Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.

I want to begin, Mr. Speaker, by responding to the gentleman from Texas, who began this debate by saying how this was a continuation of an ongoing effort by Republicans to promote progrowth tax reform in particular.

I want to be very clear, Mr. Speaker. The proposal that is currently before this House with respect to the tax changes is a tax scam. It is not a tax plan. It is a scam. It gives $1.5 trillion in tax cuts to the wealthiest Americans, the biggest corporations, and the millionaires and billionaires. It increases taxes on tens of millions of middle class families. It pays for this big gift back to corporations and billionaires and millionaires by deep cuts in Medicare, Medicaid, infrastructure spending, education--the things that actually create jobs.

It creates additional incentives to ship American jobs overseas, creates incentives for American companies to take jobs here and ship them overseas, not to keep them here in our own country. It is another maybe more robust example of trickle-down economics. It has failed before. It will fail again.

The American people might have the benefit of understanding this more completely if there were actually a process where this was debated, witnesses testified, and experts came in to talk about the implications of this. But this is being done in the dark of night, at the speed of light so the American people won't find out what is about to happen to them. So the idea of describing this as progrowth in this context, both with the provisions and the process, seems, to me, laughable.

Let me just give the American people a couple of examples:

It denies individuals the right to deduct State and local taxes but preserves that right for corporations;

It denies the worker who is forced to leave his home and move because his employer is moving--either do that or he loses his job--from deducting the cost of moving, but it preserves the right of a company who is offshoring jobs overseas to take a deduction for the cost of moving those American jobs overseas.

Those are just two examples. So this isn't a progrowth tax policy. This is trickle-down economics designed to let the people at the very top hold onto more of their money and corporations to keep more of their profits in the hope that it will trickle down to the rest of the American people.

It doesn't work. It doesn't represent a progrowth tax policy. It is a tax scam, and so I want to just correct the record, Mr. Speaker, with all due respect to the gentleman from Texas.

Mr. Speaker, I rise, in addition to that, to express my strong opposition to H.R. 2201, the Micro Offering Safe Harbor Act.

In light of the devastating 2008 financial crisis and the regulatory weaknesses revealed by the Wells Fargo and Equifax scandals, we should be considering legislation that will bolster consumer and investor protections; but today, instead, we are considering H.R. 2201, which will enable abusive financial practices.

Generally, a company that seeks to make public offerings must register them with the Securities and Exchange Commission or must fit into one of several exceptions that are designed to balance investor protections with regulatory burdens on smaller companies. This legislation would allow so-called microcap offerings, offerings valued at $500,000 or less in a single year to be sold to 35 or fewer investors, subject only to the requirement that each investor have a substantive preexisting relationship with the company.

Despite the similarity of these provisions to some restrictions currently imposed on unregistered security offerings, H.R. 2201 omits several critical investor protections that are characteristic of existing exemptions. In particular, microcap offerings would be exempt from important regulatory protections set up in the 1933 Securities Act, including registration, disclosure, and fraud protections.

Oversight in the smaller offering space such as the one proposed in H.R. 2201 is important because the SEC has found fraud in the microcap stock markets is of increasing concern to regulators, as such markets have proven to be fertile grounds for fraud and abuse.

Without core protections, H.R. 2201 would leave investors vulnerable to an array of investment scams and abuses, with unsophisticated investors particularly at risk. For example, the bill has no restriction on resale. In the past, failure to restrict the resale of unregistered securities has exposed secondary investors to fraudulent pump-and-dump schemes, as the gentlewoman from California mentioned.

Additionally, groups like Americans for Financial Reform, Center for American Progress, and Public Citizen oppose H.R. 2201 because it would enable a type of investment scam known as affinity fraud. In these schemes, scam artists prey upon members of identifiable groups, such as ethnic or religious communities or the elderly, often by enlisting respected community or religious members to help convince victims that a dubious investment is legitimate. The proliferation of affinity fraud in low-income communities demonstrates that H.R. 2201's preexisting relationship requirement would not provide safeguards against such abuse.

Given existing exemptions for smaller companies would provide ample opportunity for companies to raise capital while also protecting investors, H.R. 2201 is, at best, unnecessary. This bill would simply create a loophole that undermines protections against the kind of financial abuses and recklessness that we have already seen damage our financial system and hurt people.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose H.R. 2201.

I thank the gentlewoman again for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, they are at it again. Corporate lobbyists and billionaires are spending whatever it takes to get their way in this town and avoid paying their fair share in taxes. Meanwhile, working people who play by the rules are getting crushed by healthcare costs, childcare expenses, housing payments, and student loan debt.

