Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise to congratulate the Brooklyn Chinese-American Association (BCA) as they celebrate the twelfth anniversary of their Sixth Avenue Senior Center.

The Sixth Avenue Center is one of nine locations throughout Brooklyn dedicated to the wellbeing and livelihood of seniors and the people who care about them.

After securing funding from The Aging in New York Fund (DFTA) in 2012, the Center now serves over 200 seniors every day. Whether providing hearty meals, medical screenings, or recreational events like birthday parties and field trips, the Center is an invaluable part of the greater community of Sixth Avenue in Brooklyn.

In the face of uncertain times and proposed budget cuts, creating and maintaining a warm and welcoming space for seniors is a testament to the hard work of the BCA staff. Their presence in the community helps some of our most vulnerable neighbors and makes Brooklyn and all of New York a better place to live.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the staff and all those involved with the Sixth Avenue Senior Center for their dedication to the seniors of Brooklyn. I ask my colleagues to join me in congratulating them on 12 years of service.

Mr. Speaker, today, across the nation, from every major city to every small town, women are standing in solidarity, and reminding the world of our contributions. On this Day Without A Woman, women are sending a powerful message about the role we play in local communities, in our nation and throughout the globe.

Yet, sadly, on this very same day that women are standing up to end gender discrimination and economic injustice, defend our bodies from governmental intrusion and to choose our own destiny, Republicans are proceeding with legislation to roll back the clock. Congressional Committees are starting to consider legislation eviscerating the Affordable Care Act. Not only would the Republican plan slash Medicaid, harming working women and children, but it defends Planned Parenthood, ultimately depriving millions of women of lifesaving health services.

Mr. Speaker, it is a sad irony on this Day Without A Woman, when millions of ordinary Americans are standing for women's rights and a more just economy, Congressional Republicans are rushing to deprive millions of women and their families of health services they need to survive. This bill was composed behind closed doors, in secret, and now Republicans are rushing it through the Committee process to avoid scrutiny.

On this Day Without A Woman, we are sending a powerful message. I can only hope my Republican colleagues in Congress are listening. Because, today, women everywhere are saying with one collective voice, we will not be silenced.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor March 2017 as National Eye Donor Month. This is a month dedicated to promoting awareness of the need to register as an eye donor, recognize donors as well as their families, and celebrate the lives of donor recipients.

Since President Ronald Regan proclaimed the first National Eye Donor Month in 1983, the Eye Bank Association of America (EBAA) and each of its 86 member eye banks across the U.S., have designated March to recognize over one million corneal tissue recipients who have regained their sight. In 2015 alone, EBAA member eye banks recovered 118,752 corneas from 66,065 donors and provided 74,173 corneas for transplant in the U.S. and around the world. Also in 2015, my home state of New York provided 2,835 corneas for transplant and 715 for research and education by six eye banks statewide.

Eye banks have a special significance in the 7th Congressional District of New York, the Eye-Bank for Sight Restoration (EBSR) in my district was the first eye bank in the world. Since its inception in 1944 by Dr. Townley Paton, EBSR has given the gift of sight to over 63,000 men, women and children.

On this special occasion, I commend the Eye Bank Association of America and the eye banks across the country for their great work. I encourage my colleagues to support efforts that urge all Americans to give the gift of sight by registering to become eye, organ and tissue donors.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate the Hotel Chinese Association (HCA) of USA on their 10th Anniversary Gala.

Over the past decade, the Hotel Chinese Association of USA has been a leader in the New York City immigrant community. By providing assistance to workers in the Hospitality industry, the HCA has helped thousands of hotel workers in their 10 year history.

Founded in 2007, the HCA's mission is to promote the understanding of the rights and responsibilities of hotel employees, primarily immigrant workers, who have language and cultural barriers. HCA coordinates with hotel unions and management, as well as recruiting and training immigrants, many of whom aim to have a career in the hospitality industry in New York City.

The HCA has become an important anchor in New York's Chinese community by offering communication assistance and vocational training to Chinese employees. Whether it is providing networking and job opportunities, education, or cultural activities, the HCA aims to assist and lift up striving employees and give them the tools they need for success.

