Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, today is the official opening of the American Writers Museum, a unique center that celebrates the many contributions that writers have made to our history, our culture, our understanding and our enjoyment. The American Writers Museum does not just document the wonderful record of literature in America, it will inspire this and future generations to read and to write, ensuring that our rich national tradition will continue.

The museum is the brainchild of Malcolm O'Hagan, a retired Irish manufacturing executive, who eight years ago decided that American writers deserved recognition. He knew that there was no museum to highlight our American literary legacy and, rather than just ask why not, he acted. As a result, beginning today, we will for the first time have a museum dedicated to showing the importance of stories, language and literature.

I am very proud that the decision was made to house this unique national museum in Chicago, recognizing the many wonderful writers based in the city and the importance of the Midwest in our nation's cultural history. The American Writers Museum is a wonderful addition to our city. As Mayor Rahm Emanuel has said, the ``museum will complement the rich offerings of the city's theaters, museum, library and musical activities and add significantly to Chicago's vitality.'' I am reminded today of my predecessor, Representative Sidney Yates, a legendary champion of the arts. I know that he would be very happy to celebrate the opening of the American Writers Museum in Chicago and to recognize the importance of literature in our lives and in our national community.

I want to thank Mr. O'Hagan for his successful efforts and the board, designers, contributors and many volunteers who brought this Museum into being. I hope that people from around the country will come to Chicago to visit the American Writers Museum to learn, reflect, enjoy and be inspired to unleash their own creativity.

Mr. Speaker, understand this: the Republicans planned to exempt Members of Congress from the provisions of TrumpCare until they got caught.

So here are five numbers that show just how deadly and dangerous the Republican bill is:

Twenty-four million is the number of children, adults, and veterans whose health insurance will be ripped away.

$880 billion is the size of the cut to Medicaid, threatening health care and long-term care for 74 million people: children, pregnant women, the elderly, and the disabled.

$600 billion is the tax cut that goes to millionaires and billionaires and corporations.

758 percent is the premium increase a 64-year-old making $26,000 a year will pay because of the Republican age tax.

Seventeen percent is the percent of Americans who supported TrumpCare before they made it worse.

The Republicans' attempt to improve TrumpCare is like trying to douse a dumpster fire with gasoline. This bill is a disaster, and anyone who votes for it does so at their extreme peril. The American people are watching, and they will not forget.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Actually, the idea of the 40-hour day began over--yesterday makes 130 years at Haymarket Square in the city of Chicago, my hometown. And the idea is very simple: that after 40 hours of work, which is a reasonable time in most industrialized countries in the world, that people then get overtime pay. It is something that helps strengthen families and is good for workers to have money in their pockets.

But the idea here, under the guise of flexibility--which is a really nice word--is it allows employers to deny extra hours to workers who want overtime. Instead, they can pick those who are willing to work long hours without pay for promises in the future that they would be able to have comp time, that they would be able to make it up at a time of their boss' choosing. Oh, they say over a negotiation, but go ahead and try and negotiate with your employer about that.

While the majority argues that providing comp time to private sector workers creates parity between the public and private sector, workers in the public sector have many more protections than workers in the private sector right now.

Union density in the public sector is five to six times the union density of the private sector. Workers represented by unions have far more bargaining power than unrepresented workers, greatly increasing the potential for employer abuse of comp time and decreasing the employees' ability to defend themselves from such abuses.

Workers in the public sector have more job security, higher wages than their private sector counterparts. This means public sector workers are less likely to be putting their jobs at risk. So this is just a bad idea, hurts workers, hurts families, hurts the longstanding idea of the 40-hour workweek.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate the students and teachers from Maine South High School in Park Ridge, Illinois who recently participated in the 30th Annual We the People: The Citizen and the Constitution national academic competition and placed tenth in the nation. The We the People program is sponsored by the Center for Civic Education and is the most extensive program in the nation educating students about the history and principles of U.S. constitutional democracy.

The national competition takes the form of a simulated congressional hearing during which students demonstrate their knowledge and skills as they evaluate, take, and defend positions on historical and contemporary constitutional issues. Independent studies show that We the People students benefit greatly from this experience. I would like to commend the teachers, Andrew Trenkle and Kevin Hansen, for their dedication and expertise in the classroom. The following are the names of the students from their constitution team:

Cardella Alison, Margaret Bono, Kathryn Boyce, Gracie DeRosa, Lily Dysart, Anna Ebacher, Maria Francque, Katherine Heyde, Maria Iatrides, Grace Janes, Ann Kapustiak, Julia Klages, Dominika Kolendo, Garrett Kreger, Alexander Krysl, Maura Lally, Catherine Martin, Sydney Mathias, Thomas Ng, William Olafsson, Marc Piarowski, Mary Pat Roche, Shannon Ryan, Jill Steffen, Daniel Touhy, Peyton Turner, Emerson Uhlig, Elaina Wilkens, Kristin Woo, Isis Zaki.

