Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, on February 6, 2018, Crain's Chicago Business published an op-ed, ``The looming crisis in health care'' by Sara McElmurry, a nonresident fellow for immigration at Chicago Council on Global Affairs. The piece highlights the effect that cancellation of Temporary Protected Status (TPS) and failure to extend Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) would have on Midwesterners' access to home care. I urge my colleagues to read this op-ed and consider the human consequences of anti-immigrant policies.

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record the following:

[From Crain's Chicago Business, Feb. 6, 2018]

The Looming Crisis in Health Care

(By Sara McElmurry)

When the White House unveiled a hard-line plan last week to

choke off immigration, it issued a threat to a crucial

pipeline of Midwestern workers: home health care aides.

In the crosshairs is a region that's graying at a rapid

clip yet stubbornly conflicted about immigrants--a region

where foreign-born workers punch well above their weight.

Immigrants are currently 24 percent of the nation's home

health aides. And while they make up 13 percent of the U.S.

population, more immigrants are in their prime working age

and have a higher rate of job participation compared to their

native-born peers, representing 17 percent of the overall

workforce, according to a new report by the Chicago Council

on Global Affairs.

Examining the mushrooming demand in one industry--home

health--illustrates the crisis to come. Analysts expect 1.1

million of these jobs to come online by 2026 as America's

population of seniors rises to 71.5 million by 2030. Chicago,

Columbus, Minneapolis and Cleveland are already four of the

top five metropolitan areas with the highest employment

levels for the occupation. But in a region that has lost

nearly a quarter of its native-born working-age population

since 2000, where will the Midwest find new workers to meet

the demand?

Home health aides log long, physically demanding hours

taking care of people who cannot care for themselves and

helping families who need extra hands to care for loved ones.

They bathe and feed ailing clients, check vitals, monitor

medications, and change bedpans and bedsheets. These jobs are

certainly not glamorous and decidedly hard to fill, given the

physically--and emotionally--challenging duties.

While many home health aides complete on-the-job training

and hold professional certificates, the positions often

require only a high school degree and no previous work

experience, making them an accessible entry point into the

U.S. labor force for immigrants and refugees.

Yet these so-called ``low-skilled'' workers will prove

difficult to replace if the pipeline of immigrants suddenly

slows. Home health aides earn a mean $23,840 annually in

Illinois. Improved pay and benefits should be top of

employers' to-do lists but may prove futile in attracting

aging U.S.-born workers, particularly Midwesterners, who are

closing in on retirement themselves.

Yet the U.S. immigration system is increasingly hostile to

the foreign-born talent needed to fill the gaps. The fast-

approaching end to Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals on

March 5, coupled with the Trump administration's cancellation

of many Temporary Protected Status programs, could hit health

care hard. One in five DACA recipients is employed in health

care, and many TPS holders--especially among the 50,000

Haitians who received TPS after an earthquake leveled the

island in 2010--work in home health care.

Moving forward, many would-be home health aides will not

meet the lofty criteria of the points-based immigration

systems being championed by the White House. And if the

administration is successful in implementing its plans to

curb family-based immigration, end the ``diversity'' visa

lottery and dismantle other elements of our immigration

system as outlined in last week's State of the Union address,

the pool of foreign-born health workers will be further

compromised.

In recent years, the Midwest has led the charge to bring

more immigrant workers into health care. Local nonprofits

like Chicago's Institute del Progreso Latino have pioneered

immigrant-friendly pipeline programs that provide language

skills and certifications for in-demand health care careers.

Several Midwestern states, including Illinois, have made

higher education more accessible for immigrants by offering

in-state tuition rates at public institutions. Missouri and

Minnesota have created licenses and policies that help more

qualified immigrants enter tough-to-fill health care jobs.

These innovative local programs are ripe to be scaled

nationally. But instead, the federal government's immigration

crackdown threatens their success by pushing out current

work-authorized immigrants and limiting the channels for new

workers to enter the country to replace them.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I rise in opposition to H.R. 772.

