Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 5645, the so-called SMARTER Act, an assault on the Federal Trade Commission's ability to vigorously promote competition through merger enforcement.

Over a century ago, Congress responded to waves of consolidation by creating the Federal Trade Commission to promote, development, and protect competition and the antitrust laws.

There is longstanding, bipartisan consensus that the Commission's use of administrative litigation to address anticompetitive mergers and conduct is core to this mission. This includes the former Republican and Democratic chairs of the Commission under George W. Bush and the Obama administrations, who have each raised serious concerns about this legislation, precisely because it eliminates a tool that has been critical in combating anti-competitive mergers and conduct, including mergers that would have raised Americans' cost of healthcare.

Top Republican antitrust enforcers have long supported the use of administrative litigation in merger enforcement to promote competition and develop the antitrust laws.

In 2003, Joseph Simons, who was appointed by President Trump and recently confirmed as the chairman of the Commission, stated as director of the FTC's Bureau of Competition that administrative litigation has ``substantial public policy benefits.'' He also referred to this tool as ``an instrument for developing the law'' that ``increases the transparency of Commission decisionmaking through carefully written opinions that accompany a Commission final litigated order can give considerable guidance to the bar and the business community on applicable standards and enforcement policy.''

And in 2004, Barry Nigro, who also served as a director of the FTC's Bureau of Competition under the George W. Bush administration, and was appointed by President Trump to serve in the Justice Department's Antitrust Division, stated that the ``volume of administrative litigation is no accident. It reflects our belief in administrative litigation as a way to take advantage of the FTC's expertise in the development of antitrust jurisprudence, particularly in the kind of complex matters that the FTC was created to address.''

Nevertheless, proponents of the SMARTER Act argue that the outcome of a transaction should not depend on a ``coin flip'' to determine which antitrust agency will review a transaction. But this claim is untethered from how antitrust enforcement actually works in the vast majority of cases. In fact, the determination of the moving party is determined by each agency's jurisdictional district, or areas committed by statute, and consistent with a well-developed body of case law, and not by a coin toss.

In the most comprehensive study of administrative litigation to date, Republican FTC Commissioner Maureen Ohlhausen debunked procedural concerns with administrative litigation as ``mostly anecdotal or theoretical,'' concluding it has been a transformative tool for advancing competition policy.

And last Congress, Jonathan Jacobson, a leading antitrust attorney, who currently serves as the chair of the American Bar Association's section on antitrust law, testified that, in his decades of practice, he has never seen a merger that turned on the differences that the SMARTER Act seeks to address. In fact, less than 2 percent of all mergers are blocked by the antitrust agencies, and an even smaller percentage of these cases go to trial.

The FTC also has a pristine record when using this authority. It has won six out of seven cases before the Supreme Court, and five of these were brought through administrative litigation.

We should, therefore, be deeply skeptical about baseless speculation and support of the bill. Empty rhetoric is no substitute for evidence that the SMARTER Act actually solves a real problem.

But even more importantly, this bill is a major step in the wrong direction on making our economy work for everybody. There is overwhelming evidence that concentrated economic power is at historic levels in this country, and has structurally weakened competition on an economy-wide basis.

This lack of competition is a fundamental threat to the economic opportunity of hardworking Americans who want lower prices, more and better services, and better wages. We need more competition, not less.

As the nonpartisan Open Markets Institute notes, ``Given the severity of the concentration problem in America today, and its economic and political consequences, Congress should be looking to enhance the powers of all of America's antimonopoly agencies.''

House and Senate Democrats have proposed a better deal to enhance competition to reduce lower prices and more choices for consumers.

Instead of undermining antitrust enforcement on the basis of purely speculative harms--as H.R. 5645 would do--we should be giving the antitrust agencies the resources and tools they need to robustly enforce the law.

In closing, I urge my colleagues to oppose this legislation, which does nothing to reduce concentrated economic power or address the economic challenges working people face every day and, in fact, will make the problem worse. It will make it easier to consolidate economic power in the way that undermines consumer choices, consumer costs, and will ultimately undermine hardworking American families.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no,'' and I thank the gentleman for yielding.

