know where these secret meetings are.

I am simply saying to my friends on the other side of the aisle, on something as big as health care, you ought to be having these meetings out in the open. There ought to be hearings. You ought to bring in patients and patient advocate groups. You ought to bring in doctors, nurses, and heads of hospitals. You ought to bring in people who are going to be affected by any kind of changes you make in our healthcare policy.

Instead, it is being done behind closed doors, in secret, and I think the American people are outraged by that. That is one of the reasons why the bill you brought to the floor recently only had 17 percent support amongst the American people.

So what we are objecting to is the fact that we are not bringing to the floor matters that are urgent, like keeping the government running and like an infrastructure bill. We are also objecting to the fact that we are reading that my Republican friends are, once again, behind closed doors negotiating another healthcare bill that we think will do great damage to the health care of a lot of people in this country.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time, and I will close for our side.

Mr. Speaker, I want to alert my Republican colleagues to some recent polls that came out today. There is a poll that Qinnipiac did that said that Trump is more unpopular than Obama ever was, and, today, President Trump's approval rating is at 35 percent. That is down from 37 percent, and that is the lowest, I think, of any President this early on in his Presidency. I think the lowest rating ever was President George W. Bush. It was at 28 percent, but it took 8 years, two unpopular wars, and a staggering economy to get to that point. But with President Trump, we are already at 35 percent. The Gallup Poll says his approval is at 39 percent.

By the way, the Affordable Care Act, according to Kaiser, now polls at 55 percent approval rating, and the Republican Congress is about as low as President Trump is right now.

I am trying to think of the words to help my colleagues understand what these polls mean. I guess ``not good'' comes to mind, or ``very, very bad.'' I don't think, even if you tried, you could get poll numbers so low so early on in a new Congress or so early on in a new administration.

I would say to my friends the reason for this unpopularity is the way you are conducting business in our government, that the closed processes that are being used with regard to legislation I think are unprecedented. There has never been a more closed Congress than this one. You were pretty closed last session as well. This is a terrible pattern.

I agree with my friend, Mr. Buck, on one thing he said. The gentleman said yesterday that good process produces good policy, but perhaps equally as important, good process helps instill faith in this institution. I agree with that. I could have said those remarks here today.

My question is: If that is the case, why are my Republican friends tolerating a process on healthcare reform that is now going on that is being done behind closed doors in some back room somewhere in this building with no input from patients or patient advocate groups or doctors or nurses or hospitals or anybody who has anything to do with health care? Why, on something so important, is the process so closed and so restrictive and so secretive?

I will tell you, just as this closed process led to a disastrous Republican healthcare bill recently, this continued closed process will lead to more disaster. This is not the way we should be doing the people's business. So we

strongly object to the way the Republicans are running this House and, in fact, the way the President is handling this issue as well.

It is always nice to see Vice President Pence in the hallway when he is walking back and forth, but it would be better to see him in a public setting talking about what the administration's priorities are, not rushing from one back room to another back room to another back room trying to make secret deals to get more people to vote for something when they have no idea what is in the legislation. That is not the way of doing business. So we object to the process.

Again, I urge my colleagues to also vote ``no'' on the previous question so we can have an opportunity to see President Trump's tax returns. Every President since Gerald Ford has disclosed their tax returns, every major Presidential candidate, and every day we read in the newspaper about more and more potential conflicts of interest between the President and his family. I have to tell you, we are on a collision course with corruption. The President has promised to drain the swamp. He has created a cesspool, and it should be of concern to every single person in this Chamber, Democrat and Republican alike.

I don't think it is too much to ask for transparency when it comes to the person who is our Commander in Chief. I shudder to think if Hillary Clinton had won the Presidency and didn't release her tax returns, the outrage that would be coming from the other side of the aisle. I can't even imagine how much outrage would be coming from them.

Yet when Donald Trump hides his financial information from Congress and the American people, there is silence; people don't want to know. Well, the majority of people do. Poll after poll show the overwhelming majority of Americans want to know what is in his tax returns.

Why is this such a state secret? Why can't people see what they want to see and what they have been given with every other President?

So this is an opportunity to put this issue behind us, and if there is nothing controversial in his taxes, well, then this issue goes away and we can talk about something else. But maybe there is something he is hiding. Maybe there is something that we should be concerned about. Maybe there are conflicts of interest that might be constitutionally questionable. Maybe there are ties to Russia that would cause my colleagues on the other side of the aisle more concern.

This idea of hiding this has to stop. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question and vote ``no'' on the underlying rule.

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

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

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I thank the gentlewoman from Wyoming (Ms. Cheney) for the customary 30 minutes.

(Mr. McGOVERN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to yet another closed rule. Last night in the Rules Committee, there were three thoughtful amendments that were brought forward. They were all germane and all complied with the rules of the House. Yet, once again, the Republicans in the Rules Committee denied each and every one of them.

There is no opportunity for any amendments to be heard here today and no opportunity for there to be a real debate, and I regret that very much. Again, that is the trend that we see in this Congress.

Madam Speaker, I also oppose the underlying bill. I have a fundamental belief that politicians in Washington should not have the right to interfere in the health decisions of a woman; and this deceptively titled bill will do just that. It continues this Republican majority's never-ending crusade against women, and it is an attempt to take away the constitutionally protected right to abortion services for millions of women, especially middle class and low-income women. That is wrong.

Madam Speaker, these healthcare decisions should be made between women and their doctors, not politicians in Washington.

Who the hell are we in this Chamber to make these private and oftentimes painful decisions for women?

Republicans claim that this bill is about codifying the Hyde amendment, which has been around for four decades. That is 40 years too long, in my opinion. But this bill isn't really about the Hyde amendment. Despite what Republicans claim, this extreme and sweeping bill would go even further by placing unprecedented limits on women's access to reproductive health services even if they want to pay for abortion coverage out of their own pockets.

Placing restrictions on how women with private insurance can spend private dollars when purchasing health insurance would radically change our Nation's longstanding policy. It is deeply troubling and must not become law.

Madam Speaker, just days ago during the nationwide Women's March, millions of people gathered all across the country and around the globe to defend women's rights. These marches were likely the single largest day of protest in American history. More than half a

million people took to the streets right here in our Nation's Capital; and I was proud to march with these dedicated men and women, along with my wife and my daughter. My son, I am also proud to say, joined the march in Boston.

The marches were peaceful. Not a single arrest was reported in Washington, D.C. And they were also clear, sending a message to each of us that women's rights are human rights.

But far from respecting those rights, the majority is here today attacking a woman's constitutional right to make her own decisions about her health, her family, and her future.

Despite this dangerous bill passing the Republican-controlled House in previous Congresses, it has traditionally died in the Senate; and I hope the Senate keeps with that tradition.

The ultimate goal of congressional Republicans and of Donald Trump is to overturn Roe v. Wade. Make no mistake about it. They want to take us back to the days of back-alley abortions where women lost their lives. That would be an awful thing to do.

I hope people who believe in upholding a woman's right to choose are watching this debate, and I hope that they are just as outraged as I am by this attempt to roll back women's healthcare rights. I hope they call their Representatives in Congress today to speak out. This is a time for action, and we need all of you to make your voices heard.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Kennedy).

Madam Speaker, I include in the Record an article that appeared in The Washington Post: ``Does Obamacare provide federal subsidies for elective abortions?'' It talks about the GAO report, and it basically says that those who claim that it does, they earn three Pinocchios.

[Jan. 26, 2017]

Does Obamacare Provide Federal Subsidies for Elective Abortions?

(By Michelle Ye Hee Lee)

``The president's health-care law authorized massive

subsidies to assist millions of Americans to purchase private

health plans that will cover abortion on demand. In other

words, hard-earned taxpayer dollars are now being used to pay

for elective abortions. This is simply unacceptable.''--Rep.

Virginia Foxx (R-N.C.), House debate, Jan. 22, 2015

The argument that the Affordable Care Act, a.k.a.

Obamacare, provides federal subsidies for abortions came up

several times during the House debate on an antiabortion

bill.