This bill is completely unnecessary, overly prescriptive, and would deny consumers critical information about the food that they eat.

At a time when our country is facing an obesity epidemic--I would say, really, crisis--we should not be undermining efforts to educate consumers about the nutritional value of foods, including calories.

As a country, we pay a high price for obesity. It is estimated that medical costs for obesity top $190.2 billion, annually. Childhood obesity alone is responsible for $14 billion in direct medical costs. We should be embracing efforts to reduce this enormous cost to our healthcare system. A Harvard study found restaurant menu labeling could prevent up to 41,000 cases of childhood obesity and could save over $4.6 billion in healthcare costs over 10 years.

So if you want to eat pizza and fries, that is great, but why not have the opportunity to know how many calories are in that pizza and fries? You should be able to have that information. More information for consumers is a good thing.

The menu labeling law that passed in 2010 requires chain restaurants with 20 or more locations to provide consumers with basic nutritional information like calorie content for standard food and beverage items on menus. Since then, the FDA has been working to implement this rule only to face numerous delays along the way.

Research has shown that calorie information can help people make healthier choices, and 80 percent of Americans support providing this type of calorie information on the menu. But far from common sense, the legislation we are considering today would undermine the law. H.R. 772 takes us backwards by undermining the law and further delaying consumer protections.

This is not about flexibility. This bill just gives cover to bad actors and special interests that do not want to comply with the law.

First, it would allow food establishments to display calorie information in ways that would only serve to confuse and mislead customers. It allows the food establishment to set arbitrary serving sizes and cut the calorie count way below what a normal person would eat. Without standardized calorie reporting for menu items, people will have a tough time figuring out and computing nutrition information and comparing across items. It is deceptive to label an entree or a muffin as multiple servings because we all know that they are mostly consumed by one person in one sitting.

Second, it would deny consumers the opportunity to view calorie information and other nutritional information regardless of how or where they purchase food from a chain restaurant. Not only does it allow deceptive serving size manipulation, this bill would allow food establishments to make that information difficult to find. Calorie labeling is not useful if it is posted somewhere that it will not be seen.

Provisions in this bill would deny customers nutritional information from not only inside a pizza chain, but inside fast-food and other chain restaurants if the majority of their orders are placed offsite, like on the telephone or online.

For example, under this bill, a restaurant or similar retail food establishment could have the option to only list nutritional information online or via some other remote-access menu, thereby denying consumers who order in a brick-and-mortar location access to the information. Speed limits are not useful if they are hidden on a highway, and calorie counts cannot help if they are concealed from the public.

Finally, it has been nearly 8 years since the original menu labeling requirements were passed, but this bill would once again delay the final menu labeling rules and send the FDA back

to the drawing board. The FDA has already put forth a proposed rule, solicited comments, and worked with stakeholders to finalize the menu labeling rule.

In fact, just this past November, FDA published new draft guidance intended to help answer any of the outstanding questions regarding compliance. This guidance included sample menus and pictures to help food establishments tackle how to label for a variety of ingredients like multiple pizza toppings.

This rule has been delayed long enough. The final menu labeling regulations should go into effect as scheduled in May of this year. Countless businesses, restaurants, and other retail food establishments have already invested time and money into compliance with the current menu labeling rules, and it would be irresponsible to further delay implementation of this important rule.

This bill is another handout to businesses and an affront to consumers. It will keep consumers in the dark about the nutritional information that they need and create consumer and industry confusion.

H.R. 772 would weaken an important tool intended to help Americans make informed food choices at a time when obesity and other nutrition- related health problems are at crisis levels. That is why countless consumer and public health organizations oppose this bill, including the American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network, the American Diabetes Association, the American Heart Association, the American Nurses Association, Center for Science in the Public Interest, Consumers Union, and the Trust for America's Health. All of these health organizations oppose this legislation because it is not good for the health of our country or for consumers.

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

Mr. Speaker, how much time do I have remaining?