I thank and congratulate the HCA for their 10 years of continuous service to our community and hope they continue to be a fixture in New York City.

Mr. Speaker, I missed roll call no. 77 on February 2, 2017 due to an unscheduled constituent meeting off the House Floor that unexpectedly ran long. Had I been present for the roll call, I would have voted ``NO''.

Mr. Speaker, bring up H.R. 724, which will rescind President Trump's refugee ban so that family members like Qassim Al Rawi, a 69-year-old Iraqi national, will not be refused boarding on a flight to visit his U.S.-citizen family in the United States.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.

Madam Speaker, on Saturday, millions of Americans around the Nation

spoke with a collective voice, opposing President Trump's plans to trample women's rights. Yet here we are, the first week of the new administration, voting on a bill to scale back women's health benefits.

Let's be clear: this bill is not about preventing Federal funds from going to abortions. Sadly, current law already prevents that. In reality, this bill would affect millions of women who purchase coverage with their own money. It will make it nearly impossible for insurance providers to offer plans fully covering women's reproductive health. It would harm low-income women who need access to an abortion, turning back the clock on women's reproductive rights.

It is day five of the Trump Presidency and women are already being attacked at every corner. I promise my colleagues this: the American people are watching. They will remember this vote.

Vote ``no'' on this bill.

I rise in strong opposition to this resolution. Mr. Chairman, if Republicans go forward with this plan to dismantle the Affordable Care Act, 30 million Americans will lose health insurance. In New York State alone, 1.6 million of our neighbors--who gained coverage through ACA--will lose their health insurance and will see their health insurance taken away, and 2.7 million New Yorkers who have enrolled in Medicaid could lose coverage.

But this is not just about Medicaid, and it is not just about who obtained coverage through the exchanges. This is about the young person just out of college who can stay on their parents' insurance until they turn 26, giving them time to secure employment and coverage on their own. It is about patients with preexisting conditions who, until the ACA, were blocked from securing quality medical insurance. It is about women who have faced gender discrimination in the insurance market. These are the people Republicans will harm with their irresponsible attack on our healthcare system.

Now, let me also note this: the Republican slogan, repeal and replace, is a sham. What are they going to replace the ACA with? They have never, not once, put together a realistic, defensible plan to replace the ACA. Their plan should be called repeal and displace because it will displace millions of Americans from their health coverage. Reject repeal and displace. Vote ``no'' on this bill.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, my amendment is simple and straightforward. It will help ensure the SEC fulfills one of its core mission functions-- protecting investors.

As Members of Congress, we must never forget the lessons of the financial crisis and the Great Recession. Americans lost $14 trillion, suffering sharp declines in retirement savings, pension funds, and overall wealth. This was due, in part, to being pushed into abstract and sophisticated financial products and securities that they knew little or nothing about.

I was here in 2008, Mr. Chairman. I listened to the people. I heard their stories. Unfortunately, for many of them, the financial crisis and the Great Recession caused deep and lasting harm. Many may never recover.

I proudly supported the Dodd-Frank Act and believe the SEC has implemented many regulations that will guard against another financial crisis and help preserve the financial future of American families for generations to come. For these reasons, I am concerned the regulatory reviews required by the underlying bill do not properly account for investor protection.

To that end, my amendment ensures the SEC does more than just consider how a proposed regulation will impact businesses. It expressly instructs the SEC to weigh the safeguards of investors when changing a rule or regulation. My amendment instructs the SEC to continue focusing on investor protection not only when drafting new rules but also when reviewing existing regulations. Let me be clear: it is vitally important that this language be included to ensure investors' needs do not take a backseat to industry concerns.

We must never go back to the days leading up to the crisis, Mr. Chairman. By simply instructing the SEC to take into account investor protections when reviewing and considering new or existing regulations, my amendment helps ensure the safeguards we put in place under the Dodd-Frank Act are preserved. This will mean retirement savings and household wealth are more secure, and we are not once again risking deep and lasting harm to our economy and financial markets. For these reasons, I urge the adoption of my amendment.