The bill would prohibit using federal funds for any

abortions or for any health plans that cover abortions. Under

Obamacare, federal funds can be used to cover abortions for

pregnancies caused by rape or incest, or that endanger the

mother's life. But no federal subsidies for premiums can be

used for elective abortions. The House debate centered on

whether this restriction is being enforced, and whether

additional protection for taxpayers are needed.

There often is overheated rhetoric in the abortion debate

that cannot be fact-checked. (The Fact Checker previously

examined Democrats' claims following the Hobby Lobby ruling.)

The bill's opponents, who support abortion rights, say the

system works and that the measure would unnecessarily

restrict women's private insurance choices. Lawmakers who

oppose abortion rights don't buy it; they say the system is

just an accounting gimmick. The goal of this fact check is

not to relitigate the debate but to examine evidence to

support the above statement, which was repeated throughout

the debate.

Foxx, one of the lawmakers arguing for the bill, was among

several Republicans who claimed federal subsidies are paying

for elective abortions. Does this accurately portray how

abortions are covered under Obamacare?

The Facts

The House passed H.R. 7, No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion

and Abortion Insurance Full Disclosure Act of 2015, on the

anniversary of the Supreme Court's 1973 Roe v. Wade decision.

The bill was a watered-down measure that the House took up at

the last minute after GOP leaders pulled an initial, more

restrictive bill.

Public funding for abortions is intricately structured.

Under the Hyde Amendment, federal funds can't be used for

elective abortions under Medicaid-funded plans. Some states

do pay 100 percent of the cost of elective abortions without

passing on any cost to the federal government.

Under Obamacare, health insurance plans could cover some or

all elective abortions, but they can't use federal tax

credits and subsidies to offset the cost. Insurance providers

that cover elective abortions must charge consumers

separately and deposit the money into a separate account that

contains no federal money. Providers need to bill enrollees

separately for elective abortions by itemizing them

separately in monthly bills or sending separate bills.

States can pass laws to ban or restrict health plans from

providing coverage for elective abortions. In 2014, 23 states

restricted coverage for these procedures. There were 1,036

plans in 28 states that provided some or all coverage for

elective abortions.

In a speech to Congress and a subsequent executive order,

President Obama gave assurances that federal subsidies would

not be used to cover elective abortion services. He ordered

Health and Human Services and the Office of Management and

Budget to issue a guideline for states so they can comply

with billing and funding segregation requirements.

Obama's not keeping his promise, say supporters of H.R. 7.

Staffers for Foxx and two of the other lawmakers who made

similar claims--H.R. 7 sponsor Rep. Chris Smith (R-N.J.) and

Rep. Ana Wagner (R-MO.)--pointed to a September 2014

Government Accountability Office report. At the request of

GOP leaders, the GAO examined whether health plans were

following the elective abortion billing requirements.

GAO picked 18 plans in 10 states with no laws restricting

abortion coverage as a non-probability sample representing a

quarter of all health plans that cover elective abortions.

GAO found 17 of 18 issuers were not separately billing

consumers. The one remaining issuer said its bills show there

is a charge ``for coverage of services for which member

subsidies may not be used.''

These issuers did not give blanket coverage for all

abortions. One covered abortions that a health-care provider

determines necessary, and two limited coverage to no more

than one elective abortion a year. All 18 issuers had payment

requirements such as co-pays, deductions and out-of-pocket

costs.

The report did not examine whether the providers were

illegally using federal subsidies to pay for elective

abortion services. In response to the report, HHS released a

new set of regulations to clarify billing and funding

segregation requirements.

Experts say the GAO's findings do not necessarily mean

insurance providers are inappropriately using federal

subsidies to cover abortion services. There is no government

or industry agency tracking insurers' compliance, making it

impossible to know whether providers are following the law,

they said.

``It's really not clear how these different plans are being

operationalized,'' said Alina Salganicoff, Kaiser Family

Foundation's director of women's health policy.

The GAO report found premium amounts collected from

elective abortion services ranged from 51 cents to $1.46 per

enrollee per month. To put this in context, the national

average premium for a 40-year-old person purchasing coverage

through the marketplace was between $224 to $270 per month,

according to the Kaiser Family Foundation. (An earlier, non-

age-specific average monthly estimate was $241.) Even if the

maximum charge ($1.46) was added to the cheapest health plan

($224), the elective abortion surcharge is less than 1

percent of the monthly bill.

The key point made by lawmakers and advocacy groups who

oppose abortion rights is that money is fungible, and that it

doesn't matter exactly how the money is being collected. A

dollar is a dollar, they say, and every dollar paid to an

insurance provider in the marketplace ultimately goes into

collective risk pools that are used to rim government-

subsidized health insurance, so taxpayers are effectively

paying for elective abortions.

``The point is the federal subsidies provided for those

1,036 plans are funding abortion just as much as the private

funds contributed by the individual. That is consistent with

the commonly held understanding that money is fungible and

the funds received by the insurance company are used to pay

all benefits,'' Sheridan Watson, Foxx's communications

director, wrote to The Fact Checker.

The Pinocchio Test

The GAO's report found that the insurers it studied were

not following billing requirements. But experts say that does

not necessarily mean the providers were illegally using

federal subsidies for abortions. Even if they were, Foxx's

statement that Obamacare authorized ``massive'' subsidies is

an exaggeration. Based on the estimates above, abortion

charges would range from 0.2 percent to 0.65 percent of an

enrollee's monthly bill.

The claim that ``hard-earned taxpayer dollars'' are paying

for abortions ``on demand'' implies that taxpayers foot the

abortion bill for any woman who requests one. But in reality,

some providers still imposed their own restrictions on which

abortions to cover, and all 18 issuers had payment

requirements, such as out-of-pocket costs and co-pays.

Lawmakers like Foxx who oppose abortion rights discredit

the billing and funding separation requirement for elective

abortion services. Billing doesn't matter, they say, because

federal tax dollars used for subsidies pay for everything in

a health plan. This is an opinion, and something that can't

be fact-checked. But to say that massive federal subsidies

are paying for abortions on demand is not an accurate

portrayal of this complex issue, and the facts in the GAO

report do not support this argument.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Matsui).

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Let me just clarify for the Record that there is no Federal funding for abortion. All you have to do is read the Hyde amendment, which has been in effect for 40 years. I don't support it, but that is the law of the land.

The majority of Americans believe abortion should be legal. So if you want to talk about polls, the overwhelming number of Americans believe that abortions should be safe and legal.

I also would like to say that while my colleagues are working overtime to try to defund organizations like Planned Parenthood, it is because of Planned Parenthood, the counseling that is provided, and the reproductive services that are provided at their clinics, and contraception, that the number of abortions have decreased in this country.

Madam Speaker, I am going to ask my colleagues to defeat the previous question. And if we do, I am going to offer an amendment to the rule to bring up legislation, which I am happy to be a cosponsor of, along with Ms. Eshoo, that would require sitting Presidents and Presidential nominees to disclose their last 3 years of tax returns.

Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

Despite the long tradition of Presidents and Presidential nominees of disclosing their tax returns, Donald Trump has refused to release his, and his spokesperson recently said that he has no intention of doing so. The American people expect and deserve transparency, which this legislation would ensure.

Madam 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.

Madam Speaker, between his refusal to release his tax returns and all these business conflicts of interest, this Presidency is on a collision course with corruption.

Madam Speaker, I urge all my colleagues to support our effort here.

To discuss our proposal, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from California (Ms. Eshoo).

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, I just would like to assure my colleague from Wyoming that we are not trying to distract when we bring up the issue of the President's tax returns, but we have no opportunity here to be heard. The bill before us, as I mentioned in my opening statement, is a closed rule. It is a Putin rule, if you will, where it is their way or the highway and where no debate is allowed on alternative ideas. We had three thoughtful amendments brought before the Rules Committee last night, all germane, all in compliance with the House rules. They rejected all three of them.

On the issue of the Presidential tax returns, yes, we are bringing it up because the American people want to know whether there are conflicts of interest. They don't want the White House to be known for being a place of corruption. They want our Presidents to follow the rules and the laws of the land. So people want to know, but we have been given no opportunity to do that.

So forgive me if we take procedural motions to try to make our point, but my colleagues on the Republican side lock us out of any opportunity to be heard. The Rules Committee has become a place where democracy goes to die, I am sad to say, and I hope that changes.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee).