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Engel).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Cardenas).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume while I am waiting for an additional speaker.

I want to hold up this board. This is an example that the FDA gave to businesses on how they could easily--we see all kinds of signs like this. Sometimes it is the price at the end of the item, and, in this case, it would be the calories.

So it talks about a slice of pizza. Now, I am feeling kind of chunky today, and I go into the pizza parlor, and it says that for cheese pizza, for th original, it is about 200 to 240 calories; for the thin and crispy, 150 to 190 calories; and for pan--now, we love our pan pizza, our deep-dish pizza in Chicago, but that is 260 to 300 calories.

So I am thinking: Yeah, I want pizza, but I think I am going to go with the thin and crispy, which is going to save me at least 110 calories.

Now, what do I want on top? I am looking now at all the things, the meats and the veggies that can go on top, and each one of them has calories per slice listed there. Simple. I am a pretty good--you know, I can do math pretty well, and I can also compare. Do I want something that is up to 50 calories or something that is 20 calories? And I can look at this sign and make a decision for myself.

This is not too cumbersome. This is something that could easily be displayed. I go to a lot of restaurants that already are in compliance and have the calories, and if I am like between the pasta and the salmon--and, again, I want to make that decision. It is good for me to know what is the real difference in calories.

I want to say, I started out as an activist in the grocery store. I was a very, very young housewife many years ago, 1970, when a small group of women got together. We called ourselves National Consumers United because we wanted to know how old our food was in the grocery store.

Everything was code dated. You couldn't tell how old the food was, and we were actually told that if we didn't like it, we could shop somewhere else. Well, we started cracking the codes like detectives, pushing the stock boys--and they were all boys--against the shelf, and they were telling us how they put the old stuff in front and the new stuff in the back.

Finally, we were able to get one of our retailers to say: Come to Jewel; our food has freshness dates. And people loved it. And it turned out that, even over the initial opposition from the retailers, it was good for them, because people appreciated that and went to their stores.

Now, those dates on food are ubiquitous. Customers like it, retailers like it, it is better, and this would be yet another thing that we could do.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone), the ranking member on the Energy and Commerce Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman from New Jersey.

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

Mr. Speaker, I wanted to--you know, your friends at Jimmy John's are not

going to go to jail. In fact, just this past November, in new supplemental draft guidance, FDA explained that the agency, ``does not intend to penalize or recommend the use of criminal penalties for minor violations.'' The FDA went on to explain that minor violations would include inadvertently missing a calorie declaration for a standard menu item on the buffet; minor discrepancies in the type, size, color, contrast of calorie declarations; minimal variations or inadvertent error that would only minimally impact the calorie declaration, such as adding extra slices of pepperoni or an extra dollop of ketchup. This is just not going to happen.

Let me just say, in closing, the law that Congress passed almost 8 years ago--so the calls for more time is just ridiculous--should be allowed to go into effect. It is long past due. This is about freedom, about freedom of consumers to make informed choices.

I know my friends across the aisle talk about freedom all the time. This is about freedom to make choices that will help you. Empowering consumers to make informed decisions that benefit their health is exactly what the current law allows. H.R. 772 would undermine that important goal.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank Mr. Scott and the Congressional Black Caucus for hosting the special order.

The Janus case is critically important to public employees--many of whom are people of color--as well as to the millions of Americans who rely on the services these workers provide.

This is a case originating in my state of Illinois, Janus v AFSCME Council 31, an outstanding union that fights relentlessly for working families. The case was originally brought by Illinois Governor Bruce Rauner, who was found to have no legal standing to bring suit, and who then scrambled to find another plaintiff.

Before becoming Governor, Rauner was chairman of a private equity firm, where he put profits ahead of working families' paychecks. As Governor, he has made it his number one priority to attack unions, including the wages, benefits and well-being of his hardworking AFSCME employees.