Mr. Speaker, with many reports and studies documenting a lack of education among the public of some of our most basic constitutional principles and institutions, the need for effective civic education programs in the schools is quite evident. The We the People program is an important part of the solution to this problem. I salute these young constitutional experts on their performance and wish them success in the years ahead.

Mr. Speaker, I was sitting in my office watching this debate, and I really appreciate the opportunity to come down. I ran down the stairs because I wanted to speak to this issue.

Now, it really doesn't matter what anybody in here thinks about what I think is a pretty amazing piece of art. Under the banner of artistic discovery--that is the competition that we have, artistic discovery--we are inviting young people, high school students, to express themselves, sometimes to find themselves in the artwork that they do, to clarify ideals for themselves and to challenge people. What is art about, if not that?

So, in my office right now, we are putting together the artwork that has been submitted from the high schools in our district. We take very great pride in our artistic discovery contests, and so we are collecting that artwork.

But as we looked at the instructions before we did it, we saw this new addition that just came up, first time. How long is this? Thirty- two years we have been doing this? This is the first year that it includes suitability guidelines, and it makes very clear that subjects of contemporary political controversy are not allowed.

Then we have to sign, each Member of Congress will be required to submit a letter of support for their work of art. This letter is to ensure that the Member has seen the artwork before it is submitted, has taken responsibility for the content, and has certified that the artwork, in the Member's opinion, adheres to the suitability guidelines.

Now, of course it says: ``While it is not the intent to censor any artwork, we do wish to avoid artwork that is potentially inappropriate for display in this highly traveled area leading to the Capitol.''

What the heck does that really mean? Does that mean that people are not--you know, we have to worry about is somebody going to take offense at something or say, ``Ooh, I don't like that picture''? They are entitled to do it, and the artist is entitled to put it out here.

Now, it so happens that none of the pieces that were submitted, I think, were unsuitable, but who the heck knows anymore? Who makes the decision about what is unsuitable? I don't know.

Some of the--if you look down the hall and look at some of them, some of those self-portraits, I don't know, these kids look troubled to me. Is that something that ought to be taken down? No. Absolutely no.

This young person lived through a traumatic incident in his community and I think, quite artistically, decided to express his feelings about it. I think it is absolutely an outrage. We already heard about the violation of the Constitution, but each and every American should be offended by that and about these suitable guidelines. I am sorry. I object. I hope you do too.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the wartime service of Major Jack Bornhoeft, a longtime resident of the Village of Mount Prospect, Illinois.

On April 3, the Consul General of France in Chicago, Vincent Floreani, recognized Jack Bornhoeft as a French Knight of the Legion of Honor. The award is an important recognition of Major Bornhoeft's contribution to efforts to liberate France from German occupation.

In 1942, Jack Bornhoeft, then only 19 years of age, volunteered for service in the Army Air Corps. He would eventually pilot a B-26 Marauder on 45 missions--participating in three major campaigns from September 1944 through June 1945.

Jack Bornhoeft risked his life time and time again--participating in operations across France and Germany as United States and Allied forces fought against the Nazi regime. He and his crew regularly braved enemy fire, and their B-26 survived numerous hits.

I am forever grateful for the service of Major Bornhoeft and his crew, and I believe that we must never forget what they and other service members went through as they risked--and in many cases sacrificed--their lives to defend freedom in World War II.

I also want to recognize the Village of Mount Prospect, Illinois, and the French government for their efforts to recognize veterans like Major Bornhoeft who have done their duty and deserve recognition.

I Thank Major Bornhoeft, for all that he has done for our country.

Mr. Speaker, I am really grateful to the gentleman for yielding but also for organizing this Special Order on something that really is special: Who is going to sit on the Supreme Court, and how do we deal with Judge Neil Gorsuch's nomination? Of course, we in the House don't have a vote, but we certainly do have the privilege to be able to weigh in on something as important as this in this manner. So I do appreciate the opportunity.

Judge Gorsuch's nomination to the Supreme Court is the latest battle in the Republicans' war on women and workers. I will find myself agreeing and probably repeating some of what Congresswoman Jayapal has said, but I think it bears repeating.

