Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Franklin Thomas Sylvester, Jr., on his recent graduation from the University of Connecticut Medical School, where he excelled in his clinical training. Franklin, at 25 years old, is now preparing to embark on the next phase in his preparation for life as a medical doctor.

I am proud to say that the city of New York will be welcoming Franklin as he heads to Mount Sinai Kravis Children's Hospital, where he will do his residency training in pediatrics.

I commend Franklin and all those who are graduating this spring from medical school. As an African-American male, Franklin's accomplishment has an additional significance. Research shows that diversity in the medical field is critically linked to better outcomes, and we also know that there isn't enough diversity in a profession that so often makes a difference between life and death.

Franklin recently said: ``Pediatrics is where I can make the most difference. From children's health to their social issues, that is where I want to make an impact where I can.''

With that kind of compassion and commitment to his profession, Franklin will serve the children of New York and this Nation in ways that make us all proud. I hope that today some young person listening to my remarks will look to Franklin as an inspiration and strive to similar accomplishments.

Mr. Speaker, I rise this morning because the camera of history is rolling. It is rolling and it is recording. It is recording the fact that the NRA continues to distort the meaning of the Second Amendment, that the NRA continues to incite its members with propaganda and then threatens my Republican colleagues, and that my Republican colleagues, in fear, hover down to their wishes and do nothing to prevent mass shootings in the United States of America.

The camera of history is rolling, Mr. Speaker, and the camera will record the fact that we have a President of the United States who believes in reality TV shows. In fact, he had an open

press reality show-type meeting where he made big promises of improving gun safety. The President declared, in that meeting, that Republican lawmakers are so scared of the NRA. He said that and admitted that the Republican lawmakers are scared of the NRA, but he said that he was not.

Then, just a short time thereafter, what did he do? He didn't have an open show meeting with the NRA. He didn't want the American public to see how he hovered down and gave in to the wishes of the NRA. It wasn't an open press meeting.

If he was so strongly against the NRA or could stand up to them, he should have had a meeting in the Oval Office and had the same press coverage so that we could hear what he was saying to them and they were saying to him. But all we know is what the results were.

The results were that, after he had this behind closed doors meeting with NRA, he didn't come out so strong anymore. He started to back down. He started to say--well, he was so strong about, hey, it didn't make sense about 18 to buy a gun, 18 to 21. That was not in his plans anymore. We saw that he had changed his whole demeanor. Something took place.

We say, Mr. President, if you are not afraid of the NRA, then you do an open meeting with the NRA with the same press as you have done with Members of Congress.

This is the 30th day since we have had that terrible shooting in Florida, and we have got young people now outside who are saying enough is enough. Some think young people don't have an effect on American history and the camera. Well, I dare say to you, I can recall a young person who was only about 17 years old who stood bravely and took beatings to say he wanted America to go in a different direction. That young man is now a Member of Congress and someone whom we admire. He goes by the name of John Lewis. He was only 16, 17 years old, and it changed America.

And I dare say, there are some 16- and 17-year-olds who are outside today who will change America and make it a better place, and we need to join them. We have got to stop the kinds of letters that I have been receiving in my office.

I have been receiving letters from individuals from the Jack and Jill Association, a large association of young people who want a better America, one named Jeremy Chavez, who said: ``My mother has been forced to discuss with me my fear of safety while at school in light of the mass murder of children our age in a place that should be a safe haven for our education.''

This is a conversation that neither Jeremy's mother nor any mother should need to have. Yet, with 7,000 innocent children killed since Sandy Hook in 2012, it is one that parents across America are forced to have with their children.

Parents have to instruct their kids to hide under the desk as I did as a child when I was afraid or we were afraid of a nuclear weapon when we were in the arms war. We used to have to have shelter drills. Here we are, in 2018, and our children have to have shelter drills because of Americans and others who can come in with an assault rifle and take lives in a matter of seconds.

No, that is not the United States we want. That is not the United States that these young people want to live in, and they will stand and fight and change the course of America.

Mr. Chair, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding time.

Today, I rise in opposition to H.R. 3326, the World Bank Accountability Act of 2017.

Let me start by stating how important our Nation's contributions are to the World Bank's International Development Association, IDA. Those funds support the largest source of development finance for the world's poorest nations, including those in Africa, Latin America, and Asia. That is why, at the committee level, I voted in favor.

