Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, on August 26, Hurricane Harvey began a path of unprecedented destruction across southeast Texas. The historic levels of rainfall were so extraordinary that the National Weather Service had to add new colors to its map graphics just to record it.

As of August 30, it was estimated that 24.5 trillion gallons of water had been dumped over Texas and Louisiana. Harvey is now being called the most extreme rain event in United States history.

Year after year, the natural disasters that hit the United States are becoming more frequent and more severe. Democrats understand the root cause: climate change. It is long overdue for President Trump and the congressional Republicans to admit the truth.

Quickly following the tragic news that Harvey was on a path to cause catastrophic flooding in Texas, President Trump pledged to help pass the necessary financial aid to begin the long recovery. But, of course, the President and Members of Congress all knew we had better not deny or delay funding for this very devastating natural disaster.

The American people expected their government to quickly respond to Harvey. However, we must understand that there are other laws and policies that must be protected, laws that determine what the Congress can do and must do to assist our country with mitigation, preparedness, mapping, and affordable national flood insurance. The NFIP must be dealt with and must be understood.

So Mr. Trump's previous record on the issue is appalling and is in direct contradiction to his latest pledge. Just days before Harvey made landfall, Trump repealed an Obama executive order that would have required the Federal Government to account for climate change so that infrastructure could be built to withstand catastrophic events. Trump also sent Congress a budget that cuts funding for programs that help us understand, prepare for, and recover from storms like Harvey.

His budget slashes operations and funding for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's climate research, cuts $62 million from the National Weather Service, eliminates the Regional Coastal Resilience grants, guts Coastal Zone Management grants, and cuts $190 million from the National Flood Insurance Program's flood mapping program.

Trump's budget would also cut $114 million from the Department of Agriculture's disaster assistance that would help farmers recover livestock, crops, and equipment that would be felt in Texas where many farms are currently under several feet of water.

His budget also completely eliminates HUD's Community Development Block Grant and HOME programs, vital grant programs that serve as one of the first available sources of funding to help communities recover even before disaster relief funding can be appropriated from Congress. What is more, Trump's budget would have cut $876 million from the Federal Emergency Management Agency's Disaster Relief Fund, the very fund that he is now pledging billions of dollars of support for.

So we are pleased that he learned after the fact. All told, Trump would cut billions of dollars for disaster preparedness and disaster relief programs. Of course, he also appointed a known climate change denier to lead the Environmental Protection Agency. So I, for one, am not surprised that this is where his priorities lie.

The hypocrisy and shortsightedness do not end with Donald Trump. Let us remember that many House Republicans, including both Texas Senators, opposed disaster aid following Superstorm Sandy. Now that the shoe is on the other foot, they are asking for billions of dollars in taxpayer support for their constituents. Of course, we should pass a disaster aid package quickly and without hesitation because it is simply the right thing and the American people expect us to do it. But just as we are now witnessing the sudden change of heart for disaster relief in certain Members of Congress, I hope that we will see a similar change of heart in response to the push of certain Republicans to unwind the National Flood Insurance Program.

Mr. Chair, I strongly oppose H.R. 3354, a bill that not only fails to make critical investments in our Nation's future, but also eliminates important protections for everyday Americans.

As ranking member of the Financial Services Committee, I am particularly concerned that H.R. 3354 imposes such severe cuts on the Department of Housing and Urban Development that it will result in families losing their housing assistance and putting them at risk for homelessness.

The bill also takes some of the worst provisions from the Republican's ``Wrong'' CHOICE Act that would return our economy to the reckless practices that caused the financial crisis.

One provision takes away the authority of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau to stop abusive practices by banks like Wells Fargo, which ripped off more than 3.5 million of its customers. Another provision repeals the Labor Department's commonsense rule that protects seniors from conflicted retirement advice from unscrupulous financial advisers.

There are so many gifts to Wall Street, one would think Christmas came early. But it isn't Christmas, Mr. Chair. It is September, and we are in the middle of hurricane season. Our cities are literally under water, yet the Republican leadership has done nothing to prevent the National Flood Insurance Program from expiring at the end of the month.

Republicans have also let us come dangerously close to defaulting on our debt and the obligations owed to servicemembers, veterans, seniors, and the most vulnerable among us. Just yesterday, 800,000 young Democrats were told by our President that their future is in the hands of a hostile Congress.

We must oppose this bill so we can get to work on what Congress should really be doing.

Mr. Chair, I appeal the ruling of the Chair, and I seek time to debate the appeal.

Mr. Chairman, I must say, I am deeply disappointed by the sinister attempt being made here today to strip a critical Republican-led amendment from this appropriations bill that would thwart the will of overwhelming majorities in both Houses and undermine the work of the job-creating Export-Import Bank.

