Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, last night we watched the President and the House Republicans scramble to achieve political points at the expense of the American people, working through the night. Imagine if they worked this hard on a jobs bills or a bill that raised family incomes or a bill to rebuild our infrastructure. But instead they are trying to pass a tax cut for the rich disguised as a healthcare bill, a bill that will require us to provide big, gigantic tax cuts.

To do that, they impose higher costs on families, higher premiums, higher deductibles. They strip 24 million hardworking Americans from health care, including 60,000 Rhode Islanders. They impose a crushing age tax. They steal from Medicare, and they will destroy nearly 2 million jobs, all so they can give the wealthiest Americans and the most powerful special interests a big, huge tax cut.

Shame on President Trump. Shame on the Republicans.

This is wrong for our country. We can do better than this. We need to protect access to health care, not rob millions of Americans from health care.

Mr. Speaker, we have heard this legislation described as a rescue mission and an act of mercy. Don't insult the intelligence of the American people. This bill is the cruelest and most immoral piece of legislation I have seen since I arrived in Congress. It will rip insurance from 24 million hardworking Americans, including 60,000 Rhode Islanders. It will put $600 billion in tax breaks into the hands of the powerful, wealthy special interests.

This is not a healthcare bill. This is a tax-cut bill. Let's call it what it is. It is going to produce higher costs, higher premiums, and more out-of-pocket expenses. It imposes a crushing age tax on older Americans. It ransacks funds that seniors rely on for long-term care, and it will destroy nearly 2 million jobs.

All of this harm to the American people, to settle a political score, and to reward your friends and wealthy special interests. Shame on President Trump and shame on the Republican Party for doing this to the American people.

Mr. Speaker, Republicans are planning to vote tomorrow to pass TrumpCare.

This bill is a great deal for the superrich, it is a great deal for insurance companies, and it is a great deal for drug companies. But it is a bad deal for working men and women across our country.

TrumpCare will raise premiums, increase deductibles and out-of-pocket expenses.

TrumpCare ends coverage for 24 million people.

TrumpCare destroys 2 million jobs.

TrumpCare imposes an age tax on older Americans.

And TrumpCare cuts Medicaid by $880 billion to give corporations and the wealthiest Americans a $600 billion tax cut--the single largest transfer of wealth from working people to the rich in history. This is wrong.

The American people do not want this bill. They don't want to pay more for less.

Donald Trump promised that he would be a great champion for the middle class. It only took him 2 months in office to break that promise and sell out to the wealthy and the special interests. Shame on him and shame on anyone who votes to take away health coverage from working men and women to fund a big tax cut for folks who don't need it. The working people of this country deserve better.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.

In a very short number of weeks here in Congress, she has already made her mark as a passionate advocate not only for her State, but in this important fight to protect access to affordable, quality health care, and she has been an extraordinary member of the Judiciary Committee. It has been an honor to serve with her, and I thank her for yielding and thank her for her great leadership.

Mr. Speaker, we are here to continue our fight to protect access to quality, affordable health care and to defeat TrumpCare.

TrumpCare will produce higher costs for our constituents, forcing families to pay higher premiums, higher deductibles, and higher out-of- pocket expenses.

It also will provide less Americans coverage. According to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, 24 million Americans will lose their health insurance when TrumpCare becomes law.

Thirdly, it imposes a crushing age tax. TrumpCare allows individuals age 50 to 64 to pay premiums five times higher than others pay for health care, no matter how healthy they are.

It is higher premiums, higher deductibles, higher out-of-pocket expenses, 24 million people will lose insurance, older people will pay an age tax. And TrumpCare, in addition to all of those terrible things, shortens the life of the Medicare trust fund by 3 years and ransacks the funds that seniors depend on, particularly, to get their long-term care. And finally, the best estimates are that it will destroy nearly 2 million jobs in this country if passed.

So why is this happening? Why would someone construct a bill that does this?

Well, in large part, it is to finance an extraordinarily big tax cut, a tax cut for the wealthiest people in this country. The richest 400 families will receive a tax cut, each, of about $7 million. Then there are tax cuts for drug companies, insurance company CEOs.

And to finance this tax cut, which totals $600 billion over the decade, in order to finance that, this bill robs 24 million Americans of health insurance, cheats seniors out of the care that they deserve in nursing homes, imposes higher premiums and higher deductibles on working families, and imposes a crushing age tax on older Americans. This is wrong.

