Floor Statements

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time, and I thank him for his continued leadership on this issue.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this amendment, which would remove a provision that prevents the Department of Defense from closing the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

The continued use of this facility does not make our country safer and only serves to undermine our national security.

Well respected military leaders and national security officials have said that Guantanamo remains a propaganda tool for terrorist groups that is used to incite violence against Americans.

In 2015, the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe, which is composed of 57 member states, including all NATO allies, concluded that Guantanamo serves as an obstacle to counterterrorism cooperation and that the facility should be closed.

In addition, the cost of housing detainees and maintaining the facility continues to be a financial drain on the Department of Defense.

According to Human Rights First, Guantanamo costs the U.S. approximately $445 million per year to operate. The average cost per detainee at Guantanamo is more than $10 million.

At the same time, the cost per prisoner at the Federal supermax prison in Colorado, which houses such terrorists as 9/11 conspirator Zacarias Moussaoui, World Trade Center bomber Ramzi Yousef, and Boston Marathon bomber Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, is $78,000.

Mr. Chairman, this should not be a partisan issue. National security experts on both sides of the aisle have concluded that keeping Guantanamo open is harmful to American interests.

Secretaries of State from previous Republican administrations, including Henry Kissinger, James Baker, and Colin Powell, have all said that closing Guantanamo would improve America's image around the world.

Former chairmen of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Martin Dempsey and Admiral Mike Mullen, have both said that the detention facility needs to be closed.

Former President George W. Bush has said that the detention facility has ``become a propaganda tool for our enemies and a distraction for our allies.''

Senator John McCain, the man whose credibility on the horrors of war is unimpeachable, has repeatedly said that he favors closing the detention facility because of the imagine of the United States that it projects to the rest of the world.

Closing the Guantanamo Bay detention facility will strengthen our national security and show the rest of the world the principle of equal justice under law is inviolable.

Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to send an important message about the values discussed and support the Nadler amendment.

Mr. Speaker, earlier this week, Democrats unveiled A Better Deal for the American people. This is an economic agenda that will create 10 million good-paying, full-time jobs; raise pay; lower costs; and give workers the tools that they need to get ahead.

A job is much more than just a paycheck. It is about knowing that your hard work is valued and honored. It is about being treated with the dignity and respect that every human being deserves. We don't have enough of that in this country today.

People in my State and all across America feel like the system is completely stacked against them. And do you know what? They are right.

Our Tax Code rewards companies that ship jobs overseas. Millionaires and billionaires don't pay their fair share. Corporate special interests spend secretly in our elections. It doesn't have to be this way; and with A Better Deal, it won't be this way.

We are going to invest in our infrastructure, we are going to build a new manufacturing economy, double investments in apprenticeships, and we are going to make sure that working families are valued again.

The American people have had enough broken promises to last them a lifetime, but Democrats are going to deliver real results to them with A Better Deal, better jobs, better wages, for a better future.

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

Mr. Chairman, my amendment to H.R. 3219 will help ensure that buildings such as the Capitol and the House and Senate office buildings have adequate baby changing tables.

Last year, this Congress passed into law my legislation called the BABIES Act requiring that both male and female restrooms in many public buildings be equipped with baby changing facilities that are physically safe, sanitary, and appropriate.

That legislation ensures that there are appropriate and sanitary facilities for parents and caretakers to change the diapers of infants and toddlers in publicly accessible Federal buildings controlled by the General Services Administration.

In the same vein, I was pleased that the Legislative Branch Subcommittee included report language in its fiscal year 2017 bill recognizing the importance of providing designated baby changing stations for members of the public who visited the Capitol complex and encouraging the Architect of the Capitol to take steps to provide baby changing stations at easily accessible locations.

I want to thank my colleagues on the Appropriations Committee and Chairman Yoder for their support of these efforts. My amendment today to H.R. 3219 would similarly encourage the construction of safe, appropriate, and sanitary baby changing stations in Federal public buildings controlled by the Architect of the Capitol such as the Capitol complex, the House, and Senate office buildings, the Botanic Gardens, and the Library of Congress.

With more than 20 million visitors coming to Washington, D.C., each year, families are often surprised by the lack of adequate baby changing facilities in public buildings. Currently, there are only nine baby changing stations in the House office buildings, none of which are in the Rayburn Building, where my office is located. That means that when Rhode Island families who come to visit my office have to try to find a changing station, they go all the way to Cannon or Longworth, or they have to decide to change their baby on the bathroom floor, which is a terrible option. It is not sanitary either for the parents or for the children.

