Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, this vote is not one man, one party, or even one day. It is about protecting our Nation, preserving democracy and the rule of law.

The facts are clear and undisputed: President Trump used a litany of lies about a stolen election and willfully incited an armed insurrection with the intent of stopping the peaceful transfer of power. He attacked not just the Capitol, not just Congress, he even attacked democracy itself. That is why he must be impeached.

Mr. Speaker, like all of us in this Chamber, the Vice President and the Cabinet swore in their oaths of office to protect and defend the Constitution from enemies foreign and domestic.

Now they must fulfill that oath by invoking the 25th Amendment. Donald Trump's reckless actions on and leading to January 6 underscore that he is a clear and present danger to our democratic traditions. He repeatedly and blatantly lied, spouting baseless claims of a stolen election and fraud.

He called on his supporters to come to D.C. on January 6, a day which he said ``will be wild,'' and willfully incited an armed and deadly insurrection against another branch of our government.

President Trump must be held accountable, and we must return to the peaceful transfer of power. I urge a ``yes'' vote.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 21) to enhance the innovation, security, and availability of cloud computing products and services used in the Federal Government by establishing the Federal Risk and Authorization Management Program within the General Services Administration and by establishing a risk management, authorization, and continuous monitoring process to enable the Federal Government to leverage cloud computing products and services using a risk-based approach consistent with the Federal Information Security Modernization Act of 2014 and cloud-based operations, and for other purposes.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the measure before us.

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

I thank Representatives Connolly and Comer for working on this important bipartisan issue.

A version of this bill passed the House in the last Congress, and it has been improved after receiving technical assistance from the General Services Administration. The Federal Risk and Authorization Management Program Authorization Act would codify and improve the existing FedRAMP in the General Services Administration.

First established in 2011, FedRAMP is an important program that certifies cloud service providers who wish to offer services and products to the Federal Government.

The FedRAMP certification process outlined in this bill is comprehensive,

facilitates easier agency adoption, promotes agency reuse, and encourages savings. The FedRAMP process uses a risk-based approach to ensure the reliability of any cloud platform that hosts unclassified government data.

A significant provision of this bill is the Federal Secure Cloud Advisory Committee. This committee would be tasked with key responsibilities, including providing technical expertise on cloud products and services and identifying ways to reduce costs associated with FedRAMP certification.

The Director of the Office of Management and Budget would be required to issue regulations pertaining to FedRAMP and would ensure that agencies are not using cloud service providers without authorizations. This bill supports a critical effort to keep our Nation's information secure in cloud environments.

Mr. Speaker, I urge all Members to support this bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Connolly).

Mr. Speaker, I urge passage of H.R. 21, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 22) to amend the Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act of 2006, to require the budget justifications and appropriation requests of agencies be made publicly available.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the measure before us.

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

Mr. Speaker, the bill before us, the Congressional Budget Justification Transparency Act, is a commonsense, good-government measure every Member should support.

It would require the congressional budget justification documents that agencies prepare for congressional committees to be posted online in a centralized, searchable database. This would make these detailed, plain-language explanations of how agencies plan to spend taxpayer dollars more accessible to the public.

I thank Representative Mike Quigley for his work on this bill. He has a long

history as a strong advocate of transparency in the operations of the Federal Government.

This bill builds on the work of the committee to improve government transparency by allowing the public to more easily learn how Federal agencies spend their taxpayer dollars.

Mr. Speaker, I support this bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Quigley).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).

Mr. Speaker, I urge passage of H.R. 22, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 23) to require congressional notification for certain changes in status of inspectors general, and for other purposes.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the measure before us.

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

Mr. Speaker, the Inspector General Protection Act was introduced by Representatives Ted Lieu and Jody Hice. An identical measure passed the House in the last Congress.

I am proud to support this bipartisan measure, which would improve the independence of inspectors general. The bill would also address the disturbingly slow nomination of IGs that has been the norm across multiple administrations.

The bill would require notification of Congress 30 days prior to an IG being placed on leave. Such notification is already required prior to an IG being removed from duty.