As of the end of 2016, as many as 50 major transactions, with an aggregate value of nearly $40 billion, had piled up in the Bank's approval pipeline. And according to the Ex-Im Bank, if approved, these transactions would support more than 100,000 jobs in the United States.

The longer we wait, the greater the risk that these pending transactions will be withdrawn and sourced by our foreign competitors and the greater the likelihood that jobs that would have otherwise supported here in the United States will move offshore.

The chairman of the Financial Services Committee claims that striking this amendment would have ``no budgetary effect'' but this is hardly the case. President Trump's own fiscal year 2018 budget estimates that a fully functional Export-Import Bank would generate $587.7 million in excess funds in the next fiscal year.

Mr. Chair, I would like to continue to appeal the ruling of the Chair.

I hardly think it is in order, and I would ask the Chair to rule the request by Chairman Hensarling as not in violation.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to say a word about Mr. Hultgren, who just took up the previous bill, H.R. 3110, the Financial Stability Oversight Council Insurance Member Continuity Act. I enjoyed working with him. It was a wonderful experience. I think we can do a lot more of that.

Mr. Speaker, having said that, I am pleased to rise today in support of S. 1616, legislation to award a Congressional Gold Medal to former Senator Bob Dole in recognition of his distinguished service to the Nation.

In his younger years, Bob Dole made clear that he truly exemplified the best of the Nation's Greatest Generation. When his studies were interrupted by World War II, he enlisted in the United States Army, where he risked his own life to save a fellow soldier. In recognition of his brave service, which left him badly wounded by machine-gun fire and with a permanent disability, he was awarded two Purple Hearts and a Bronze Star with an Oak Cluster, among other honors.

Following his service in the U.S. Army, Senator Dole began a long and distinguished career in public office, serving first in the Kansas House of Representatives, followed by multiple terms in the U.S. House of Representatives. In 1999, Dole was elected to the United States Senate, where he served for 27 years and rose to be majority leader before running for President.

Over the course of his political career, Senator Dole developed a reputation as an outspoken and pragmatic leader who was willing to work across party lines to advance the health and welfare of the American public.

For example, in speaking about the importance of Social Security and the need to protect Medicare for America's senior citizens, Dole said in a speech at the 1996 Republican National Convention: ``And I have learned in my own life, from my own experience, that not every man, woman, or child can make it on their own. And that in time of need, the bridge between failure and success can be the government itself. And given all that I have experienced, I shall always remember those in need. . . .''

In addition to working to safeguard important programs like Social Security and Medicare, former Senator Dole was also a strong advocate for the disabled, and he played a central role in passing the landmark Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, the Nation's first comprehensive civil rights law to protect people with disabilities from discrimination in employment, public services, and public accommodations.

Although he was not elected President, as the nominee of the Republican Party, he made clear that he would not accommodate racial or religious intolerance, stating that if anyone had ``mistakenly attached himself to our party in the belief that we are not open to citizens of every race and religion . . . the exits, which are clearly marked, are for you to walk out of. . . .''

After leaving the Senate in 1996, former Senator Dole continued to dedicate himself to a range of causes, particularly those aimed at helping those in need. For example, Senator Dole served as co-chair of the Families of Freedom Scholarship Fund, which raised more than $100 million for the educational needs of the families of victims of 9/11, and he served as the co-creator of the McGovern-Dole International Food for Education and Child Nutrition Program, which aimed to alleviate child hunger.

While Senator Dole and I have had our share of policy differences over the years, it was always possible to have a civil disagreement that didn't lead to disrespect. A true gentleman, statesman, and legislator, Senator Dole could debate the issues with the best of

us, all while maintaining a good sense of humor.

For all of these reasons, it comes as no surprise that the legislation before us today has already garnered the unanimous support of the United States Senate, and it is fitting that the House today is doing its part to give the highest honor this body can bestow to former Senator Bob Dole. I urge all of my colleagues to join me in quickly passing this legislation.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern).

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentleman.

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to start off by thanking Representative Sinema and Representative Hollingsworth for working together to craft bipartisan legislation that will help smaller public companies raise the funds necessary to grow and thrive.

Specifically, H.R. 2864, the Improving Access to Capital Act, would narrowly expand the relief that we provided in the Jumpstart Our Business Startups Act, the JOBS Act, to allow public companies to raise money under Regulation A-Plus.

Currently, Regulation A-Plus allows private companies to raise up to $50 million in capital by selling unregistered but freely tradable stock to the public as a quicker and less expensive alternative to a fully registered securities offering.