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

Mr. Speaker, prescription drug prices are rising at an unprecedented rate, unsustainable for most American families. In fact, Americans pay double what people in other countries pay for prescription drugs.

Our per capita prescription drug spending is higher than any other country. That is why last July, Democrats outlined a bold new plan to give

the American people a better deal on prescription drug costs. Our plan cracks down on price gouging, allows Medicare to negotiate discounted prices, and requires new levels of transparency for big drug companies.

But more than 10 months since Democrats offered a way forward, President Trump and Republicans are still silent. Instead of addressing this crisis, the President and his allies in Congress have made the problem even worse. They tried to take away healthcare from 23 million Americans on more than one occasion. They gave the pharmaceutical industry a huge tax cut, and they made it even harder for working men and women to get ahead.

Democrats are putting the needs of working people first, ahead of big pharmaceutical companies, and we are going to keep fighting until the American people get a better deal on prescription drugs.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.

I would like to begin by reminding everyone that the Financial Protection Bureau, under the leadership of Director Cordray, returned $12 billion to American consumers, including $140 million in enforcement and consumer savings related to auto loans.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to S.J. Res. 57, a direct attack on people of color, vulnerable persons, and any other person of a protected class who is subject to financial discrimination by auto lenders.

This resolution is an unambiguous stamp of approval for Office of Management and Budget Director Mick Mulvaney's agenda to shutter the CFPB by removing its ability to protect consumers and police discriminatory lending policies.

But aside from my deep, substantive concerns with this resolution, I am fundamentally opposed to this reckless and unprecedented use of the Congressional Review Act. The legislative history and plain reading of the statute make it clear that the CRA was designed to provide Congress with an opportunity to review new rules, not long-established agency guidance.

But because this archaic law was poorly designed--it actually requires agencies to physically submit thousands of rules every year in triplicate by courier--it is inevitable that some guidance will not be physically received by Congress for purposes of the CRA.

Today's resolution to disapprove guidance issued 5 years ago on procedural grounds makes it painfully obvious that the CRA has not only been horribly misused by Republicans, but it is irredeemably broken as well. In this Congress alone, Republicans have repealed more than a dozen critical protections for hardworking Americans with little notice or debate.

And how many jobs will this reckless agenda create, Mr. Speaker? None. We know this because President Trump's director of legislative affairs was asked whether these rollbacks would spur employment growth, and he conceded they would not.

So, if not to create jobs, stimulate the economy, or help working families, why vacate these commonsense rules? Corporate money, Mr. Speaker.

According to a report by Public Citizen, special interest groups spent more than $1 billion in lobbying and campaign expenditures in opposition to the 14 rules already repealed by this Congress. And last month, OMB Director Mulvaney told a room full of bank lobbyists that campaign contributions were a determining factor for who he met with while serving as a Member of Congress, a disgraceful signal to corporations that this is a pay-to-play administration that is for sale.

That is why I have introduced the Sunset the CRA and Restore American Protections Act, or the SCRAP Act, to address this blatant abuse of process and to immediately restore the rules previously repealed by this Congress to the detriment of the American people.

I urge my colleagues to oppose this resolution, and I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to recognize the contribution that international students, scholars and their families make when we welcome them to this great country.

Attracting international students makes our country better and is simply smart policy.

To remain a global leader in STEM and in business, we need international students. They help America lead in technological innovation and scientific discoveries. Not only that, nearly one- quarter of the founders of the ``billion dollar startups'' first came to America as international students.

Our economy is stronger because of international students and their families that supported 450,000 jobs and contributed nearly $37 billion to the U.S. economy during the 2016-2017 academic year.

In my home state of Rhode Island, international students supported almost 2,500 jobs and contributed over $235 million to the state economy in the same period.

Cross-cultural exchange between international students and U.S. students creates mutual respect for cultural differences. In some cases, future U.S. and foreign leaders will have studied or conducted research together, creating even more direct diplomatic ties beneficial to national security.

Unfortunately, fewer international students are applying to study in the U.S. The number of newly arriving international students declined in fall 2017--with 45 percent of campuses reporting drops in new international enrollment according to the Institute of International Education. In February, for the first time in over a decade, the Council on Graduate Schools reported that international graduate student enrollment went down last fall.