The bill also would require the President to report to Congress if he has not nominated an IG after 210 days of a vacancy occurring. This report must include the reasons for failing to make the nomination and a target date for doing so. The requirement will hopefully prod the executive branch to nominate IGs in a more timely manner.

IGs provide critical oversight and accountability within Federal agencies, and the positions need to be filled more quickly than is currently the case.

I urge Members to support this bipartisan bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Cohen).

Mr. Speaker, I have no further speakers. I urge a positive vote on H.R. 23, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I urge passage of H.R. 23, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 26) to amend the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021, to correct a provision on the prohibition on the use of a reverse auction, and for other purposes.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the measure before us.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank Representatives Comer and Khanna for their work on this bipartisan bill, and I thank Senators Portman and Peters for their work on last year's Senate companion.

This measure would correct a provision of the Consolidated Appropriations Act for fiscal year 2021 that was incorrectly inserted into the law.

The language of this bill had been carefully crafted by the House Oversight and Reform Committee and the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs over many months prior to the agreement to include it in last year's Consolidated Appropriations Act. The bill you see before you today honors that agreement and resolves the drafting error.

The bill would prohibit the use of reverse auctions for the procurement of complex, specialized, or substantial design and construction services procured by the Federal Government.

Such services would include site planning, architectural and engineering services, interior design, construction or substantial alteration of public buildings or public works, and substantial construction work for facility, infrastructure, and environmental restoration projects.

Reverse auctions are generally a valuable tool to ensure the responsible stewardship of taxpayer dollars through the acquisition process.

In a reverse auction, a buyer seeking a good or service--in this case the Federal Government--solicits bids. Multiple sellers offer bids and the seller with the lowest bid wins the competition.

However, in the specific instance of complex, specialized, or substantial design and construction services, the use of reverse auctions can be problematic. While the lowest price is often the goal for standardized goods and services, it is not the only factor that should be considered for these unique projects.

Quality is also an important evaluation factor, especially for complex services, like design-build contracts for major public buildings or works.

This bill would not prevent contracting officers from considering price in evaluating proposals for complex construction services, just the use of reverse auctions designed to achieve the lowest price without regard to quality.

Mr. Speaker, I urge Members to support this bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I urge passage of H.R. 26, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 27) to amend chapter 3 of title 5, United States Code, to require the publication of settlement agreements, and for other purposes.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the measure before us.

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

Mr. Speaker, I support this commonsense measure, and I thank Representatives Palmer and Cooper for their hard work on it.

The Settlement Agreement Information Database Act would create a database of settlement agreements entered into by Federal agencies that relate to alleged violations of Federal, civil, or criminal law. The Office of Management and Budget would manage this database and set deadlines for submission.

The heads of executive agencies would be required to submit details about the types of settlement agreements, the parties involved in the settlements, specific violations, and the

dates on which the settlement agreements were agreed to.

The information about the settlement agreements would remain public until 5 years after the termination of the agreements. The information in the agreements would remain subject to the Freedom of Information Act; but if the head of the agency decided to keep an entire agreement confidential, he or she would be required to provide an explanation of that action.

This bill would improve the transparency surrounding settlement agreements, which in the past have been difficult for the public to access.

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

Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman has no further speakers, I am prepared to close, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I urge passage of H.R. 27. I am strongly in support of this bipartisan legislation, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, this week, the

House will raise the wages of 40 million Americans.

It has been 10 years--10 years--since the Federal minimum wage has been increased. It has been stuck at $7.25 since July 24, 2009. During that time, the cost of living has gone up 18 percent.

Today, a full-time worker earning the minimum wage working year-round without even a week's vacation, they earn only $1,250 a month, or $15,000 a year. It is far below the monthly expenses for the average family of $3,000, which is what the monthly expenses are.