Both Democrats and Republicans agreed that funding the World Bank's development finance for poor nations represented America's highest ideals and interests. And, naturally, I would support a bill like this, but we had agreed that it wasn't the last word, that we would work and there would be additions thereto and/or subtractions in reviewing the bill.

In my estimation, looking at the bill, it also cedes too much authority to the executive, and those concerns have not been addressed in the final bill. For me, particularly in light of this administration's statements just a few days ago, it is troubling that it could be misused by this administration.

As written, the President, who has indicated a complete disdain for poor nations and people of color, could withhold foreign assistance if the World Bank does not conform to his administration's policies. It would be a mistake to allow the President to coerce the World Bank to fit his flawed world view, especially this President whose world view is inconsistent with America's past leadership around the globe, and that is whether it was a Democrat or Republican President.

Furthermore, the procedures in this bill do little to rebuild the world's faith in our Nation because we are having a problem with all of our allies, particularly the poor nations of the world, as to where we stand.

So, clearly, our vision, this Nation, has deteriorated under the current administration. Under this bill, our Nation could lose further credibility around the world during a time when countries, especially our allies, are uncertain about where our country stands on fundamental democratic values.

Ultimately, the procedures in this bill could punish millions of children and the vulnerable families in Africa, Latin America, and Asia who could go without food and basic resources.

Mr. Chair, since we know of the President and his will to withdraw from multilateral organizations and not work with others and just work by himself, we know what his position is. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on H.R. 3326.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I wish what the gentleman from California was saying was right, but as I listen to these tax cuts that are being talked about, many of these fine programs that help individuals from being thrown out of their house or in need of illegal aid are being cut back.

Each time I have seen on the floor the priorities of the party of the gentleman from California, I see that these essential, consumer- oriented not-for-profits are losing their funding.

So I rise today to urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on H.R. 732. This bill would tie the hands of prosecutors that go after financial fraud, including the mortgage schemes that led to the 2008 crisis.

Apparently, my Republican colleagues have forgotten that not just Democrats, but all Americans, faced the negative effects of the mortgage fraud that led to the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression.

Americans lost nearly $13 trillion in wealth, the unemployment rate reached a high of 10 percent, and 11 million Americans lost their homes. We all saw business opportunities evaporate in our communities and good-paying jobs wither away.

To reverse these wrongs, the Obama administration reached record settlements with firms that engaged in fraud. Through these settlement agreements, the Department of Justice directed billions of dollars toward: number one, affordable housing initiatives, including downpayment programs that would help young people enter the housing market; number two, financial counseling programs that would help consumers avoid unsafe financial products; and number three, community development initiatives that would spur economic growth in rural and urban communities alike.

So I am baffled that my colleagues would want to prevent our prosecutors from ensuring fraudulent firms to right their wrongs.

This should not be a partisan issue, Mr. Chairman; not at all. Americans from the East, from the West, from the North, from the South, from middle America; Americans who are Democrats, Republicans, and Independents have all suffered as a result of what the Justice Department has done by fighting to make sure that we correct this wrong by fighting and winning decisions on making sure that those who have no voice, have a voice.

Many of the individuals who were funded here were giving a voice to the voiceless. Without that voice, those who have will continue to do and perpetuate the fraud that is committed upon many.

So this should not be a red issue; this should not be a blue issue. Just as former President Barack Obama said, this should be a red, white, and blue issue. It is a red, white, and blue issue where justice should be given a fair chance to prevail for all of America's people.

Mr. Chair, I claim time in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chair, the agencies listed in this amendment are by no means perfect, and on multiple occasions I have condemned some of their actions, both publicly and behind closed doors. But I do believe we lose the ability to influence both agencies' agendas towards the United States' priorities if we cut off all U.S. funding.

Despite my past criticisms of their significant shortcomings, I continue to believe that each of these agencies plays a pivotal role in providing critical services for the Palestinian people. We should never lose focus on helping the people who need aid the most.

We should also think strategically about U.S. interests. The United Nations Relief and Works Agency is an effective alternative to Hamas. Each year, the agency provides health services to more than 3 million individuals, and education to half a million students in the West Bank and Gaza. Cutting off funding will simply strengthen Hamas by driving countless individuals into Hamas-controlled schools and services.

Additionally, the Human Rights Council and the High Commissioner for Human Rights highlight the voices of the oppressed and underserved globally and have elevated the rights of women and sexual assault victims.

As human rights are increasingly threatened around the globe, now is not the time to walk away from these agencies. I oppose the amendment because I strongly believe that here in Congress we must do all we can to preserve and advance U.S. interests and influence. This amendment would diminish U.S. influence at a time when our Nation's global standing is already slipping.