Janus is about freedom--not the freedom of Mr. Janus to get the benefits of union representation as a free rider--but the freedom of workers to join together to bargain for a better deal for their families: better wages, better benefits and a better future.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize and celebrate an important and longstanding part of the fabric of the 9th Congressional District of Illinois: Temple Beth Israel in suburban Skokie, north of Chicago. January 31, 2018 marks 100 years since the Temple's incorporation in the State of Illinois, and it is considered its official birthday.

Temple Beth Israel was the first Reform congregation in the Albany Park neighborhood of Chicago; and while its location may have changed over the last century, it has remained a stable presence in the lives of its congregants. For 100 years, Temple Beth Israel has allowed individuals and families to come together and express their Judaism-- providing comfort in dire times, a place to celebrate in happier times, and an opportunity to reflect and pray.

This congregation has seen success because of the diligent work of its rabbis and staff over the years. Three different rabbis have spent more than 30 years apiece at this congregation, and each has left their mark on this institution.

Rabbi Michael A. Weinberg has served as the Temple's beloved rabbi since 1987 and is a past president of the Chicago Association of Reform Rabbis, in addition to serving in other roles of distinction. Rabbi Weinberg was preceded by Rabbi Ernest M. Lorge, who served from 1947 through 1984. Rabbi Lorge worked hard to expand the congregation, was very involved in the issues of the day, and met with President John F. Kennedy at the White House to discuss civil rights issues. Rabbi Felix S. Mendelsohn served as the first full time Rabbi for Temple Beth Israel. He began his service in 1919 and is credited with founding both the Temple Center, a Jewish social center for young adults, and National Jewish Book Week--today known as Jewish Book Month.

Today, the Temple Beth Israel congregation numbers approximately 400 families, and remains a vibrant part of the 9th Congressional District's diverse community. I offer my sincere congratulations to Rabbi Weinberg, the congregation's past and present staff and the many congregants who are celebrating this important milestone. I wish them all the best in the years ahead and hope for another century of good work ahead for Temple Beth Israel.

Mr. Speaker, let me thank Mr. Scott and the Congressional Black Caucus for this Special Order.

The Janus case is critically important to public employees, but, more importantly, to all the people who rely on public services that they provide.

This is an Illinois case--it is my State--Janus v. AFSCME Council 31, a relentless fighter for American workers. Before becoming Governor, Bruce Rauner was chairman of a private equity firm where he put profits ahead of working families. As Governor, he was the one who filed this suit.

We need to make sure that we protect workers all over this country. We need to win this case before the Supreme Court. Justice calls for winning for union members.

Mr. Speaker, well, it is day two of the Trump shutdown, the first government shutdown in history when one party has control of the House, the Senate, and the White House. But I believe that the issues at the heart of this debate actually have support from a majority of Americans and a majority in Congress. So I ask my Republican colleagues:

Who are the 218 Republicans who would vote against funding community health centers as well as the Children Health Insurance Program?

Who are the 218 Republicans who oppose addressing veterans' programs, workers' pensions, and the opioid epidemic?

And, yes, who are the 218 Republicans who would vote against the young DACA recipients and the Dream Act?

We don't lack votes. We lack willingness from President Trump and Republican leadership to negotiate.

I am here. We are here ready to work. The Democrats want to come together with the Republicans on a bipartisan deal to end the Trump shutdown.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to bring up H.R. 4872, the End the Shutdown Act of 2018, a continuing resolution that would immediately reopen the government through Tuesday while negotiations continue on a budget agreement that adheres to parity and on other critical issues.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor the life and mourn the loss of a precious friend and mentor, Paul Booth.

Paul was a lifelong happy warrior for justice and a renowned progressive champion. For decades, he was a top leader in his union, AFSCME, fighting every day for working women and men.

From his youth as a student leader until the very day he died, he fought for peace and equality and opportunity. Paul Booth made things happen. He was a strategist and, above all, an organizer. With his life partner, Heather Booth, Paul inspired and taught us to work smarter and be better.

Paul Booth will be sorely missed by all those he touched, including my husband, Bob, and me. We were cherished friends for decades.