Extending Regulation A-Plus eligibility to public companies would provide them with an additional efficient method of raising a small fixed amount of capital. To be eligible to use this faster and cheaper fundraising alternative, public companies must be up to date in their public filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

In addition, public companies must comply with all of the other regulatory requirements in Regulation A-Plus, including SEC approval or qualification of the offering, disclosure of the offering information to investors, and limitations on sales per investor.

Importantly, bad actors who have committed certain felonies, misdemeanors, or other misconduct within the past 5 years are disqualified from using Regulation A-Plus.

These restrictions help ensure that investors in Regulation A-Plus offerings are informed about their purchases and protected from fraud.

Mr. Speaker, I support H.R. 2864 for providing targeted relief to public companies that balances their need to raise capital with the protection of their investors.

I remain concerned that the Financial Services Committee has adopted a piecemeal approach to private and public market regulation.

Going forward, I hope that we thoughtfully review the securities laws to ensure that our legislative efforts appropriately incentivize companies to become public.

Again, I want to thank the bill's sponsors, especially Ms. Sinema, for their work on this bipartisan piece of legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I encourage my colleagues to join me in supporting H.R. 2864, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, again, I would like to thank the cosponsors for their vision, for their work, and for the bipartisan effort that they so successfully put together.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from Arizona (Ms. Sinema), the lead sponsor of this bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise to highlight Robert ``Ian'' Maloney, a May 2017 graduate of Georgetown Preparatory School and a newly accepted member of the Brown University class of 2021. Last year, I had the great pleasure of speaking at Georgetown Preparatory School about the call to serve and to give back to the community.

I accepted the invitation to speak at that school because Ian reached out and asked me to do so. Ian is a remarkable young man whom I have known since his birth. Ian was President of the Black Student Association. He is also a member of the National Honor Society and a National Hispanic Scholar, and he is passionate about serving others and giving back. He is committed to social justice and drawing attention to the scourge of homelessness.

Ian asked me to speak at Georgetown Preparatory School because he had made a promise to the school's Headmaster, Mr. Jeff Jones. Mr. Jones was the school's first African-American Headmaster and Interim President, and a leader who fostered diversity. At the time that Ian requested that I speak, Mr. Jones was awaiting a heart transplant at Cedars-Sinai Hospital in my Congressional District. Sadly, Mr. Jones would die two months after I spoke. However, several days before he had passed, he called to wish Ian continuing success in his studies and called on him to carry the torch and to continue to serve others.

Mr. Speaker, Ian wishes to honor the call and the memory of his Headmaster, Mr. Jeff Jones. Ian is a very special young man, and I wish him success in his academic endeavors. I truly believe that he has a very bright future ahead and that he will continue to give back to his community and make a positive difference in the world.

Mr. Speaker, would the Chair tell us why.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday was the 27th anniversary of the Americans with Disabilities Act. It is a day to reflect on how people with disabilities are treated in our society.

Our President indicated to us what he thinks about people with disabilities long before he was elected when he mocked a disabled reporter. Mocking the disabled is rude and insensitive, and it sends a terrible message to our children.

Who are the disabled people who were mocked that day? They are veterans who lost a limb or suffered a traumatic brain injury while courageously serving our country. They are children who were born with serious medical conditions like autism, Down syndrome, and cerebral palsy. They are victims of workplace accidents and car accidents. They are victims of mass shootings and terrorist attacks. They are senior citizens in nursing homes. They are our mothers and fathers, our brothers and sisters, our friends and neighbors, and our children.

They might be with us today or they may be with us a year from now. They deserve to be treated with respect, and they deserve quality healthcare.

Given that we already know about the attitudes that have been displayed against them, it should come as no surprise that TrumpCare would have a devastating impact on people with disabilities.

The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office has scored several versions of TrumpCare. Most would cause at least 22 million people to lose their health insurance. The so-called repeal only bill, which repeals the Affordable Care Act and does not replace it with anything, would cause 32 million people to lose their health insurance. Even the so-called skinny TrumpCare would cause 16 million people to lose health insurance and increase premiums by 20 percent.

When people with disabilities lose their health insurance, they cannot get affordable treatment for their medical conditions; and when healthy people lose their health insurance and then become disabled, they, too, will not be able to find affordable treatment for their injuries. Furthermore, when they try to find a new health policy, their disability will be considered a preexisting condition.

TrumpCare cuts more than $700 billion from Medicaid. According to an analysis by the Center for American Progress, more than 15 million children and adults with disabilities rely on Medicaid for their health coverage and could lose it if TrumpCare became law.

The President's budget would also have a very devastating impact on all people with disabilities. Trump's budget cuts $50 billion over the next 10 years from benefits earned by American veterans who are unable to work because of a service-connected disability.

His budget cuts billions from Social Security Disability Insurance, which provides earned benefits to workers who become disabled after years of paying Social Security taxes on their earnings.