The current administration continues to spread anti-immigrant rhetoric and propose extremist limits on travel and immigration to our country. Many international students now see the U.S. as less welcoming to foreigners than other countries. There is also uncertainty about whether they will be granted visas to go to school and to work here.

This is truly a loss for our country because we are in a global competition to attract international talent. Our country's loss will be another's gain, as these students will go to school in Canada, Australia, China or another country that has more welcoming policies.

The month of May is a critical time when international students must commit to their college or university of choice. Therefore, I would like to recognize the vital economic, academic and cultural contributions that international students make and to say you are welcome here.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to support the en bloc amendment, which includes my amendment to H.R. 4. I thank the chairman and ranking member for their work on this important bill, as well as the inclusion of a section that would require airlines to provide consumers with a one-page description of their rights as passengers.

My amendment will amend this section to ensure that passengers are notified of what compensation airlines provide--including rebooking options, refunds, meals, and lodging--if a passenger's flight is diverted.

Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the chairman and ranking member for including this and for their efforts, and urge adoption of this very pro-consumer amendment.

Mr. Speaker, almost 2 years ago, Presidential candidate Donald Trump said: ``We are going to win so much, you are going to get tired of winning.''

It has been 16 months since Republicans took control of the White House and Congress, and the only people who are winning are the wealthy and well connected. The rest of America is getting a raw deal.

The Republicans have failed to make healthcare more affordable. They have failed to invest in rebuilding our crumbling infrastructure. They failed to lower the cost of living for working families, and they failed to drain the swamp. The rigged system that they promised to tear down is now bigger and stronger than ever before. The wealthy and well connected are making out like bandits while working people are asked to sacrifice more and more each day.

It doesn't have to be this way. Democrats are offering a better deal: a better deal to deliver better jobs, better wages for a better future; a better deal to raise incomes, lower the cost of living, and make sure the economy works for all Americans, not just those at the very top.

Let's give the American people a better deal than the raw deal they are getting from the Republicans.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the Music Modernization Act. I am proud to be a cosponsor of this bill.

I am proud to come from the great State of Rhode Island, the State that sent the great Senator Claiborne Pell to Washington. It was Senator Pell who authored the bill that established the National Endowment for the Arts and the National Endowment for the Humanities.

Senator Pell knew that the greatness of our Nation is not only defined by the strength of our military or the value of our GDP, but by our ability to promote and protect our culture and history through the arts and humanities.

In keeping with that tradition today, Congress moves to make sure that artists and their creations are protected under the Music Modernization Act. Music has always been a part of our culture and history. The power of music has brought people together in moments of celebration and soothed people in difficult times. Music transcends political, ethnic, and religious boundaries.

The Music Modernization Act is the culmination of years of debate and negotiation with various stakeholders. We held dozens of hearings and heard from artists, producers, and industry experts to develop a solution that reflects the changing landscape of how people consume music and ensures creators are fairly compensated.

From the start, we were committed to making sure this bill was bipartisan and a compromise that everyone could support. Within the music community, this legislation brought together an unprecedented coalition of music publishers, record labels, songwriters, composers, artists, and performance rights organizations.

The result was a bill that is meant for the digital age and recognizes the contributions that many people are involved in during the creation of a song. For the first time, this bill will set up a collective that can give out blanket mechanical licenses to streaming services and ensure proper payments to songwriters and publishers.

Importantly, this bill also ensures compensation for pre-1972 artists who have been left out of the Federal copyright system for far too long. It also provides a clearer process for engineers, mixers, and producers to collect royalties.

It has been a privilege to be a part of this historic moment. I urge all of my colleagues to support the Music Modernization Act, and I want to thank Mr. Jeffries, Mr. Collins, Mr. Deutch, Chairman Goodlatte, and Ranking Member Nadler for their extraordinary leadership in accomplishing what is not only significant for our committee but significant for our ability to hear and appreciate and continue to nurture our souls with the beauty of music.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday was tax day; and this year, millions of working men and women filed their taxes knowing that Republicans want them to bear the costs so corporate special interests and the wealthiest Americans can get a gigantic tax cut.