And, you know, the President ran on a campaign of helping working people and being for the middle class. This piece of legislation is a gift to the richest people in this country and the most powerful special interests and a betrayal of the promise to work for middle class and working families.

I want to end, with the indulgence of the gentlewoman from Washington, you know, we talk about these numbers, and they are staggering: 24 million, $600 billion. Behind each of those numbers are real people whose lives will be affected by TrumpCare and by the repeal of the Affordable Care Act, individuals whose lives will be devastated, families who will be ruined because they no longer have access to the care that they need. In the richest, most powerful country in the world, this does not have to be the case, and I want to give you two examples.

Just this week I heard from Sara from, Woonsocket, Rhode Island. She wrote to me:

I am writing to you to encourage you to vote against the

American Health Care Act proposed by Paul Ryan and the

Republican Party. My brother has developmental disabilities

and relies on Medicaid for insurance.

Experts who have reviewed this bill have determined that it

will ultimately cut funding for people like my brother, but

the working class in this country cannot afford the burden

that this bill would impose. And the wealthiest among us do

not need any more handouts from the Federal Government.

Please vote against this bill.

I had correspondence, again, with another constituent, who talks about the important services that the ACA provided to her family. She was heartbroken at the death of her son Anthony who passed away on August 9 due to an overdose, and she describes Anthony as a compassionate and deep person who, unfortunately, like many Americans, suffered from severe anxiety and depression. To deal with his condition, he started self-medicating with prescription drugs. After returning home from a sober house, he, unfortunately, relapsed and took some designer drugs that he had ordered online, causing him to overdoes.

She called me just this week. Anthony's sister Cara also suffers from anxiety and depression, in part because of the post-traumatic stress disorder that she suffered after discovering her brother who had died. Thanks to the ACA, she is able to receive coverage for critical mental health services since her mother doesn't have coverage through her employer.

Like many of my constituents, Cara relies on the coverage she has gained, and she writes:

I am worried for my future without my support system. The

discontinuation of coverage would be detrimental to our

efforts to combat mental health disorders and the opioid

epidemic which continues to plague families and has been such

a support to my family.

These are just two examples. We have millions of examples all across this country of people whose lives have been protected and saved and helped because of access to quality, affordable health care. This will undo all of that progress. We have to do everything we can to stop it.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding and for leading this Special Order hour tonight so we can continue to make sure the voices of the American people are heard and we defeat TrumpCare and protect access to affordable, quality health care in this country.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding and for his extraordinary leadership on this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 372, the Competitive Health Insurance Reform Act of 2017, would partially repeal a longstanding antitrust exemption established by the McCarran-Ferguson Act with respect to the business of health and dental insurance.

To qualify for this limited antitrust exemption, an insurer must be engaged in the business of insurance regulated by a State that is not designed to boycott, coerce, or intimidate.

While these requirements somewhat constrain anticompetitive conduct, it is clear that they do not preclude the most egregious antitrust violations, such as price fixing, bid rigging, and market allocation, by health insurance providers.

Health insurers should not be immune from antitrust scrutiny, particularly when they collude to increase prices, reduce availability, or otherwise engage in anticompetitive behavior.

That is why House Democrats passed a measure that is substantively similar to H.R. 372, in 2010, by a vote of 406-19, and in 2009, as well. In 1988, 1992, and 1994, Judiciary Democrats likewise favorably reported legislation to completely repeal the McCarran-Ferguson Act.

While H.R. 372 is only a partial repeal of this exemption, I encourage my colleagues to support this measure. But let me be perfectly clear about three things:

First, promoting competition in health insurance markets cannot occur at the expense of the strong protections established by the Affordable Care Act to make health markets more efficient and prohibiting discriminatory insurance policies. These protections are ``textbook measures that help promote competition in the insurance marketplace,'' as Professor Tim Greaney, a leading antitrust expert, testified in 2015.

Second, contrary to President Trump's suggestions on Twitter, repealing McCarran-Ferguson's antitrust exemption for health insurance will not remove State barriers or create new pathways for insurance companies to compete and offer products across State lines.

This simplistic approach to healthcare policy overlooks the fact that the Affordable Care Act already allows States to establish healthcare choice compacts to provide for cross-State insurance sales, while five States have already enacted out-of-State purchasing laws. But these laws have done little to encourage cross-State insurance sales because health insurers are simply not interested in selling these products across State lines.