His budget cuts billions from Supplemental Security Income, which protects vulnerable people with disabilities, including 1.2 million children who suffer from conditions such as Down syndrome, cerebral palsy, autism, intellectual disabilities, and blindness.

His budget cuts funding for the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act by $113 million, jeopardizing special education services for students with disabilities.

His budget cuts funding for housing for persons with disabilities by 20 percent.

His budget eliminates the Limb Loss Resource Center and the Paralysis Resource Center, which cuts support for people with traumatic brain injuries by 67 percent and cuts funding for the National Center on Birth Defects and Developmental Disabilities by 26 percent. It even eliminates Special Olympics Education.

In conclusion, people with disabilities deserve better. That is why we must raise our voices to support them, oppose these budget cuts that target them, and protect their healthcare.

Stopping TrumpCare is not about politics. It is a matter of life and death, and this is especially true for people with disabilities.

Mr. Speaker, I thank Ranking Member Engel for his leadership and for yielding me time. I thank Chairman Royce for his leadership and the way that he has worked with our side of the aisle.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Russia, Iran, and North Korea Sanctions Act, legislation that is desperately needed to prevent this administration from rolling back sanctions tied to Russia's invasion of Ukraine and interference in our election.

This bill's enhanced sanctions on Russia are important in light of the actions of Russian President Vladimir Putin, not to mention the many ties between the Trump administration and the Kremlin.

In a recent development, the Treasury Department confirmed that ExxonMobil violated existing Russian sanctions while under the leadership of Rex Tillerson, who is now Donald Trump's Secretary of State. Indeed, in 2014, Exxon signed documents related to oil and gas projects in Russia with Igor Sechin, president of Rosneft, a Russian state-owned oil giant. Sechin was one of the individuals subject to sanctions. Exxon was fined a mere $2 million--a slap on the wrist for a company that earned $7.8 billion in profits in 2016.

Russia is continuing its aggression in Ukraine. It is supporting the murderous regime of Bashar al-Assad in Syria. It interfered in the 2016 U.S. election. That is why we must strengthen the sanctions against Russia, and we must block Rex Tillerson and Donald Trump from waiving or lifting those sanctions without review.

Before closing, I would also note that the legislation before us also includes several measures championed by Democrats on the Financial Services Committee. These provisions will focus the government on creating a national strategy to combat the financing of terrorism, enhance Treasury's tools for combating money laundering vulnerabilities such as the well-known risk in high-end real estate, and help address the de-risking trend that is driving fund transfers into the shadows.

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

Mr. Speaker, H.J. Res. 111 is an affront to hardworking Americans across the country. Using the Congressional Review Act, this joint resolution repeals the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau's final rule to curb forced arbitration clauses in contracts for consumer financial products.

Today, many banks require consumers wanting to open a bank account, get a credit card, or take out a private student loan to enter into forced arbitration agreements that take away their rights to collectively sue the bank for any harm. Instead, consumers must go through bank-friendly arbiters to resolve their grievances. These contracts are literally buried deep into the fine print, enshrouded in legalese. Consumers don't know what they are giving up--but the banks do.

Arbitration proceedings, which happen behind closed doors, have no judge and no jury. Their proceedings and their outcomes heavily favor big businesses and Wall Street. Studies have shown that forced arbitration favors big business and results in less compensation for American consumers who have been abused or defrauded, if they receive any at all.

Simply put, forced arbitration is an instrument that benefits large corporations and Wall Street banks, and it

hurts consumers. For example, everybody remembers Wells Fargo. Wells Fargo continues to use forced arbitration to prevent consumers from working together to sue the bank for opening up millions of fraudulent accounts using their personal information. Just weeks ago, the Consumer Bureau used a critical rule to finally clamp down on forced arbitration clauses. The Consumer Bureau should be applauded for taking this step to help consumers by fully restoring their legal rights.

Once again, the Consumer Bureau has acted to make our financial marketplaces fairer and transparent. As is their practice, the Consumer Bureau issued this rule after careful deliberation and exhaustive review. As part of this deliberative process, they issued a 728-page report on the issue, considered views from all stakeholders, and consulted carefully with the other Federal financial regulators.

The Consumer Bureau's final rule has widespread support, including from over 310 consumer, civil rights, faith-based, and senior groups, 256 law professors and scholars, and the Military Coalition, an organization that represents 5.5 million current and former servicemembers and their families.

Now, this rule was just finalized, but congressional Republicans are already shamefully forging ahead to cut it off at the knees. This resolution wouldn't just nullify the rule, it would also prevent the Consumer Bureau from ever issuing a rule that is ``substantially similar.'' That means, if Republicans pass this resolution into law, then, for the foreseeable future, consumers will be robbed of important legal rights and generally left at the mercy of industry-friendly auditors.