Mr. Chair, how many minutes do I have remaining?

Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers).

Mr. Chair, I yield 50 seconds to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Ellison).

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

As stated, now is not the time to walk away from the U.N. Human Rights Council. This amendment would do nothing to change the agencies for the better. It would only weaken our ability to influence the advancements we want to see. We can't be leaders if we are not at the table.

Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to vote against this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I thank Representative Plaskett for leading this Special Order on behalf of the Congressional Black Caucus.

It is extremely important that we first thank our Caribbean brothers and sisters, as my sister Yvette Clarke so eloquently stated, the history of so many individuals that have made substantial contributions to make this a more perfect union, who, but for their labor and hard work, we would not be the country that we are.

But also as Representative Plaskett has indicated, when I think about the average, everyday person who came across to America from the Caribbean Islands--the schoolteachers, the plumbers, the lawyers, the doctors, the sanitation workers, and the individuals that come even just to cut grass--when you think about the contributions, what they have committed is those individuals have raised children who become Members of Congress, like Stacey Plaskett and Yvette Clarke, who continued that tradition of making this a much better place to live for all Americans, a shining example of what this great Nation is when it is so inclusive.

Yvette Clarke talked about Alexander Hamilton and the contributions that were made from the very beginning. But when you look at that and when you think of who we are and the hemisphere that we share--you see, the Caribbean Islands are the same hemisphere, and we have to make sure that we are together in lockstep. We can never forget that, when America catches a cold, many individuals in the Caribbean now get pneumonia.

So as a result of understanding the contributions that they have made in this country, and continue to make, we are really one on the same continent and we are only as strong as we are together.

And so we would have to stop and think of our brothers and sisters from the Caribbean and those who are still living there as just places that we go visit for tourism and vacation. Yes, we want to make sure that we do visit there to strengthen those economies, but we want to also make sure that, as a government, as a people, we are also doing the appropriate investments there in their infrastructure, because it only helps us here in the United States of America.

We are only as strong as we can be together. E pluribus unum, from many one, that is what this Nation is supposed to be, and I think that we have come a long way to accomplish it, which brings me to the second phase of what I want to talk about this evening, because this is not supposed to be a system of the haves versus the have-nots. It should not be where we have a reverse Robin Hood syndrome where you are taking from the poor to give to the rich. No, that is not the Nation that we want this country to be. In fact, people fled from a king who was wealthy and didn't care about the poor.

So here we are now as a nation, when the most important thing to anybody is health, because if you don't have health, you don't have anything. I don't care whether you are Black or White, whether you come from the East or the West or the North or the South--health. The one thing that we have in common, everyone, is that we are human beings. And one thing that we know for sure, humans' bodies, at times, break down.

So, yes, if you are young and healthy, and, yes, if you are wealthy, then maybe this bill that they are looking at on the Senate side is for you. But if you are young and healthy today, believe me, tomorrow you won't be young if you are lucky.

And believe me, the human body gets sick. And when that happens, the question is: Will you have the ability to access the healthcare that you need to keep you healthy?

Well, under this bill, based upon the American Medical Association, hospitals, AARP, you can go to almost any health provider, they will tell you that, no. 22 million Americans, as the CBO score showed, would lose their access to healthcare, and many of those are in the middle, the middle class. They talk about healthcare. We are not just talking about healthcare; we are talking about adequate health coverage so that when you are sick, you can go to a doctor and receive the care that you need and know that you are covered, because my Republican colleagues have forgotten where we were before the Affordable Care Act.

You see, before the Affordable Care Act, more Americans were going bankrupt in trying to stay alive, for healthcare. These are middle class, hardworking, everyday individuals who thought they had coverage. But when they were sick, they went to the doctor, then they found out that what they thought they were covered for, they were not, and so they had to take out loans and re-mortgage and refinance their homes, give up everything that they had to try to stay healthy and alive. We don't want to go back there.

Before the Affordable Care Act, we were not talking about making sure that those individuals with preexisting diseases were covered.

If you listen to my Republican colleagues, they will tell you that the Affordable Care Act is the worst thing in the world. But before the Affordable Care Act, we weren't talking about children being able to stay on their parents' health insurance until they were 27 years old.

Yes, indeed, before the Affordable Care Act, many seniors saw their coverage capped, and, after a certain amount of payout, they had to come out of their pockets, which were not deep, and just hang in there with their families and suffer and go bankrupt.