The barriers to entry into health insurance markets ``are not truly regulatory, they are financial and they are network,'' as Professor Sabrina Corlette of Georgetown University's Health Policy Institute has observed.

Notwithstanding President Trump's exaggerated claims to the contrary, it is also clear that enacting this legislation is not a precondition for Congress

authorizing cross-State insurance sales.

My Republican colleagues on the Judiciary Committee agree, noting in their report on the bill that ``the general consensus, including among witnesses at the most recent Judiciary hearing on the Competitive Health Insurance Reform Act, is that if Congress decides to allow insurers to sell across State lines, such action does not necessarily require a repeal of McCarran-Ferguson.''

And third, there is no evidence that enacting this bill alone will improve the affordability or availability of health insurance.

According to the Congressional Budget Office, the effect of H.R. 372 on health insurance premiums ``would probably be quite small,'' and enacting the bill will have ``no significant net effect on the premiums that private insurers would charge for health or dental insurance.''

Additionally, because the McCarran-Ferguson Act does not apply to mergers, H.R. 372 will not prevent further concentration in health insurance markets.

The truth is, Mr. Speaker, if Republicans were serious about actually enforcing the antitrust laws, they would fully fund the antitrust agencies. But as we know from the Trump administration's budget blueprint, Republicans plan to make deep cuts to the funding of enforcement agencies like the Justice Department, likely to the detriment of economic opportunity and fair competition.

In addition, President Trump has not even nominated heads to the antitrust agencies. According to the Partnership for Public Service, even though he has been in office for 60 days, President Trump has not picked a nominee for 497 of the 553 positions requiring Senate confirmation.

Worse still, President Trump is reportedly considering appointing a former lobbyist for a health insurance giant to run the Justice Department's antitrust division, which is tasked by Congress ``to protect economic freedom and opportunity by promoting free and fair competition in the marketplace.''

Citing lobbying reports, the International Business Times notes that this particular lobbyist participated in the ``antitrust issues associated with Anthem's proposed acquisition of Cigna,'' and his firm received $375,000 in lobbying fees.

Just last month, the Justice Department won an important lawsuit initiated under the Obama administration to block this merger, which, according to the Department of Justice, would have harmed consumers through increased health insurance prices, while stifling the exact innovation that is necessary to lower healthcare costs.

It is unsurprising that President Trump's corporate cabinet will probably include yet another lobbyist that will pursue an extreme agenda on behalf of special interests. But the significance of this potential appointment cannot be overstated and absolutely will not result in lower prices or more choices for the American people.

In closing, Mr. Speaker, while I support H.R. 372 as a complement to the Affordable Care Act, I agree with the ranking member that this bill is not a solution to improving the availability or affordability of health insurance.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Garamendi) for leading this Special Order hour where we can really talk about the impact of what is about to happen if the Republicans get their way and pass TrumpCare.

I think it is important to recognize that this proposal that is currently before the House will substantially hurt the American people, beginning with, as your chart demonstrates, the loss of coverage, when fully implemented, for 24 million Americans who will no longer have access to affordable health care and will be uninsured by 2026. Those are our friends, our neighbors, our family members who no longer will have health coverage.

In addition, it provides an enormous tax break for the wealthiest people in this country. In fact, the total value of these tax breaks over the decade is $600 billion to the richest individuals and the biggest corporations. It is the largest transfer of wealth for working families to the very rich in our Nation's history.

To accommodate this tax break, to give this huge tax benefit to the richest Americans and the largest corporations, they achieve this by stealing health care from millions of families all across this country and by cutting billions of dollars from Medicaid and Medicare. As the gentleman from California (Mr. Garamendi) said, the 400 richest families will each enjoy a $7 million tax cut; and the way they paid for that is they take away health care from millions of Americans.

There is also the impact on our economy. There is a new analysis from the Center for American Progress, and they conclude that TrumpCare will destroy 1.8 million jobs.

We are all focused on: How do we get people back to work? How do we create good-paying jobs?

This is a job killer. TrumpCare will cost 1.8 million jobs, a loss of an ability to provide for yourself, for your family, and for your future.

As you said, people will be paying more money for less quality care. Deductibles and out-of-pocket expenses will skyrocket, leaving sick people unable to afford the care they need.

Particularly, as you mentioned, there will be an age tax because older Americans will pay more. Their premiums will go up at an even faster pace because they are allowed to charge even more based on their age.