First of all, let me say we should make no mistake: this is a stolen Supreme Court seat. Senate Republicans demonstrated unprecedented-- meaning never before in history--disrespect for the President of the United States, Barack Obama, and our Constitution by denying Judge Merrick Garland a vote or even a hearing when he was put into nomination by President Obama. That has never, ever happened before in our history.

Last year, Republicans ignored their constitutional duty by denying Judge Garland a hearing. By the way, he had been approved by the Congress in the past for a seat on the district court, and he had praise on both sides of the aisle. So it wasn't a question of his being qualified or not. It was they did not want the ability of Barack Obama to even nominate someone and have him considered for the Supreme Court.

So now they want to break the rules of the Senate to rush their own nominee through. This is a nomination to the United States Supreme Court, the highest body in the land, the highest Court in the land. The decisions the next Justice takes part in will affect Americans for decades, if not centuries, because it could set precedent. Given the importance of this position, Senators have the right to insist on a 60- vote threshold for ending the debate on the nominee, and Senate Democrats should insist on 60 votes because Judge Gorsuch has demonstrated time and time again that he has put the interest of corporations above Americans--I will describe that later--whether it is worker safety or a woman's access even to contraception.

I am going to talk for a minute about women. President Trump said he would nominate a judge to overturn Roe v. Wade, the 1973 decision that said, as a matter of privacy, that women could make their own decisions about terminating a pregnancy. Women take that threat very seriously. Judge Gorsuch talked about precedents he likes, like Brown v. Board of Education, integrating the schools. I agree with him on that. But tellingly, when he mentioned the precedents that he reveres, he certainly did not give Roe v. Wade the same status.

Judge Gorsuch's judicial record should add to our concern. After the 10th Circuit panel ruled against the State of Utah's attempt to defund Planned Parenthood following the release of deceptively edited videos, Judge Gorsuch called for the full court to hear the case, presumably to overturn the decision. Judge Gorsuch was in the minority in this instance, and his request was dismissed.

In the Hobby Lobby case, Judge Gorsuch sided against women, allowing bosses to deny their women employees contraception as part of health coverage.

Now I want to talk a little bit about workers. In many other cases, Judge Gorsuch has prioritized the interest of employers over the rights of workers. He blocked a woman in Colorado from going to trial on sexual harassment claims because she didn't report the harassment quickly enough.

Judge Gorsuch denied a professor with leukemia at Kansas State University protection under the Rehabilitation Act. He sided with a mining company after a worker was electrocuted due to inadequate safety training. He sided with a trucking company that fired a trucker driving through Illinois--that is my State--who decided to leave his broken trailer instead of freezing to death, literally. The truck was down, couldn't get started, and his choice was to sit there with the truck or to be able to go to safety in freezing temperatures.

Fortunately for workers, Judge Gorsuch was in the minority in some of those cases, but we can't count on him being in the minority once he is on the Supreme Court. His dangerous antiwoman, antiworker views should not be elevated to our highest court.

So I urge my Democratic colleagues in the Senate to stand strong against the Gorsuch nomination. And to Senate Republicans, it was disrespectful to the Constitution to block Judge Garland. I am not even saying necessarily that he would have been approved, but to not even offer him a hearing or a vote was disrespectful to our Constitution, and it is disrespectful to the traditions of the Senate to force Judge Gorsuch through now.

We don't want to break the rules to get one nominee through, especially not a nominee who puts critical protections for Americans at risk. Women are watching. Workers are watching. And on Friday, all Americans will know whose side the Senate is on and whose side the Senate Republicans are on. Everyone is paying attention.

Mr. Speaker, less science, more pollution--that is, unbelievably, the Republican plan.

I want to just refer to what my colleague said. This is not long-ball time. This is emergency time where we have to deal with a worldwide environmental crisis, and this bill is just the latest attack on clean air and clean water. And as the threat of climate change becomes increasingly clear, Republicans are trying to reverse the progress that we have made to address this global challenge.

President Trump proposed gutting the Environmental Protection Agency, and this week he signed an executive order to ignore the effects of climate change, increase drilling on Federal lands, and undo efforts to promote renewable energy.

Meanwhile, Republicans in Congress have voted to block environmental protections. Republicans are replacing President Obama's Clean Power Plan with, essentially, a dirty power plan that will pollute our air and contaminate our water and put our children and our grandchildren at risk. Those actions further confirm Republicans' place on the wrong side of history.

It is time for America to lead, not to ignore reality. We should be investing in clean, job-producing energy. We should be at the forefront of the fight against climate change.

My constituents and most Americans expect to drink clean water and breathe fresh air. They want to protect our planet for future generations. Republicans, today, have it backward. We need more science and less pollution.