Our hearts go out to Heather and his sons, Gene and Dan, and all those whose lives he inspired and that he touched. We are so sorry. We are heartbroken.

Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 4712, the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act.

Of course, if a baby is born alive, everything must be done to protect that life. No one disagrees with that. Perhaps more importantly, it is already the law. To suggest otherwise is just wrong.

So don't be fooled. This bill is yet another effort to erode women's rights to obtain safe, legal abortions and a cynical attempt to appease those who have come to D.C. to advocate for the reversal of Roe v. Wade.

H.R. 4712 would insert the opinions of politicians into medical practice and the individual rights of women to make their own decisions. This is not what women want, what doctors were trained to do, and I personally find offensive the fact that there is a suggestion that Democrats are not for saving the lives of born children. Of course, we are. We all are.

This is not a necessary piece of legislation. It is already on the books.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Kris Sadur, who is retiring after serving for 10 years as a remarkable Constituent Advocate/Outreach Coordinator in my Chicago district office. Kris' inspiring career included assisting and supporting senior citizens, health care consumers, the disability community, educators, students, artists, women's rights advocates, and ALL the constituents of the 9th Congressional District.

Kris has helped thousands upon thousands of Illinois 9th Congressional District residents throughout her ten years. She is an expert on issues affecting the senior citizen and disability community, including Medicare, Medicare Part D, Social Security, health care, senior housing, nursing homes, and postal issues.

Kris has earned a reputation as a go-to person who can solve problems, cut through red tape, and get things done for constituents. Her expertise in Social Security and Medicare have been invaluable to residents of the 9th Congressional District and to me and my office.

Kris is a fighter. I appreciated hearing her on the phone with government agencies, because she did not take no for an answer. She made sure that constituents were getting everything they needed and deserved. Sometimes she was told that nothing could be done to fix a problem, but somehow she would find a way. I call her a miracle worker. Recently she heard from a constituent who Social Security had determined was dead. This constituent and her family had been trying to rectify this mistake for weeks but were not successful. Kris was able to get Social Security to recognize that this constituent was alive and well and her benefits were immediately reinstated.

Whenever a problem was brought to her attention, Kris rolled up her sleeves and went to work. She learned that the Medicare website video was not useable for the deaf community and American Sign Language (ASL) users, so she worked with the Center for Medicaid and Medicare Services (CMS) to get an ASL video on the website, thus getting critical information to hearing-impaired individuals across America. Kris also succeeded in making the local office that administers Medicaid more user-friendly.

Remarkably, Kris has returned or saved constituents more than $6 million since she started working for me. She has been able to rectify errors in benefits and payments made by the Social Security Administration, Medicare and Medicaid, has gotten premiums reduced that were increased erroneously, corrected hospital billing errors, and helped constituents determine which Medicare Part D plan would be the least expensive with the most comprehensive coverage for their prescription needs.

Kris recognized that often seniors couldn't make it into one of our district offices and so she went to them--she established several neighborhood office hour locations across the district where she could meet with constituents in the community, including at the Frisbie Senior Center in Des Plaines, the Park Ridge Senior Center, and Niles Township and New Trier Township offices.

Kris was often invited to make presentations and speak with local organizations about Medicare, Medicare Part D, Social Security and legislation and policies affecting seniors. She spoke regularly to community groups and advocacy organizations, and at senior centers, nursing homes, and senior housing facilities. She has a knack for clearly explaining how complicated federal programs work and a genuine warmth that she communicates to her listeners. She was always in high demand as a speaker and presenter.

Kris has a strong artistic background and she organized and ran the annual Artistic Discovery program in our district, an art competition for high school students in which the winner travels to Washington D.C. to see their art hung in the tunnel between the House buildings and the Capitol. Kris made this a very special competition and event, and she included all special education schools in the district. That led to some very powerful experiences for students in those schools, many of whom had never participated in such an event or had their work recognized. One special education school student had a life-changing experience by participating in this program, all because of Kris.