Young people are also hurt. Young people are hit with a millennial tax. They put a 30 percent premium surcharge on those reenrolling after a lapse in coverage, which is often the case, particularly with young people where people may have lost a job and be out of work. So they are going to be penalized with a 30 percent premium.

The impact of the Republican proposal, this TrumpCare proposal, on women is devastating. In addition to new restrictions on comprehensive health care for women, this Republican bill, TrumpCare, defunds Planned Parenthood and will make it much more difficult for women to access essential preventative care and affordable contraception.

As I mentioned, the middle-aged American--the age tax--will pay more. For example, a 64-year-old individual with an income of $26,000 in the individual market will pay $12,900 more in their premiums each year. That is almost half their income under the Republican plan. So it is going to really get those who are above 55 but haven't yet hit the age to receive Medicare especially hard.

Also, TrumpCare hurts our seniors by weakening Medicaid and Medicare. It shortens the life of the Medicare trust fund by 3 years. It steals $880 billion from Medicaid, which, as you mentioned, is the principal source of long-term care for seniors.

Also, it does damage to the protection for people who have preexisting conditions, because someone who has a lapse in coverage will be subjected to a 30 percent premium on top of their base premium. So there is another penalty for people who have preexisting conditions.

If you take all of this together, it is worse coverage, worse care, higher costs, huge tax cut for the richest people in this country--for drug companies, for insurance companies, CEOs. To pay for their tax cut, we take away insurance from the most vulnerable and working people in this country.

We have all received both emails and phone calls and had conversations with those whom we have the privilege of representing, and they have shared with us these heart-wrenching stories of what it would mean to lose their health care.

In my State, I am proud to say that, with the implementation of the Affordable Care Act, ObamaCare, we have the highest rate of coverage that we have ever had in our State's history. Ninety-seven percent of Rhode Islanders have access to quality, affordable health care. It is great. It makes a difference in the lives and quality of the lives of everyone.

I want to share with the gentleman from California (Mr. Garamendi) an email that I got from a constituent, just recently, from Lincoln, Rhode Island. Brenda said:

If all goes well, I am literally going into surgery for hip

replacement on March 16 of this year. Though hip replacement

is seen as elective, the pain I deal with now interferes with

my quality of life. Without it, I will end up in a wheelchair

in a few years once I can't handle the persistent pain.

Without the ACA, I would not be able to have this

operation. I do not own a home for collateral and have a 19-

year-old car. I work full-time in a hotel for $12 an hour. I

have not had a raise in 4 years. We have no benefits at all,

including health care. We have no paid time off at all for

sick days, personal days, or vacation.

I am not confident enough to move to another job with my

current physical limitations, which have reached a point

where it interferes with every activity, including sleeping.

My doctors, who are aware that I get my medical through the

ACA, have been helpful and diligent about getting me in soon,

knowing there is a major threat for those whose only way for

medical coverage is through the ACA. My condition may not be

life-threatening, but left untreated, it would limit where I

can live, if and where I can work, and, most likely, leave me

on permanent disability or Social Security, which most people

can't live on.

I am only 52. I still have several functional, productive

years ahead of me, and I receive a subsidy to help make my

coverage affordable.

Brenda is just one example of someone whose life is literally being preserved. Her quality of life is being protected because she has access to health care. She can have the surgery she needs. She can eliminate the pain she is suffering and lead a productive life.

There are millions and millions of Americans who have the same kinds of stories, who have benefited from the Affordable Care Act, who will be deeply harmed when that insurance is ripped away if Republicans get their way and pass TrumpCare.

I want to end by just saying thank you again to the gentleman from California (Mr. Garamendi) and to also mention that he referenced, in his remarks, the process that has produced this very, very troubling piece of legislation, unlike the process that produced the Affordable Care Act that occurred over many, many months and many hearings, where 121 Republican amendments were accepted into the bill and it still didn't earn a single Republican vote. Yet, through TrumpCare, over 100 Democratic amendments were offered in three committees of jurisdiction and not a single Democratic amendment was accepted.

So even efforts to try to improve a terrible bill were rejected in the committee process, and that is because they are intent on making sure they deliver this big tax cut to the special interests who sent them here to Washington, and they are going to try to do it on the backs of the hardworking people of this country. We have to continue to stand up and fight and do everything we can to prevent it from happening.