What is the Republican solution for this problem?

A $1.5 trillion tax cut for millionaires and billionaires, and a tax increase for tens of millions of hardworking families.

This bill is a scam. Republicans are throwing a wealthy five-star banquet for the wealthy and well connected, and saving a few crumbs that fall from the table for the hardworking middle class.

Democrats know that American people deserve a better deal. That is why we are fighting to build an economy that ensures better jobs, better wages, and a better future; create 10 million new full-time, good-paying jobs; invest in rebuilding our crumbling roads, bridges, and schools; lower costs for everything from prescription drugs to childcare; and break up corporate monopolies that are raising costs and reducing choices for working families.

Republicans might be fine with the status quo that benefits the wealthy and powerful special interests. We know the American people deserve better--better jobs, better wages--for a better future.

Mr. Speaker, right now, President Trump and the Republicans are trying to pass a massive tax cut for billionaires, millionaires, and wealthy corporations, and reward companies that ship American jobs overseas. The only way they can pay for it is by raising taxes on working people and cutting more than $1 trillion from Medicare and Medicaid.

This is not what Donald Trump, the candidate, promised the American people when he ran for President. He promised he would protect Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, but it turns out that wasn't true.

Wealthy Americans are doing better than ever. The top 1 percent are earning three times as much as they did 30 years ago, but working people haven't seen their pay go up at all.

Let's get serious. Let's get working people a better deal that cuts their taxes. Let's get them a better deal that protects Social Security and Medicare. Let's not give tax breaks to companies that ship American jobs overseas.

The American people deserve a better deal, not this raw deal that hurts working families.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to express my support for H.R. 1698, the Iran Ballistic Missiles and International Sanctions Enforcement Act. I was proud to cosponsor this critical legislation, and support it during consideration by the House Committee on Foreign Affairs, and would have voted for it on the floor, but had to leave Washington in order to attend a funeral service.

This legislation makes it clear that the United States will not tolerate Iran's development of nuclear-capable ballistic missiles. It authorizes sanctions against Iran for development of these weapons, as well as foreign individuals and entities which provide aid to Iran in the development of such weapons.

Further development of these weapons poses a threat to Israel, to our allies and partners in the Persian Gulf, and threatens to further destabilize the region. Additionally, failure to curb Iran's development of ballistic missiles could undermine the international effort to end Iran's nuclear weapons program under the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action.

I was proud to support this critical bipartisan effort, and would have proudly voted for it had I been present.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to remember Elizabeth Chace. Lilly, as most people knew her, travelled around the world, but her heart was never far from her friends and family in Rhode Island.

Lilly is remembered for her cutting wit, her love of movies, and her fierce loyalty to those she loved. She was a devoted fan of the New England Patriots, the Boston Red Sox, and her puppy Mona.

The loss of her distinctive laugh, contagious joy and incredible generosity of spirit has shaken our entire community. To honor her memory, her family is asking that anyone thinking of her practice a random act of kindness and sing at the top of your lungs, in your car, with the windows down. A moving testament to a wonderful person.

My heart goes out to Lilly's family, including her parents Arnold ``Buff'' and Johnnie, as well as her siblings Sarah, Ben and Nathaniel. On behalf of the people of the First Congressional District of the State of Rhode Island, I offer my most sincere condolences and deepest sympathy in this difficult time.

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to H.R. 469, an unwarranted and costly intrusion into Congress' powers under Article I of the Constitution that will undermine the enforcement of statutory deadlines.

When passing laws, Congress routinely establishes mandatory deadlines for agency action. These statutory deadlines serve several purposes. They establish congressional priorities, attempt to reduce undue delay in an agency's compliance with the law, and communicate the importance of a legal requirement to the public. But because agency resources are limited, there is widespread noncompliance with statutory deadlines, as the Administrative Conference of the United States has long observed.

Accordingly, a plaintiff with standing may file a lawsuit to complete a schedule for an agency to complete an action required by Congress, often referred to as a ``deadline suit.'' As the nonpartisan Government Accountability Office, the GAO, reported earlier this year, ``Most deadline suits are resolved through a negotiated settlement agreement because, in the majority of them, it is undisputed that a statutory deadline was missed,'' and there was no legal defense to the lawsuit.

But proponents of H.R. 469 assert that these settlements undercut applicable administrative law and short-circuit review of new regulations. This premise is based on a report by the Chamber of Commerce that the so-called sue and settle process is increasingly being used as a technique to shape agencies' regulatory agendas. This concern, however, is unsupported by any independent evidence and has been debunked by the GAO.