Let's be clear. There is absolutely no valid public policy rationale for repealing this rule. It is a part of a pattern from congressional Republicans of irrational hostility toward the Consumer Bureau and its work and a callous disregard for the issues facing America's consumers. But just as they have with the ``Wrong'' CHOICE Act, Republicans are pushing an anticonsumer agenda that puts profits over people.

Enough is enough. We must hold true to a fundamental principle of our democracy that each of us has a right to trial if we so choose. The rule fully restores this right to American consumers by giving them a choice between arbitration or the free exercise of their Seventh Amendment right to a trial by jury through whatever means they choose.

So I urge all of my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this senseless and harmful resolution, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Carolyn B. Maloney), who is a senior member of the Financial Services Committee and ranking member of the Subcommittee on Capital Markets, Securities, and Investments.

Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentlewoman an additional 10 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, the Republicans are siding with Big Business again, against our consumers.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), the distinguished leader and a strong supporter of consumers and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Velazquez), a senior member of the Financial Services Committee and ranking member of the Small Business Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Ellison), a leading member on this consumer issue.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Capuano), a senior member of the Financial Services Committee and a strong progressive member.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Sherman), a senior member of the Financial Services Committee and Foreign Affairs Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Foster), a member of the Financial Services Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I am sick and tired of my colleagues on the opposite side of the aisle talking about this $32.

Republicans keep discussing that consumers get $32 in class action, but they ignore how few consumers win in arbitration. Big banks win 93.1 percent of the time in arbitration. The deck is stacked against consumers, not Wall Street.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Johnson), a leading member on this consumer arbitration issue.

Mr. Speaker, my colleagues on the opposite side of the aisle hate Mr. Cordray so much because he has been so effective, returning $12 billion to consumers, that they would harm the American public rather than admit that they are wrong.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott), the ranking member of the Committee on Education and the Workforce.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Cicilline), the ranking member on the Subcommittee on Regulatory Reform, Commercial and Antitrust Law.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Sarbanes), the leader of the Democracy Reform Task Force.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Davis), the ranking member of the Higher Education and Workforce Training Subcommittee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Takano), the vice ranking member of the Veterans' Affairs Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Bonamici), a senior member on the Committee on Education and the Workforce.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. McEachin), a member of the House Armed Services Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Cartwright), a member of the Committee on Appropriations and the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Capuano), a Member who is outraged by the attack on consumers by the opposite side of the aisle.

Mr. Speaker, I am now prepared to close, and I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, today we have heard Democrats speak about the importance of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau's rule to stop forced arbitration clauses in contracts for consumer financial products and the harm that would result from this joint resolution to repeal the rule.

Forced arbitration clauses severely limit consumers' legal rights and prevent groups of consumers from holding financial institutions accountable for wrongdoing. The Consumer Bureau's rule helps to ensure that financial institutions are held accountable and fully protects the legal rights of consumers, including servicemembers and veterans.

The majority has shamefully moved to nullify the Consumer Bureau's good work in a move that ultimately enables financial institutions to get off the hook when they commit wrongdoing, with less redress for consumers.

Studies have shown that forced arbitration favors big business and results in less compensation for American consumers who have been abused or defrauded, if they receive any at all.

This resolution steamrolls over the Consumer Bureau's sensible rule without regard for the harm that will result for American consumers and families. This is also despite the broad support for the rule from consumer advocacy, civil rights, and faith-based groups, legal scholars, and advocates for servicemembers.

Congress must not curtail the legal rights of consumers, must not repeal the Consumer Bureau's forced arbitration rule. Vote to protect consumer rights. Vote to fully restore the American principle of right to trial by jury. Vote ``no'' on H.J. Res. 111.

Mr. Speaker, I would simply like to say that I keep hearing my colleagues talk about how fast consumers are taken care of under the arbitration rule. Yes, because they are getting railroaded.

As I mentioned, they are in the back room without representation. These are people who have been forced to sign these arbitration agreements, not even knowing that they signed them.

Most people who go out now to get a credit card or to get a loan of some kind, they are forced into these agreements and they don't even know it. They are shocked and surprised when they cannot join with others who have been ripped off in class action lawsuits.

So don't pay attention to all of the information that you have received from the opposite side. Remember that the banks and big businesses win 93.1 percent of the time, not consumers.

Whose side are you on? Are you on the side of consumers or are you protecting big business?

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

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today with great pride as I join with millions of people around the world who are honoring the life and legacy of South African President Nelson Mandela on the day that the United Nations General Assembly has designated ``Nelson Mandela International Day'', in recognition of his lifetime of service in South Africa and all over the world.