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Sanchez), who is the vice chairwoman of the Democratic Caucus.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Davis).

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Bonamici).

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren).

Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Carolyn B. Maloney).

Madam Speaker I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton).

Madam Speaker, I yield the gentlewoman an additional 1 minute.

Madam Speaker, the distinguished gentleman from Texas, the chairman of the Committee on Rules, says this bill has nothing to do with taking away a woman's right to choose. I would beg to differ. I think it has everything to do with taking away a woman's right to choose.

But this is the rule. I was hoping that maybe he would address the fact that, again, three thoughtful amendments were brought before the Committee on Rules yesterday by Democrats. They were all germane. They all comply with the House rules. I was hoping he would explain why they were all denied, especially since the bill before us didn't go through regular order; it didn't go through a committee process to be brought to the floor. This was just kind of plopped into the Committee on Rules, and no amendments were made in order. That is not the way a deliberative body should be run. There are disagreements on this issue, but don't be afraid of allowing opposing viewpoints to be heard on this House floor. But apparently he didn't want to talk about that.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Panetta).

Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Gottheimer).

Madam Speaker, may I ask the gentlewoman from Wyoming if she has additional speakers.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, I include in the Record a letter from 23 faith-based organizations and communities urging Members to reject H.R. 7; a letter from the American Civil Liberties Union urging Members to vote ``no'' on H.R. 7; a letter from 44 women's health, religious, and other advocacy organizations strongly opposed to H.R. 7; and a letter from the American Association of University Women urging Members to oppose

Madam Speaker, let me begin my closing by reminding people that we are about to vote on the rule. The rule defines how we are going to consider this legislation. This is a closed rule. This is a Putin rule. This is a rule that allows no opposing viewpoints to be brought before this Chamber to be debated and voted on. It is completely closed. On top of that, it didn't go through regular order.

Now, I know my colleagues will say, well, it went through regular order in the previous Congress. But there are 55 new Members of the House in this Congress, and I think they have a right to expect regular order from the leadership of this House when legislation is brought to the floor. The rule should be rejected because it is closed.

I would urge my colleagues, even those who may be sympathetic to the underlying legislation to, at some point, stand up to your leadership and say, ``Enough of this closed process.'' Open this place up a little bit. This is supposed to be the greatest deliberative body in the world, and yet we do everything but deliberate. At some point, I hope some of my Republican colleagues will be brave enough to stand with us who are calling for a more open process.

I also urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the underlying bill.

I also include in the Record an article from Politico entitled, ``Study: Abortion Rate Falls to Record Low.''

[From Politico, Jan. 17, 2017]

Study: Abortion Rate Falls to Record Low

(By Brianna Ehley)

The U.S. abortion rate dipped to its lowest level on record

in 2014, according to a new study by the Guttmacher

Institute.

The abortion rate dropped 14 percent between 2011 and 2014

to 14.6 abortions per 1,000 women, researchers said. During

the same time period, the number of abortions dropped 12

percent to 926,200 in 2014.

Researchers suggested two main reasons for the decline: a

combination of greater access to contraception and less

access to abortion services in states that have enacted new

restrictions.

The number of clinics providing abortions dipped 6 percent

between 2011 and 2014, with the largest declines in access in

the Midwest and the South.

``Abortion restrictions and clinic closures mean that

patients may need to travel greater distances to access

services,'' Rachel Jones, the study's lead author, said in a

statement. ``Some of the abortion rate decline is likely

attributable to women who were prevented from accessing

needed services.''

Madam Speaker, part of the reason for that is because women are having more access to good health care. Part of the reason why that number is getting lower is because of organizations like Planned Parenthood, which provide clinics and counseling and contraception to young women so that we can actually avoid more people being in the situation where they have to confront the issue of abortion. And yet my colleagues' next salvo is going to be going after Planned Parenthood. The abortion rate in this country is going down.

The underlying bill is not about making sure that taxpayer money doesn't go to fund abortion. That is what the Hyde amendment does.

The Affordable Care Act, by the way, makes it clear that no portion of the premium tax credits may be used to pay for the portion of comprehensive health coverage that is purchased in the marketplace that relates to abortion services. That is not what this is about.

This is basically the first attempt to really go after the basic constitutional right for a woman to be able to choose when it comes to abortion services. That is what this is about. The leadership of this House--indeed, the President of the United States--has made it clear they want to repeal Roe v. Wade. They want to put Justices on the Supreme Court who will repeal that decision. They want to pass legislation that will do everything to be able to deny women that basic right. That is what is going on here.

Finally, Madam Speaker, I am asking people to vote ``no'' on the previous question so that we can actually debate and vote on this issue of requiring Presidential candidates and Presidents to release their tax returns. I say to my colleagues in all sincerity, this President's refusal to release his tax returns, all these conflicts of interest that he has, this is a White House on a collision course with corruption. Donald Trump said he wanted to come to Washington to drain the swamp, but by not releasing his tax returns, by allowing all these conflicts of interest to remain, he is bringing the swamp to the White House. Enough.

Let us vote for transparency here. Let us vote in a way that the majority of Americans think we ought to do, and that is to require this President to come clean, to show us what his tax returns are, to show us what he is hiding, to show us where his investments are, to show us if there are any dealings with Russia or Putin or whatever.

I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question so we can have that opportunity to be able to debate that issue, because if you don't vote ``no,'' I can guarantee you that the Committee on Rules will never make it in order. The Committee on Rules never makes anything in order that the leadership of this House doesn't put its rubber stamp on. I think that that is unfortunate. As I said before, the Committee on Rules is becoming a place where democracy goes to die. It is about time that my colleagues on both sides of the aisle stand up and say, ``Enough. Let's open this place up.''

Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Madam Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I thank the gentleman for yielding me the customary 30 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule and the underlying bill, H.R. 1039, but first and foremost, I want to make sure that we recognize and honor the work and sacrifice that our police and first responders do each and every day.

This week is National Police Week and, frankly, it is an opportunity to honor every week, but in particular this week, those who run toward the gunfire, those who run toward the building on fire every day.

In my own district in Colorado, I hear so many countless stories of heroic acts and going above and beyond the call of duty by those on the front lines of keeping us safe. In one example in Colorado, Officer Ross Maynard responded to a domestic violence situation. The victim's former boyfriend had broken a living room window in the middle of January, leaving the victim and her young daughter exposed to our record cold temperatures. Maynard went above and beyond his duty and covered the window to keep out the elements. He vacuumed the shattered glass from the floor when he found out the victim didn't have a vacuum so that the child didn't receive cuts from the glass.

In example of heroism, dispatcher Sara Demgen calmly helped a man deliver his son when his wife went into labor and they realized they wouldn't be able to make it to the hospital.

It is individuals like these who we should celebrate and support through our work here in Congress. Unfortunately, the legislation we are considering today doesn't make anyone safer, and if we passed it, it would bring about a constitutionally dubious process that could interfere with the important work of law enforcement professionals.

Part of the reason this is problematic legislation is because the process this legislation followed--like a lot of stuff that we have to vote on--was not transparent and was not regular order. There was no hearing on this bill. Even if we look back at last year's version of the bill, there was no hearing on that one, either.

Then we look at the rule that we are debating now. Mr. Speaker, a rule means what is the process for amending this bill. What we have here is a shutting down of that process, where they didn't provide an open rule. They allowed only one amendment as part of this bill that had been offered. There was no opportunity on the floor, through what is called an open rule, for Democrats or Republicans to offer good ideas to improve this legislation.

Of the six amendments that were submitted that the Committee on Rules considered yesterday, five of them were killed by the Committee on Rules and not even allowed to be voted on or debated by the House of Representatives. Now, the number of times I have had to come to this floor and argue against a closed rule or a structured rule is exhausting, and it is contrary to Speaker Ryan's promise that he made for the world to hear that he would bring us back to regular order and give everybody input on legislation that we consider in what is supposed to be the people's House.

This rule, yet again, is not open. It rules five of the six amendments out of order. The confidence and the trust in the House of Representatives, it is hard to imagine how it could even sink much lower, but it is restrictive processes and rules like this where neither Republicans or Democrats are allowed to even offer amendments or debate amendments to improve the legislation

that have led to the record level of distrust in this body.