In two reports on deadline suits, the GAO has found that, ``the settlement agreements did not affect the substantive basis or procedural rulemaking requirements,'' of the agencies it studied.

In its December 2014 report on deadline lawsuits involving the Environmental Protection Agency, the GAO determined that none of the settlements finalized under the Obama administration ``included terms that finalized the substantive outcome of a rule.'' The GAO underscored this point in the title of its report: ``Impact of Deadline Suits on EPA's Rulemaking is Limited.''

In its February 2017 report on deadline suits involving the Endangered Species Act, the GAO found that ``the settlement agreements did not affect the substantive basis or procedural rulemaking requirements the agencies were to follow in completing the actions, such as providing opportunities for public notice and comment on proposed listing rules.''

Leading experts have also debunked the Chamber's sue and settle narrative. John Cruden, a senior career official at the Justice Department for more than two decades during two Republican and two Democratic administrations, testified on a substantially identical bill that he was ``not aware of any instance of a settlement that could remotely be described as collusive, but that the Justice Department vigorously represented the Federal agency, defending the agency's legal position, and obtaining in any settlement the best possible terms that were consistent with the controlling law.''

Other administrative law experts, such as Robert Weissman, the president of Public Citizen, have similarly testified that sue and settlement allegations are patently false.

This bill is also unnecessary because current law and agency practice already restrict the use of settlement policy to shape regulatory priorities. During its exhaustive review of deadline litigation, the GAO found that the Justice Department is guided by the Meese memo of 1986, when litigating deadline suits. This policy, as the GAO noted earlier this year, limits the settlement of a deadline suit to ``only include a commitment to perform a mandatory action by an agreed upon schedule and would not otherwise predetermine or prescribe a specific substantive outcome for the actions to be completed by the agencies.''

The Meese memo was codified in 1991, in the Code of Federal Regulations, and applies to settlement policy today. The Meese policy primarily restricts agencies from using settlement policy to contravene the law or congressional intent.

As the majority noted in its report on a substantially identical version of the bill considered last Congress, this policy is grounded in separation of powers concerns. There is no evidence that agencies do not follow this policy, and the majority's witnesses in prior hearings on this proposal have been unable to provide examples of settlements that violate the Meese policies.

H.R. 469 is also wasteful and undermines Congress' powers under Article I of the Constitution. Congress, not agencies, establish regulatory priorities through statutes. Agencies do not have discretion to pick and choose regulatory priorities where Congress has expressly instructed that certain actions be undertaken by a specific date. By imposing a series of onerous procedures that will constrain the use of settlements to resolve a Federal agency's noncompliance with the law, H.R. 469 erodes the constitutional function of the legislative branch.

Finally, the bill is also costly. The Congressional Budget Office notes that this bill greatly lengthens the settlement process, costing millions of dollars and straining the Treasury's Judgment Fund through increased attorney's fees.

In closing, I strongly oppose this measure.

I now yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), our ranking member, to control.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler).

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

I just want to again remind folks that, during the course of this argument, we have heard this narrative about the problems with the sue and settle, as Mr. Nadler described it, an imagined, concocted vast conspiracy, but without any evidence that it actually exists, a solution in search of a problem.

Just to remind folks, there were two reports done by the GAO--I have them in my hand; they are thick--that, in fact, undermine the suggestion that there is any such problem.

In response to requests from the Republican committee chairs, the Government Accountability Office has twice concluded that agencies cannot and do not circumvent the rulemaking system through settlements relating to statutory deadlines.

Finally, we received testimony earlier this year from Attorney General Jeff Sessions' Justice Department that current agency policy, which was codified in 1991, prohibits circumventing the rulemaking process through deadline lawsuits. We have heard similar testimony from career Justice Department officials in prior administrations.

I ask the question: How is H.R. 469 necessary in light of this complete lack of support for this so-called sue and settle phenomenon and the presence of controls against this from happening in the first instance?

Mr. Chair, again, there is just no evidence to support the necessity for this. I think it has been articulated very well by my colleagues what the dangers are of moving forward with this legislation.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I just want to say I am baffled by the gentleman from Louisiana's assertion that this legislation improves accountability. It is very hard to imagine how undermining the enforcement of duly enacted legislation by Congress of the United States improves accountability.

This is like the upsidedown world. How does that improve accountability, making it more difficult to enforce the laws passed by Congress of the United States?