Even worse, the new Republican tax law will raise the deficit by more than $2 trillion, meaning Medicare and Social Security are now on the chopping block according to Republican leaders.

This is not what we were elected to do. Working Americans deserve a better deal. Working families deserve a real and permanent tax cut, not the scam that they got.

It has been decades since we have asked the wealthiest Americans to pay their fair share. No secretary, no janitor, and no mid-level employee should have to pay a higher tax rate than the CEO of their company. It is long past time to fix this broken system and pass the Buffett rule.

Mr. Speaker, we should be promoting policies that give families the tools not just to get by, but to get ahead, instead of further rigging the system to benefit the billionaires, millionaires, and America's biggest corporations.

It is time for real tax reform and to undo the tax scam that is going to hurt so many in our country.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me the time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.J. Res. 2, which would force deep cuts to Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid under a so- called balanced budget amendment. Like the Republican tax bill, this amendment is another scam that will hurt American families and the American economy.

Of course I support balancing our budget and fiscal responsibility, but it is impossible to take this proposal seriously after the Republicans just gave away trillions of dollars in tax cuts to the most profitable corporations and the wealthiest Americans without paying for them.

I have been listening to speaker after speaker lecture us about the importance of fiscal responsibility, about the future of their children. What a joke. This is the same party that added $2 trillion to the deficit, the largest contribution to the deficit by a single act of Congress in our history. And they have the audacity to talk about fiscal responsibility?

Let's be clear, Mr. Speaker, about what is really happening here, what this is really about. My colleagues on the other side of the aisle are using this amendment to lay the groundwork and to cover up their plans to cut Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. They plan to balance the budget on the backs of middle class families and seniors, and then they will say: We have no choice. It is the balanced budget law that requires us to do this.

The American people can see right through this.

Mr. Speaker, the American people look to Congress to protect the interests of all Americans and not the privileged few and the well- connected. But once again, we see our Republican friends are saying one thing and doing another. They are trying to lecture us about fiscal responsibility just a few weeks after they blow up the deficit to pass tax cuts for the top 1 percent.

This is the kind of political double-talk that drives people crazy. It is the kind of stuff people hate about Washington.

They don't expect their Representatives to give huge tax cuts to the wealthiest 1 percent and then pay for them by underfunding crucial programs that millions of middle class families rely on. But this is exactly what will happen if H.J. Res. 2 becomes law.

Republicans are hoping to fool their constituents into thinking they are serious about fiscal responsibility, but all this amendment does is expose their shameless hypocrisy. They are hoping that we all have short memories and we have forgotten that just a short time ago they ran through the GOP tax scam, which resulted in a huge deficit spike.

Remember, these are the same folks who told us: Oh, tax cuts for rich people? They pay for themselves.

Of course we know that is not true. We said it then, we say it now, and we certainly know the Congressional Budget Office has proved that in their recent report that concludes that this tax bill will add nearly $2 trillion to the debt over the next 10 years and that the deficit will jump to $1 trillion by 2020. It is hard to take today's proposed legislation seriously in light of this fiscal recklessness.

We already know that the Republican tax scam will cut trillions of dollars from Medicare, Medicaid, education, infrastructure investments, and healthcare for our veterans in order to fund a massive giveaway to billionaires and corporations.

It turns out that the Republican tax scam was part one. Part two is to gut the social safety net and crucial programs for working families and the earned benefits for seniors.

Given the Federal deficits that are projected in the coming years, the mandate under this amendment would result in an unthinkable reduction in spending on critical government programs. No program would be safe. It would require cuts to national security, the military, healthcare, environmental protection, and medical research.

It would require stealing money from bedrock social safety programs like Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, foods stamps, disability insurance, and veterans' pensions.

The Center for American Progress estimates that if this amendment were ratified this year, it would require cutting the government budget by nearly one-quarter in fiscal year 2023.

Mr. Speaker, it would slash Social Security by $308 billion, Medicare by $239 billion, and Medicaid by $114 billion in 1 year alone.

Mr. Speaker, if Republicans are truly concerned about reducing the deficit, they should start with repealing their tax bill that added trillions of dollars to the deficit. Congress cannot under any circumstances pass this legislation, which is a direct threat to the health and safety of all Americans, and will decimate social safety net programs for veterans, retirees, and children.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no.''