A new report from the Joint Economic Committee on which I serve as vice chair shows that today's minimum wage doesn't even cover the cost of housing for the typical American family. The minimum wage is far from a living wage.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the Raise the Wage Act and increase it to $15 by 2024.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Madam Speaker, I rise to urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on H.R. 1327, the Never Forget the Heroes Act, and to thank the 332 colleagues of mine who have cosponsored this historic, bipartisan legislation.

When the planes hit on 9/11, our first responders did not hesitate. Firefighters, police officers, medical, construction workers, and volunteers from all around the country rushed to Ground Zero, the Pentagon, and the Shanksville crash sites. It was a national response to a national terrorist attack.

We lost nearly 3,000 lives on that day, and in the nearly 18 years since the attack, the death toll continues to climb.

We, as a nation, have a moral obligation, a double moral obligation, to take care of the people who took care of us and those who take care of them now--because they cannot work--first and foremost, for their service that day and in the days and weeks and months to follow; and secondly, because of the toxic lie our government told them: that it was safe to work on the site when it, clearly, was not. Because of their exposure to toxins, many of them have cancers and are sick and dying.

In 2015, Congress passed the James Zadroga 9/11 Health and Compensation Act, making the World Trade Center Health Program permanent, but it extended the Victims Compensation Fund only to 2020. Not only is the fund about to expire, but making matters worse, it is also running out of money.

In February, the special master announced that, due to more and more claims, the fund does not have enough money to make it to 2020. They have had to reduce payouts by 50 to 70 percent, and this is devastating for those who depend on this fund. That is why we need to pass the Never Forget the Heroes Act today to fully and permanently fund the Victims Compensation Fund.

These heroes and their families cannot wait any longer, and I hope they will never have to come back to this Congress again to ask again and again for help and support for their healthcare and their families. We need to make this fund permanent.

If you remember 9/11, you remember that we as a nation vowed that we would never forget. None of us in this coalition will rest until we have turned that promise into a law to help the heroes who were there to help us.

I join my colleagues, Jerry Nadler and Peter King, the lead sponsors of this bill. I thank them for their dedication and work. I thank my staff, and I thank the heroes who are named in our bill, Luis Alvarez, Ray Pfeifer, and James Zadroga, for their inspiration.

I urge my colleagues to stand with the heroes and vote for this bill.

Madam Speaker, I rise to express concern

about the horrendous treatment of immigrants at detention facilities. A community-based organization in my district, Immigrant Families Together (IFT), has been helping immigrant families settle in the United States. They have provided legal aid, food, shelter, clothing, household goods and other assistance. In the course of their work, they have collected some horrific stories from the people they have helped.

The stories range from inadequate medical treatment to sexual abuse to refusal to provide food, water and blankets. There are reports of adults and children being denied necessary medication, including a girl who suffered seizures who was put on a bus without her medication. Women at a facility in Elloy, Arizona were reportedly given one meal a day and ten minutes to eat. There are also reports that women at this facility were denied water for 3 days. Women at this facility also claim that their laundry was done in unsanitary conditions that allowed lice to infest their clothing.

One four-year-old boy was held in Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) custody in Dallas, Texas for roughly two months during the summer and fall of 2018. On his way to the U.S. border he had broken a femur and dislocated a hip. Although the boy was clearly injured and ICE took him to the hospital for examination, ICE refused to pay for his surgery. Reportedly, ICE simply gave him Tylenol for two months until he was released. Following his release, IFT paid for his surgery.

In Texas, a mother and her one-year-old infant were held first in the `icebox' for two days and later in the `Dog Pound' for four days. The mother and child were given one aluminum blanket for the two of them. When the mother asked for a second blanket, an ICE officer screamed at her. The infant became very sick on their third day in the `Dog Pound,' with vomiting, diarrhea and dehydration. An ICE doctor examined the child. Rather than prescribing treatment, he recommended release. IFT believes that they were released so that the baby's condition would not be ICE's responsibility. The mother and child were put on a bus for New York City, but the baby nearly died in New Jersey and was taken to an emergency room where he was given fluids that enabled him to survive.