Mr. Chairman, I just want to say in closing that it is very important to note that my opposition to H.R. 469 is joined by a very broad spectrum of organizations, including the American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations, or AFL-CIO; the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees; Public Citizen; Consumer Federation of America; the National Consumer Law Center; the Natural Resources Defense Council; the Sierra Club; Earthjustice; and People for the American Way; among many others.

Mr. Chairman, I think that is company, which should suggest to my colleagues that this legislation does not benefit the American people, it will undermine the actions of Congress.

Mr. Chairman, I urge everyone to vote ``no,'' and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I seek time in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I think it is very important to say at the outset this is not about clarifying anything. This is about a major change in policy.

This amendment will permit the publication of a victim's sensitive information, such as the individual's name and case history, on the internet. This overrides the Privacy Act.

So let's be clear about what this is. This is not a clarification. This is a major change in policy.

This amendment will make a bad bill even worse. It specifies that the Privacy Act does not prohibit the publication of a victim's sensitive information, such as his or her name and case history.

Under current law, the Treasury Department cannot, for the purposes of the Judgment Fund, publish the sensitive information of individuals who are victims of government abuse or misconduct, such as a name or case history. This is because the Privacy Act requires an individual's consent prior to publishing their name or other sensitive information.

Although proponents of this amendment may claim that this information is, in some instances, already publicly available, the Supreme Court has recognized that a person's privacy interests and their personal information collected in government records does not automatically dissolve because such information may be available to the public already in some other format. Individuals have the right to control the dissemination of their own personal information. This amendment makes it clear that the bill will infringe on an individual's personal privacy if he or she is compensated from the Judgment Fund.

Moreover, this amendment does not further the public interest in government transparency. Publishing an individual person's name on the internet sheds no significant light on the inner workings of government and has no value; and so, to the contrary, it will result in potentially grave harassment or even intimidation.

Revealing this information is an unwarranted intrusion on personal privacy of individuals harmed by government misconduct, which could include victims of medical malpractice as well as racial and sexual discrimination. In effect, it revictimizes the victims of government misconduct or abuse--a terrible result.

So, therefore, I oppose this amendment which does not do anything to improve the bill and, in fact, makes it considerably worse.

Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this amendment. And if you vote for it, recognize that you will have to go home and tell your constituents that you have agreed to a serious invasion of their personal privacy and that it will allow individuals who are victims of government misconduct to have that personal information put on the internet and shared with millions of people all over the world.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to H.R. 732, the inaptly titled Stop Settlement Slush Funds Act of 2017, which would flatly ban the enforcement of any settlement agreement that seeks to remedy the general harms caused by unlawful conduct.

This prohibition would broadly apply to all civil and criminal settlements with limited exception, encroaching on the Justice Department's longstanding legal authority to negotiate and enter settlement agreements.

Since its establishment in 1870, the Justice Department has possessed plenary authority to litigate on behalf of the government in all civil and criminal litigation except as otherwise provided by law.

Since at least as early as 1888, the Supreme Court has upheld this broad grant of authority, holding that it extends to settling litigation on behalf of the government or making enforcement decisions in light of priorities and resources.

In Heckler v. Chaney, for example, the Court held in 1985 that, in many cases, enforcement decision within the Justice Department's expertise make it ``far better equipped than the courts to deal with the many variables involved in the proper ordering of its priorities.''

This rationale also extends to the terms of settlement agreements, which ``involve numerous complicated technical issues as well as important judgments respecting the use of limited prosecutorial resources'' and are ``best left in the hands of expert agencies and prosecutors, rather than dictated by Congress or the Federal courts,'' as environmental law professor Joel Mintz has noted.

H.R. 732 undermines this longstanding policy by strictly curtailing the enforcement discretion of the Justice Department and the other enforcement agencies when resolving a party's civil or criminal liability on behalf of the Federal Government.

As the Justice Department observed last Congress in the context of a substantively similar bill, ``limiting the Department's discretion to negotiate appropriate terms of settlement, which are voluntary and agreed to by the parties, may result in fewer settlement agreements, protracted litigation, and delays for victims who need the relief.''

Without this discretionary authority, the Department concluded that, ``the government may not be able to adequately address the full scope of the harms that a defendant's illegal actions caused.''

In contrary to the arguments of the gentleman from Virginia, despite 2 years of investigation by the Judiciary Committee into the Justice Department's use of settlement agreements, no evidence was found to show that the mortgage fraud settlements contain terms that were politically motivated. But we did learn that the sole mission of the Justice Department's settlements under the prior administration was to aid the families whose economic security was jeopardized by reckless Wall Street behavior and prevent them from losing their homes due to fraudulent mortgage practices.