In a moment, I will look forward to discussing the bill itself, but I just wanted to take this occasion in particular to celebrate our law enforcement professionals on National Police Week and every week.

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

Mr. Speaker, it seems that with each passing day, we learn more about the tangled web of conflicts of interest and secret meetings with Russians in and around the Trump campaign and Trump administration. Last week, President Trump fired FBI Director James Comey while he was overseeing the FBI's investigation into possible collusion between Trump campaign officials and the Russian Government, after reportedly asking Director Comey personally to drop the investigation into former National Security Advisor Flynn's ties to Russia. This week, we also learned that President Trump revealed highly classified information provided by an ally to Russian officials.

Without President Trump's tax returns, we have no way of knowing if he himself has financial ties or is financially beholden to Russia or Russian interests, as news reports have suggested. The American people deserve to know whether or not President Trump has conflicts of interest, financial interests, or business dealings with Russia or other foreign governments. It is imperative that we, as the people's representatives, hold the executive branch fully accountable.

Mr. Speaker, when 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 truly has nothing to hide, including business dealings or being economically beholden to Russia, he should freely release his tax returns to reassure the American people that they can have confidence that he is not acting out of conflict of interest but, rather, in our interest as a nation.

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.

Mr. Speaker, to discuss our important proposal, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from California (Ms. Eshoo).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Demings), the former Orlando police chief, and my good friend.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

As the gentleman knows, we grant necessary waivers for amendments all the time. It is a very routine thing. So to argue it is not germane, the Rules Committee can grant the necessary waivers for any of these amendments. And, frankly, these amendments are more germane to what the American people care about than the underlying bill.

Mrs. Demings' amendment that states that the Director of the FBI may only be removed for inefficiency or neglect of duty or misuse of office, what could be more germane to the concerns of the American people than that? All it would have taken was granting necessary waivers, as the Rules Committee does regularly on a number of bills when it suits their interests.

Another amendment from Representative Kennedy was rejected to reinstate the authority to appoint independent counsel for purposes of an independent investigation.

One from Representative Lawrence was rejected to reinstate the authority for independent counsel.

Representative Lieu had an amendment to reinstate the authority for independent counsel to investigate and was not allowed.

Representative Moulton had one.

So all of those amendments, even though they are more germane than any of the other items of what the American people care about, were, nevertheless, not granted the necessary waivers to be included in this bill.

The bill we are considering under this bill is highly problematic. It, frankly, serves to hurt the very people it purports to protect.

I know we all value the safety of our first responders and the safety of our communities. This bill would hurt the relationship police have with communities without any need. It is truly a solution in search of a problem.

This legislation would give Federal probation officers authority to arrest third parties, not the person that they are working with on probation, the ability to arrest them without a warrant.

When referring to third parties, that means people who are not under the authority of the police officer. It could mean a mother of someone on probation, a roommate, somebody who shares a house, and somebody doesn't want the probation officer to come into their room because the probation officer doesn't have a warrant, even if the parolee is in a different room.

We need to remember that an individual, of course, gives up some of their rights, including their Fourth Amendment rights, as a condition of probation. But not everybody who comes into contact with that person also should be required to give up their Fourth Amendment rights. The mother in this example has not given up those constitutional rights, which read: ``The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause. . . .''

And simply being a roommate or a family member of somebody who is on probation should not mean you lose your constitutional rights as an American citizen.

If in this example the mother doesn't want the probation officer to enter her room, she has that right, unlike the parolee. But this bill would change the dynamics and allow the probation officer to say she was interfering and arrest her, something that likely violates her Fourth Amendment protections and would be overturned by the courts.

This would make family and friends of individuals entering probation from prison scared of allowing the person on probation to live in their homes. This could lead to increased recidivism and increased crime. It will create a huge hindrance to the probation system and the goal of successfully encouraging people to reenter society and avoid breaking the law.

If people don't have a family member or friend to live with, successful reentry becomes harder and almost impossible. We need to remember that probation officers are part of the judicial branch, but police are members of the executive branch. Not only does this legislation complicate that, but it is a violation of separation of powers.

When an individual is granted probation, as a condition of that probation they give up certain rights, and that is understandable, and under the authority and supervision of the judicial branch in doing so. Third parties have not made that agreement with the judicial branch. They are not their jurisdiction. They are not adjudicated by the judicial branch. And probation officers should not have the authority to arrest them without a warrant provided by an officer of the peace.

However, even if we don't care about the constitutional rights of citizens, which I certainly hope we care about, we should care about the fact that this bill would reduce the safety of our probation officers. This legislation creates a very unsafe situation for our probation officers who are not trained in law enforcement.

On average, a Federal probation officer completes six weeks of training. That is compared to 21 weeks of training and 3 weeks of field for a police officer. That is simply not the same level of training.

With the disparity, doesn't it make sense for probation officers to use the assistance of police when they actually do need to arrest an uncooperative third party or serve a warrant based on probable cause?

With additional police powers come more likelihood people could be put in harm's way, and that is the opposite of what we want for someone who doesn't have the proper training.

I also want to talk about why the bill is so bad. In many ways, I asked myself the question: What problem are we trying to solve? Even if we look at the associations that are pushing for this legislation, the data just doesn't show that there is a need or that this would be a productive step towards either keeping our communities safer--and this bill would also put the lives of our probation officers at risk.

In a letter earlier this year, the Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association stated that ``formal arrests by probation officers are rare.'' And 2015 data shows that, of the 987 searches conducted, only 30 uncooperative third parties, and even less arrests.

With so few incidents, it is, frankly, better for probation officers to call or use the assistance of well-trained police officers, if needed. That is the answer.

The proponents of this bill claim they have brought the bill forward at the request of our first responders. But the request was not even close to unanimous.

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a letter signed by officers, chiefs of police, probation officers, and other first responders in opposition to the bill.

May 16, 2017.

Dear Member of Congress: We are current or retired law

enforcement officers concerned about public safety,

constitutional policing practices, and building trust between

law enforcement and the communities we serve. In light of

Police Week, some Members of Congress have sponsored bills

that would increase incarceration rates, enhance penalties

for certain crimes, and, ultimately, weaken relationships

between communities and police departments.

The idea that ``law and order'' has declined in the

previous decade does a disservice to the law enforcement

officers who have taken oaths to protect and serve their

local communities. Those officers deserve programs and

policies that fund critical training, enhance important

policing skills that improve officer and public safety, and

offer technical assistance and operational support. We are

deeply troubled by recent legislative and executive actions

that support this divisive ``law and order'' rhetoric and

that chip away at our hard-fought efforts to sustain long-

term trust between our communities and law enforcement

agencies.

As officers who have handled high-profile incidents and

routine investigations, we know that keys to success are

strong leadership and morale, officer training and

accountability, and community trust and engagement. Below, we

offer several recommendations based upon these principles.

Programs that support mental health services for officers.

A number of law enforcement agencies are increasingly

recognizing the importance of regular mental health checks,

crisis hotlines, peer mentoring programs, and other mental

health services to alleviate the stress and trauma that

officers face.

Policies and programs for de-escalation and crisis

intervention training. As a result of such training, law

enforcement agencies learn to apply strategies that reduce

the likelihood of force-related incidents. De-escalation

training is essential to reducing the number of violent

confrontations between law enforcement and communities, as

well as increasing methods for age appropriate responses when

interacting with youth to improve their safety and well-being

in communities. These trainings promote best practices and,

as a result, reduce the risk of injury to police officers and

members of the community.

Policies that promote crisis intervention training

incorporating the services of mental health professionals.

Such professionals can assist officers in identifying and

responding to a person impacted by mental illness, an

intoxicating substance, or emotional distress. The public

safety benefits resulting from this training are well-

documented and broadly supported by policing and public

safety experts.

Programs that assist officers with understanding the

effects of systemic trauma and better deal with the aftermath

of trauma. Trauma sensitivity or trauma informed training can

help officers identify individuals showing signs of trauma

related behaviors, which may include: aggression; difficulty

processing information; impulsiveness; heightened fight,

flight, or freeze response; and hypersensitivity to noise or

physical contact. Training can help law enforcement avoid

interpreting such behaviors as requiring more aggression or

use of force and, instead, guide officers to respond in a

more informed and appropriate manner.