Mr. Speaker, on Monday, the Congressional Budget Office revealed that the Republican tax giveaway to corporations and the wealthiest Americans will increase our debt by $2.1 trillion.

Over the next 10 years, our debt will equal 105 percent of our gross domestic product, according to the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget.

And the Republicans' idea to close this gigantic increase in the deficit is to make massive cuts to Medicare, Social Security, and Medicaid. They want seniors to sacrifice their retirement security and their dignity in order to pay for a Republican tax giveaway.

President Trump's budget for fiscal year 2019 cuts $500 billion from Medicare, $1.4 trillion from Medicaid, and $72 billion from Social Security disability insurance, and that still isn't enough to balance the budget. So they will, of course, continue to propose cuts to education, veterans, working people, and other critical resources for families across America.

This is shameless. The American people are going to see right through this. A gigantic tax cut for the richest people in this country, the most powerful corporations, and now the Republicans are trying to make seniors pay for it by cuts to Medicare, Social Security, and Medicaid. Shame on them.

Mr. Speaker, a typical Rhode Island family with an infant

and a 4-year-old pays $23,000 a year in child care. That is nearly double the cost of tuition at the University of Rhode Island.

Nationwide, the cost of child care has increased 25 percent in the past decade. That is a terrible deal. It is a raw deal for working families. Democrats have proposed the Child Care for Working Families Act, a better deal.

This bill ensures that no middle class family will pay more than 7 percent of their income on child care. It ensures universal access to high-quality preschool programs. It also raises wages for childcare workers. It focuses on the needs of middle class families and the high cost of child care.

A few months ago, my Republican colleagues passed a huge tax cut for powerful corporate special interests and the wealthiest Americans. Democrats, on the other hand, are offering A Better Deal--a deal that focuses on raising family incomes, reducing costs in people's lives, and making sure people are prepared for jobs in the 21st century.

We propose A Better Deal

Madam Speaker, many pension plans across America are on the brink of failure and threatened by massive cuts. If nothing is done, 200 multiemployer plans are projected to fail, many within the next 10 years, and the impacts will be felt by Americans in every State in our country.

Cuts to these pensions would be economically devastating for 1.5 million people who have earned their livings as carpenters, truck drivers, iron and steel workers, bricklayers, and painters.

They paid into these plans. After a lifetime of hard work, they deserve to retire with dignity and peace of mind.

If these plans fail, taxpayers could have to pay billions of dollars if the Federal Government's Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation fails.

That is why Democrats have proposed A Better Deal to save our pensions that provides financing to put failing pension plans back on solid ground to ensure that they can meet their commitments to retirees today and workers for decades to come, prevents a single dollar of cuts to benefits retirees have earned, and it puts safeguards in place so that pension plans remain strong in order to be there for today's workers when they retire.

We need to bring these proposals to the floor so we can work together to protect the pensions that American workers have earned.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that I may hereafter be considered to be the first sponsor of H.R. 137, a bill originally introduced by Representative Conyers of Michigan, for the purposes of adding cosponsors and requesting reprintings pursuant to clause 7 of rule XII.

Mr. Speaker, despite their best efforts, my Republican friends have not fooled the American people.

They provided a modest, temporary tax cut for some Americans, but their tax bill raised taxes on 86 million middle class families. Eighty-three percent of the tax cuts go to the top 1 percent. It creates $2.3 trillion in debt and pays for it with deep cuts to Medicare and Medicaid.

It also provides a huge tax break, $1.3 trillion, for the biggest corporations in this country and further incentivizes shipping American jobs overseas. Corporations have announced more than $200 billion in stock buybacks in just 3 months, more than 30 times what workers received.

Corporations like Walmart and Pfizer, at the same time, are laying off thousands of workers as they pocket massive tax breaks for themselves, and we gave them incentives to ship more jobs overseas.

Democrats want real bipartisan tax reform that starts with a real permanent tax break for the middle class that will produce better jobs and better wages for a better future. The American people deserve A Better Deal than this raw deal that they got from the Republicans in this tax bill.