Access to these changing stations in restrooms in Federal buildings will help in protecting the health and safety of children at a very de minimus cost, about $200 per changing station. This nominal amount will go a very long way to encouraging a family-friendly environment and ensuring the safety and comfort of our constituents who visit us.

And I want to again thank Chairman Yoder and Ranking Member Ryan for their support of this amendment, and I look forward to working with them to help ensure that our constituents are able to have a safe and enjoyable visit to our beautiful Capitol buildings.

Mr. Chair, I yield to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ryan), the ranking member.

Mr. Chair, I yield to the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Yoder).

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

Mr. Chair, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding, and I rise today to speak in strong support of the amendment offered by my colleague, Congresswoman Pingree, which would strike the harmful provision that undermines the importance of the National Ocean Policy.

For over 7 years, the National Ocean Policy has helped guide ocean management through spurring coordination among government agencies. Ocean planning and coordination is an important aspect in supporting economic growth, protecting coastal habitats, and strengthening coastal communities.

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

Throughout the northeast, the Regional Ocean Council allows our States to pool resources and businesses to have a strong voice in decisions that will impact their communities and facilitate coordination with Federal partners.

I am proud to say that the Northeast Regional Ocean Council is the first in the Nation to release a draft regional ocean plan. My home State of Rhode Island, the ocean State, has benefited greatly from the National Ocean Policy. With help from NOP, the Block Island Wind Farm project was successfully completed and today is capable of powering an estimated 17,000 homes.

At a time when our oceans are facing significant challenges and changes, maintaining coordination and planning is necessary in continuing to strengthen our country's coastal communities and ocean industries. Allowing Federal agencies to coordinate implementation of over 100 ocean laws and giving State and local governments a voice in the ocean planning process is smart policy, and I urge my colleagues to support this amendment and strike this ill-advised provision.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 3364, the Russia, Iran, and North Korea Sanctions Act. I thank my colleagues, Chairman Royce and Ranking Member Engel, for all of their work, together with the Senate, to reach this important agreement.

This legislation will ensure that Russia, Iran, and North Korea, and those who seek to help them, will suffer consequences for their bad behavior. Passage of this legislation is important to hold Iran accountable for its support for terrorism, human rights violations, and continued defiance of international treaties, including on ballistic missiles.

Today we are taking an important step toward holding the Iranian Government, including the IRGC, and anyone who seeks to support them, accountable for their bad actions. Anyone who contributes to Iran's ballistic missile program, supplies it with weapons, or assists the Iranian Government in their vast human rights abuses will be subject to sanction.

It is important to note that these sanctions do not violate the JCPOA and, in my view, strengthen the nuclear deal by showing our allies and Iran that the United States is serious about continuing to enforce violations of international law.

I am also pleased to see additional sanctions imposed upon Russia and North Korea in this legislation. The human suffering that North Korea has brought upon its own people is unimaginable. Such a depraved leader as Kim Jong-un getting his hands on nuclear weapons that can be used against American allies is an outcome that we simply cannot tolerate.

Finally, Russia engaged in an unprecedented attack against our democracy when it interfered in our 2016 election. This is the fundamental foundation of our democracy, our election, and we simply cannot allow any foreign power to interfere in our electoral process.

Given our President's complete unwillingness to hold Russia accountable for their attack--and let's not mistake it for anything else; it was an attack on America--it has become necessary for Congress to assert its role in this area and ensure that Russia will be held accountable.

So, again, I thank Chairman Royce, Ranking Member Engel, Leader Pelosi, Whip Hoyer, and members of

the Senate who worked together to get this bill to the floor. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.J. Res. 111, which would repeal protections for our men and women in uniform and other everyday consumers against the use of forced arbitration by megabanks and other financial service providers.

Earlier this month, the CFPB finalized strong rules to protect the rights of hardworking Americans to band together in our justice system to hold corporate wrongdoers accountable. This protection is particularly critical for our Nation's men and women in uniform and their loved ones.

For over a decade, under both Democratic and Republican administrations, the Defense Department has warned Congress about the effects of forced arbitration in servicemembers' contracts. Often buried in the fine print of financial contracts, these clauses waive the rights of veterans and servicemembers to a day in court before a dispute even arises.

If these arbitration provisions were so beneficial to consumers and to servicemen and -women, why do you have to sneak these mandatory provisions into the contract?

There is overwhelming support for this rule among military service organizations who agree that forced arbitration clauses block access to the justice system and funnel the claims of servicemembers into private, costly arbitration systems.