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

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

I want to thank the gentleman and Chairman Hensarling for working with me on this important amendment. I urge Members to vote ``yes,'' which is a vote to protect average, ordinary American investors.

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

Mr. Speaker, House Republicans are playing politics with millions of Americans' health care. In fact, if Republicans go forward with their plan to chaotically dismantle the Affordable Care Act, 30 million Americans will lose health insurance. In New York State alone, 1.6 million of our neighbors, who gained coverage through ACA, will see their health insurance taken away; and 2.7 million New Yorkers who have enrolled in Medicaid could lose coverage.

But let us remember that this is not just about New Yorkers. In fact, the sad irony is that many of the Americans who will lose and be most devastated by repeal of this law are in red States and counties, the places that voted for President-elect Trump. Those areas have high numbers of Americans on the Medicaid rolls. Already, States like Idaho, Nebraska, South Dakota, and Georgia are putting Medicaid expansion on hold, waiting to see how action on the ACA plays out. That means half a million Americans will have to wait for health benefits.

But let's keep in mind that this is not just about Medicaid and it is not just about those who obtained coverage through the exchanges. What we need to remember is that all the elements of healthcare reform work together. If you start chipping away at one part of the system, you will see disasters in other parts of the market.

This is about the young person, just out of college, who can stay on their parents' insurance until they are 26, giving them time to secure employment and coverage on their own. It is about patients with a preexisting condition who, until the ACA, were barred

from securing quality medical insurance. It is about women who have, time and again, faced gender discrimination in the insurance market.

Just this past Saturday, New Yorkers in my district rallied together to oppose Republican plans to roll back the ACA and make America sick again. We heard from our local hospitals and healthcare providers who talked about how they will be affected by a dramatic surge in charity care. Nationally, healthcare providers could get stuck with $88 billion in 2019 alone and $1.1 trillion from 2019 to 2028 in uncompensated care. This will strain resources and make it harder for them to provide care to all their patients.

And we heard from ordinary working people who have benefited from the ACA, people like Juana Alvarez, who was able, for the first time, to secure coverage for herself and her family through this law. We heard from Susan Maples, who told us she would not have been able to start her own business without the health benefits afforded under ACA. These are the people Republicans are planning to harm with their irresponsible, chaotic, and destructive attack on our health system.

Now, let me also note this: The Republican slogan ``repeal and replace'' is a sham.

What are they going to replace the ACA with?

They have never--not once--put together a realistic, defensible plan to replace the ACA. The Republican plan is not repeal and replace. It should be called ``repeal and displace'' because it will mean displacing millions of Americans from their health coverage.

So let's be clear. If you are voting to take away the ACA, you are voting to take away health care from millions. And for those who do retain their employer-based coverage, you are voting to increase their premiums, as millions of healthy Americans are taken out of the insurance pool. This is a recipe for disaster. It is a plan to make America sick again, and it cannot stand.

I urge my colleagues to think about what you are doing. Think about going home and looking in the eyes of your constituents and telling them you voted to take away their health coverage. Enough playing politics with health care.

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

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

The Regulatory Flexibility Act has reduced regulatory costs by $130 billion since 1998. However, it could do better. The amendment I am offering will improve this process.

However, unlike the underlying bill, my amendment is actually aligned with the original statute, which was created to protect the unique needs of small businesses in the regulatory process, not to stop regulations. My amendment is also much more cost effective to the taxpayers, as the underlying bill creates a massive and unnecessary government bureaucracy. It should be noted that my amendment is based on bipartisan legislation from a previous Congress, which the committee reported by a recorded vote of 26-0.

The amendment makes improvements to the most significant deficiencies facing the Regulatory Flexibility Act without the overly broad changes contained in the underlying bill. This includes making sure that agencies live up to their obligations to retrospectively review the burdens of existing rules on small businesses. The GAO has reported on numerous occasions that agency compliance with this requirement was poor. My amendment holds the agencies more accountable by requiring them to report the results of their reviews to Congress annually.