Policies and programs that incorporate implicit bias

training into police training at all levels. Implicit bias

training helps police officers mitigate racial bias during

community interactions, encourage respectful encounters, and

promote constitutional policing with the goal of building

trust with communities.

Programs that collect data on deaths and use-of-force

incidents by law enforcement. Specifically, we encourage you

to support the Federal Bureau of Investigation National Use-

of-Force Data Collection Program, which expands the Uniform

Crime Report Program to include use of force incidents by law

enforcement resulting in serious bodily injury. The Death in

Custody Reporting Act, which was signed into law in 2014,

must also be properly implemented.

Support the Collaborative Reform Initiative of the U.S.

Department of Justice's (DOJ) Office of Community Oriented

Policing Services. The Collaborative Reform Initiative is a

valuable program that offers technical assistance and

operational support to local police departments to improve

policing practices, transparency, professionalism,

accountability, community inclusion, and procedural fairness.

The Collaborative Reform Initiative enables police

departments--which participate on a voluntary basis--to

sustain longterm, significant reforms in a manner that

improves trust between police and communities and meets the

public safety goals of residents. The work of DOJ's Civil

Rights Division around policing must also be supported and

sustained.

During Police Week, we urge you to prioritize federal

programs, funding, and legislation that support the above

polices, rather than legislation that would undercut

partnerships with our local communities. We invite you to

reach out to us about the above priorities and ask that you

support legislation and funding that champion these important

issues.

Sincerely,

Hassan Aden, Police Chief (Ret.), Greenville (NC) Police

Department; Chief James Abbott, West Orange (NJ) Police

Department; Officer Nick Bucci (Ret.), New Jersey State

Police; Sheriff Jerry L. Clayton, Washtenaw County (MI)

Sherriff's Office; Captain James Davidsaver (Ret.), Lincoln

(NE) Police Department; Deputy Chief Stephen Downing (Ret.),

Los Angeles Police Department; Former Probation/Parole

Officer and Corrections Counselor Shelley Fox-Loken, Oregon;

Major Neill Franklin (Ret.), Baltimore and Maryland State

Police Department; Officer Brian Gaughan (Ret.), Davenport,

Iowa and Chicago; Lieutenant Commander Diane Goldstein

(Ret.), Redondo Beach Police Department.

Ron Hampton, Community Relations Officer, D.C. Metropolitan

Police Department (Ret.); Blacks in Law Enforcement of

America; Officer Karen Hawke (Ret.), Massachusetts State

Police; Former Federal Corrections Officer Regina Hufnagel,

Boston, Massachusetts; Commissioner Terence Inch (Ret.),

Hellam Township (PA) Police Department; Senior Patrol Officer

Tim Johnson (Ret.), Madison (OH) Township Police Department;

Commissioner George Kain, Ph.D, Ridgefield (CT) Board of

Police Commissioners; Analyst Richard Kennedy (Ret.), Central

Intelligence Agency; Chief Larry Kirk (Ret.), Old Monroe (MO)

Police Department; Former Special Agent David Long, U.S.

Department of Labor; Former Detective and Deputy Sheriff Nick

Morrow, Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department.

Lieutenant Joanne Naughton (Ret.), New York Police

Department; Chief Norm Stamper (Ret.), Seattle (WA) Police

Department; Special Agent Ray Strack (Ret.), Department of

Homeland Security, Fort Lauderdale, Florida; Former Police

Officer Silvestre Tanenbaum, Carrollton (TX) Police

Department; Sergeant Carl Tennenbaum (Ret.), San Francisco

Police Department; Former Detention Officer and Deputy

Marshal Jason Thomas, Prowers County, Colorado; Detective

James Trainum (Ret.), Washington Metropolitan Police

Department; Deputy Sheriff Darren Ullmann, Cowlitz County

(OR) Sheriff's Office; Federal Probation Officer LeRoy

Washington (Ret.), Hawaii; Officer Jack Wilborn (Ret.),

Glendale (AZ) Police Department; Detective Howard Wooldridge

(Ret.), Michigan.

Mr. Speaker, as they state, in part, in the letter: ``We are deeply troubled by recent legislative and executive actions that support this divisive `law and order' rhetoric and that chip away at our hard-fought efforts to sustain long-term trust between our communities and law enforcement agencies.''

This letter is signed by many current and former police chiefs, sheriffs, and other law enforcement officials.

In the letter that I included in the Record, which will now appear for the world to see, law enforcement professionals say that instead of pushing forward with this bill that we are being asked to consider under a closed and restrictive rule, we should focus on mental health and trauma services for officers to support them, programs and policies for de-escalation and crises intervention training, better staffing for our police agencies and probation officers, programs and policies that incorporate implicit bias training into police training and probation office training, and community-oriented policing. These are the types of policies that Democrats, and myself, would love to put forward during National Police Week to support our law enforcement professionals and to keep our communities safe.

Why aren't we focusing on those kinds of ideas, rather than a solution in search of a problem?

It is National Police Week, and we should be supporting legislation that protects and supports our police, not create a greater schism between our community and police through an unconstitutional bill that puts the lives of our probation officers at risk, and will likely increase recidivism among those on probation.

We can do better. That is why I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this rule and to vote ``no'' on the underlying legislation.

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

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 150 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

General Leave

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous materials on House Resolution 150, currently under consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to bring forward this rule on behalf of the Rules Committee. The rule provides for consideration of H.R. 998, the SCRUB Act, and H.J. Res. 83, a resolution disapproving a Department of Labor rule relating to employee recordkeeping.

The rule provides for 1 hour of debate for each piece of legislation, equally divided between the chairman and ranking member of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform and the

chairman and ranking member of the Education and the Workforce Committee. The rule also provides for a motion to recommit for both pieces of underlying legislation. Additionally, the rule makes in order 12 amendments--11 from our friends across the aisle--to the SCRUB Act.

Yesterday, the Rules Committee had the opportunity to hear from Chairman Chaffetz and Congressman Cartwright on behalf of the Oversight and Government Reform Committee, and Congressmen Byrne and Courtney on behalf of the Education and the Workforce Committee.

Both pieces of legislation before us today take steps to remove unnecessary burdens that the government has levied on hardworking Americans from coast to coast. The regulatory burden in this country is staggering. In fact, the Code of Federal Regulations spans more than 178,000 pages and contains more than 1 million regulatory restrictions.

Let's let that sink in for just a moment, Mr. Speaker. Let's think about that for a second. 178,000 pages and over 1 million regulatory restrictions. An average of nearly 12,000 new restrictions are added each year.

Let me be clear. Some regulations are necessary. They are completely what we need to have. I don't believe that all regulation is bad. So before we go down that path, let me just say that this is a fact, and we can continue this.

I believe we need clean air, clean water, smart standards for how we handle nuclear energy, and worker protections, just to name a few. I also believe that we have allowed the regulatory scheme to run amok. Congress has ceded power to agencies, which have implemented more and more regulations, oftentimes with less and less benefit to Americans.

Far too many regulations offer our citizens minimal benefits at confounding cost. Taxpayers and businesses alike are withering under regulations that are outdated, irrelevant, and nonsensical.

Do we really need a regulation to mandate what kind of latch a baker uses on a flour bin? Do we really want to tell people that their dishwashers are forbidden to use enough water to actually clean their dishes, forcing them to wash their dishes twice rather than it actually conserving water?

Unfortunately, these stories aren't works of fiction. They are real regulations put in place by Federal agencies. We have to take steps to restore common sense to the regulatory process and clean up the regulation roster.

It is time we identify and abolish those regulations that are pointless, those that prevent people from doing their jobs, and those that are inefficient and ineffective. The SCRUB Act, Mr. Speaker, takes steps to do just that and contributes to our efforts to rein in overregulation.

The SCRUB Act, introduced by my friend from Missouri, Congressman Jason Smith, establishes a bipartisan Retrospective Regulatory Review Commission to identify unnecessary rules that are hindering economic growth. The commission will then identify which rules need to be repealed immediately and which ones can be addressed by more flexible procedures outlined in the legislation.

The commission will report these findings to Congress, and Congress can then vote on these recommendations and take steps either to begin immediately repealing regulations or implementing a CutGo process.