So what we are talking about now is saving the lives of individuals.

I want to thank my friend and sister from the Virgin Islands for leading this for the Congressional Black Caucus, because the camera of history is rolling and it is recording, and it will record her and the members of the Congressional Black Caucus standing on the right side of history.

Mr. Chair, how soon do we forget?

The bill before us today is an affront to the American people. This bill is fatally flawed. It would set America up for more severe financial crises in the future. It is plain and simply the wrong choice.

Let me give you one example. Under the ``Wrong'' CHOICE Act, many banks would be free from regulatory oversight if they merely maintain a 10 percent leverage ratio.

Let's break that down for the American people. If this bill was law in 2008, one-third of the banks that eventually failed would be free from regulatory oversight altogether. To be clear, 125 banks that failed during the crisis would meet the bill's low requirement for regulatory relief, not according to me, but to an independent clearinghouse analysis.

You don't have to be a financier to realize that this proposal is dangerous and an insult to American families who lost nearly everything. I am talking about those families in rural and urban America who saw their household net worth drop $10 million, the largest loss of wealth in the history of the United States of America.

Mr. Speaker, the camera of history is rolling, and here on the House floor it is recorded. So I want to make sure that we are clear.

When I think about going back into the nineties, it was Bill and Hillary Clinton that put forward a healthcare plan. My colleagues on the other side had the goal of stopping it. And they did. We had nothing.

For 6 of the 8 years that I was here--from 2000 until 2006--they controlled both the House, the Senate and the Presidency, and they did nothing in reference to health care. It took 2008 and Barack Obama to come up with the Affordable Care Act, which gave 20 million Americans health care that didn't have it. It made sure that those that had a preexisting condition could continue to make sure that there was no discrimination against women and girls, so as to make sure they had equal health care. It also made sure that you removed the caps so that Americans would not be caught, as they were beforehand, going bankrupt, disturbing families and separating families who did not know how to make it until tomorrow. It was the Affordable Care Act.

Yet, here, history will record that our colleagues are prepared to vote on Thursday to take those 20 million Americans that did not have access to health care away from health care and back to the bad, old days. We can't go there.

Mr. Speaker, on February 2, 2015 I missed recorded votes #51-53 as I was delayed en-route to Washington by inclement weather.

I would like to reflect how I would have voted if I were here:

On Roll Call #51 I would have voted yea.

On Roll Call #52 I would have voted yea.

On Roll Call #53 I would have voted yea.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

When I think of Governor Mario Cuomo, many talk about his great oratory, many talk about some of the fantastic speeches that he made, but when I think about Mario Cuomo, he didn't just talk the talk; he walked the walk.

His speeches were not made just because it was a political gathering or forum. His speeches were made because that is what he truly believed. It came from his heart. It is how he lived his life, and you could see that in how he dealt with his family because that was his foundation.

From that foundation, he was able to build--and starting with that little place in Jamaica, Queens, that I am now proud to represent, he looked at Queens and then, by extension, the city of New York and then, by extension, the State of New York as the foundation of which he could make a difference, learning from his growing up with his parents.

As a result, you found individuals falling in love with Mario Cuomo, and you could see that by the people that were around him who became completely loyal to him because he had a real great leadership.

Once you became infected with the spirit of Mario Cuomo, you continued to stay around him, and you would see in the visuals who were with Mario Cuomo until the day that he died folks loyal to him. In this business in this day and age, sometimes, if you don't have that kind of character, people come, and people go.

Lastly, because I know that we have got so many members of the New York delegation that are here that want to speak, let me just say that he was competitive. I can think about those days when--I thank him first because he talked about getting into politics, he allowed me to cut my teeth by appointing me first to the New York State Workers' Compensation Board as a judge, then later appointed me to become the supervising judge in the State, having me going all over the State, and then encouraging me to run for the State assembly and, once I got elected to the State assembly, working very closely with him.

Once I got into the assembly, I thought he was a nice guy until you got on the basketball court. How competitive was he on that basketball court? Elbows--I look at some of the players now when they are complaining, et cetera, well, you need to go play old school basketball with Governor Mario Cuomo.

I close by saying that I thank God--because he was a very religious man, Mario Cuomo, too, but God could have sent him to California; he didn't. He could have had him in Illinois or in Texas or in Florida; no.

We were fortunate because God had him, through his parents, who emigrated from Italy to come to a place where the Statue of Liberty was, who believed ``Give me your tired, give me your weary,'' who believed in family, and we had him in the great State of New York.