Prior to working in my office, Kris worked at Age Options, the Area Agency on Aging for Suburban Cook County, where she was an outreach specialist. She was also President and Board Member at Niles Township Department of Special Education, President and Board Member at Temple Judea Mizpah in Skokie and President and Board Member at the Lincolnwood Board of Education in Lincolnwood. Kris also worked at National Able as a Job Development Supervisor and was a Women's Advocate and Budget Analyst at the Illinois House of Representatives.

It is not easy to say goodbye to someone who has been such an essential part of our office team, a leader and role model, an inspiration and a treasured friend. Kris will be able to spend more time with her family, including her husband Al and children Craig and Jill. My office and I, and the residents of the 9th Congressional District, will miss her dearly and wish her every happiness in her retirement. We look forward to continuing our friendships long into the future.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I respect and support Tribal sovereignty. I also support workers' rights to unionize and collective bargaining to improve their workplace and the lives of their families. Those rights must be balanced, but they are not in this bill.

Union members have a collective voice to fight for higher wages, better benefits, safer workplaces, fewer injuries, fewer deaths, lower rates of gender-based violence.

After Unite Here, a union, found that 58 percent of hotel workers and 77 percent of casino workers in the Chicagoland, where I am from, had been sexually harassed, they won a contract that includes panic buttons to protect workers.

Labor rights are fundamental, but under this bill, workers at Tribally-owned businesses, casinos and hotels, construction, and other industries would lose those rights.

Remember, three out of four workers employed in Tribal casinos are not Tribal members. Those workers could end up with no way to bargain for fair wages, appeal unfair disciplinary action, or act against sexual harassment.

Looking at a similar bill in the last Congress, the International Labour Organization stated: ``It would appear likely that an exclusion of certain workers from the National Labor Relations Act and its mechanisms would give rise to a failure to ensure to these workers their fundamental freedom of association rights absent any assurances that there were Tribal labor laws that provide the same rights to all workers.''

Mr. Speaker, there is no such requirement in this bill. Protect workers. Reject this unfair and unbalanced bill.

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record the opinion from the International Labour Office.

International Labour Office,

Geneve 22.

Mr. R.L. Trumka,

President, AFL-CIO,

Washington, DC.

Dear Mr. Trumka: I acknowledge receipt of your letter dated

22 October 2015 requesting an informal opinion and guidance

from

the International Labour Organization in respect of a Bill

being considered by the United States Congress.

In particular, you have raised concerns about the Tribal

Labor Sovereignty Act (H.R. 511) which you state would deny

protection under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) of a

large number of workers employed by tribal-owned and tribal-

operated enterprises located on tribal territory and ask for

the informal opinion of the Office as to whether such an

exclusion of workers employed on tribal lands would be in

conformity with the principles of freedom of Association

which are at the core of the ILO Constitution and the ILO's

Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work.

In conformity with the regular procedure concerning

requests for an informal opinion from the International

Labour Office in respect of draft legislation and its

possible impact on international labour standards and

principles, the views set out below should in no way be

considered as prejudging any comments or observations that

might be made by the ILO supervisory bodies within the

framework of their examination of the application of ratified

international labour standards or principles on freedom of

association.

Your links to committee reports of the congressional

majority and minority and other background information have

enabled the Office to consider the views of the parties both

for and against the proposed amendment and they all appear to

confirm recognition of the United States' obligation to

uphold freedom of association and collective bargaining.

While the proponents of the Bill assert that this can be

achieved through the labour relations' regimes autonomously

determined by the tribal nations, the opponents--and you

yourself in your request--maintain that excluding tribal

lands from the NLRA will in effect result in a loss (or at

the very least inadequate protection) of their trade union

rights. Not only do you refer to tribal labour relations

ordinances which in your view provide inadequate protections

in this regard, but you also refer to instances where there

are no tribal labour relations ordinances at all.