I urge my colleagues to oppose the bill and resist those attacks on our environment.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Last week, Republicans tried to take away your health care; and, today, they are trying to take away your privacy.

Republicans have said broadband providers and other internet companies should be under the same privacy rules. But oddly enough, when the committee considered an amendment to give the FTC, the Federal Trade Commission, rulemaking authority like the FCC, a change that would allow the agencies to adopt the same privacy protection, every single Republican voted no. In fact, Republicans proposed making it harder for the FTC to pursue privacy and data security cases.

The protections that the FCC adopted last year were very simple: consumers should know what data is being collected, opt in to sharing of sensitive data, have their data reasonably protected, and receive notice when their data is compromised. But this dangerous resolution puts America's privacy and data security at risk.

Mr. Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to stand up for consumers and vote ``no.''

Mr. Speaker, I sincerely ask my Republican colleagues: Did you really come here to take health care away from 24 million people?

Over 40,000 people in my district will lose their coverage.

Did you come to Congress to make insurance more expensive for my constituent, Mary, who has a preexisting condition and now pays half of what she used to pay for insurance because of the tax credits she got from ObamaCare?

Did you come to Congress to impose a crippling age tax on Americans 50 to 60 years old?

Your bill would increase their premiums an average of $8,000 a year. According to the Congressional Budget Office, within 10 years, nearly 30 percent of those 50-to 64-year-olds would be without any insurance.

Did you really come to Congress to take nursing home and home care away from the elderly and the disabled?

Did you get elected in order to take health care from mothers?

Your bill would kick them off of Medicaid if they don't find a job 60 days after they give birth.

We have heard over and over that patients need choices and should be empowered to choose the care that they want. But, apparently, that doesn't apply to women. The bill would block millions of women from choosing Planned Parenthood, a trusted healthcare provider to 2.5 million patients every year.

The American people are not clamoring for you to repeal ObamaCare. Only 17 percent of Americans say that you should vote to repeal ObamaCare. The average American overwhelmingly wants you to vote ``no.''

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the Summit of Hope, an event organized by the Illinois Department of Corrections, the Illinois Department of Public Health, and local organizations throughout Illinois. The Summit of Hope is designed to help former inmates reintegrate into society and succeed as citizens once they've served their time in prison, promoting public safety and reducing recidivism in the process.

All too often, former inmates do not have access to the tools they need to succeed in our society. Without access to employment or housing, they in too many cases return to prison.

The Summit of Hope is a large community expo designed to provide individuals on parole or probation with access to the tools they need. Services provided at the event range from voter registration, to counseling, to job training, to health screenings and beyond. By providing access to these services, organizers are ensuring that these individuals have every opportunity to succeed and reintegrate in our society. I am grateful for the extraordinary efforts of Mr. Marcus King, Community Outreach Administrator for the Illinois Department of Corrections' Office of Constituent Services. Mr. King is a driving force behind this and other Summit of Hope events around the state of Illinois, and his impact on reducing recidivism cannot be overstated.

I also want to note the important efforts of Ms. Brandi Vigil, a full-time faculty member with Loyola University's Department of Criminal Justice and Criminology. Ms. Vigil and Loyola University have helped make the Summit of Hope a reality.

I am honored to have a Summit of Hope event take place in the 9th Congressional District of Illinois, and I hope that this and future events help make our communities safer and equip former inmates with the tools they need to succeed.

Mr. Speaker, it was 7 years ago today that the Affordable Care Act passed and changed the lives of so many millions of Americans who previously couldn't get health care. But I think we knew even at the time that a big bill like this, a transformative piece of legislation like this, over time would require some changes, just as Social Security and Medicare have done.

The truth of the matter is, for 7 years, as we heard Republicans complaining about what was happening, we said: Let's sit down together, as Members of Congress, representatives of the people, and fix what we have got and build on the things that have made it possible for all these millions of people to have not only health care, but better health care.

Instead, what we heard over and over again is: Repeal ObamaCare; repeal ObamaCare. And I kind of feel like today what we have is, because they said that, then they feel like they have to fulfill a promise. But if you look at what they are offering, it really hurts so many Americans.

What I hope the American people will understand is that the so-called repeal-and-replace bill raises the cost of premiums and out-of-pocket costs. People are going to pay more and get less.

Twenty-four million people--that is just a start; it ends up being some 50 million people after some years--will lose their coverage altogether.

It represents the single largest transfer of wealth to the top richest Americans and corporations. We are talking about $600 billion in tax relief. There is not a lot of talk about that. In many ways, this is a tax cut for the richest being masked as a healthcare bill.