Importantly, the commission created by the SCRUB Act will also ensure that redundant regulations from different agencies will be reviewed. Currently, agencies implement their directives absent a systemwide view, meaning that overlapping and even conflicting regulations are enacted far too often.

From conversations with my constituents in northeast Georgia, I have witnessed how overregulation is stifling growth in our communities. The remedy for this economic anemia is to get unnecessary regulations off the books and, instead, focus on enforcing regulations that are actually achieving benefits for our neighbors.

The second piece of legislation that this rule provides for also returns us to reasonable policies that reinstate the spirit of the law. H.J. Res. 83, introduced by my fellow Rules Committee member, Congressman Byrne from Alabama, utilizes the Congressional Review Act to overturn a rule from the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, or OSHA.

Worker protections are critically important, yet they lose their purpose when they fail to protect workers and jobs effectively. Too often, OSHA forgets that mission, and the rule we are talking about today is the latest example of misguided regulatory zeal.

In the waning days of the previous administration, OSHA put forth a final rule implementing punitive standards on employers, a move that contradicts the underlying statute. Under the law, employers are required to record and maintain logs of workplace injuries and illnesses that occur during a 5-year period; however, the employers can only be cited for recordkeeping violations within a 6-month time period.

Now, think about what was just said here. They have to keep it for 5 years, but they can only be cited for violations within a 6-month time period.

This arrangement is constructive. Logs should be kept up to date so that businesses can make informed decisions about health and safety in the workplace. This requirement encourages businesses to improve safety measures in a timely manner. However, the previous administration decided to rewrite the law through regulation in a way that penalizes and burdens small businesses without achieving meaningful benefit. OSHA finalized a rule that would extend the threat of penalty for recordkeeping violations up to 5 years.

Aside from ignoring existing law and court decisions that directly contradict this new regulation, OSHA has chosen to punish small businesses for paperwork violations rather than focusing resources on improving worker safety.

We can agree that keeping our workplaces safe is nonnegotiable, but OSHA has repeatedly overstepped its mission in order to collect fines and apply oppressive rules at the expense of opportunities to cultivate healthier working conditions. It is time to bring this regulatory mischief to an end, which is why I am glad to see this resolution of disapproval to overturn the most recent OSHA overstep.

Mr. Speaker, both the SCRUB Act and the resolution of disapproval provided for by this rule take commonsense steps to unlock the regulatory shackles Federal agencies have put on our economy and taxpayers.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I enjoy coming down here. I love being a part of debating and coming here to the floor. My friend from Florida and I do that quite regularly in the Committee on Rules, and it is a good thing. He has brought up a lot of bills over the last month. He listed out a list of horribles that was all discussed on this floor. I would encourage everyone to go back and look at the other side, as Paul Harvey used to say, and the rest of the story. So for all the list of horribles, Mr. Speaker, we also need to balance on the votes that were cast on this floor and the debate had on this floor was not a one-sided affair. It was two, and the applicants were going.

The other thing that just struck me, Mr. Speaker, was this, especially dealing with the CRA, the records. It was interesting to see that this was a carefully thought-out proposal. It was not a carefully thought-out proposal. It was a reaction to a 2012 court case, the Volks case, in which the three D.C. Appellate Court judges, including Henderson, Brown, and Garland, said: OSHA, you can't do this, you can't go back and maintain the records and then only be able--what the law actually says is, punish within 6 months of this.

So this is not long and thought out. It was a way, as was established in the Volks case, actually the case said: ``We do not believe Congress''--these were the judges speaking--``expressly established a statute of limitations only to implicitly encourage the Secretary to ignore it.''

So this goes back to the heart, Mr. Speaker. If we are wanting to discuss the face of a Republican majority that is listening to the Constitution and the American people saying we need relief from some of these regulatory burdens in which good people--I will never not state that good people work in these agencies, but when you give good people a job, and you tell them to go do something and to sit in their cubicles or sit in their offices and say how can I come up with more regulatory, they are going to do it. Americans are the best workers in the world. They are going to use their talents.

The problem is when you put them in a position in which many times their talents do not equal what is happening in the real world. Mr. Speaker, you have seen that in your State. I have seen that in my State. In fact, we have seen it in Florida, as well, and other States. It is simply bringing us back to commonsense reasoning in this in saying why, when you cannot by law punish this, why are you keeping it?

The court actually also made an interesting statement as well in this, and in one of the footnotes it said: ``That OSHA did not cite Volks for a failure to retain injury records when that is the only conduct for which the statute of limitations would not have clearly expired suggests that OSHA had, at some point, correctly understood that an unmade record cannot be said to have not been retained and that an employer's obligations with respect to making and keeping records are distinct.''

The idea that you are somehow going to harm recordkeeping here--which is a separate violation, by the way, which has nothing to do with the keeping of the records 5 years, let's at least get this process straight here. If you do not, as an employer, record workplace injuries and record these incidents, you are in an issue there. You are violating the law there. So let's look at this.

OSHA has a great place. It should be the teaching arm. It should be the encouraging arm for every employer to look to for best practices and standards on how to do what I believe every employer here inherently gets up every morning wanting to do. They do not want to have a workforce that is hurt, maimed, or put at risk in their jobs every day.

Instead, OSHA has morphed, over time, and this body is partially to blame. It has morphed into something that, frankly, has left its Occupational Safety and Health Administration. It has become punitive. It has become a way of not being helpful, but yet actually hurtful in the marketplace.

So as we look at this, as we talk about this--and I appreciate my friend from Florida, and he makes a good case for his side--I am going to simply make the case for our side that when you look at regulatory burdens that shouldn't be there, when you are looking at it, as we just talked about, where every regulatory burden does not come down to clean air and clean water. Every regulatory burden we talk about does not come down to clean water, clean air, or working on airplanes or anything else. There are some that just simply are in the way in business. Like I mentioned earlier in my talk concerning how the linchpin on a baker's can actually should work. Really, Mr. Speaker?

So in this issue, let's continue to move how we are, let's continue to put forward commonsense regulations. We can disagree, and that is why that vote total on that board will show up in just a little while. But at the end of the day, who is on your side? It is the Republican majority who says: let's get to work safely, helpful, let's make sure everybody has the opportunity to continue to do what they intended to do, but do so in a sense that makes sense and doesn't continue to be punitive.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

As my friend from Florida just said, I think we can sum it up very easily right here on this discussion. And, no, I did not choose not to continue the other quotes in the ruling which were, again, pretty amazing. I will just say

this. The reason is because I was saving it for now.

They said: Well, you can go ahead and do a new regulation you can make them keep for 5 years. But as an Old Scripture taught me years ago: all things may be lawful, but not all things are profitable. You can do some things, but, in the end, are they really getting at the end result of what OSHA is supposed to do? Are you protecting employers and employees? Are you making the workplace safer? And right here, we are just not seeing that.

I think what is also interesting as we look at this is let's just have common sense in this. You still cannot punish up to 6 months. The court actually even said also, as well, as much the same on page 13 of their opinion.

I think what we have to look at here is, in looking at this, let's talk about the issues of common sense; let's talk about regulatory burden that works instead of regulatory burden that does not.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

As we come to the close of this time of rule debate, I think we have laid this out. I think, again, it is very clear, Mr. Speaker, what we determine and what we go forward with in the process.

As we move forward, it is interesting to me--and I would be, too, if I were in the minority and didn't really have a plan except the one that has been tearing up the health insurance market, that has been hurting others. And now as we look to actually make movement on a replacement and repeal of that, I would say that I would watch for divisions. I would watch for cracks and the fissures. I would do whatever I could.

But the truth of the matter is that, over the next month, in this body, we are going to move forward with what we have said we are going to do. We are going to be working on those aspects. We are going to be bringing it to the floor, and the American people can make the judgment for themselves.

People will continue to discuss. It is healthy in our country to have that discussion. It is healthy that we move forward. It is also healthy we examine all of the facts.

This rule today, though, simply deals with common sense. Let's look at our regulatory burden. Let's look at issues that--again, it is one thing to look at a rule that is there for protection. Workplace safety is enhanced by making you record what is going on and making you be able to then correct what may be a problem in your business. But simply keeping records for 5 years when you can't be punished but for 6 months of those is simply putting a burden on business to keep records that are really at the end of the day not accomplishing your bottom line.