A pregnant teenager was released from Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR) custody in California one week before giving birth. After she gave birth, it was discovered that she had a urinary tract infection that was so severe that she had a kidney infection.

One father related that his six-year-old daughter was sexually assaulted by a boy at an ORR facility in Casa Glendale, Arizona. She reportedly was told it was her responsibility to stay away from him and was told to sign a document asserting that she understood her obligation. A couple of weeks later, the same boy assaulted her again and hit her.

Madam Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in condemning a system that treats immigrants with such brutality and lack of compassion.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding and for his extraordinary leadership.

Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of this rule, which when passed will include my bill, the Federal Employee Paid Leave Act, into the NDAA.

We are long overdue to guarantee Federal workers, 2 million working people, 12 weeks of annual paid leave to care for themselves and their families in time of need. This builds on the Family Medical Leave Act that had 12 weeks of unpaid leave. This provides 12 weeks of paid leave; which families desperately need.

I painfully remember the birth of my first child and inquiring about family leave, I was told, ``There is no leave. Women just leave.''

I said, ``I don't intend to leave. I have to work.''

They said, ``We have no leave policy. You will be the first one to ever come back. Women are supposed to leave.''

Well, this realizes that it takes two workers usually in a family just to make ends meet.

It is well past time that our Nation truly honors families by offering this basic benefit for Federal workers.

Additionally, this rule brings us one step closer to honoring our heroic first responders who risked their lives on 9/11 by allowing this Chamber to move forward with the passage of the Never Forget the Heroes Act, which fully funds and permanently reauthorizes the 9/11 Victims Compensation Fund.

Madam Speaker, I include in the Record a listing of well over 54 organizations, women's groups, and unions that are strongly in support of the Family Medical Leave Act.

July 9, 2019.

Dear Member of Congress: We, the undersigned organizations,

urge you to co-sponsor the Federal Employee Paid Leave Act

(H.R. 1534), and cosponsor and vote for the Federal Employee

Paid Leave Act amendment to the National Defense

Authorization Act (Amendment 363 to H.R. 2500). The Federal

Employee Paid Leave Act would: provide 12 weeks of paid leave

for the birth, adoption or foster placement of a new child;

to care for a spouse, child or parent; for particular

military caregiving and leave purposes; and for personal

health reasons to federal workers who are eligible for job

protected, unpaid leave under the Family and Medical Leave

Act (FMLA).

With more than 2 million employees, the federal government

is the nation's largest employer, yet provides no paid family

and medical leave. This leaves federal workers forced to

choose between a paycheck and caring for a loved one, a

newborn or themselves. The Federal Employee Paid Leave Act

would not provide employees with additional leave time; it

would simply ensure that federal employees can receive full

pay during their 12 weeks of FMLA leave.

Paid leave would help not just federal employees, but the

entire federal government. With access to paid leave, many

individuals can remain in the workforce when they face

caregiving responsibilities. Women who take paid leave are

more likely to be working within a year after giving birth

than those who take no leave. Paid leave helps reduce

turnover, which is estimated to cost between 16 and 200

percent of a worker's annual salary.

Providing paid leave to federal workers will help the

federal government retain key employees and attract the best

workers. The federal workforce is aging, creating a retention

and recruiting crisis. In 2017, the number of full-time

federal employees older than 50 years old was nearly eight

times the number under 30. An increase in satisfaction with

family-friendly policies has been shown to reduce turnover

intention by 37.5 percent in federal agencies. Further, paid

family and medical leave is key to the federal government's

competitiveness as more top companies introduce new or

expanded paid leave policies.

Paid leave supports the health and well-being of employees

and their families. New mothers who take paid leave are more

likely to take the amount of time away from work recommended

by doctors, and their children are more likely to be

breastfed, receive medical check-ups and get critical

immunizations. When children are seriously ill, the presence

of a parent shortens a child's hospital stay by 31 percent;

active parental involvement in a child's hospital care may

head off future health problems, especially for children with

chronic health conditions, and thus reduce costs. Paid leave

also lets people help older family members recover from

serious illnesses, fulfill treatment plans, and avoid

complications and hospital readmissions. Paid leave is not

just good human resource management; it sends a message about

the value we place on family.