Mr. Speaker, there are so many people that I have heard from in my own district, and I know colleagues have heard the same thing when we talk about these numbers: 24 million people will lose their insurance and billions of dollars in tax breaks for the richest people in this country. Behind every one of these numbers is a real person whose life will be destroyed or devastated because they don't have access to quality, affordable health care.

This is the richest, most powerful country in the world. We are well on the way to having a system in which everyone can afford and have access to quality, affordable health care. We made huge progress in the Affordable Care Act. It is not perfect. We have always been willing to say: How do we make it better? How do we build on the success of it?

The notion, in the midst of this progress, that we would deprive or pass a piece of legislation, this TrumpCare, that will take away insurance from 24 million people, that will raise premiums, raise out- of-pocket costs, undermine Medicaid and Medicare, and also give a big tax cut to the richest people in this country is just so wrong.

I just think it is very important, as we speak about this, to remember, behind every one of these numbers is a story of a real person, a real family, just like the woman you described, just like Brenda in Lincoln, Rhode Island, whose lives are going to be really hurt and who are going to face devastating consequences because they don't have access to basic quality health care, which is a right in this country every American should have access to.

This sets us back so far it is difficult to imagine what our colleagues on the other side of the aisle are thinking.

Mr. Speaker, right now Republicans are racing to pass TrumpCare, legislation that repeals and replaces the Affordable Care Act.

They are racing to pass it to because they know when the American people find out what is in this bill, they won't support it.

But let me tell you what TrumpCare does, Mr. Speaker.

It gives huge tax cuts to insurance companies and the top 1 percent.

It allows insurance companies to raise premiums by 25 percent for older Americans.

It eliminates funding for Planned Parenthood, denying millions of women critical care.

It cuts lifesaving support for the most vulnerable: children, Americans with disabilities, the frail elderly, and nursing home residents.

And it slashes funding for Medicaid.

TrumpCare is a great deal for the wealthy. TrumpCare is a great deal for insurance companies and drug companies. It is a raw deal for everyone else.

Millions will lose healthcare coverage. And let's be clear, people are going to die when this happens. Millions more will end up paying for more lower quality care, and Republicans don't even have a plan to pay for their proposal.

After 7 years, this is it. This is the best they have got: tax cuts for the rich and bad health care for everyone else.

Working families deserve better.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to H.R. 985, the Fairness in Class Action Litigation and Furthering Asbestos Claim Transparency Act of 2017.

Mr. Chairman, there can be no doubt that this legislation is an assault on the civil justice system. By effectively banning class actions, H.R. 985 would give wrongdoers a permission slip to avoid public scrutiny or liability for their unlawful conduct. Worse still, this legislation also contains the text of the so-called FACT Act, which is designed to delay justice for asbestos victims and deny accountability for corporate defendants.

As the ranking member of the House Judiciary Subcommittee that exercises jurisdiction over this bill, I am strongly opposed to this dangerous and offensive measure.

For decades, medical experts have closely linked asbestos exposure with mesothelioma, a form of lung cancer, and other forms of lung disease. Asbestos manufacturers have also known about the deadly effects of asbestos exposure; but, as a Federal judge noted in 1991, there is compelling evidence that these companies sought to conceal this information from workers and the general public. Instead of sharing this critical information, which could have saved countless lives through exposure prevention, asbestos companies ``continued to manufacture one of the most widely used asbestos products without informing workers or the public,'' as the nonprofit Environmental Working Group has reported.

Real examples of this widespread corporate deception are legion, but one in particular stands out. In 1966, the senior executive of a corporation that currently operates as a subsidiary of Honeywell wrote that, if asbestos victims ``enjoyed a good life while working with asbestos products, why not die from it.''

In the wake of numerous lawsuits related to asbestos-related deaths, Congress amended the bankruptcy code in 1994 to authorize the use of trusts for the settlement of asbestos liability.

In 2001, the nonpartisan Government Accountability Office conducted an exhaustive study of these trusts but did not find a single example of fraudulent conduct. Despite this finding, proponents of H.R. 985 now make the outrageous and totally unsupported claim that victims of asbestos exposure have committed fraud--more alternative facts.

In the name of what they describe as transparency, the bill would force trusts to publicly disclose asbestos victims' sensitive personal information, including their names, partial Social Security numbers, and the like. Beyond the obvious consequences these requirements would have in the form of hacking and identity theft, this information is already available to relevant parties on a confidential basis through the discovery process, as both the GAO and the RAND Corporation have reported.