There are many examples where generalized harm is impossible to calculate or impractical to quantify in the courts. Without this ability by the Justice Department to enter into these settlement agreements, corporate wrongdoers are going to be free to do whatever they want.

I give you one example: Deepwater Horizon, which destroyed the coastline. As part of that settlement, there was State-based cleanup that was provided. There was funding for the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation for remediation; things that were directly responsive to the harm caused. But you couldn't quantify to an individual person, and that is what this legislation will prevent.

Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to oppose this measure.

Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I just want to ask the gentleman a question.

You made reference to the decision of--I forget the word you used to describe bureaucrats.

I think you said some pejorative word describing bureaucrats.

But I just want to ask the gentleman--the settlements that are described or the subject of this legislation, of course, are settlements that would require court approval and enforcement. So I think in fairness, when you say it is so that a bureaucrat doesn't get to decide this, this is pursuant to litigation which the parties come to an agreement that then the court must approve.

So this is really about respecting the ability of the court to assess the propriety of a judgment. And I think there was a very famous decision where one of the courts said the purpose of the Clean Water Act was not to endow the Treasury, but to prevent harm. So the idea is not just to generate money for the government, but to actually remediate and respond to the harm that was caused by the corporate wrongdoer.

I think that is why Mr. Johnson's amendment is important, brilliant, and deserves our support.

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. Chair, I rise in support of my amendment, which would exempt from H.R. 732 any settlement agreement that directs funds to reduce the effects of the mortgage foreclosure crisis through foreclosure prevention assistance programs.

There is little debate that predatory and fraudulent activity in the residential mortgage securities market was the primary cause of the mortgage foreclosure crisis.

As U.S. District Court Judge Max Cogburn observed in 2014, one need not ``be an expert in economics to take notice that it was the trading of toxic RMBS''--residential mortgage-backed securities--``between financial institutions that nearly brought down the banking system in 2008.''

The financial crisis blighted entire cities and communities, resulting in more than 13 million Americans losing their homes between 2006 and 2014, an average of 850,000 per year.

Beyond the life-changing hardship and stress placed on families by unlawful conduct in the housing market, the exponential rise in foreclosures imposed significant external costs on families and communities across the Nation.

Fraudulent activity in the housing market depressed home and commercial real estate values, undermined economic development and municipal revenue, deprived communities of public services, and resulted in increases of violent crime in communities of significant foreclosure activity.

Leading studies have also documented the contagious effects of foreclosures, and not just the neighborhood immediately affected by the foreclosures, but nearby vicinities as well, underscoring the diffuse and systemic impacts of unlawful mortgage securities practices.

In response to the financial crisis, President Obama announced in 2012, the creation of an investigatory unit within the Justice Department to: `` . . . hold accountable those who broke the law, speed assistance to homeowners, and help turn the page on an era of recklessness that hurt so many Americans.''

This unit secured more than $40 billion in civil penalties, compensation, and consumer relief through settlement with five financial institutions for alleged misconduct involving the packaging, marketing, and sale of residential mortgage-backed securities.

Geoffrey Graber, who directed this effort within the Justice Department,

testified in 2015 that these settlements meaningfully addressed the vicious cycle of harm caused by fraud in the housing market by achieving accountability from financial institutions that engaged in wrongdoing related to residential mortgage-backed securities, and to the extent possible, bringing some measure of relief to homeowners who suffered as a result of the financial crisis.

In addition to civil penalties, these settlements included statements of fact describing the pervasive fraud that permeated the mortgage market. In just one example, a bank employee stated that he would not be surprised if half of these loans went down, and that the banks should start praying.

The settlements also included consumer relief provisions designed to enable many Americans to stay in their homes by directing funds to distressed homeowners, community reinvestment and stabilization, and income-based lending for borrowers who lost homes to foreclosure.

The Department's settlement with Citigroup and Bank of America additionally directed $50 million in funds to charitable housing council programs and legal aid organizations to provide counsel to homeowners entitled to relief under the settlement because they were directly affected by the fraudulent and predatory conduct of the settling banks.

As the Center for American Progress has noted, these funds account for less than 1 percent of the overall amount of each settlement, and will support services provided by housing counselors and other trusted intermediaries that enable consumers to access the consumer relief to which they are entitled under the settlements.