There is a growing consensus across the country that paid

leave is a necessity. Seven states and the District of

Columbia have passed comprehensive paid family and medical

leave programs and dozens of municipalities across the

country guarantee paid leave to their employees. Millions of

workers have filed claims in the four states that have

implemented paid leave programs, and evidence shows that paid

leave benefits both employees and employers and has high

levels of public support--84 percent of voters support a

comprehensive paid family and medical leave policy that

covers all people who work.

The Federal Employee Paid Leave Act would provide critical

support to federal employees when they need time to care--

whether for themselves, their families, or a new child. We

urge you to stand with the more than two million federal

workers and their families by cosponsoring the Federal

Employee Paid Leave Act, and cosponsoring and voting for the

Federal Employee Paid Leave Act amendment in the National

Defense Authorization Act.

Sincerely,

1,000 Days, All-Options, American Association of University

Women (AAUW), American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), American

Federation of Government Employees (AFGE), American

Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME),

American Foreign Service Association, American Psychiatric

Association Women's Caucus, The Arc of the United States,

Baby Cafe USA, Chicago Foundation for Women, Coalition of

Labor Union Women, Early Childhood Alliance, EMC Strategies,

FAA Managers Association, Family Voices, Federal Managers

Association (FMA).

First Focus Campaign for Children, Food Chain Workers

Alliance, FreeFrom, Indiana Chapter of the American Academy

of Pediatrics, Indiana Institute for Working Families,

International Association of Fire Fighters, Justice in Aging,

Kansas Breastfeeding Coalition, Laundry Workers Center, Main

Street Alliance, Marion County Commission on Youth, Inc.,

NARAL Pro-Choice America, National Active and Retired Federal

Employees Association (NARFE), National Council of Jewish

Women, National Federation of Federal Employees (NFFE),

National Health Law Program, National Institute for

Reproductive Health (NIRH).

National LGBTQ Task Force Action Fund, National Military

Family Association, National Network of Abortion Funds,

National Partnership for Women & Families, National Treasury

Employees Union (NTEU), National Women's Health Network,

National Women's Law Center, Planned Parenthood Federation of

America, Senior Executives Association (SEA), Sexuality

Information and Education Council of the United States

(SIECUS), Sargent Shriver National Center on Poverty Law,

Street Vendors Association of Chicago, Union for Reform

Judaism, Voices for Progress, Women of Reform Judaism,

Women's Fund of Rhode Island, Women's Law Project, YWCA USA,

Madam Speaker, we have a chance today not just to ensure a vital and talented Federal workforce going into the future, to make public service economically viable to a new generation, but also to ensure that we can set the standards for all workers across America.

Madam Speaker, I ask my colleagues to please vote today for this rule and the underlying bill.

Mr. Speaker, the clock is ticking down to the hour when the Supreme Court will make its initial decision on whether to include a citizenship question in the 2020 Census.

This administration has repeatedly told the American people, this Congress, and the Supreme Court that its reason for wanting to include the question is to ``help enforce the Voting Rights Act.''

It turns out, all that was a lie, and I have the documentation to prove it on my website.

Newly discovered documents and court records clearly show that the only goal was to achieve the desired effect of diminishing the representation of communities of color while also entrenching the power of ``Republican and non-Hispanic Whites,'' according to the masterminds of the citizenship question.

This may, understandably, sound to some like an outrageous claim to make, but we have the documentation to prove it. You can go to my website to see it. These documents were uncovered thanks to the courageous efforts of a woman who discovered and turned over thousands of documents from her father's hard drive to pro bono lawyers representing Common Cause in its litigation against gerrymandering.

In doing so, she uncovered evidence that is more powerful and convincing than a smoking gun. It is basically a signed and sealed confession.

The documentary trail of deceit begins on January 7, 2015, when a Census Bureau employee used her private email account to contact a Republican redistricting expert and urged him to push for a citizenship question in the 2020 Census.

