Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, well, here we are again, considering legislation that would harm women and families.

Let's be clear: House Republicans do not support family planning title X. For years, Republicans have tried to completely eliminate funding for title X through the appropriations process. So think about that. We are debating contraception in 2017--astonishing.

Title X provides millions of low- and middle-income men and women with access to reproductive healthcare services. The joint resolution we are voting on today would allow States to discriminate against title X providers who perform abortion with non-Federal funds by removing them from the program, leaving patients with few options for the care they need.

Again, let's be clear. If you want to reduce the number of abortions, you need to ensure everyone has access to family planning. Teen pregnancy and the rate of abortion are at historic lows because we have worked to make contraception more affordable and accessible.

For over 60 percent of title X patients, the clinics they visit for family planning services are their only regular source of care, and yet we are considering legislation that would result in clinic closures and would prevent men and women from seeing trusted providers in their own communities.

Do Republicans oppose cancer screening for cervical breast cancer? Do they oppose STI testing? Do they oppose contraception? The answer seems to be yes because Republicans continue to

ignore these facts in their effort to harm women's health.

I urge my colleagues to put an end to the war on women and to oppose this very dangerous legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I really appreciate participating in this Special Order hour about things that, I think, the American people really ought to be caring about.

The minute that Donald Trump took the oath of office and put his hand in the air, he was in violation of the law. It is just a fact that the Trump Hotel, which is in the old post office building--there is a very explicit contract that says no elected official may enter into a contract for that hotel and profit from the business in that hotel. There was a lawsuit that was filed. It is still pending.

You may not think that is a really big deal, but how about this: What if there were delegations from somewhere else in the world, some country that really wanted to curry favor with the United States of America, and decided a really good way to do it would be to move our delegation to stay at the Trump Hotel?

Maybe we could have a big gala, we could have a party, and we could make a lot of money from that. And guess what. Maybe the President of the United States would notice that we are spending money in a hotel from which he gains a profit, and that would be a really swell idea.

Well, actually, the Framers of the Constitution thought that was not such a grand idea and very explicitly put into the Constitution something that would prohibit any foreign government from influencing U.S. policy. They were worried about the King of England. They were worried about France. They were worried about other countries having too much influence on the United States by currying favor with the President and the decisionmakers, and so they introduced and put into the Constitution very explicitly what they called the Emoluments Clause in Article I, section 9 of the Constitution.

While ``emoluments'' is certainly not a word we use in regular conversations--emoluments, I never used it before this and never heard of it before this, actually--it is a concept that is part of our Constitution, and it is very simple: that no government official should receive benefits of any kind--of any kind--from a foreign government. President Trump is clearly violating that constitutional principle.

So, unlike any Presidents before him, President Trump has actually refused to fully separate himself and his family from his business dealings. It is also very unusual, of course, that we haven't seen his tax returns, which has been pretty standard for any President to release his tax returns, and it has been a requirement for the Cabinet that Mr. Trump has exacted from those nominees.

Because of his business holdings, Trump and his family are constantly--constantly--receiving benefits from other countries, whether it is foreign governments renting that space at the Trump Hotel in D.C. or the loans and business agreements that the Trump organization has with China, Russia, and many other countries. We don't know them all. We haven't seen them all. That would be in his tax returns and all the different sections of the tax return, his holdings in Saudi Arabia, and Turkey, which he has refused to put into a blind trust.

So it is troubling enough that President Trump and his family are profiting off the Presidency, but now it is becoming clearer that this lack of ethics could threaten our national security and national interests. So if you haven't cared until now, you ought to start caring.

Look at Russia. Trump has done business in Russia and has remained uncomfortably close to Vladimir Putin. He refuses to release his tax returns, which could clarify the specific financial interests that he has in Russia.

President Trump knew his National Security Adviser, Michael Flynn, was compromised by Russian intelligence and had misled Vice President Pence; yet Flynn was allowed to remain in one of our most sensitive national security positions until criticism from Congress, the media, and the public became too much to ignore.