We should be doing everything in our power to keep American families in their homes and off the streets, not letting big banks off the hook for their predatory and fraudulent practices, and so I urge my colleagues to adopt this amendment that will address this very important issue.

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

Mr. Chair, if I might just say briefly, the notion that Congress can just do these appropriations itself sort of misses the point. It is the responsibility of Article III courts to hear disputes, supervise litigation, and enforce settlements.

It is an odd moment for Congress to take on the work of another branch of government when we can't even do our own work here.

Mr. Chair, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee).

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

Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, this week, the fourth round of NAFTA renegotiations will begin. President Trump will have an opportunity to deliver on his promise last year to get a better deal for American workers. I hope he does.

Our current trade deals are rigged in favor of the largest corporations in this country and against working people. In my home State of Rhode Island, we have lost 41,000 manufacturing jobs since NAFTA and the WTO took effect. That is more than half of the manufacturing jobs in my State. The folks who kept their jobs have seen their paychecks get smaller.

Rhode Islanders know, most importantly, that we need a trade deal that is fair; but they know that trade deals that we have now help powerful corporations, but they are killing American jobs, helping corporations outsource jobs at the expense of working people.

This week I am asking President Trump to demand a new NAFTA agreement that has strong labor and environmental protections, that end foreign tribunals that allow corporations to sue the U.S. Government and force taxpayers to pay the bill, that has better Buy American requirements, that has strict protections against currency manipulation, that has strong rules of origin on manufactured goods, and that has provisions that bring down the cost of prescription drugs.

These are commonsense provisions that will empower American working families, and they should be included in any new trade agreement.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Arizona for yielding and for his leadership in organizing this Special Order hour.

There is no more sacred responsibility that we have than to ensure that the children in this country have access to quality, affordable healthcare. So I rise this evening to speak in support of the vital Children's Health Insurance Program, also known as CHIP.

As you know, Mr. Speaker, CHIP authorization expired on September 30, 2017--this past September. This program assures that 9 million children, including 27,000 children and pregnant women in my home State of Rhode Island, are provided with low-cost health insurance, which covers essential services such as routine checkups, immunizations, doctor visits, prescriptions, dental and vision care, inpatient and outpatient hospital care, laboratory and x-ray services, and emergency services.

This historically bipartisan program has been successful in lowering the percentage of children who are uninsured from nearly 14 percent when it started in 1997 to 4.5 percent in 2015. Historic achievements.

If not extended by Congress soon, many States will no longer be able to fund the program and will begin limiting coverage, some as early as the end of this year.

In fact, the Kaiser Family Foundation recently concluded that, without an extension of CHIP, ``States would face budget pressures, children would lose coverage, and implementation of program changes could result in increased costs and administrative burden for States as well as confusion for families.''

If not extended by Congress soon, many States will no longer be able to fund the program and will begin limiting coverage.

Congress must also act with urgency to extend and reauthorize the other programs that were enacted in the Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act of 2015, including extending funding for community health centers; the Personal Responsibility Education Program; the rural and Medicare-dependent hospitals program; Teaching Health Centers; Maternal, Infant, and Early Childhood Home Visiting Program; and the Special Diabetes Program for type 1 diabetes and for Indians.

These critical programs, as well as CHIP, are vital to the American healthcare system, and they support access to high-quality, affordable care.

I want to again thank the gentleman from Arizona for providing this Special Order. This is urgent and should be an urgent priority for the Congress of the United States to reauthorize this critical program to absolutely insist that children--as I said, 9 million children across this country--have access to quality, affordable healthcare, including 27,000 children and pregnant women in my home State.

Democrats are urging our Republican colleagues to reauthorize this bill immediately so that the families who are so anxious about whether or not they will continue to have the ability to access quality, affordable healthcare can rest comfortably and know that this work is done.

I thank the gentleman again for his leadership and for yielding to me on this very important issue.

Mr. Speaker, 58 innocent people were murdered in Las Vegas. Their killer used 12 bump stocks to convert his semiautomatic weapons into the equivalent of a machine gun.

No one should possess one of these devices, let alone 12 of them, and that is why I am introducing legislation to ban them.

But I am mindful, Mr. Speaker, that we have been here before after Newtown, Aurora, San Bernardino, Orlando, and other mass shootings. Each time, my Republican friends have refused to act.

Now, in the wake of the worst mass shooting in modern history, our Republican colleagues are not only refusing to act, but they are going to make the problem even worse by pressing proposals that will make the problem worse, making it easy to carry a concealed weapon, making it easier to buy a silencer. I mean, this is insane.