The Census Bureau employee, a Christa Jones, went on to become a political appointee in the Census Bureau. Ms. Jones then became part of Secretary Ross' core team on the citizenship question.

The redistricting expert she reached out to was Dr. Thomas Hofeller. Hofeller was widely known as the Michelangelo of gerrymandering for the Republican Party.

This conspiracy picked up steam in August of 2015 when Dr. Hofeller concluded in a secret study he had written that simply adding one question, a citizenship question, to the Census would facilitate a redistricting overhaul that would be, and I quote from his work: ``advantageous to Republicans and non-Hispanic Whites.''

In late 2016, Dr. Hofeller became the first person to push the incoming administration to add a citizenship question to the 2020 census. Not long after, Hofeller ghostwrote a letter that became, word for word, the basis of the Justice letter that had been cooked up by Commerce to be sent to them that set forth the knowingly fake voting rights rationale.

In October of 2017, Secretary Ross' general counsel arranged for his key Census advisor to hand-deliver the Hofeller letter to a top Department of Justice political appointee at a secret meeting. That fake Voting Rights Act rationale then appeared in the letter that the DOJ political appointee sent to the Commerce Department, and the U.S. Secretary of Commerce sat before Congress and lied to our faces in an effort to cover up their illegal and immoral activities.

Let no one be misled about the purpose of these efforts. They are a concerted effort by the current administration to undermine the bedrock principle of one person, one vote. Its purpose is to undermine the ability of non-White, non-Republican people and communities of color to have equal representation here in the people's House.

These deceptive and anti-democratic efforts must not stand. Even if the Supreme Court rules against us, we will continue to fight for the principles of one person, one vote and the Constitution's requirement that all inhabitants must be counted. Democracy depends on it, our people deserve it, and we will fight until we achieve it.

Madam Speaker, yesterday was the third anniversary of the Pulse nightclub shooting. Three years ago, 49 young people were senselessly murdered and 53 more were wounded.

In the 3 years since then, approximately 120,000 more Americans have died from our Nation's gun violence epidemic, and our Nation has failed to take any meaningful action. Just recently, we witnessed another mass shooting in Virginia Beach that killed 12 people--12 innocent people.

And yet Congress has yet to pass commonsense measures to save lives, measures that 90 percent of Americans support like universal background checks and bans on massacre-sized magazines and silencers.

H.R. 8, passed by the House more than 100 days ago, still awaits action in the Senate.

How many more tragic anniversaries must pass--how many must die-- before we offer more than thoughts and prayers?

Mr. Speaker, 10 years ago today in the midst of the Great Recession, millions of credit card holders got some needed relief when President Obama signed into law the Credit Card Accountability, Responsibility, and Disclosure Act, the CARD Act.

Before the CARD Act, some banks took advantage of their customers. For example, they raised rates and changed the terms of contracts without any notice to the customer. They even raised rates retroactively on existing balances.

The CARD Act changed that, barring many unfair and deceptive practices: no more retroactive rate hikes, no more extra fees for paying bills online or on the phone, no more aggressive marketing tactics targeting young people.

The CARD Act has saved consumers an estimated $12 billion a year, which translates into well over $100 billion in total savings over the past decade. It is the first 10 years, and we are celebrating this consumer protection act.

Mr. Chair, I thank the chair for her strong support and leadership on the Consumers First Act, H.R. 1500. I urge everyone to vote ``yes'' on this if they care about protecting consumers from abuse.

Putting Mick Mulvaney in charge of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau was the epitome of a fox guarding the henhouse. We have to undo all of the damage he did while he was Acting Director of the CFPB.

The CFPB was supposed to, and did, protect consumers and returned a great deal of money to consumers. All of these protections, or many of them, he deleted. What this bill does is restore these protections to consumers.

Let me remind my colleagues of why the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau was created. It was after the worst financial crisis in our history, where our people lost over $15 trillion in household wealth. They lost their homes, or they lost their jobs. It was completely preventable because those were abuses to the financial system.