President Trump continues to gloss over the serious problems that led to Flynn's resignation. Instead, he attacks the messenger and the leaks that brought Flynn's conduct to light. These are bright red flags. These are signs that the President has something to hide.

Americans deserve a President who they can trust is putting the country's interests ahead of his own, that he is putting the country's interests instead of another country's interests because that deal might be in his interest.

There should be no question over the purity of the President's motives, especially when he is making critical security decisions on behalf of the Nation. If President Trump wants to assure the American people that he deserves our

trust, he must be transparent. We need a bipartisan, independent investigation of his conflicts of interest, particularly with Russia, but not exclusively. He must release his tax returns, and he must fully separate himself from his business dealings.

The corrupt practices of this administration must stop. Our country and our Constitution demand nothing less.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding and her leadership on the Working Families Agenda.

Get this: Americans over 44 years of age are more afraid of running out of income in retirement than they are afraid of dying. Median retirement savings in the United States of America is only $2,500. We have a retirement crisis. Only my Republican colleagues haven't gotten the message.

The New York Times asked: ``Who'd Want to Limit Retirement Plans?'' and answered with two words: ``House Republicans.''

It isn't just that Republicans haven't made retirement security a priority; they are actually working against it. They oppose the rule that saves retirees up to $17 billion a year, lost to bad investment advice, a rule that simply requires financial advisers to give advice that is in the client's best interest, not their own.

Today Republicans are trying to prevent States and cities from expanding private retirement savings. Nearly 1.3 million workers in my State, Illinois, lack job-based retirement savings options. State Senator Daniel Biss won passage of the Illinois Secure Choice Savings Program that creates a retirement plan with automatic deductions that has proven successful in increasing individual retirement savings. Last summer, the U.S. Department of Labor acted to move this plan forward for Illinois and other States.

Today we face Republican efforts to block action, to overturn the Department of Labor rule and jeopardize the financial security of 1.3 million Illinois workers and millions of others across the country without access to job-based retirement plans.

There is a saying: ``Lead, follow, or get out of the way.'' If my Republican colleagues won't lead or follow, at least they should get out of Illinois' way.

I urge a ``no'' vote.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the work of the late Edgar and Nancy Muenzer, co-founders of the Park Ridge Civic Orchestra. To honor their hard work and tireless commitment, the Park Ridge Civic Orchestra will be presenting a ``Founders Memorial Concert'' on Wednesday, February 8, 2017 featuring Chicago Symphony Orchestra violinist David Taylor as guest soloist at The Pickwick Theatre in Park Ridge, Illinois.

The Park Ridge Civic Orchestra (PRCOrchestra) features more than 70 professional musicians, renowned soloists, and top-ranked student talents and serves the north and northwest areas of Chicago, its suburbs, and beyond. Founded in 1994 by veteran Chicago Symphony Orchestra first violinist Edgar Muenzer, his wife Nancy, and a cadre of devoted supporters, the PRCOrchestra fulfilled the Muenzer's wish to give back after a rewarding lifetime in professional music. Now led by a group of local business owners, musicians, civic leaders, and others, the PRCOrchestra continues to bring enriching, live classical music to the community.

The PRCOrchestra's founder Edgar Muenzer was the orchestra's conductor and music director for two decades from 1994 to 2014. A longtime Park Ridge resident with his wife Nancy, Edgar brought many years of performing, conducting, and teaching to this role. In 2014, Edgar stepped down from the position of Music Director, giving the reins to his son, current PRCOrchestra Music Director Victor Muenzer. He then continued to serve as Music Director Emeritus until his death in 2016. Among the many honors he earned during his illustrious life, Maestro Muenzer was named Conductor of the Year by the Illinois Council of Orchestras. Edgar and his wife Nancy also earned the Illinois Humanities Council Studs Terkel Humanities Service Award for their tireless commitment to bringing inspiring music to the community.