My amendment also takes steps to make analyses more detailed so that agencies cannot ignore the RFA and simply certify that a rule has no significant economic impact on small businesses. Addressing this matter will ensure that agencies are required to provide a more factual basis for such certifications rather than just a sentence which dismisses the concerns of small firms.

The most important aspect of my amendment is what it does not do. Unlike H.R. 5, my amendment does not create a new governmentwide bureaucracy or foist a truckload of new responsibilities on the Office of Advocacy, which only has a $9 million budget.

For instance, H.R. 5 requires the Office of Advocacy to approve size standards, a function already handled by the SBA. This is like creating a Rayburn cafeteria next to the Rayburn cafeteria. It is ridiculous. This is a complete waste of taxpayer resources and will, ironically, take the Office of Advocacy away from its core mission of monitoring regulations.

Also, another aspect that is very important, what this legislation does is it is setting the Office of Advocacy to fail. They do not have the expertise. They do not have the resources. In addition, H.R. 5 imposes the panel process across the entire government. I will say that again. Across the entire government, including all independent agencies. So much for fiscal responsibility. There is another complete waste of taxpayer resources, and it will further limit the Office of Advocacy's ability to weigh in on the most important matters affecting small businesses.

Instead, my amendment makes the targeted changes to the RFA that small businesses have called for over the last 5 years. In doing so, it is cost effective and responsible to the taxpayers. I urge Members to vote ``yes'' on my amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the chairman for being so kind. But let me just say that on this one, your approach is not balanced, and it is going to impact the very agencies that you are empowering with so many responsibilities.

I would like to ask the gentleman, adding all these new responsibilities that would require manpower and expertise that is needed, how much money is included in the authorizing process for this office to work properly?

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

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

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

When we think of a startup business, the early days of Apple or Google usually come to mind. Their stories are familiar--hardworking entrepreneurs who beat the odds. Like these companies, most successful startups have several common ingredients: a new product or service, a willingness to take risks, and leadership that can navigate the complexities of today's economy. And successful firms also have a way of securing capital to both get off the ground and to grow.

This last ingredient can present serious obstacles as startups face unique financing challenges. Many do not have positive cash flow, putting traditional bank loans out of reach. While some of these firms participate in incubator or accelerator programs that provide a small amount of seed capital, they must find new sources of funding when their initial capital runs out.

One avenue for securing additional capital is by participating in demo days or pitch days. At these events, entrepreneurs have an opportunity to showcase their companies and innovations to potential investors.

Today's bill will alter SEC rules to exempt the use of general solicitation for presentations made at demo days. In other words, demo day organizers will not have to comply with the usual procedures verifying that the investors they are attracting to the event are accredited.

Despite the well-intended goal of expanding the use of demo days to better meet startups' capital needs, it is easy to see how unscrupulous actors could exploit this exemption to deceive ordinary people that were drawn to the event by a public advertisement. My amendment makes improvements to ensure attendees at demo days have an opportunity to be informed about the nature of these presentations and the risks of investing in startups.

Typically, demo days are limited to select groups of potential investors. Let's be clear, these are not science fairs, but they are sophisticated business presentations designed to raise capital for the entrepreneurs and their startups.

However, the underlying bill allows colleges and universities and nonprofits to host these events and advertise them to the public. It is easy to see how some attendees might not know the true nature of the presentation.

My amendment will address this by requiring event sponsors to provide an SEC-created disclosure outlining the nature of the event and investment risks. By creating a uniform disclosure, the SEC can take the burden off the sponsors and issuers on what to disclose.

This amendment would also clarify that attendance at a demo day alone does not constitute a preexisting relationship and does not allow a stock issuer to sidestep their obligation to verify that an investor is accredited. Without this clarification, it is possible that issuers could defraud less-sophisticated retail investors.

Demo days are a great way for our Nation's entrepreneurs to raise capital, but they should be making presentations to the right investors, those that understand the risks of investing in risky startup businesses, not just anyone who saw an advertisement.