Thank you, Governor Mario Cuomo.

Mr. Speaker, on January 6, 2015, I missed recorded votes #1-7 as I was attending the funeral of Governor Mario Cuomo in New York.

I would like to reflect how I would have voted if I were here and sworn into office:

On Roll Call #1 I would have voted present (Quorum Call).

On Roll Call #2 I would have voted for Nancy Pelosi for Speaker.

On Roll Call #3 I would have voted no (Motion to Table).

On Roll Call #4 I would have voted no (Previous Question).

On Roll Call #5 I would have voted yes (Motion to Commit).

On Roll Call #6 I would have voted no (Passage of House Rules Package).

On Roll Call #7 I would have voted yes (Passage ``Hire More Heroes Act of 2015'' H.R. 22).

I would also like to reflect that I would have voted for the Honorable Nancy Pelosi for Democratic Leader.

Mr. Speaker, I was with Mr. Crowley attending the funeral on Monday of former Governor Mario

Cuomo, and therefore I was not able to be here.

Had I been here, I would have cast my vote for Speaker for the Honorable Nancy Pelosi from California, and I want the Record to reflect the same.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank Barbara Lee for her steadfastness, for her tenacity, for her consistency in trying to bring a change in a policy that has been faulty, for it has been the policy that we have been doing over and over and over again, we have had over and over again and getting the same results: zero.

I want to thank Barbara for her hard work on this. I look forward to continuing to work with her as the President has opened up the opportunity for diplomatic relations with Cuba again, but we know that we still have a lot of work to do, and I look forward to working side by side with her until we have the kind of relationship and we have the kind of movement in this Congress where we really end the embargo, so that we can come together and make sure that change has happened within our relationships.

I want to thank President Obama for his bold move, for indeed the camera of history is rolling and has brought us to this historic point which will take the United States of America and Cuba in a new and more positive direction after over five decades of severed diplomatic relations.

American policy towards Cuba since 1961 has left our Nation out of sync with our neighbors in the Americas--for that matter, out of sync with our friends and allies all over the world.

Our outdated policy, highlighted by our trade embargo, which has lasted for over half a century, has not only been ineffective but has blocked investment and trade opportunities for U.S. businessmen and farmers, it has kept families apart, and has done virtually nothing to change Cuba's policies.

In fact, just 90 miles away, if we had these trade agreements, if we were able to trade and bring markets and food to the shores of Cuba, it would be the humanitarian thing to do because people are starving simply because they don't have that opportunity on the island of Cuba.

Clearly, when you think about the world which is smaller now--and one of the things that we should have learned by now is that unilateral sanctions don't work; if anything, they have further isolated us from the global community. We have got to work collectively with others, not just doing something out on our own. It has not worked. It does not work.

As mentioned, denying American citizens the freedom to travel to Cuba to visit its many historic and cultural attractions, to meet its people, has been a stain on our democracy. I think the gentlelady from Florida talked about where we, as Members of Congress, have opportunities to go when we have travel.

I can recall traveling, for example, not only to Havana, but Santiago de Cuba, and feeling the rich heritage and culture and looking at the people in Santiago who were poor, but I saw something when I looked in their faces: they were poor, but they were not hopeless. They were not destitute.

They welcomed us into their homes to see how they were living. They had music playing, and they had hope for a better tomorrow and a better relationship with the United States of America. In fact, they scratched their heads, did not understand why they didn't have this better relationship with the United States of America, so I say that so that they want us to come. Others are going; we should permit our citizens to do the same.

Now, the question is what is happening here in America. Well, a December 17 through 21 ABC News and Washington Post poll of adults nationwide showed that 64 percent of Americans supported establishing diplomatic relations with Cuba, with 31 percent opposed; 68 percent supported ending the trade embargo, while 74 percent supported ending restrictions on travel to Cuba. Americans support the President's actions to normalize relations with Cuba.

The United States International Trade Commission has concluded that if U.S. restrictions on financing and travel to Cuba were lifted in 2008, U.S. agricultural exports to Cuba would have increased between $216 million and $478 million, and the U.S. share of Cuba's agricultural imports would have increased from 38 percent to 49 and 64 percent, which also would prevent some of the hunger that is taking place in Cuba.

U.S. wheat, rice, soy, and meat producers have said that their industries will benefit from normalized relations with Cuba, now that trade financing restrictions are to be alleviated. President Obama's plan to establish relations and facilitate trade and commerce is a major market opportunity.