Nancy K. Muenzer was the co-founder of the Park Ridge Civic Orchestra and wife of Edgar Muenzer. A driving force behind the Orchestra's successful development, the charismatic Mrs. Muenzer worked tirelessly to inspire and enlist major sponsors and donors in support of the Orchestra. Through Mrs. Muenzer's direct efforts and that of the generous music-lovers she recruited, the PRCOrchestra performed five major concerts each year at the historic Pickwick Theatre in Park Ridge. Mrs. Muenzer also managed an array of special events and smaller concerts in between. Mrs. Muenzer continued in her role until 2014, helping the Orchestra transition to the next generation.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the House of Representatives to join me in honoring the late Edgar and Nancy Muenzer and the members of the Park Ridge Civic Orchestra for their dedication to cultivating enriching classical music in the community. I congratulate and wish each of them every success in their upcoming ``Founders Memorial Concert.'' Illinois's Ninth Congressional District is proud to be home to the brilliantly talented members of this organization, and for their outstanding gifts, leadership, and service, these members are worthy of the highest praise.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to congressional Republicans' attempt to repeal Fair Pay and Safe Workplaces protections for Federal contract workers.

We all know President Trump is no fan of transparency. He has steadfastly refused to disclose his own tax returns, so it is no surprise that he and the Republicans would oppose disclosure of labor, employment, civil rights, and nondiscrimination law violations by bidders for Federal contracts.

What I really don't understand is why Members of Congress would ask American taxpayers to subsidize companies that routinely violate our labor laws. Voting for this resolution actually rewards companies that discriminate, stiff their employees on pay, or cut corners on safety, and it puts responsible businesses that play by the rules at a disadvantage.

This resolution harms women. Women make up the majority of low-wage workers. Fair Pay and Safe Workplaces protections ensure that our tax dollars do not support sexual harassment and sex discrimination on the job, regular occurrences especially for low-wage working women.

This resolution harms veterans, including disabled veterans. Repeal means that we won't know whether a contract bidder routinely violates section 503 of the Rehabilitation Act, which Paralyzed Veterans of America, Disabled American Veterans, and Vets First say is ``necessary to prevent discrimination in the workplace and during the hiring process.''

This resolution also harms older workers. To quote AARP: `` . . . age discrimination in the workplace persists as a serious and pervasive problem. The Fair Pay and Safe Workplaces Executive Order is the first executive order since 1964 addressing the obligation of those who receive federal contracts not to discriminate on the basis of age.''

If you don't want your taxpayer dollars to be used to undermine Fair Pay and Safe Workplaces protections, then all Members should oppose this resolution.

Mr. Speaker, refugees that are fleeing for their lives are not the enemy. Look at this 3-year-old Syrian boy, Aylan Kurdi, who washed up on a beach in Turkey. He and his older brother and his mother drowned. They were among, literally, thousands of people who drowned escaping the violence that was certain in their home country of Syria.

Now the President is trying to keep them out of our country. He is condemning more children like Aylan to their death with this executive order. And in face of this immoral action by the administration, I have witnessed the decency and generosity of people in my district. I was proud to join people of all faiths in rallies to support our refugees and our Muslim neighbors.

I was with lawyers who rushed to O'Hare Airport to offer assistance to those who suddenly are detained under the executive order.

I have received hundreds of letters. One was from a couple who had joined with 13 friends to welcome and provide assistance to a family that wanted to resettle from Syria. They had collected money. They had collected furniture. They had worked for over a year in order to make this happen, and they finally got word that they were actually going to get a family to come.

Then, on January 30, they got official word that the family would not be allowed to enter. And now they don't know what happened to that family.

Let me just read the end of that letter. He said:

Now we don't know what happened to the family. Because they

are Syrian, they are indefinitely banned from the United

States.

Meanwhile, we have a warm apartment and $12,000 waiting for

them. We have rooms full of furniture stockpiled, and no way

to get to them.