Since the Second World War, Congress has continuously expanded and strengthened the rights and protections for servicemembers and veterans out of a sense of obligation that we must honor and protect our men and women in uniform. But this resolution would end vital financial protections for those who have sacrificed so much in service to our country and the fundamental idea that we are a nation of laws and institutions that guarantee the rights and prosperity of every American.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose this resolution, to preserve this rule, to stand up for the men and women in uniform, to stand up for the American consumer, and to stop being errand boys for the megabanks.

Mr. Speaker, my resolution raises the question of the privileges of the House pursuant to Rule IX, clause 1, as it affects ``the rights of the House collectively, its dignity, and the integrity of its proceedings.''

Insofar as it raises the House's failure to undertake its constitutional responsibility of oversight and the obligation of all elected officials to ensure decisions are made free of conflicts and with the public interest in mind.

In particular, matters related to the House's constitutionally granted powers have been recognized as valid questions of the privileges of the House. The Origination Clause that requests revenue bills to originate in the House includes the issues related to revenues generated by our tax code. Clearly the issues raised by this resolution cover those matters contemplated by the Origination Clause.

There is nothing more of a threat to the integrity of the House than ignoring our duty to provide a check and balance to the executive branch. To restore the dignity of the House, we must use our authority to request President Trump's tax returns and give the American people the transparency they deserve.

The stunning conflicts of interest are piling up as the President, his family, and his friends profit in their personal business endeavors while serving in public office.

President Trump has not divested himself from his businesses as was recommended by the Office of Government Ethics. He is the sole beneficiary of the trust his sons now manage and can still pull funds from it at any time.

We need to see how the President would personally benefit from changes to our tax code. Tax code changes proposed by his administration could lower his own personal tax bill by tens of millions of dollars. The American people have a right to know.

Mr. Trump fired the Director of the FBI, James Comey, and admitted he did so because he didn't like the investigation into the Trump campaign's possible collusion with Russian officials. The following day, he welcomed the Russian foreign minister and Russian ambassador to the Oval Office with open arms, and revealed highly sensitive, classified information to them.

And now we know that several members of the Trump Campaign and President Trump's inner circle met with a Russian lawyer and intelligence agent during the campaign, hoping to get incriminating information against Hillary Clinton.

Yet to this day, we have no way of knowing President Trump's or the various Trump organizations' ties to Russia. We don't know whether Trump or his firms have received Russian income or loans or entered into Russian-linked partnerships. A ``certified'' letter from paid attorneys does nothing to assuage these concerns.

The Legislative Branch has the responsibility and the authority to check the Executive Branch and Section 6103 of the tax code allows for an examination of his tax returns--authority put in place specifically so Congress could examine conflicts of interest in the Executive following the Teapot Dome scandal.

We cannot ignore our duty to fully examine the personal financial entanglements this President may have with Russian entities and individuals and whether he has abused the tax laws of this country.

We have nothing but evidence to justify such an examination. If and when such conflicts are revealed, I do not want to say to our constituents that we had the power to review these conflicts, but we did nothing. I for one do not want my integrity or the integrity of my colleagues in this body to be demeaned by such a shameful failure.

To restore the dignity of the House, we must use our authority to request President Trump's tax returns and give the American people the transparency they deserve.

Mr. Speaker, Republicans have threatened to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act for 7 years, but earlier this week, they failed again to deliver on this threat. So next week, the Senate will vote on a bill to repeal the Affordable Care Act without a replacement.

If this bill were to pass, 32 million people will lose their health insurance, insurance premiums will go up, and insurance markets will unravel. That is exactly why this bill will not pass. But Mitch McConnell and the Republican leadership are going to have a vote anyway.

What is the point?

The American people are sick and tired of Washington failing to get things done. It is time--in fact, well past time--for Republicans to stop going it alone. All of us came here to serve our constituents, but that is not going to happen unless Republicans are willing to work in good faith with Democrats to make the necessary improvements to the Affordable Care Act.

If we work together, none of us will get everything we want, which is true, but our constituents will finally get the progress they have been waiting for, and that is much more important.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.

I rise in opposition to the rule and urge my colleagues to defeat the previous question so that we can take up the legislation that has just been outlined by Mr. Pascrell.

There is no more responsibility that we have than creating good- paying jobs for the American people; and this is, after all, according to President Trump, ``Make It in America'' Week, which, in fact, is a centerpiece of the Democratic agenda. We have a number of bills that are designed to help reinvigorate and strengthen American manufacturing.