It goes back to what I said earlier, Mr. Speaker. I believe that OSHA is a valuable organization when doing what it is supposed to be doing: protecting workplace safety, doing things that actually matter, doing things that actually help. But many times in my businesses that I go to, they have put in rules over the years that say that we are now in a continuing violation.

In other words, if one time they come in and they say that an electrical outlet is not plugged in properly to an extension cord, you fix that. When they come back 2 or 3 months later and see something on the other side of the building that deals with electrical, then they will say, well, it is a continuing violation, not the violation previous, and they triple the fines.

OSHA now, and the good folks who work there, I believe, truly want to help. They truly have set out best practices. But they have grown to the point where we have allowed them to become not the help that they should be, but are basically and many times a hindrance and a menace to our businesses, from the farms to the factories, to the coal mines, all that. It has just gotten out of hand.

So my discussion, Mr. Speaker, is this. How do you get regulatory burden that actually makes sense?

We are not going to stand here and argue over a rule that makes sense. I will never sit here and say that we should not record workplace injuries and let businessowners then be fined if they are doing something wrong. We will never argue about that.

But when it comes to the point of excessive recordkeeping that, at the end of the day, does nothing except burden the business, how do you explain that as helping workplace safety? If my son is in the pool and can't get to the side and I do nothing, I can have great intentions; but unless I get in and bring him to the side, then I have actually done something.

A rule that has no end result to the bottom line of what you are doing is simply waving and saying, ``Oh, I am doing something,'' instead of getting back to the purpose that OSHA should be about. When businesses and OSHA cannot work together collaboratively to seek and to set a process in which businesses are safer and employees are healthier, then OSHA is failing and they have become punitive in nature.

Why don't they come in and help businesses? Why don't they come in and start? And if there is a business that continues the process of being bad actors in the marketplace, then take them out, fine them, do what you need to do. But I, myself, believe that most businessowners-- and I was one at one point--that we don't go in every day wanting to hurt employees. We don't want to do that. We want to have a safe workplace that presents a good product, that presents a good service, that presents the activity that continues our economic engine.

Let's quit defending rules that don't work. Let's quit wasting time defending rules and having our agencies in this city determine that all they want to do is generate rules because that is their job description. Let's see the things that actually work. If they want to be policy experts, then let them run for office. But if you are going to at least look at it, do it by the law.

Mr. Speaker, these rules before us today provide two very important bills that take steps to get our economic engine going again. They do, as we have talked about, look at unnecessary rules. They look at things that need to be examined.

But we also can't simply pretend existing nonsensical regulations don't exist, because they are being enforced at the expense of innovators and job creators across the country, and they are being enforced without using any common sense.

A case in point, did you know that trains have to have an F painted on the front of them so that people can tell which end is the front? I don't know about you, but I believe Americans can tell the front from the back of a train.

We have got to identify existing business regulations like this that are outdated and simply don't make sense

anymore and start taking steps to repeal them. The bills before us today are a step in the right direction.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this rule and the underlying bill.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

Mr. Speaker, up until now, every President since Gerald Ford has disclosed their tax return information. These returns provide a basic level of transparency that helps ensure the public's interest is placed first. The American people deserve the same level of disclosure from this administration. Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to bring up Representative Eshoo's bill that would require Presidents and major party nominees for the Presidency to release their tax returns.

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.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 7 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Eshoo) to discuss this proposal and also the important aspects of the underlying bill that need to be responded to.

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule and the resolution.

This resolution undermines fundamental privacy for every internet user. You hear my colleague on the other side trying to conflate different things. When your broadband provider can sell your information, and there is no rule prohibiting them from doing so-- effectively that includes all of your browsing history, data entered in forms, everything that you have done on the internet that has absolutely nothing to do with a relationship with a particular content provider or e-commerce company; you can enter information, obviously, for the express purpose of them optimizing your experience or selling you a product--they are then the owners of that information, and you have choice in the marketplace. Whereas, with our broadband providers, most of us don't have a choice. You either sign up for the local cable company or you don't.

Before I discuss the many disastrous facets of this resolution, I also want to point out that this is yet another closed rule. There have been absolutely no open rules that allow Democrats and Republicans to bring forward amendments. No amendments are allowed under this rule here on the floor of the House of Representatives. Sadly, that has become the norm.

The FCC recently took steps to reevaluate their rule. Commissioner Pai even paused their implementation to examine the FCC doing their job.

Now, why would Congress step in and use the CRA authority, a very cumbersome authority, that also prohibits future implementation of similar rules?

In many ways, it hamstrings the agency.

What we are worried about is that, if this bill were to become law, it would essentially be impossible for the FCC to act to protect the privacy of Americans who use broadband ever again. So it is not a matter of a nuance under this rule. If we go through the process of passing a CRA, the FCC wouldn't be able to pass any rule--or if they did, it would be under a legal cloud--to protect the privacy of the American people. That is the danger: that CRAs are effectively permanent.

The second aspect is that the FCC has already established a notice and comment period that allows for comment on the new rules. By going around that, we would avoid government transparency.

So here is what is at stake. On October 27, 2016, after a 6-month rulemaking process that was open to public comment and received comments, the FCC developed a commonsense rule to protect our privacy. The rule that we are talking about undoing basically does three things, which are great.

It requires broadband internet access service providers to obtain opt-in consent before using or sharing sensitive information. Sounds obvious that we would want that. We wouldn't want information that doesn't have an opt-in consent to be sold or used. That includes things like web browsing history or data that is entered on forms.

It would also require broadband providers to use reasonable measures to protect the cybersecurity of our data. Again, of course.

Third, it requires that broadband providers notify consumers in the event of a breach of information. Again, just like we have with credit card companies, we want some kind of affirmative information that is given to consumers that your information may be breached if there is a cybersecurity threat that might do that.

This bill undoes all those things. It says that you don't have to notify people if there is a breach, you don't need to have reasonable measures to protect cybersecurity, and, most importantly, with regard to privacy, it will no longer require opt-in consent before using, sharing, or selling your most intimate personal data that you use on the internet.

Now, look at the implications of this rollback. It is not just a collection of internet data usage, but bulk collection of all of your network traffic. A broadband provider could collect every search, every website visited, every email written and received, every piece of data entered, every article read, see how often you log in and how you use various accounts for all members of your family, including minors, and even your location, sell that information, and use that information without restriction and without opt-in.

Think about what someone can conclude about this information--your political affiliation, preferences, your health.

What could they do with it?

They could charge pricing of goods and services discriminating against you based on your income or your past purchasing behavior. Your sensitive financial information could be used to steer you to higher costs and worse financial products. This rule would literally change how broadband providers have access to your entire personal life. It would make the broadband providers the most valuable part of the internet value chain.

Now, we all want broadband providers to have compensation for the infrastructure costs and a reasonable profit. There is no doubt about that. Those of us who advocate for net neutrality, as I do, or those who advocate for privacy, we want them to have a reasonable return on investment so that we can all have access to broadband. And we have that largely through user fees and subscription fees.

Have you seen your cable bill, Mr. Speaker?

I have seen my cable bill. It ain't cheap anymore. But many families pay for it because it is the best way to have fast access to the internet.

And guess what?

The cable companies are able to justify broadband in many areas.

Again, maybe there are some tweaks, and it would be great if there is a way we could have greater value for rural broadband and have them have an ROI. We would love that. But the answer is not to turn over the keys to the internet and all your personal data to cable companies and say: You own it all. You are more powerful than Amazon, more powerful than Google, more powerful than every consumer site because you own everything that is entered into every one of those and more, and you can sell it and use it as you see fit without restriction, without even requiring that users opt in.

The value conveyance from the content side to the infrastructure side of this bill would be game-changing and game-destroying for the free and open internet. It simply makes no sense.

Look, consumers should have the right to choose with who and how they share their personal information. When it comes to a broadband provider, we simply don't have that choice that you do with consumer websites like Facebook or Google, which are governed under a separate set of laws.