As a group of Chicagoans, as a second-generation American

myself, we came together to aid a family in dire need and to

affirm the quintessential American values of openness and

inclusiveness.

I can't stop thinking about that couple, what they are

telling their children right now, and where they will sleep

tonight.

Turning our back on families and children who are fleeing a

war is not our best strategic interest as a nation, nor is it

in our best interest as decent human beings.

Thank you from Maria Demopolis, Chicago, Illinois.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to bring up H.R. 724, which would rescind President Trump's refugee ban in light of individuals--women like Faten Diab, a Syrian refugee and former charity work whose family had applied for settlement to the United States but will now not be able to come.

Madam Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 7.

We are only 10 days into this 115th Congress, and already Republicans are bringing legislation to the floor to harm women's health. It is clear that House Republicans do not respect women and our ability to make our own decisions.

Millions of women peacefully marched in cities around the country and around the world, yet here we are, once again, voting legislation to give politicians more control over women's bodies than they have of their own.

Let's be clear: the ultimate goal of this bill is to effectively eliminate access to abortions, even when women pay for it themselves. Seven in ten Americans believe that abortions should be safe and legal. And just as we have seen in Texas, when women lose access to abortion, they will take drastic action to seek back-alley abortions or to self- abort.

Let's remember that Roe v. Wade was not the beginning of women having abortions. It was the end of women dying from abortions.

Madam Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.

Yes, I am opposed to the bill.

Madam Speaker, I rise to offer the motion to recommit on H.R. 7, the so-called No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion and Abortion Insurance Full Disclosure Act.

The motion to recommit is very simple. It would amend H.R. 7 to say that nothing in this legislation would allow an insurance company to charge women higher premiums than men just because they are women.

In the first few days of the Trump Presidency, we have seen one action after another to discriminate against women, restrict access to health services, and make their care more expensive. We also know that Republicans are determined to repeal the Affordable Care Act, which would, once again, allow insurance companies to discriminate against women.

Repealing the ACA would be a triple whammy for women. Not only would they have to pay more for their insurance, but their insurance would be less likely to cover the services they need. And these higher costs will take a bigger chunk out of their budget.

Before the ACA, insurers were able to exclude services critical to women's health. And we are not just talking about preexisting conditions, which, by the way, often included having a baby or being the victim of domestic violence.

The benefit package itself left out medical care critical to women. Only 12 percent of plans in the individual market offered maternity coverage. And some insurance plans that offered that coverage imposed waiting periods of a year or charges of up to $10,000 just for maternity care. And even when maternity care was excluded from any insurance plan, insurers still used gender rating to discriminate against women, charging women more just because they were women, regardless of their benefits. Being a woman was a preexisting condition.

Thankfully, the ACA prohibits gender rating. Before the ACA, women were forced to pay between 10 to 57 percent more than men for essentially the same insurance. In my home State of Illinois, women were charged 55 percent more than men for the same coverage. In fact, a 2012 National Women's Law Center study found that 92 percent of best- selling insurance plans were gender rated.

A 25-year-old woman in Arkansas was charged 81 percent more than a man for similar coverage. A 40-year-old woman in South Dakota was charged over $1,200 more a year than a 40-year-old man for the same coverage. In Kentucky, women were charged 57 percent more than men for the same coverage. In Texas, they were charged 56 percent more. In Indiana, they were charged 54 percent more. And the list goes on.

This study even found that over half of all insurance plans charged women who didn't smoke significantly higher premiums than men of the same age who did smoke. Overall, gender rating cost American women about $1 billion a year. It also harmed businesses with predominantly female employees who were routinely charged more for their insurance coverage.

Finally, charging women more for health care is even more devastating when you take into account that women still make only 77 cents to the dollar compared to men. We cannot go back to the days when insurance companies were free to discriminate against women. But that is exactly what Republicans want to do. They want women to pay more for insurance coverage that doesn't include the services they need.

So I am asking my colleagues to support the motion to recommit and protect women from discrimination by insurance companies.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Chair, I want to say right now I believe--and it will be true, you will see--that Republicans will regret the repeal of ObamaCare.