While elements of indigenous peoples' sovereignty have been

invoked by the proponents of this Bill, the central question

revolves around the manner in which the United States

Government can best assure throughout its territory the full

application of the fundamental principles of freedom of

association and collective bargaining. From an ILO

perspective, while the variety of mechanisms for ensuring

freedom of association and collective bargaining rights may

differ depending on distinct sectoral considerations or

devolution of labour competence, it is critical that the

State (the national authority) takes ultimate responsibility

for ensuring respect for freedom of association and

collective bargaining rights throughout its territory.

As you have indicated, the 2004 San Manuel Indian Bingo and

Casino decision assures possible recourse to the National

Labor Relations Board (NLRB), an overarching mechanism aimed

at ensuring the protection of freedom of association, while

also maintaining deference to the sovereign interests of the

tribal nations so as to avoid touching on exclusive rights of

self-governance.

Full abdication of review via an exclusion from the scope

of the NLRA for all workers employed on tribal lands as

described might make it very difficult for the United States

Government to assure the fundamental trade union rights of

workers. In cases like those mentioned where there are no

tribal labour relations ordinances, undue restrictions on

collective bargaining, excessive limitations on freedom of

association rights or lack of protection from unfair labour

practices, workers on tribal territories would be left

without any remedy for violation of their fundamental freedom

of association rights, short of a constitutional battle.

Furthermore, the exclusion proposed, with no avenue for

federal review or overarching mechanism for appeal should

there be an alleged violation of freedom of association,

would give rise to discrimination in relation to the

protection of trade union rights which would affect both

indigenous and non-indigenous workers simply on the basis of

their workplace location.

Given the concerns that you have raised, it would be

critically important that, at the very least, a complete

legal and comparative review be undertaken to support

assurances that all rights, mechanisms and remedies for the

full protection of internationally recognized freedom of

association rights are available to all workers on all tribal

lands. In the absence of such assurances, it would appear

likely that an exclusion of certain workers from the NLRA and

its mechanisms would give rise to a failure to ensure to

these workers their fundamental freedom of association

rights.

In accordance with ILO procedure concerning requests for

informal opinions on draft legislation, this communication

will also be brought to the attention of the United States

Government and the representative employers' organization,

the US Council for International Business.

Yours sincerely,

Corinne Vargha,

Director of the

International Labour Standards Department.

Mr. Speaker, all of us are anxious to go home to our families and our celebrations, but more and more Americans are seeing every single day, particularly in the last couple days, just how messed up the values and priorities of the Republican majority really are.

They saw the Republicans go off to the White House and high-fiving and cheering each other for a tax cut that provides 81 percent of its benefits to the wealthiest Americans and that blows about a $1.5- trillion hole in the budget. That means debt and deficit.

Who is left with the coal in the stocking?

We are looking at 9 million children and their parents who are sick, who have been worrying about how they are going to have the Children's Health Insurance Program. Yes, we extended it now until March. It expired in September, but we didn't have time for those children.

We don't have time for the 800,000 young people who are serving this country right now as DACA recipients. We could pass the Dream Act today. Let's get our values straight. Let's do better than we are.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding and also for her tremendous leadership.

Let's talk a little bit about the winners in this bill.

I think it is interesting to note that, if you are General Electric, since 1990 to 2017, you have contributed over $20 million to Republican campaigns. What you get back in tax relief from this legislation is almost $16 billion over the life of this bill.

If you are Microsoft, you have contributed over $17 million, and you get back $27 billion from this tax bill.

This is such a great investment for big corporations who have given money to Republican candidates over the years. But if you are not part of the country's wealthiest 1 percent, this GOP tax scam is a really bad deal for you.

It is especially bad for America's senior citizens. This tax scam raises premiums for those 50 to 64 by 10 percent, an average of $1,400, and the deficit it creates will require, under the law, $25 billion in a Medicare tax cut next year.

We have heard the Republicans say we are going to get that money back, but in this bill there is a $25 billion cut in Medicare next year. That is only the beginning. It gets worse.