Proponents of this bill are arguing that, because there is not adequate protection somehow in social media and the edge providers here, somehow the standard should be lower for broadband internet services. It makes no sense. In today's day and age, not having internet access is simply not an option for many Americans. To say you can choose not to have broadband, maybe in some places you can pay more for satellite and you might have some reasonably fast download but not upload that may be spotty, maybe you want to use dial-in over your phone. But for most of us--I use broadband. Most of us use broadband through our cable because it is the most cost-effective way to have high-speed internet access, and that is the case for most American families.

So this is not the time to get rid of privacy rules and convey the vast ecosystem that is the internet away from the content and dynamism that exists there to the broadband side. That is absurd.

People can choose not to use social media accounts, can choose what they share, and can choose who to enter contracts with with regard to searches or purchases. Social media is an optional platform that you can choose between many providers, but the broadband access side frequently looks and acts more like a monopoly.

Supporters of this bill also mention how this somehow levels the playing field for broadband providers. What it does is it tilts the playing field entirely in their favor. Internet service providers are a gateway to the internet. They do not own the internet.

The second protection the rule offers is to require reasonable measures be taken to protect the data that they want to collect. Again, we all value cybersecurity and protection of this data. Given the countless incidents of cyber hacking incidents, how can we entertain the idea of rolling back a rule that requires reasonable measures to protect consumer data? What are proponents advocating for? No measures to protect consumer data?

The third important protection under this rule is the consumers whose data has been breached should be notified. Again, that is important. I had my credit card stolen a few years ago and got notified that it was. I used it at another location where it might have been compromised and I received notification. This eliminates that notification from users of broadband. It would do away with that.

I would like to know, as would consumers, if my credit card information was hacked. I want to know if my personal profile or medical records or emails were hacked. If someone is able to attain my children's names, our home address, information about the schools they attend, or the homework they do, I would want to know.

Now, look, this bill moves entirely the wrong direction. It basically seizes the value of the internet from content, from e-commerce, from all of the important dynamism that occurs there and tries to apply that to the broadband side rather than simply find a reasonable way for broadband providers to see a return on investment.

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

Mr. Speaker, the evaluation is as it should be. Again, when infrastructure is laid, we want a reasonable ROI. It is like utility infrastructure or water infrastructure. I would never expect that the world's most valuable companies would be the pipes in the people's homes. The magic of the internet is the content. That is what drives the desire for broadband access. And, of course, there are other ways that people can access the internet, but broadband and cable have a technical advantage on price and speed.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Capuano).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Ellison).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Khanna).

Mr. Speaker, I would like to inquire if the gentleman has any remaining speakers.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

It is no surprise that nobody wants to come to the floor and talk in favor of this bill because it is such an awful bill. This bill would allow your broadband provider of internet services to sell all of your personal information.

So, again, the other side is trying to conflate two entirely different things. When you do a transaction within an e-commerce site or search site, you are agreeing to their terms of service, and you are engaging in a discrete transaction, and the information that you enter is subject to their terms of use--completely appropriate. A competitor is only a click away.

Whether there are any monopolistic content providers is a different matter for a different day, and a different Federal agency--the FTC. What we are talking about here is the access piece, the broadband access piece. They actually, through the pipes, get to see all of the information that is entered that you see: every email; all of your credit card information; if you use the internet for any personal medical research, all of your personal medical research; your kids' information, everything your kids and minors in the family do. And what this bill says is: you don't have to require people to opt in to have their information used.

Consumers should be in control of their own information. They shouldn't be forced to sell and give that information to who knows who simply for the price of admission for access to the internet.

Again, we all want there to be a reasonable capital return on infrastructure and on broadband. That is something we can agree on. If there is a case to be made that we can do better in providing an economic return to encourage rural broadband, I am for it. I know many of my colleagues on the other side would be for it. Let's do it.

What we don't want to do in that process is turn over the entire value chain of the internet to the infrastructure and provider side, rather than the dynamic innovative content and e-commerce side.

I would like to read an excerpt from two letters from groups who are opposed to this bill. The first is a coalition of 19 media, justice, consumer protection, civil liberties, and privacy groups.

Their concern that: ``Without these rules, ISPs could use and disclose customer information at will. The result could be extensive harm caused by breaches or misuse of data.''

They remind us that: ``The FCC's order simply restores people's control over their personal information and lets them choose the terms on which ISPs can use it, share it, or sell it.''

Consumers should be in control of their own information.

The second letter is from Consumers Union, the policy arm of Consumer Reports. They say, in part, that this bill ``would strip consumers of their privacy rights and . . . leave them with no protections at all.''

I include in the Record those two letters, Mr. Speaker.

January 27, 2017.

Hon. Paul Ryan,

Speaker of the House, House of Representatives, Washington,

I also include in the Record an op-ed that I had the opportunity to publish last week on this topic. My piece is entitled ``Why Americans should be worried about their online broadband privacy,'' talking about this very bill that Congress has the tenacity to try to bring to the floor under this rule to force the most personal information pieces of information about every aspect of your internet behavior, and that of your family members, to be given to the broadband provider to do whatever they want with.

[From the Huffington Post, March 22, 2017]

Why Americans Should Be Worried About Their Online, Broadband Privacy

(By Jared Polis)

Over the last couple of months, the dialogue surrounding

government surveillance and consumer privacy has shifted in a

troubling direction. While news outlets are covering

everything from false claims of wiretaps to outlandish claims

of reconnaissance microwaves, Republicans are quietly taking

real and dramatic steps to protect corporate profits at the

cost of your privacy. A few weeks ago, Senator Jeff Flake (R-

Ariz.) and Representative Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.) filed

bills in both the House of Representatives and the Senate

that, if passed, will permanently eliminate broadband users'

privacy protections, affecting nearly everyone who uses the

Internet.

The legislation allows broadband providers to access and

sell consumers' information without their permission. As our

gateway to the Internet, Broadband Internet Service

Providers--commonly referred to as ISPs--have access to a

wealth of personal information, from our physical location to

our shopping habits and the medical issues we research--can

reveal potentially sensitive details about our personal

lives.

Every search, every website visited, every article read

online, see how often you log into and use your various

online accounts and even, in some cases, collect your

location. Think about what someone could conclude from this

information about you--your overall health, risk activity,

political affiliation, preferences. What could they do with

that information? Could they change pricing of goods and

services depending on your income and past purchasing

behaviors? Could you face challenges obtaining insurance due

to perceptions on your health or risk behavior based on your

search activity? This rule change will literally allow

broadband providers to have access to your entire personal

life on a network and sell it.

After years of advocating for further consumer protections,

in October 2016, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC)

took a responsible and commonsense step to establish

broadband privacy protections--but only months later

Republicans are trying to roll back the progress made and

repeal the existing rules, fighting alongside corporate

broadband providers.

The legislation is unnecessary, as the FCC has already

taken steps to review the rules, pausing implementation to

conduct a careful examination of the complexities of

implementation. The Republican legislation, would stop this

process, bypass public comment, and eliminate the privacy

protections permanently and irrevocably.

That is why I am drawing attention to this critical issue,

before it's too late.

Like these groups, I also believe that privacy is worth defending. In the wrong hands, information can be damaging and used for the wrong reasons.

Simply put, this bill is about conveying the value of the internet to the infrastructure side rather than the content side. And rather than finding common ground to establish reasonable ROI for broadband and internet investments, this bill would hurt the entire internet ecosystem by breaking down the trust between consumers and service providers.

What they are really trying to do here is shift the reasonable burden for cybersecurity measures from the internet servers onto consumers. At the

same time, they want to eliminate the requirements of cybersecurity measures, even notify consumers of violations, and they want to collect more and more consumer data without any protections to do what they want with.

Supporting this bill would make each and every user of the internet vulnerable to violations of our privacy and vulnerable to cybersecurity threats without even receiving notifications of when our own intimate information, like credit card numbers, is compromised.

The FCC took a responsible, deliberate, and commonsense step to establish broadband privacy protections in October 2016. If they need to be tweaked or changed, let's have a process to do that. This bill is not that process. It not only undoes those privacy protections but prevents the FCC from ever issuing a rule that has those privacy protections in it.

Mr. Speaker, if passed, this bill would be an irrevocable step in the wrong direction. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this rule and the underlying bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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