I get it. Elections have consequences. You won last November so you get to do what you want, but this is wrong. Let's come together and do something. And I promise you, if Congress fails to respond to the demand for commonsense gun safety legislation, we will be held to account by those we serve, and rightly so. So let's work together and do something.

Mr. Speaker, last week, Hurricane Maria hit the island of Puerto Rico. The damage on the island has been described as apocalyptic: buildings destroyed, a major dam at

risk of collapse, and millions of American citizens looking for help. But 1 week later, we still have not addressed this extraordinary crisis. Congress is not planning to vote on providing aid until next week.

President Trump tweeted about Puerto Rico owing money to Wall Street, as if that should be a priority right now. President Trump and my friends on the other side of the aisle who control Congress need to start treating this with the urgency it demands.

My district is home to more than 20,000 Puerto Ricans. Over the last week, they have told me that they don't understand what is going on in Washington. Why is this taking so long?

This President talks a lot about putting America first, but why isn't he doing more to help our fellow citizens in Puerto Rico?

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of my constituents, bring a bill to the floor. Let's get this done, and let's address the humanitarian crisis that is besetting citizens in Puerto Rico.

Mr. Chair, I rise in support of my amendment which supports expanding access to Naloxone for first responders.

Equipping police officers and EMTs with Naloxone means they can immediately save the life of a person who is overdosing.

Although drug overdose deaths rose by 33 percent in the past five years, states, like Rhode Island, Maryland and Pennsylvania, are experiencing severe shortages of Naloxone. The cost of Naloxone has skyrocketed--rising by thousands of dollars in some cases--and it only has a shelf life of 18 to 24 months.

States have had to find alternate sources of funding, including tapping into emergency funds and cutting state programs, just to keep Naloxone in stock.

Some communities have also had to make extremely tough choices, like rationing funds and deciding how many lives they will save.

We must make additional investments in Naloxone for our first responders in order to stem the rising tide of opioid deaths.

I urge my colleagues to support my amendment.

Mr. Speaker, the American people deserve a better deal. They deserve better jobs, better wages, and a better future. That is what Democrats are committed to doing, and it starts with creating millions of full-time, good-paying jobs that give more Americans the opportunity to get ahead. That is why we have proposed doubling Federal support for apprenticeship programs.

Apprenticeship training is one of the most cost-effective ways for getting workers started on a successful career path. Over their lifetimes, folks who completed an apprenticeship will earn $300,000 more than folks who don't.

Now, you would think that a President who once hosted a game show called ``The Apprentice'' would see the wisdom of this approach, but that is not the case. Earlier this year, President Trump actually proposed a budget that cuts job training by nearly 40 percent. That is not a better deal. It is not even a good deal. It is a raw deal.

We can do better. Let's make the expansion of apprenticeship programs a national priority. Let's give young people and folks who are changing careers the tools they need to get ahead. Let's give the American people a better deal.

Mr. Speaker, 2 weeks ago, on August 23, Army Specialist Matthew Turcotte was killed during a live ammunition exercise at Fort Carson in Colorado.

Specialist Turcotte was a lifelong resident of North Smithfield, Rhode Island. He joined the Army 2 years ago and was assigned to the 4th Infantry Division.

He died a hero, having earned numerous medals for his service to our Nation, including the Army Achievement Medal and the Global War on Terrorism Service Medal. Last Saturday, hundreds gathered in Providence to give Specialist Turcotte a hero's farewell at his funeral mass.

All of us know, who serve in this Chamber, that our country owes an enormous debt of gratitude to all who have served, and especially to those who have made the ultimate sacrifice on the altar of freedom.

My thoughts and prayers are with Specialist Turcotte's family today, especially his wife, Megan, and his parents, Raymond and Liza.

President Trump's Decision to Terminate the Deferred Action for

Childhood Arrivals Program

Mr. Speaker, I also want to spend a moment to speak about President Trump's decision to terminate the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program. It is one of the cruelest in Presidential actions in recent memory. This was a shameful moment for our country. America has always stood as a beacon of freedom and opportunity, but not right now.

The DACA program has allowed nearly 800,000 DREAMers to work, study, and serve their communities and Nation. That includes nearly 1,300 DREAMers in my home State of Rhode Island.

The DREAMers are workers and taxpayers. They pay $3 billion in taxes each year, including $2.6 million in my home State. They contribute $2 billion each year to Social Security and another $470 million to Medicare.

They didn't choose to come here. They were brought here by their parents as very young children. They love this country. They share our values. They are contributing to their communities every single day.