I agree with the majority that asbestos trusts must be accountable and transparent to both present and future claimants, but there is no evidence to suggest any wrongdoing or any fraud. This legislation would only make it easier for wrongdoers to get away with harming others and to make it harder for Americans to be compensated for these injuries.

Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to oppose H.R. 985.

I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.

Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to H.R. 1009, the OIRA Insight, Reform, and Accountability Act, yet another radical bill, part of a corporate agenda designed to eviscerate public protections under the Clean Water Act and other laws designed to ensure the safety of American families.

As the ranking member of the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Regulatory Reform, I have several serious concerns with this measure.

First, H.R. 1009 would eviscerate the independence of agencies that are critical to holding corporations accountable and protecting consumers, such as the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, the Federal Trade Commission, and the Securities and Exchange Commission. Congress established these expert agencies with the express purpose of exercising independence from the policy whims of the White House.

Section 3423 of H.R. 1009, however, would task the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, OIRA, with a governmentwide review of significant regulatory actions, effectively placing this obscure entity as the gatekeeper of the rulemaking system.

Currently, OIRA only reviews a small portion of significant regulatory actions, allowing it to effectively allocate its finite resources to review the most pressing rules. But by substantially expanding OIRA's mandate to include every significant regulatory action, this legislation would simultaneously water down agency oversight while also subjecting independent agencies to the influence of the Trump administration, facilitating political interference in the rulemaking process.

One of the overriding goals of OIRA review is to ensure that the President's policies are reflected in agency rules. Greater Presidential control over rulemaking, particularly in this administration's hands, could have devastating consequences in terms of public health and safety. It would not only provide special interests with an additional tool for regulatory capture, but it would also allow the White House to substitute its own policy preferences for those of Congress.

As Senator Ron Johnson, the Republican chair of the Senate committee with jurisdiction over administrative law, observed in a report last year: ``Limits on the President's power over independent agencies--like the Federal Communications Commission--demonstrate the importance of maintaining the agency's independence.''

Furthermore, because President Trump has made the outrageous and unprecedented choice not to divest his business holdings, I am also very concerned that H.R. 1009 would only serve to convert the regulatory system into his own personal investment account.

Robert Weissman, the president of Public Citizen, recently noted: ``The Nation's golfer-in-chief'' owns or brands businesses across the country that would be affected by protections promulgated under the Clean Water Act. Increasing the White House's role in the rulemaking system will only serve to undermine what little transparency exists into the President's regulatory conflicts of interest.

The Government Accountability Office has reported in multiple studies that OIRA has not addressed transparency concerns that GAO has raised, and for this reason I offered an amendment.

I was pleased to hear my friend from Utah talk about the transparency benefits, but I offered an amendment to H.R. 1009 that was designed to ferret out crony capitalism by requiring that OIRA reports whether a significant regulatory action would financially benefit the President or his senior advisers. That seems like a really sensible idea if you really want to get at the issue of transparency.

Very disappointingly, my Republican colleagues refused to make my amendment in order, really tacitly acknowledging their concerns with what this type of transparency might mean for the Trump administration.

Finally, while supporters of this proposal argue that it merely codifies executive orders that were issued under Democratic administrations, the reality is that H.R. 1009 was drafted without Democratic input, contains several poison pill provisions designed to ensure its partisan and unworkable nature, and would only have been vetoed by the Obama administration.

As the Obama administration noted in the context of a veto threat of another antiregulatory bill, agencies already adhere to the robust and well-understood procedural and analytical requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act, the Regulatory Flexibility Act, the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act, the Paperwork Reduction Act, and the Congressional Review Act.

Passage of antiregulatory legislation to ``replace this established framework with layers of additional procedural requirements,'' the Obama administration cautioned, ``would undermine the ability of agencies to execute their statutory mandates.'' Because H.R. 1009 does this very thing, I urge my colleagues to oppose this legislation.

I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, like the main characters in ``Stranger Things,'' we are now stuck in the ``Upside Down.'' Right is wrong. Up is down. Black is white.

The White House deceives the American public for weeks about their contacts with Russia, but an Attorney General who followed her conscience is fired.

Executive orders are signed to ban Muslims in order to keep us safe, while top secret national security conversations are held out in the open.

President Trump showers praise on a thug like Vladimir Putin, while threatening and bullying our longstanding allies.