My amendment would both expand the ability of small businesses to raise capital by tapping into demo days while ensuring that the right kind of investors, those accredited and fully informed, are participating in the small business capital markets.

Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support the amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to how many other speakers the gentleman has?

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

First of all, I am the author of the amendment, and in the amendment, there is no place in which it requires anyone to sign anything. This is a reasonable, straightforward, simple amendment that provides transparency and protection to the investors.

The gentleman says that this is not an offering. While some presentations may not explicitly be offering securities for sale, these demo days are not a simple science fair. They are sophisticated business presentations designed to generate hype and investor interest.

If a sponsor wants to advertise such events to the public, it is reasonable that they also provide information regarding the risk of investing in startups.

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

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, here we go again with another piece of misguided legislation, but this one will jeopardize the health and safety of the American people to benefit corporate America and polluters.

Let's be clear. The protections that will be overwhelmingly targeted by this measure are not so-called midnight regulations. These are rules that went through significant vetting. There are a host of statutes that govern how regulations are crafted. From the Administrative Procedure Act to the Regulatory Flexibility Act, to the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act, to the Paperwork Reduction Act, there are numerous processes to ensure regulations are written in a way that protect the American people while preventing overreach.

Mr. Speaker, as the ranking member of the Small Business Committee, I am well acquainted with the need to ensure that the regulatory process is balanced. No one here supports overregulation; but, at the same time, we cannot eliminate safeguards that have a proven record of protecting the American public. This bill also has the potential to create significant regulatory uncertainty for the same small businesses my colleagues say they are trying to help.

At its core, this bill is about enabling the largest and most powerful corporations to run rampant--without accountability. The legislation before us could result in less protections for consumers, and it could strip away workplace protections. We should reject this bill. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no.''

Sixteen.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the bill before us today. As we all know, small businesses are critical to sustaining our economic growth, and it only makes sense to cater our economic policy to meet their needs.

Congress needs to continue promoting our ultimate goal of providing small firms with certainty and simplicity in our Tax Code. Expanding section 179 permanently is one way to accomplish this goal.

Unfortunately, H.R. 636 neglects other important provisions in the Tax Code benefiting small firms. What about R&D tax credit or modernizing the depreciation schedule?

These are important tax reforms that small businesses have been asking for, for so long, but here we are again enacting a piecemeal tax bill that does nothing to accomplish our bipartisan goal of passing comprehensive tax reform.

Republicans love to claim that they are fighting for small businesses when it is convenient for them. However, today's bill doesn't provide enough for small firms, and it certainly doesn't meet what the other side of the aisle claims is the most important policy tenet: fiscal responsibility.

This bill will add $77 billion to our deficit--so much for fiscal responsibility.

While I applaud the effort and agree more can be done to help small businesses, we must enact smart, comprehensive tax reform that truly addresses small business needs.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

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

Reducing the costs of regulations is a very important issue for small businesses, and it is an issue that is always on their minds. Complicated rules and duplicative requirements can create burdens for small firms across a wide range of industries. Unchecked regulations can reduce companies' profitability, causing them to reduce employment and, in the worst cases, even go out of business.

It is for these very reasons that President Barack Obama has taken strong actions. He has issued several broad-based executive orders on rulemaking. Most importantly, he instructed agencies to conduct retrospective review of their regulations. These reviews have resulted in near-term cost savings to the U.S. economy of $10 billion.

He has always required agencies to estimate the costs and benefits of regulations, consider less burdensome alternatives, and incorporate those that are affected by regulations into the rulemaking process.

Taken together, these efforts are helping to rein in regulatory costs, while ensuring that agencies can carry out their mission. It is against this backdrop that we are considering the bill before us today.

Too often on the House floor legislation is painted as either being totally perfect or completely awful. With this bill, neither of these characterizations is appropriate. In fact, on many fronts, H.R. 527 contains several very positive provisions and will make a real difference for small businesses.

Many of these provisions were contained in legislation that passed out of the Small Business Committee when I was the chair. Together with current Chairman Chabot, who was then the ranking member, we passed a regulatory reform bill unanimously out of our committee.