It is shocking for the American people to learn that we have a Tax Code, as Mr. Pascrell outlined, that gives a tax break to companies that ship American jobs overseas, exactly the opposite of what it should be if we are really concerned about creating good-paying jobs here in our own country. So defeating the previous question means we could take up the stop offshoring now legislation, which would get rid of this nonsensical provision in our Tax Code.

When you go out there and talk to constituents, you say: One of the reasons we can't keep good manufacturing jobs here in America is because we incentivize, we use some of your tax dollars to incentivize companies to ship those jobs overseas. It makes no sense.

So how about, during ``Make It in America'' Week, rather than just using that phrase, as the President has done, let's do something that will actually help promote making things in this country--I know, probably a challenging concept for the President, who does his manufacturing overseas, not in the United States.

Let's take a bold step today. Remove that provision of the Tax Code, and have a Tax Code provision that actually incentivizes creating jobs in our own country and giving tax credits to companies that create jobs in America. What a novel idea.

I urge my colleagues to defeat the previous question so that we can take this piece of legislation up, and perhaps it will then encourage my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to move forward on a number of bills that are part of the Democratic Make It in America agenda to help rebuild American manufacturing and put people back to work in good-paying jobs.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to a question of the privileges of the House and offer the resolution that was previously noticed.

Yes.

Mr. Speaker, this resolution raises the question of the privilege of the House pursuant to rule IX, clause 1, as it affects, ``the rights of the House collectively, its dignity, and the integrity of its proceedings,'' insofar as it raises the House's failure to undertake its constitutional responsibility of oversight and the obligation of all elected officials to ensure decisions are made free of conflicts and with the public interest in mind.

In particular, matters related to the House's constitutionally granted powers have been recognized as valid questions of the privileges of the House. The Origination Clause that requires that revenue bills originate in the House includes the issues related to revenues generated by our Tax Code.

Clearly, the issues raised by this resolution cover these matters contemplated by the Origination Clause. There is nothing more of a threat to the integrity of the House than ignoring our duty to provide a check and balance to the executive branch.

To restore the dignity of the House, we must use our authority to request President Trump's tax returns and give the American people the transparency they deserve.

The stunning conflicts of interest are piling up as the President, his family, and his friends profit in their personal business endeavors while serving in public office. President Trump has not divested himself from his businesses as was recommended.

I understand, Mr. Speaker. My point is, in order to rule on this, it is important for the Chair to understand that the severity of the questions with respect to the integrity of our proceedings are undermined because of the potential conflicts of interest and the lack of information about the tax returns and related materials of the President.

So you can't make an argument about the rights of the House collectively, its dignity, and the integrity of the proceedings without understanding the presence, the evidence of the conflicts of interest, of the potential foreign entanglements, of the self-dealing that tax returns would reveal and help illuminate.

You also can't protect the integrity of our responsibilities as a check on the executive branch without understanding that we have a responsibility to examine these financial interactions, the influence of the Russians, and interfering with our elections, the firing of Director Comey, the secret meetings between the President's campaign.

Mr. Speaker, I understand the ruling of the Chair with respect to confining my remarks. These remarks, in fact, relate directly to whether or not this resolution, which seeks the production of the President's tax returns, relate to ``the rights of the House collectively, its dignity, and the integrity of the proceedings.''

What I am suggesting, Mr. Speaker, is that in order for the House to fulfill its responsibilities, its constitutional responsibilities of oversight, and check and balance on the executive branch and to faithfully honor our responsibilities under the Origination Clause that says the House is the place that revenue generation must begin--and we are contemplating a reform of the Tax Code--in order to do that, free from the potential conflicts of interest, the House and the American people have a right to know what are the real interests of President Trump, where are his investments, what are the tax policies, will they benefit him, or will they benefit the American people.

Mr. Speaker, I appeal the ruling of the Chair.

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

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to clause 2(a)(1) of rule IX, I rise to give notice of my intent to raise a question of the privileges of the House.

The form of the resolution is as follows:

Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that the President shall immediately disclose his tax return information to the House of Representatives and the American people.