President Trump signs an executive order to spend $20 billion on a border wall, while Flint, Michigan, still goes without clean drinking water.

Mr. Speaker, mornings might be for coffee and contemplation, but Chief Jim Hopper is not coming to rescue us. This is not a TV show. This is real life. We have a President unlike any we have ever known. And like Mike, Dustin, Lucas, and Eleven, we must remain focused on the task at hand and hold this administration accountable so we can escape from our own version of the ``Upside Down.''

Mr. Speaker, a lot of history was made last night. I, too, want to join my New England colleagues to say congratulations to the New England Patriots on an extraordinary victory at Super Bowl LI.

A lot of history was made. This was the greatest comeback in Super Bowl history where our team was down by 25 points in the third quarter to come on to victory. It is the only team to win in Super Bowl history in overtime; and it is an incredible display of the extraordinary talent of Tom Brady, the only quarterback in history to win five Super Bowls. This establishes Tom Brady unequivocally as the greatest quarterback ever.

Also, congratulations to Bill Belichick for his extraordinary coaching, to Jonathan and Robert Kraft, and the whole Patriots organization for all that they have done.

This was a great and wonderful night and an important example and display of determination and persistence. It is really a lesson for all of us to never stop fighting and, for young people, the importance in believing in yourself.

Mr. Speaker, the victory last night by our great team, the New England Patriots, raised the spirits of our entire Nation.

Congratulations to the Pats. Thank you for a great season and thank you for a great victory last night.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Raskin) and the gentlewoman from Washington State (Ms. Jayapal) for organizing tonight's Special Order hour on this very important topic.

I join my colleagues in expressing my strong opposition to the President's Muslim ban, a religious test. It is the first time we have seen this in modern times.

We have been at war since 9/11 against terrorism, and our most urgent responsibility is to keep America safe, but President Trump's Muslim ban makes it harder to do this. The Muslim ban makes it harder to work with our allies. The Muslim ban makes it harder to recruit intelligence assets. The Muslim ban makes it harder to enlist allies in our fight against ISIS.

We should help people who are fleeing ISIS rather than slam the door in their faces. Instead, President Trump's Muslim ban likens these individuals to terrorists. This isn't a plan, and it won't keep America safe.

We need a real plan, a plan that honors our values and a plan that does not discriminate based upon a person's religion. We need a plan that keeps our country safe and respects freedom of religion, whether people are White, Black, Brown, Christian, Muslim, Jewish, young, or old. Immigrants and refugees have made incredible contributions to our great country, and it is time for our President to say this.

In my home State of Rhode Island, like so many places around the country, when we watched on television news reports of an executive order being issued and people who are lawfully authorized to return home to the United States being held in detention and being prevented from coming back into America, we were sick to our stomach.

People in Rhode Island rallied, like people did all across this country, to express their outrage, to say this is not America and these are not our values. This is inconsistent with our Constitution. While we saw this administration working to undo basic constitutional rights and civil liberties--including, most importantly, freedom of religion-- people all across America spoke out.

In addition to recognizing that this didn't comport with our deeply held beliefs and faith and confidence in our Constitution, we also knew that these were families fleeing unspeakable violence as part of the refugee program who are also being denied access into the United States. People were fleeing ISIS and then coming to America only to have the door slammed in their faces.

As has been said, the refugee program that we have in place is the single most difficult way for someone to be allowed to enter the United States. It is a 10- or 12-step process.

If you go to the website, you can see what you have to go through to be authorized to come into the United States as a refugee, and included in that is a determination that you do not pose a danger to the national security or to the American people. So it is embedded in the process already. It is a process that takes anywhere from 18 to 24 months. It is a process which has been in place and has worked successfully. There hasn't been a single Syrian refugee who has been charged with having been engaged in any terrorist activity.

By the way, the world is facing the largest refugee crisis since World War II. The U.N. estimates that 4.9 million refugees have registered, and there are about 6 million total if you include those that aren't registered. Turkey has taken 2.7 million refugees. Lebanon has taken 1 million refugees. Jordan has taken 655,000 refugees. Iraq has taken 228,000 refugees.

Do you know how many the United States accepted last year? About 16,000. So, Mr. Speaker, we have a lot more to do to meet our responsibilities with respect to accepting refugees who go through this very rigorous process.

I am here tonight to speak out as loudly as I can against the executive order that ends the Syrian refugee program that has worked so successfully and that puts in place a Muslim ban that is making us less safe.