For instance, the bill makes the agency's reg flex analyses more detailed so that they cannot simply overlook their obligations to small businesses. It also gives ``real teeth'' to periodic regulatory look- backs, which require agencies to review outdated regulations that remain on the books. Agencies will also be required to evaluate the entire impact of their regulations, something that is long overdue. And it cannot go without mention that the bill brings the IRS under the purview of the RFA. This is a real improvement for small firms, who will undoubtedly benefit from greater scrutiny of complex and burdensome tax rules. These are all constructive changes that will bring real relief to small businesses.

With that said, Mr. Chairman, there are other items in this legislation that

leave you scratching your head. Adding so many new agencies to the panel process is a recipe for disaster. Such a dramatic change will require new bureaucratic processes, more staff, and more paperwork.

It must be ironic for my colleagues on the other side of the aisle that this bill attempts to reduce Federal regulation by dramatically expanding the role and scope of government.

It also applies reg flex to land management plans, something I have never heard small businesses complain about in my 17 years on the committee. Doing so will enable corporate interests to more readily challenge land use decisions, which could have adverse consequences for the environmental stewardship of public lands. The reality is that the RFA was just not intended to cover these types of actions, and it should not do so going forward.

Another head-scratcher is the creation of another office of size standard within the Small Business Administration. The SBA already has one and does not need two. There is simply no reason to create this bureaucratic duplication. I think both sides of the aisle would agree that, during a time of fiscal constraint, we do not need to be wasting money on a new office when it already exists in the very same agency.

Finally, it is important to note that the Office of Advocacy's footprint has traditionally been minimal, with a budget of $9 million and 46 employees. According to CBO, its budget would have to potentially double to handle the new responsibilities of H.R. 527.

CBO also notes that the private sector could also face increased costs. Federal agencies will likely charge the private sector higher fees to carry out the new responsibilities under this bill.

Simply put, now is not the time to make costly statutory leaps when smaller steps are more appropriate.

It is important to remember that tinkering with our regulatory system will not turn the economy around and create jobs that we need in our communities. In order to make real inroads, we need to, instead, provide businesses with the capital they need to start up and grow through affordable lending and getting more customers through their doors. The best way to achieve that is by increasing the Federal minimum wage.

In the end, legislation such as this detracts us from the real task at hand: creating real jobs through substantive progrowth policies.

So in conclusion, there are some good and some not so good things in this bill. I want to acknowledge the effort by the bill's managers, but in the end, it is not something that I can support, given the imposition of too many questionable policies. However, I want to thank Chairman Chabot for always being open to discussions, and I look forward to continuing our dialogue on this legislation.

With that, Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

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

Since its enactment in 1980, the Regulatory Flexibility Act has reduced the burden of Federal rules on small businesses. It has evolved over time to include new tools, expanding its purview, and making a real difference for entrepreneurs across the country.

With this important role in mind, the legislation before us makes some essential changes, such as requiring more robust reviews of existing regulations and ensuring that new rules are more thoroughly examined. This improvement will give small firms a greater voice, while reducing the compliance costs they face in so many facets of their business; however, in other areas, the bill goes too far.

At a time of mountainous deficits and growing taxpayer anger at how tone-deaf Congress has become, H.R. 527 will dramatically expand the Federal bureaucracy at a cost of nearly $60 million.

It also turns the SBA's Office of Advocacy into another superregulator, giving it unprecedented authority to issue regulations and greatly increase its role into judicial proceedings.

Mr. Chairman, I don't want people to think that I do not appreciate the fine work that the Office of Advocacy does on behalf of small businesses, but what this bill does is setting them up for failure.

And with all these new powers, it does nothing to pay for it. Instead, it leaves taxpayers with just another bill.

While it is important to empower small businesses, this is not the best and most cost-effective way to do it. In fact, there is no clear estimate of how much savings small businesses will actually receive as a result of this legislation.

The truth is, there are better ways to accomplish these very objectives but without the extravagance of this legislation.

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