Whereas, according to the Tax History Project, every President since Gerald Ford has disclosed his tax return information to the public;

Whereas, the chairmen of the Committee on Ways and Means, Joint Committee on Taxation, and the Committee on Finance have the authority to request the President's tax returns under section 6103 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986;

Whereas, pursuant to Article I, section 7, clause 1 of the Constitution, often referred to as the Origination Clause, the House of Representatives has the sole authority to initiate legislation that raises revenue for the national government, and the Committee on Ways and Means is considering a comprehensive reform of the Tax Code;

Whereas, President Donald J. Trump holds interests as the sole or principal owner in approximately 500 separate business entities, and the President's tax plan proposes to cut the corporate tax from 35 percent to 15 percent, applicable to many of these entities;

Whereas, against the advice of ethics attorneys and the nonpartisan Office of Government Ethics, the President has refused to divest his ownership stake in his businesses, has instead placed his assets in a trust which is run by his adult children, and the President can withdraw profits from his trust at any time of his choosing from any of the companies he owns;

Whereas, the Director of the Office of Government Ethics, Walter Shaub, resigned on July 6, 2017, stating that ``There isn't much more I could accomplish at the Office of Government Ethics, given the current situation. O.G.E.'s recent experiences have made it clear that the ethics program needs to be strengthened'';

Whereas, according to media reports analyzing President Trump's leaked 2005 tax return, had his own tax plan been in place, he would have paid an estimated 3.48 percent rate instead of a 24 percent rate, saving him $31.3 million in that year alone;

Whereas, without access to the President's tax returns, the American people cannot determine how much he will personally benefit from proposed changes to the Tax Code or from policy decisions he makes, nor can the American people fully understand the financial interests and motivations of the President;

Whereas, in June 2017, President Trump filed an updated financial disclosure with the Office of Government Ethics which showed that the President reported $37.2 million income from the Mar-a-Lago resort between January 2016 and April 2017 where he hosted the President of China and from where he ordered missile strikes against Syria;

Whereas, during the same time period, President Trump reported $288 million in income from all his golf courses, including $19.7 million from his course in Bedminister, New Jersey;

Whereas, over the weekend of July 14, President Trump sent out eight tweets promoting the U.S. Women's Open Golf Tournament which took place at his Bedminister club;

Whereas, Mar-a-Lago doubled its new member fees to $200,000 immediately following the 2016 election, and President Trump personally benefits from such new member fees;

Whereas, disclosure of the President's tax returns would help those investigating Russian interference in the 2016 election and assist them in better

understanding the President's financial ties to the Russian Federation, Russian businesses, and Russian individuals;

Whereas, in 2013, President Trump said, ``Well, I've done a lot of business with the Russians. They're smart and they're tough,'' and President Trump's son, Donald Trump, Jr., told a news outlet in 2008 that ``Russians make up a pretty disproportionate cross-section of a lot of our assets'';

Whereas, President Trump fired Federal Bureau of Investigation Director James Comey, who was overseeing an investigation into ties and any collusion between the Russian Government and President Trump's campaign;

Whereas, former Director Comey testified before the Senate Intelligence Committee that President Trump asked him to ``let go'' of an investigation into former National Security Advisor Michael Flynn's business ties to Russia;

Whereas, President Trump stated on May 11, 2017, that he had decided that he was going to fire Comey because of ``this Russia thing'';

Whereas, at the G-20 Hamburg summit on July 7, 2017, President Trump took a more than 2 hour closed-door meeting with President Vladimir Putin, after which he claimed that he ``strongly pressed'' President Putin on Russian interference in U.S. elections and that it is ``time to move forward'';

Whereas, on June 9, 2016, then-Candidate Trump's son, Donald Trump, Jr., then-Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort, and Trump son-in-law and current White House adviser Jared Kushner met with a person described as ``a Russian government attorney,'' and a former Russian military intelligence officer who promised to offer incriminating information about Hillary Clinton which had been collected as part of a Russian Government effort to assist President Trump in his campaign for President;

Whereas, the Committee on Ways and Means has in the past used the authority under section 6103 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 in 2014 to make public the confidential tax information of 51 taxpayers;

Whereas, the Committee on Ways and Means has now voted three times along party lines to continue to conceal President Trump's tax returns;

Whereas, the House of Representatives has now refused ten times to act on President Trump's tax returns;

Whereas, the Committee on the Judiciary has failed to conduct even basic oversight on the connections between the Russian Government and the Trump campaign;

Whereas, the Committee on the Judiciary has now voted twice along party lines to decline to request documents detailing the Trump administration's ties with Russian officials;

Whereas, the House of Representatives undermines its dignity and the integrity of its proceedings by continuing the cover-up of President Trump's tax returns:

Now, therefore, be it resolved, that the House of Representatives shall, one, immediately request the tax return and return information of Donald J. Trump for tax years 2006 through 2015, as provided under section 6103 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as well as the tax return, and return information with respect to the President's businesses, of each business entity disclosed by Donald J. Trump on his Office of Government Ethics Form 278e, specifically each corporation and each partnership, within the meaning of subchapter K of chapter 1 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, where he is listed as an officer, director, or equivalent, or exercises working control; and

Two, postpone consideration of tax reform legislation until the elected Representatives of the American people in this House have obtained President Trump's tax returns and return information to ascertain how any changes to the Tax Code might financially benefit the President.

Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall No. 384.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to express my distress over the House's response to President Trump's recent comments on cybersecurity cooperation with Russia.

The U.S. Intelligence Community has overwhelmingly concluded that Russia actively sought to influence the 2016 election through an active disinformation campaign, and covert cyberattacks. Yet this past weekend, in an act that confounded Republicans and Democrats alike, President Trump bragged about discussing with Vladimir Putin the possibility of establishing a joint cybersecurity unit with Russia. The idea that we would cooperate with Russia on cybersecurity, which would necessarily mean sharing some of our strategies, defies logic.

Naturally concerned by this reckless announcement, this week several of my colleagues and I offered amendments to H.R. 2810, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Vear 2018 to prohibit such cooperation. However, House Republicans refused to bring a single one of them to the floor for consideration.

Not only has our President refused to fully accept the overwhelming evidence that Russia actively sought to influence our elections, he now continues to place our national security at risk by floating the absurd idea that we should actually cooperate with Vladimir Putin, who ordered this campaign against our democratic institutions, in order to guard against future cyber threats.

Mr. Speaker, it would be laughable, if it were not so shameful, that House Republicans are refusing to do anything to even consider prohibiting such a dangerous course of action by President Trump. Why not let the full House vote on this proposal? If any of my colleagues do think it's a good idea to work with Russia on cybersecurity, let them come to the floor and explain themselves.

What will it take before House Republicans take a stand against Russia's actions? If we do not do it, then I promise you it will happen again in the next election.

Mr. Chair, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 1215, which should be more accurately called the taking away access to care and justice act. This bill will do nothing to strengthen patient protections and will make careless healthcare providers less accountable.

It will severely limit when an injured person is allowed to bring a healthcare lawsuit by shortening the time that injured people have to seek relief. It will also impose a one-size-fits-all cap on how much compensation victims of medical malpractice can receive for pain and suffering, regardless of the severity of a person's injury--in order to benefit insurance companies and wrongdoers.

This cap even applies to intentional acts of misconduct. This bill would unfairly limit a patient suing a healthcare provider for sexual assault, as well as a veteran who has received substandard medical care. The bill is written so broadly, it shields both negligent doctors and manufacturers of dangerous drugs and medical devices from liability.

H.R. 1215 is before us at a time when Republicans in the Senate are working hard to pass a bill that eliminates health coverage for 22 million people in order to give the wealthiest Americans and insurance companies a huge tax cut. The American people deserve better than this.

Our legal and healthcare system should work for the benefit of hardworking Americans, the people we represent, not for the powerful special interests. Republicans are chomping at the bit for the opportunity to eliminate health coverage for honest, hardworking Americans and are making deep cuts to Medicaid just so they can give the richest people in this country a $600 billion tax cut.

And now, they want to prevent injured people from getting justice when they are hurt. Middle class families need to see that we are on their side. They don't need bills like H.R. 1215, which will rig the healthcare and justice systems against them.

I strongly urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on H.R. 1215.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, Senate Republicans delayed a vote on their bill to repeal the Affordable Care Act. This is a bill that Republicans wrote in secret. They allowed no input from the public or members of the Democratic Caucus, yet they still could not find the votes to pass their bill.

Maybe that is because it eliminates health insurance for 22 million Americans; it imposes an age tax on older Americans; it allows insurance companies to discriminate based on preexisting conditions; it slashes Medicaid and leaves Medicare to wither on the vine. But no matter the reason, the lesson is clear: it is time for Republicans to give up on their effort to repeal the Affordable Care Act.

The American people are benefiting from this law. Seniors like that they are saving money on prescriptions. Parents like that their kids can stay on their plan until they are 26. Workers like that their employers have to offer healthcare coverage.

It is not perfect, but let's work together to approve the Affordable Care Act to make sure it works even better for the American people. Democrats are willing to do that. If Republicans will give up the idea of repeal, we can work together to make the Affordable Care Act even better. Let's get this done for our constituents and the American people.