Hospitals in rural and underserved areas are panicking right now because they are finally getting paid through ObamaCare to serve low- income people. Jobs will be lost. Those hospitals could close. Thirty million people will lose their benefits.

I want to tell you, on the Energy and Commerce Committee, I have been hearing for years ever since ObamaCare passed, all these horror stories that my Republican colleagues embrace as evidence that this thing isn't working. Never once have they been willing to sit down with us.

We don't claim that the bill is perfect, but we know that there are millions and millions of people with preexisting conditions or who run out of insurance when they hit their lifetime caps. We know it has helped, and yet never has a Republican been willing to sit down with us and craft amendments that would make this legislation better.

Repeal means that the Republicans will make Americans sick again.

Mr. Speaker, I missed Roll Call vote numbers 26 through 31 because I was attending the President's farewell address. Had I been present, I would have voted as follows: 26, H. Res 33, Previous Question, No; 27, H. Res. 33, Agreeing to the Resolution, No; 28, Journal, Approving the Journal, No; 29, H.R. 79, Velazquez of New York Amendment No. 1, Yes; 30, H.R. 79, Clay of Missouri Amendment No. 2, Yes; 31, H.R. 79, Passage, No.

Mr. Speaker, today I rise to recognize my friend Paul Booth for his lifetime of contributions to the progressive movement as an activist, organizer, mentor and leader. Throughout a remarkable career spanning more than half a century, his commitment to giving voice to the voiceless has been tenacious and unflagging.

Born in 1943, Paul was raised in Washington, D.C. where he was imbued by his parents--a psychiatric social worker and a Social Security architect in the Roosevelt administration--with a public service ethic. While attending Swarthmore College, Paul also became an early leader, and eventually National Secretary, of Students for a Democratic Society, one of the most influential youth activism organizations in the nation's history. He was instrumental in crafting the Port Huron Statement, the clarion call of the student movement. In 1965, he organized the first march on Washington protesting the Vietnam War and the first sit-in at the Chase Manhattan Bank, bringing to light the bank's affiliation with the pro-apartheid regime in South Africa.

As a young man, Paul brought his dogged activism to the labor movement, serving as a researcher at the Adlai Stevenson Institute and, beginning in 1966, as Research Director for the United Packinghouse Workers of America. Through Citizens Action Program, a major progressive organizing force in Chicago where I first got to know him, Paul co-chaired the first Metropolitan Alinsky Organization.

It was in 1974 that Paul began his more than 40-year association with the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME). His innumerable contributions over the years--his strong leadership, organizing skills and strategic acumen--have made AFSCME a union powerhouse and fundamentally improved the lives of millions of working people.

Paul helped organize and found AFSCME Council 31 in Illinois. As its Assistant Director, Paul's many accomplishments included securing the first union contract for 40,000 state workers and 7,000 city of Chicago employees. He also negotiated historic pay-equity provisions for city workers. And as an ally of Mayor Harold Washington, Paul helped defeat the old patronage machine and build a diverse, multi-racial union.

In 1988, Paul brought his experience and expertise to AFSCME headquarters in Washington. There, as Director of Field Services, he laid the groundwork for the formation of AFSCME--United Nurses of America and AFSCME--Corrections United. As Assistant to President Gerald McEntee and Executive Assistant to President Lee Saunders, Paul helped shape the strategic goals of the union, as well as the labor movement as a whole. As he retires from AFSCME effective February 28, he leaves behind a rich legacy and a lasting record of achievement.

Paul met his partner in life and work, Heather, 50 years ago at a University of Chicago anti-war sit-in that she helped organize. Always ardent in his pursuit of a goal, he proposed to her three days later. Together, they've channeled their shared interests into The Midwest Academy, a training institute committed to advancing the struggle for social, economic and racial justice. Paul continues to mentor the next generation of activists and fight for workers' rights through his leadership in numerous projects and organizations, including Jobs with Justice and Restaurant Opportunities Centers United.