In his 95 years of life, President Mandela, or `Mandiba' as he was affectionately called, was a revolutionary and transformative leader who forever changed the world through his steadfast dedication to freedom, equality, and human rights. After spending 27 years in prison, Nelson Mandela became the first black South African to be elected President in what was also the first free, multi-racial, democratic election in South African history. While President Mandela used his administration to dismantle apartheid, combat institutional racism, and begin the process of racial reconciliation in his country, his efforts also taught the world the power of one man having the fortitude to sacrifice his own ideals for a cause greater than himself.

Beginning with his time as the founder of the African National Congress Youth League and extending beyond his tenure as President of South Africa, Nelson Mandela led the anti-apartheid movement and inspired a generation of activists. To me, however, Nelson Mandela was more than a world-renowned hero--I had the distinct honor and privilege of calling him a friend. I credit him for his courageous leadership of the international anti-apartheid movement which encouraged me to join in the fight and is still, to this day, one of the most defining moments of my life and career.

During the 1980s, I served as the Los Angles Chair of the Free South Africa Movement where I held regular meetings with community leaders, organized countless anti-apartheid rallies and marches, and led an overnight sit-in at the South African Consulate General Office in Los Angeles.

As a member of the California State Assembly, I fought for nine years for the passage of Assembly Bill 134 which was signed into law in August of 1986 and forced California to divest $12 billion in state pension funds tied to the apartheid regime in South Africa. I also put my own freedom on the line when I was arrested for protesting the apartheid regime in front of the South African Consulate in Washington,

Mr. Speaker, I rise today with great pride to join millions of people around the world to honor the life and legacy of South African President Nelson Mandela on Nelson Mandela International Day. I submitted comments for the Record this morning, but I would like to highlight a few key points.

In his 95 years of life, President Mandela was a transformative leader who forever changed the world through his steadfast dedication to freedom, equality, and human rights.

After spending 27 years in prison, Nelson Mandela became the first Black South African to be elected President and used his administration to dismantle apartheid, combat institutional racism, and begin the process of racial reconciliation in his country.

To me, however, Nelson Mandela was more than a world-renowned leader. I had the distinct honor and privilege of calling him a friend. His courageous leadership in the antiapartheid movement encouraged me to join in the fight, which, to this day, is one of the most defining moments of my life.

We will forever be indebted to Nelson Mandela, who taught the world the power of one man having the fortitude to sacrifice his own ideals for a cause greater than himself.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today on behalf of the Financial Services Committee, its Chairman, Mr. Hensarling, and the U.S. House of Representatives, as I pay tribute to one of the hardest working and dedicated employees this House has ever known.

Mr. Speaker, for over 30 years Anita L. Johnson has served this chamber with distinction, undeniable integrity, humility, kindness, grace, and skill. For the past several years, she has worked ably and diligently as the Chief Administrative Officer for the Democratic Staff of the Financial Services Committee.

Mrs. Johnson began her career on Capitol Hill in 1982 as the Office Manager and Personal Assistant to then-Congressman Harold Ford, Sr. In 1986 she became Office Manager and Personal Assistant to Congressman Sandy Levin.

Although her husband's transfer relocated Mrs. Johnson away from Capitol Hill and back to her home town of Memphis, Tennessee, for three years, she returned to the Hill in 1989. For the next decade, she served as Executive Assistant and Clerk for the Education and Labor Committee Democrats. In 1999, she became the Chief Administrative Officer and Clerk for Democrats on the Judiciary Committee--a position she held for twelve years.

In 2013, Mrs. Johnson joined the Financial Services Committee and has remained the Chief Administrative Officer and Clerk until her retirement today.

From my time on the Judiciary Committee and as Ranking Member of the Financial Services Committee I have personally come to know Anita Johnson. She is a tireless and relentless worker, an excellent multi- tasker, doing whatever it takes to accomplish tasks both large and small. When everyone else is stressed because of the pressure, she remains calm.

She is a true professional, whose expertise, integrity; dedication and commitment have served as an example to her peers and colleagues. Her willingness to go the extra mile, her insights and opinions have been extremely valuable to the successful undertakings of each office she has served--especially my own.

She has flawlessly maintained budgets totaling millions of dollars, ensured the smooth running of each office in which she worked; skillfully clerked dozens of markups, and provided valuable assistance to myself, other Members, and staff.