Republicans aren't even hiding the fact that they intend to use this deficit that they created of $1.5 trillion as justification for slashing Medicare and Medicaid. They have said it. They have admitted it. They are even talking about raising the age of Social Security eligibility in order to give these tax breaks to the rich.

Seniors should not have to foot the bill for a tax scam that gives 83 percent of the benefits to the top 1 percent. American seniors deserve a better deal. So do 86 million families who would see a tax increase as a result of this scam.

To my Republican colleagues, you really do have a second chance. Because the bill got messed up, there were mistakes, it was done so fast, done in secret, it is coming back to us today. So you have a second chance to do the right thing. Please take it. Vote ``no.''

Mr. Speaker, I rise to celebrate the career of Jackie Gillan, President of Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety. Jackie will soon be retiring after nearly 30 years with Advocates.

For decades, Jackie has been at the forefront of transportation safety--in and out of government. Her record of public service is impressive. She served as a staffer at the U.S. Department of Transportation during the Carter Administration and in the U.S. Senate. She has also worked at state transportation agencies in New Jersey, Ohio, and California.

I know Jackie from her post-government career as a champion for consumer safety. She joined Advocates as a board member in 1989. She became Vice President a year later and President in 2011.

Under her leadership, Advocates has worked effectively at the federal and state levels to improve child safety; strengthen laws against impaired driving; require seatbelts, child restraints, and motorcycle helmets; establish teen driver programs; and increase funding for highway and auto safety. In 2002, two-year-old Cameron Gulbransen was killed in a tragic back-over accident. With Jackie's help, I passed a bill in Cameron's memory to require back-up cameras in passenger vehicles. The fight did not stop there though. We fought for years afterward to implement the law until the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration finalized a rule in 2014. Thanks to Jackie's tireless efforts, back-up cameras are now standard in Model Year 2018 passenger vehicles.

This year, we have been working together to pass the HOT CARS Act, which would help prevent child heatstroke deaths by requiring rear seat reminders. Jackie has been an ally in numerous other efforts as well, from limiting the sale of cars under open recall to ensuring the safe deployment of autonomous vehicles.

Jackie leaves her current role with an impressive legacy of crashes prevented, injuries averted, and lives saved. But I don't expect Jackie to disappear into retirement. As she moves from President to President Emeritus of Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety, I am confident that she will continue to be a safety champion. And whether they know it or not, everyone on the road today owes a little bit of gratitude to Jackie Gillan.

Mr. Speaker, Leo Rosten, the author of ``Joys of Yiddish,'' defines chutzpah as ``that quality enshrined in a man who, having killed his mother and father, throws himself on the mercy of the court because he is an orphan.''

Here is a new definition. Yesterday, Speaker Ryan reconfirmed that, after pushing through a tax scam that adds $1.5 trillion to the deficit by giving tax cuts to the richest, Republicans will insist on slashing Medicare and Medicaid to reduce the deficit. He said: ``We're going to have to get back next year at entitlement reform, which is how you tackle the debt and the deficit.''

This is not just chutzpah. It is actual cruelty and callousness.

So I ask my Republican colleagues: Did you really come to Congress to take healthcare and long-term care from children, pregnant women, people with disabilities, families, and seniors?

Who are you?

Mr. Speaker, I rise today against the Trump administration rule allowing corporations to decide whether their employees can access birth control. This morning, 500,000 comments were delivered in opposition to this rule.

It is astonishing to me that we are having this debate in 2017: women's access to birth control.

Birth control is not healthcare alone. It is the right of women to control their own bodies, plan their own families, and chart their own futures.

Obstetricians and gynecologists from Chicago submitted a comment, saying: ``Women who are able to control when and how they become pregnant are able to finish school, pursue graduate degrees, and further the greater social and economic good of our Nation.''

Mr. Speaker, for 99 percent of women of reproductive age, birth control is an essential part of their lives. This is a direct attack on women, and we will not stand for it. Women in America are watching.