They are young men and women like Lesdin Salazar, a 22-year-old Rhode Islander who came here from Guatemala with her parents when she was 7 years old. Lesdin was a high school junior when President Obama signed an executive order to establish DACA. She was later accepted to Rhode Island College, where she is paying out of pocket today to pursue a degree in teaching. Lesdin also works at Calcutt Middle School in Central Falls, Rhode Island, where she helps kids who need behavioral and emotional support, but she will have to give up this dream unless Congress acts.

The same is true of Ana Abigail Molina, a 27-year-old Rhode Islander who came to the United States when she was just 6 years old. Today Ana works at Thundermist Health Center and has dreams of going back to school to become a surgical technologist. And like so many DREAMers, Ana doesn't really remember much of the country where she was born. She considers herself an American.

Javier Juarez also considers himself an American, a young man who just graduated from Rhode Island College and is planning to attend graduate school on an academic scholarship at Brown University starting this fall. His dream is to one day attend Harvard Law School.

Javier has been living in Rhode Island for 18 years. Before DACA, he couldn't drive, get a good job, or go to college, but now he is the first member of his family to graduate from a 4-year university. He, too, will have to give up his American Dream unless Congress acts.

And finally, Maribel Rivera Sosa, who came to Rhode Island from Mexico at the age of 9. When she graduated high school 5 years ago, Maribel didn't think she would be able to attend college, but just days later, when President Obama established DACA, Maribel's opportunities became limitless. She was able to attend the Community College of Rhode Island while working three separate jobs. After earning an associate's degree, Maribel enrolled at Johnson & Wales University, and her dream is to earn a master's degree in health administration.

Who among us thinks that someone who works three jobs shouldn't be able to follow their dreams?

This is just cruel. President Trump is ripping apart hundreds of thousands of families and injecting chaos and uncertainty into the lives of members of our community who know no other home than America. If Congress doesn't replace DACA with the Dream Act, it will result in $460 billion in lost economic activity over the next decade, including $61 million in Rhode Island.

Republicans in Congress need to bring the Dream Act to the floor right now. We need a permanent solution, and I am proud to be a cosponsor of the bipartisan Dream Act. We need to bring that bill to the floor. Every Republican who disagrees with President Trump's actions needs to tell Speaker Ryan to bring the Dream Act to the floor.

This Congress must act in a manner worthy of a country that has inspired these young DREAMers and pass the Dream Act without delay.

Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. Chair, I want to thank my colleagues: Congressman Beyer, Congressman Langevin, Congresswoman Bonamici, Congressman Keating, Congressman Ted Lieu, and Congressman Schneider, who are cosponsors of this amendment.

This amendment would strike the harmful provision that prevents implementation of the National Ocean Policy. The National Ocean Policy has helped guide ocean management for over 7 years. NOP offers an opportunity to develop commonsense tools to manage the ocean economy. The Regional Ocean Council allows States throughout the Northeast to pool resources, strengthen the voice of businessowners, and facilitate coordination with Federal partners.

The National Ocean Policy allows Federal agencies to coordinate implementation of over 100 ocean laws and allows State and local governments to have a say in the ocean planning process.

My home State of Rhode Island, the Ocean State, has benefited greatly from the National Ocean Policy, and I want to take a moment to acknowledge the extraordinary leadership of my colleague, Senator Sheldon Whitehouse, who has championed this effort.

As one example, with help from the National Ocean Policy, the Block Island Wind Farm was successfully completed and today is powering an estimated 17,000 homes.

The Northeast depends on clean water for fishing, shipping, recreation, and tourism. Estuaries like Narragansett Bay, Cape Cod Bay, Buzzards Bay, and Long Island Sound need relevant data on water quality to guide future decisions and management actions. It is a terrible idea to undermine the development of good ocean policy and efforts to protect water quality.

The National Ocean Policy does not create any new regulations, supersede existing regulations, or modify any agency's established mission, jurisdiction, or authority. Instead, it helps to coordinate the implementation of current regulations by Federal agencies to establish a more effective and efficient decisionmaking process.

NOP gives life to a vision of stewardship through the thoughtful implementation of regulations and coordination in protecting our treasured oceans.

Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment and to strike this ill-advised provision.

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

Mr. Chair, may I inquire how much time I have?

Mr. Chair, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from the great State of Rhode Island (Mr. Langevin), my distinguished senior colleague.

Mr. Chair, I yield 45 seconds to the distinguished gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Schneider).

Mr. Chair, I yield the balance of my time to the distinguished gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Bishop).