Prior to her time on the Hill, Mrs. Johnson was an educator teaching at Wooddale Senior High School (Memphis, TN); Hazelwood Senior High School (St. Louis, MO); Ivanna Eudora Kean High School (St. Thomas, USVI); and, Savannah Area Vocational Technical School (Savannah, GA). Additionally, Anita has been a member of the Washington Performing Arts Society Men and Women of the Gospel for years; and, has performed at the Kennedy Center, Carnegie Hall; TNT's ``Christmas in Washington''; and, the Kennedy Center Honors. With the Trinity Choir at Alfred Street Baptist Church, Alexandria, Virginia, Anita has also performed in Austria, Italy, Germany, Paris, Brussels, and Amsterdam.

On behalf of the Financial Services Committee, its staff, and this distinguished body, we would like to thank Anita for her commitment to the U.S. House of Representatives and her exemplary service to this nation. Her humility, integrity, generosity, loyalty, sense of humor and professionalism will be sorely missed. She has served as a cherished colleague, mentor and friend to many present and former Hill staff members. We wish her the best of luck and extend to her our deepest gratitude as she leaves Capitol Hill.

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Democratic delegation of California, I am so very pleased to welcome the newest member of the California delegation, Congressman Jimmy Gomez.

Congressman Gomez will represent the people of the 34th Congressional District.

Congressman Gomez was elected to the California State Assembly in 2012 and reelected in 2014, and most recently in 2016, with over 86 percent of the vote, to represent California's 51st assembly district.

In the assembly, Congressman Gomez was a national champion of paid family leave. Congressman Gomez authored and passed legislation, Assembly Bill 908, the Nation's most progressive expansion of paid family leave, that President Obama held as a model for Congress.

Jimmy also authored legislation to address public health, environmental justice, water conservation, and access to education.

We are all looking forward to Representative Gomez expanding and continuing his work in the United States Congress. I hope Members will all join me in welcoming him to Congress.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. Gomez).

Mr. Speaker, due to a medical emergency involving another passenger, my flight from Los Angeles, California to Washington, D.C. was forced to land mid-flight in Kansas City, Missouri. The flight was grounded for an hour before we were able to continue on to our final destination. Unfortunately, we were unable to make up enough time and I missed the votes on the House Floor scheduled for June 20, 2017 at 6:30 p.m. Had I been present, I would have voted YES on H.R. 2847, and YES on H.R. 2866.

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

H.R. 10 is being called the ``Wrong'' CHOICE Act by the American public because this bill is truly the wrong choice for all of us. Indeed, this is one of the worst bills I have seen in my time in Congress.

This bill is a vehicle for Donald Trump's agenda to deregulate and help out Wall Street. It destroys nearly all of the important policies we put in place in the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act to prevent another financial crisis and protect consumers. This bill would create vast harm and lead us right back to the bad old days.

We all remember the suffering that resulted from the Great Recession: $13 trillion in household wealth was lost; 11 million people lost their homes; the unemployment rate hit 10 percent. The impact was enormous and felt by all. This bill would pave the way back to economic damage of the same scale--or worse.

The ``Wrong'' CHOICE Act guts the highly successful Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, which works to make sure that hardworking Americans are not subjected to predatory practices in the financial marketplace.

Since its creation, the Consumer Bureau has returned nearly $12 billion to more than 29 million consumers who have been ripped off by financial institutions. This bill would foolishly put a stop to the Consumer Bureau's good work and once again leave consumers vulnerable.

That is not all. Across the board, the ``Wrong'' CHOICE Act removes essential Dodd-Frank protections for consumers, investors, and our economy.

Despite what Republicans will tell you, banks large and small are doing just fine since the passage of Dodd-Frank. Last year, they posted record profits. Here is the bottom line: Donald Trump and Republicans want to open the door to another economic catastrophe like the Great Recession and return us to a financial system where reckless and predatory practices harm our families and communities. We cannot allow that to happen.

Mr. Chair, I urge all of my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this catastrophically bad bill.

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

Mr. Chair, the Speaker and Mr. Hensarling would have you think this is all about community banks being hurt, but let me tell you what this is all about.

U.S. and foreign banks have paid more than $160 billion in penalties to resolve cases brought against them by the Justice Department and Federal regulatory agencies for cases involving collusion, fraud against consumers, bribery, and other abuses.

There were 144 major cases of $100 million or more against 26 large U.S. and foreign banks. Just look at this: Bank of America, $56 billion; J.P.Morgan, $28 billion; Citigroup, $15 billion; Wells Fargo-- and you know about Wells Fargo and what they did--$11 billion; Goldman Sachs, $9 billion; Morgan Stanley, $5 billion. This is about rip-offs, so this bill will prevent us from being able to assess these kinds of penalties on those who are ripping off the American public.

Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Clay), ranking member of the Financial Institutions and Consumer Credit Subcommittee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Perlmutter), ranking member of the Terrorism, Nonproliferation, and Trade Subcommittee.

Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee), the vice ranking member of the Committee on Financial Services.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Velazquez), who is the ranking member of the Small Business Committee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Al Green), who is the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Wisconsin (Ms. Moore), who is the ranking member of the Monetary Policy and Trade Subcommittee.

Mr. Chairman, I have just got to stop some of this misrepresentation.

Exempt from CFPB's supervision and enforcement, Wall Street reform-- that is Dodd-Frank--recognizes community banks and credit unions have a small number of employees and a better consumer protection track record; thus, they are carved out from the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau's supervision.

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau's supervision and enforcement focuses on the largest banks that they won't talk about here today and non-banks that compete with small banks and credit unions.

Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Meeks), a senior member of the Financial Services Committee.

Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. David Scott), one of our senior members of the Financial Services Committee.

Mr. Chair, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott), the ranking member of the Education and the Workforce Committee.

Mr. Chairman, the gentleman asked: Who does not support this bill?

Let me tell him: advocates, experts, civil rights groups, labor groups, veterans groups, pension plans, and company shareholders.

We also received a petition urging a ``no'' vote from more than 220,000 concerned Americans.

Let me just say that AARP hates this bill. That is who opposes this bill.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Sherman), a senior member of the committee on Financial Services.

Mr. Chairman, continuing to remind Mr. Duffy who opposes this bill, the Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States of America opposes this bill.

I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the distinguished Democratic whip.

I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Capuano), a senior member of the Financial Services Committee.

Mr. Chairman, continuing to answer Mr. Duffy about who opposes this bill, the Fleet Reserve Association, which includes the Navy, the Marine Corps, and the Coast Guard.

With that, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Lynch), a senior member of the Financial Services Committee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Delaney), a member of the Financial Services Committee.

Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Mrs. Beatty), a member of the Financial Services Committee.

Mr. Chair, we have already debunked what we have been told by the opposition about the oversight, CFPB's supervision and enforcement. Of course, we have told you about that. Let's take a moment to tell you that community banks have showed strength in residential, commercial, industrial loans, and small- business lending. In fact, overall loan growth at community banks has been faster than at bigger banks. In the fourth quarter of 2016, lending was up 8.3 percent for community banks and 4.8 percent for larger banks.

Mr. Chair, with that, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Foster), a member of the Financial Services Committee.

Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to how much time I have remaining?

Mr. Chairman, since it has been asked about who opposes this bill, I wanted to make sure that we include in our information to them the religious organizations. The Congregation of St. Joseph, the Seventh Generation Interfaith Coalition for Responsible Investment, the Dominican Sisters of Houston, the Sisters of Mercy, the Interfaith Center on Corporate Responsibility, the Christian Brothers Investment Services, the National Association of Evangelicals, the American Baptist Home Mission Society, and the Mercy Investment Services all urge a ``no'' vote on this terrible bill.

Mr. Chairman, with that, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Heck), a senior member now--he has been there for a while--of the Financial Services Committee.

Mr. Chairman, the Members on the opposite side of the aisle have come here talking about what they are doing for small banks and how they are against the big banks. Let me tell you about a letter that was sent yesterday, June 7, from the American Bankers Association. They said: ``We are pleased that this legislation contains provisions that ABA and our member banks have long supported.''

Who are their members? JPMorgan Chase, Wells Fargo, Citigroup, Bank of America. Wall Street loves this bad bill.

I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Ellison), a senior progressive champion of the Financial Services Committee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gonzalez), a new member of the Financial Services Committee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Crist), a new member of the Financial Services Committee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Kihuen), a new member of the Financial Services Committee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Demings).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Cartwright).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Bonamici).

Mr. Speaker, I will include in the Record a letter from the Association of American Medical Colleges which states: ``Treatment of essential health benefits and health status underwriting dilutes protections for many Americans and would leave individuals with preexisting conditions facing higher premiums and reduce access to vital care.''

Mr. Speaker, I rise to caution those Republicans who have allowed themselves to be persuaded by this President into supporting this terrible bill which would leave millions of Americans without health care and raise the cost of care for millions more. You are going to pay a terrible price for not protecting your constituents.

TrumpCare will cause 24 million Americans to lose their health coverage and slash Medicaid by $880 billion; for older Americans, premiums, deductibles, and copayments will skyrocket. Those between the ages of 50 and 64 will be forced to pay premiums five times higher than what others pay for the same coverage.

This crushing age tax will fall on some of the most vulnerable members of our society, elderly people on fixed incomes who often have serious health issues.

Meanwhile, hidden in this bill is an outrageous tax break for billionaires. TrumpCare gives $600 billion in tax cuts to large corporations and wealthy people, including $2.8 billion to the 400 richest families in America. The MacArthur amendment made this bill even worse by jettisoning protections for people with preexisting conditions.