Paul has passed along his passion for social justice to his sons, Gene and Dan. They, along with his daughters-in-law and five grandchildren, are a source of unending happiness and pride. For Paul, I know that more time with all of them will be the best part of retirement.

On a personal note, I want to express my gratitude to Paul for being an inspiration, teacher and, above all, a dear friend to me over the last many decades.

For his devotion to family, progressive leadership and ceaseless advocacy for the dignity of all, I'm pleased to recognize Paul Booth and wish him the very best in life's next chapter.

Amendment XIV, section 1:

``All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; . . .''

Mr. Speaker, I stand here as a proud Jew and someone who, throughout my entire life, has been an advocate for the State of Israel, and I am standing here to oppose H. Res. 11.

As a Member of Congress, I have been committed to maintaining America's unwavering support for Israel, which has lasted from the very first moments of Israel's existence.

The U.S.-Israel bond is unbreakable, despite the fact that the United States' administrations have not always agreed with the particular policies of an Israeli Government. Contrary to the assertions of H. Res. 11, the U.S. has often expressed those differences in the context of the United Nations. Presidents, from Lyndon Johnson to George W. Bush, have each vetoed and sometimes voted for a U.N. resolution contrary to the wishes of Israel's Government at the time. Only the Obama administration, until 2 weeks ago, never, ever cast a vote against what Israel wanted.

But opposition to the building of settlements on land belonging to Palestinians before the 1967 war--with the exception of the land, of course, that is going to be swapped, agreed to by both parties--has been the official U.S. policy for many decades, contrary, again, to the assertions of H. Res. 11.

It has also been the policy of the United States to recognize that the only long-term solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict--the violence, the loss of life--is to create two states: one for the Palestinians and one for Israel. A two-state solution is the only way Israel can continue as both a democratic and a Jewish state, living in the peace and security that has eluded her from the very beginning. The building of settlements is an obstacle to achieving that goal.

And, of course, settlements aren't the only obstacle to Israeli- Palestinian peace. The U.S. resolution reiterates the Palestinian Authority security forces must continue to counter terrorism and condemn all of the provocations.

I urge a ``no'' vote.

Mr. Speaker, it is amazing to me to watch the Republicans recklessly play politics with our national security. That is right. Keeping America safe is why we have a Department of Homeland Security. That is what it does.

Funding for the Department of Homeland Security expires February 27. We have only 6 legislative days between now and then to pass a clean funding bill.

If we fail to pass a bill, 30,000 workers will be furloughed and the rest will work without getting paid. Really? These workers are Border Patrol Agents, TSA security screeners, immigration officers, and members of the Secret Service and Coast Guard. We rely on them to keep us safe--and they rely on us to pay them.

Shame on the Republican Party for jeopardizing our national security in a misguided attempt to score political points with the extremist wing of their base. Give us a clean bill and let us fund the Department of Homeland Security.

Mr. Speaker, the Affordable Care Act is working. Here is what I hear:

Women can afford to get pregnant because maternity is covered. Parents sleep better because their children are covered up to age 26. People with preexisting conditions are no longer terrified that they are going to be uninsured. Small businesses are saving money. Doctors and nurses are saving lives because patients can come to them. In Illinois, over 700,000 individuals are newly insured, and we are not even through with enrollment.

As the President said in this Chamber 2 weeks ago: ``That is good news, people.''

But, today, we have gone back to the Republican old song book--yet another vote to repeal ObamaCare. Let me warn them that they do this at their peril. Tens of millions of Americans, many insured for the first time and others who can finally afford insurance, will not give it up without a fight.

Let's hope the 56th time of a vote to repeal will be the last so we can get to the real work of raising wages and creating good jobs and passing equal pay and of comprehensive immigration reform and improving retirement security and passing a renewed Voting Rights Act. The war against ObamaCare is over, and ObamaCare has won.