It is good for Cubans, but it is also good for Americans because when you do that, you are also creating jobs for Americans right here in the United States, so it is a win-win because we are all about creating jobs in the United States. We are all about that commerce.

We are also all about making sure that trade facilitation helps us in America, but it also can help people who have a great need on that island called Cuba.

President Obama's actions to open the relationship and reestablish diplomatic relations with Cuba will bring us closer, as Barbara Lee indicated, to our allies in the region who have pursued more open relationship with Cuba while we have not.

I serve on the Foreign Affairs Committee; I sit on the Western Hemisphere Subcommittee. I have had the opportunity to have dialogue and conversations with heads of states from throughout the hemisphere.

For example, one of our closest allies, Colombia, one of our strongest partners, they are negotiating with the FARC on the island of Cuba; and when I talk to many of their individuals, they said the one thing that they think could help the entire hemisphere is for the United States to change its relationship with Cuba.

Now, Colombia is one of our strongest, one of our most reliable allies, but they, too, have engaged with Cuba and are asking and looking and saying that our engagement with Cuba will change and help the hemisphere.

Panama has invited President Castro to the Summit of the Americas, and the rest of our hemisphere wants this change, and our antiquated policy has been holding us back and hampering our ability to cooperate with countries in the region on a wide range of issues.

Let me begin to conclude by saying this: the President's historic announcement has been universally well received by the region, which is heralding it as a major step forward in regional integration.

The Presidents of Brazil, Argentina, and--as I said--Colombia and Mexico have praised President Obama's announcement. The announcement has also been applauded by regional organizations, including the Union of South American Nations and the Organization of American States.

I conclude by saying that I have visited Cuba many times. I have worked tirelessly throughout my years in Congress to foster an improved relationship between United States and Cuba, and I believe the President's actions are good for both our countries and our hemisphere.

American businesses will benefit, U.S. citizens will be able to travel to Cuba on a more regular basis and send remittances to their relatives by reopening our Embassy in Havana. We will be a safer place, and finally--finally--the world often looks to the United States to be a leader militarily. We should be proud that the world can also look at us as champions of diplomacy.

Through our President's new Cuba policy, we have shown our neighbors in the Western Hemisphere--and indeed the rest of the world--that we are committed to building new partnerships and that we will not be beholden to antiquated policies and that we are optimistic about what is possible through dialogue and diplomacy, and I thank the chairman.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the ranking member for her hard work and focus and dedication for getting this done. I know that any time you have things added to a bill so it is not a clean bill, it makes it difficult. But I thank her and the chairman for working together to make this happen because this is a major bill, significantly important.

As we learned, I think, from the impact of the 9/11 terrorist attacks, this was substantial. When you look at the losses, it was about $32.5 billion, or $42.9 billion in 2013 dollars. It was the largest insurance loss in global history at that time. And prior to 9/ 11, insurance companies generally covered all of the costs of terrorist attacks. After 9/11, terrorism risk insurance quickly became either unavailable or very, very expensive and unaffordable. Furthermore, premiums for workers' compensation insurance increased significantly, and real estate and commercial ventures were stalled because of an inability to attain the requisite insurance coverage.

Now, 9/11 happened in New York, and so, yes, you see New York and New York City Members here supporting the bill. But this is not a bill just about New York. It is about all of America because they did not attack for New York; they attacked New York because it was part of America. We don't know, and we pray that we don't have another attack ever on our homeland again, but it could be someplace else. It doesn't have to be New York. This is when we should rally around as Americans, as patriots, to ensure that we continue our economy flowing and moving. That is why, even though there are things added and certain things that people don't like, we are trying to figure out how we get this right because it is too important to America to allow TRIA to expire.

Furthermore, when you examine TRIA, it costs taxpayers virtually nothing, yet it continues to provide tangible benefits to our overall economy. TRIA allows for terrorism insurance market stability, affordability, and availability so that those in business, et cetera, can know, predict, and be confident that we will continue to move on. TRIA is a critical part of the U.S. economy's security infrastructure and would ensure a swift recovery in the event of a significant terrorist attack.

Now, in New York, I am proud we have the Freedom Towers up because it also sends a message, is a symbol to those who don't like us that you can't keep us down, that we will get back up on our feet, stronger and better than ever, and that is what makes this country the great country that we are going to rally around and work with one another.

So this TRIA bill is significantly important, and I ask my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on TRIA.

Mr. Speaker, on H.R. 5759, I inadvertently missed that vote. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''