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau was a Bureau that was directed to protect consumers. Consumers were an afterthought, a secondary thought, a third thought, or not thought about at all in financial regulation. The whole system exists for consumers, and they certainly are entitled to be protected from unfair, abusive practices.

To give an example, I was particularly concerned about his hostility to data. Decisions should be based on data. Under Director Cordray, the Bureau published a report on the effects of the Credit CARD Act, which I authored. They would publish it every 2 years.

Mr. Chairman, this is an incredibly important bill, and I urge a ``yes'' vote.

Mr. Chairman, I include in the Record an article I wrote for The Hill about the CARD Act.

[From The Hill, May 22, 2019]

CARD Act Turns 10: Changes Have Kept Money in Consumers' Pockets

(By Rep. Carolyn B. Maloney (D-N.Y.))

Ten years ago, on May 22, 2009, credit card customers got

some needed relief when the Credit Card Accountability

Responsibility and Disclosure (CARD) Act became law. Since

then, the law has saved consumers an estimated $12 billion a

year, which translates into well over $100 billion in total

savings over the past decade. As The New York Times reported,

the CARD Act proved so effective that it led economists

studying the law to a single conclusion: ``The regulation

worked.''

Before the CARD Act, some credit card companies took

advantage of their customers by raising interest rates or

changing the terms of their contracts without notice. Hidden

terms and fees were lucrative for credit card companies but

they were extremely costly to consumers. However, the new law

was revolutionary, establishing strict rules for how credit

card companies must treat their customers, barring many

unfair practices. On the 10th anniversary of the CARD Act, it

is important to remember how far we have come and also to

look ahead to changes we still need to make.

So what did the CARD Act do? For starters, it protected

consumers from arbitrary interest-rate increases by

prohibiting retroactive rate hikes. Companies now are

required to provide 45 days' notice of a rate increase and

cannot raise rates on existing balances. In the past,

companies regularly increased your interest rate if your risk

profile worsened--now they are required to decrease rates if

your credit picture brightens. That is only fair.

But consumers were also getting socked by a host of fees,

so the CARD Act introduced some commonsense changes that made

it much less likely that consumers would be hit by these

fees. The law requires companies to mail credit card bills at

least 21 days before the due date; it prohibits companies

from charging extra fees for paying online or by phone; and

it requires companies to apply payments to balances with the

highest interest rate first. All of these changes save

consumers money.

The law protects young people from aggressive marketing

tactics. Companies no longer can sell cards to individuals

under the age of 21 without an adult co-signer.

The law also protects consumers when they cancel their

credit card. In the past, a company could demand immediate

payment of your balance. Now, a customer has five years to

pay off the balance.

These important changes have kept money in consumers'

pockets. The next battle is to institute fair, common-sense

regulation of the overdraft fees on bank accounts. Some

financial institutions use ``overdraft protection'' to slap

their customers with exorbitant fees. With the growing use of

debit cards, it's easier than ever to overdraw a checking

account, with fees that can run as high as a 17,000 percent

annual percentage rate, according to the Consumer Financial

Protection Bureau. That's not a financial service--it's a

robbery.

That is why, since 2005, I have been introducing

legislation that would ban abusive overdraft practices like

reordering transactions in order to maximize the number of

fees banks can charge, and to require overdraft fees to be

proportional to the size of the overdraft--no more $35

overdraft fees for a $2 cup of coffee. My bill would also

require banks to notify consumers that a purchase or an ATM

withdrawal is about to trigger an overdraft, and provide

consumers with a choice of whether to accept the overdraft

service and fee. That, like the CARD Act, would prevent

millions of Americans from unwittingly losing money to their

banks.

Opponents of the CARD Act said that trying to limit the

fees credit card companies charged would prove unsuccessful

and that companies would just create new fees, But that has

not happened.

So when people tell me that regulation does not work and is

costly, I remind them that well-crafted consumer protections

will not only work, but can save Americans tens of billions

of dollars. The CARD Act is proof.