Finally, I want to really focus in on what we call the age tax. Well, before I was a senior citizen myself, I have worked with older Americans in the State of Illinois, where I am from, and here in Congress as well.

So what is this age tax? This bill says that people who are between the age of 50--not very old--and 64, in other words, pre-Medicare, will be allowed to be charged five times more than young people for their health care. Actually, it allows the States even to go more than five times more for their health care. It will lower the subsidies.

As has been said many times, here is just an example. If you are 64 years old with an income of around $26,500--which, by the way, is the median income for people that age, certainly not a wealthy person--you would pay, under this bill, the Republican bill, $14,600 for premiums-- think of that--as compared to $1,700 today, an increase of $12,900. So it is not surprising that the Congressional Budget Office predicts that many of those people will simply have to give up their health care.

The reason they want to charge them more is to entice younger people, who will then pay lower premiums, to actually get on the program. We are all for that. We want to make sure that young people get on. But people who are 50 to 64 are very likely, or more likely than young people, to have healthcare issues.

It is absolutely no wonder that so many organizations and forces are lining up in the United States to oppose this bill:

The American Medical Association, the doctors, and all the different subgroups of doctors, have written letters saying no to this repeal- and-replace.

The American Hospital Association, not only urban hospitals and hospitals in medically underserved areas, rural hospitals could go under.

The AARP, 35 million members strong, is absolutely dead set--they are running ads; some people may have seen them on television--against this legislation.

The American Nurses Association, conservative think tanks are against it, and many Members of Congress are against it--and for good reason. One of our Republican Senators said to House Republicans: Don't walk the plank.

I would suggest they take that advice and vote ``no.''

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the life and many accomplishments of Philip T. Kalayil, a leader in Chicago and in the Indian-American community.

Mr. Kalayil lived a life of purpose, spent enriching the lives of those he met and those he served. We in Chicago are indeed fortunate that he settled here, coming from his state of Kerala in India to pursue his studies at Loyola University and staying to promote diversity, opportunity and understanding.

Philip Kalayil was always a scholar, earning a double master's in sociology and industrial relations and receiving the Heart of Asian American Community Award from the Association for Asian American Studies in 2008. His research helped him understand the disparities and discrimination facing members of the Asian American community, and it led him to a lifetime of work to tear down barriers so others could also succeed. He was a scholar with a vision and he put that vision to use to improve our entire community.

His career was multifaceted. He was a social worker for Catholic Charities. He served as Assistant Director of Emergency Services at the Department of Human Services.

Mr. Kalayil was also an outstanding and passionate advocate. Among the many organizations he helped build and foster are the Indian Catholic Association of America, the Asian Forum, and the Indo-American Democratic Organization (IADO). Each was designed to help members of the Indian-American and the greater Asian-American community not just thrive individually but become active participants in the broader society.

Philip Kalayil showed us the importance of working together across racial, ethnic and religious lines. He knew that many things were possible if we learned to work and engage together. He was a teacher, a doer and an inspiration.

He was also a devoted family member, and I know that his children-- Tom, Sales and Ann, my dear friend--are mourning his loss. I hope that they will take comfort in knowing how much their father is missed and how many lives he touched throughout his life.

Mr. Chair, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall No. 170.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Last Thursday, I was wandering the Capitol searching for the Republican's secret repeal bill. We went from room to room, and it wasn't there. But now that I have seen it, I understand why they would want to hide it.

Even if we can all agree that we need to make health care more affordable and more accessible, this bill is not the solution. In fact, this bill will only make things worse.

The Republican repeal bill gives tax breaks to the rich. We are talking about over $600 billion overall, while taking away health coverage from millions of Americans. The Republican repeal bill will drastically increase the cost of health insurance for millions of Americans, with the biggest increase for seniors and for working families.

It would radically change the Medicaid program, slashing funding, and covering fewer people.

The Republican repeal bill will force Governors and State legislators to ration care. My Republican Governor weighed in now and said that it would be trouble for Illinois if Medicaid is cut back.

Who do they want to cut out? Children, the elderly, people with disabilities. Thousands of hardworking individuals in Illinois will lose access to health coverage. As I said, in fact, Republican Governor Bruce Rauner said that our State ``won't do very well'' if the Republican repeal bill becomes law.

The Republican repeal bill breaks the promise made by President Trump to cover more Americans at lower cost.

I oppose this bill. I am going to fight tooth and nail to protect our care. And, frankly, I think this bill, as my mother would say, is deader than a door nail.