This isn't a Democratic or a Republican issue. There have been a number of Republicans who have knowledge that this is making us less safe. Senator Lindsey Graham and Senator John McCain said this may well do more to help terrorist recruitment than improve our security.

There are a number of other national security experts who have said this will not make us safer. There are a number of veterans organizations that have said the same. Business leaders have said the same.

This will not make us safer, and it has really brought the scorn of the world, as people have seen an America that has always stood for values of welcoming people and of diversity and being a place that people come to--like my great-grandfather did--to build a better life to suddenly be slamming its doors and instituting a test based on religion. It does violence to our history and to our Constitution.

I want to just ask the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Raskin), who is not just an ordinary lawyer, but a scholar, a professor of law, whether or not he has done an analysis as to the constitutionality of the President's Muslim ban.

There have been, I think, four courts now who have, in fact, entered orders invalidating key parts of these orders based on their assessment that they don't comport with our Constitution.

I ask the gentleman to share his assessment as to whether or not my view of this--and, I think, the view of these courts--is the correct one.

Mr. Speaker, I join my colleagues in urging President Trump to rescind both of these unconstitutional executive orders.

Madam Speaker, I was proud to join thousands of women in the Women's March, both here in DC and in my home state of Rhode Island.

We marched to demand that women's rights be respected and that women should be trusted to make their own decisions.

However, a mere three days later, the GOP seeks to trample on women's rights by considering H.R. 7, a bill that will deny access to basic healthcare to millions of women.

This bill is also just another pathetic attempt by some politicians in this town to get between a woman and her doctor.

Under current law, no federal money can be used to fund abortion. And it's been that way since 1976.

This bill is a Trojan horse that effectively bans abortion coverage even for women who use their own money to pay for health insurance.

It penalizes small business owners who offer their employees health care coverage for abortion.

And it tells doctors who are employed by the federal government that they can't provide the care that is in the best interests of their patients.

Madam Speaker, the women of this country do not need Congress telling them how to make their health care decisions.

Having an abortion is a decision that should be left between a woman and her doctor.

None of us has a license to legislate our own personal morality in this chamber.

I urge my colleagues to vote no on H.R. 7.

Mr. Chairman, for 8 years, House Republicans have wrongly claimed that the Affordable Care Act will be catastrophic for hardworking Americans.

Here are the facts: since its passage, the ACA has helped cover 20 million previously uninsured Americans; 95 percent of America's children are now covered; almost 130 million Americans with preexisting conditions now have the peace of mind to know that they will not be denied health services; and healthcare costs have been growing at the slowest rate in 50 years.

But as Republicans prepare to take control of the White House, it is clear they don't have an actual plan to replace ObamaCare. Not only will their repeal and displace plan cut off millions of Americans--men, women, and children--from quality, affordable health care, but it will also have devastating impacts on our economy.

Repealing the Affordable Care Act will cause the loss of 2.6 million jobs, a majority of which will be non-health industry jobs. It is projected that my home State of Rhode Island will lose more than 12,000 jobs.

This budget resolution will not only increase prescription drug prices for our seniors, raise premiums and out-of-pocket expenses for Americans who buy insurance, but will lead to significantly larger yearly deficits and contribute more than $9.5 trillion in debt over the next decade.

I urge my colleagues to oppose this budget resolution, to protect the American people's access to quality, affordable health care, and to vote ``no.''

Mr. Speaker, for almost 8 years, we have heard about Republicans' plans to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act. During that time, the House has voted dozens of times to repeal or defund ObamaCare; but now as Republicans prepare to take control of the White House, it is clear that Republicans don't have a plan to replace ObamaCare. Instead, they will repeal and displace millions of hardworking Americans, cutting them off from quality, affordable health care and making it even harder to get ahead.

The Republican repeal and displace plan will take away health insurance from 30 million Americans and will increase prescription drug costs, premiums, and out-of-pocket expenses for American families; and it will end health coverage for millions of Americans in order to give a huge tax cut to the richest Americans. Repealing ObamaCare will also cause a loss of 2.6 million jobs, including 12,100 jobs in my home State of Rhode Island.

Mr. Speaker, let's be clear: the Republicans' repeal and displace plan is just wrong. It is time for Republicans to end this charade and get back to doing the people's work by partnering with Democrats to strengthen and improve the Affordable Care Act and stop threatening all these harms on the American people.