Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, 25 years ago, the Medicare Rights Center was created. Since then, seniors, people with disabilities, their friends and family members, and policymakers have benefitted from the Center's expertise.

Since its founding in 1989, the Medicare Rights Center has provided critical advice to individuals who want to find out about Medicare's benefits, learn about enrollment and eligibility, and get help in resolving any problems that they may face. My constituents--and constituents around the country--have called the Medicare Rights Center's hotline and received help--whether from the Center's excellent staff or from one of its many well-trained volunteer counselors.

The Medicare Rights Centers' newsletters--``Dear Marci,'' ``Medicare Watch,'' and ``Inside Medicare Rights''--are invaluable. ``Dear Marci'' is a great tool for individuals who want clear and user-friendly information about how they can get the most from their Medicare benefits, avoid problems, get help and voice their views. Other publications and special reports provide those of us in Congress with critical information about the specifics of the law and its implementation. Because the Medicare Rights Center sees the actual, on- the-ground impacts of Medicare policies, they help us determine the actual effects of current policies and identify specific improvements that can be made.

Medicare Rights Center president Joe Baker and federal policy adviser Stacy Sanders are frequently found on Capitol Hill, testifying and responding to information requests from Congressional offices. The Seniors Task Force, which I co-chair, has been privileged to have Medicare Rights Center representatives join us to brief members and staff about Medicare trends, policies and impacts.

I want to congratulate and thank Diane Archer, the founder of the Medicare Rights Center, and all the past and current staff, volunteers and board members for the work that you have done to provide quality, affordable care for seniors, people with disabilities and all Americans.

Congratulations on your first 25 years of service to America, and I wish you many more productive years in the future.

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 3522 marks the 53rd vote to repeal or undermine ObamaCare. But worse, it means taking away guaranteed benefits for the consumers that you seem to be so concerned about.

Does anyone really believe that Americans want insurance companies to be able to deny them coverage or charge them more due to a preexisting condition? Do they want insurance companies to be able to refuse to pay for their lifesaving treatments because they have hit an annual limit? Do they want insurance companies to be able to not cover maternity services for pregnant women, as so many plans did?

I believe we can all agree the answer is ``no.'' That is why we have to reject H.R. 3522 and all other efforts to repeal or undermine the consumer protections of ObamaCare. Americans simply can't afford it. They can't afford to have insurance companies back in charge of their health care.

This isn't about consumer choice. This is about turning over decisions to insurance companies that want to cut the benefits.

I want to end my remarks by just mentioning one story of why the Affordable Care Act is so important to constituents. This is from John. He says:

I wanted to share with you the good news that by accessing

health insurance coverage through the Affordable Care Act, my

little business, a law firm, was able to avoid a substantial

premium increase and, in fact, obtain the same full coverage

at reduced deductibles and copayments and add dental care for

thousands a month less than our old premiums costs, which we

had just been advised was to be raised approximately 14

percent. I have been practicing law for over 37 years and

have always felt a responsibility to provide full health care

benefits for all my employees, including clerks and staff,

paying the total premium for all participants. My firm

expanded at one point to include my then-partner, seven

associate lawyers, and multiple staff, though we are now

downsized to three lawyers and two office staff that we now

are able to provide insurance for. Thanks for your efforts.

Thanks for the Affordable Care Act.

Mr. Speaker, today I pay tribute to Dennis C. Bless, CRNA, MS, of Minneapolis, Minnesota. Mr. Bless will soon complete his year as national president of the American Association of Nurse Anesthetists (AANA) whose headquarters are located in my Congressional district. I am proud that Mr. Bless was elected as the 2013-2014 president of this prestigious national organization.

Certified Registered Nurse Anesthetists (CRNAs) are advanced practice registered nurses who administer approximately 34 million anesthetics to patients each year. They work in every setting in which anesthesia is delivered, including hospital surgical suites, obstetrical delivery rooms, ambulatory surgical centers, and the offices of dentists, podiatrists, and specialty surgeons. They also provide acute and chronic pain management services to patients in need of such care. CRNAs provide anesthesia for all types of surgical cases and are the sole anesthesia providers in many rural hospitals.

As a CRNA for nearly 20 years, Mr. Bless has contributed greatly to the health care community in Minnesota and nationwide, serving as a clinical nurse anesthetist at Fairview Southdale Hospital in Edina, Minnesota. Mr. Bless also serves as an adjunct instructor for St. Mary's University of Minnesota and clinical/didactic instructor for the Minneapolis School of Anesthesia. He has demonstrated a lifelong commitment to his professional education and development. Mr. Bless was awarded his Master of Science degree in nurse anesthesia from St. Mary's University of Minnesota, a certificate in nurse anesthesia from the Minneapolis School of Anesthesia, a Bachelor of Science degree in nursing from the University of Minnesota and his Bachelor of Science degree in agricultural business from Iowa State University.

In addition to his service as AANA President, Mr. Bless has held various leadership positions in the AANA, including President-elect, Treasurer, Director Region 4, and as a member of numerous AANA committees. Mr. Bless also serves on the Board of Directors for the AANA Associations Management Services and is a distinguished speaker on anesthesia topics, lecturing nationwide on the safety, value and cost- effectiveness of CRNA care.

During his AANA Presidency, Mr. Bless has been a prominent advocate for patients and for the practice of nurse anesthetists before federal agencies and members of Congress. He has worked tirelessly to promote anesthesia patient safety and the value of CRNAs to our healthcare system: recognition of CRNAs as Full Practice Providers in the Veterans Health Administration (VHA), proper implementation of provider non- discrimination requirements, and appropriate recognition of the full scope of CRNA practice, including pain management and related services in the Medicare system.

I extend my sincere congratulations to Mr. Bless today on a job well done. His service to the AANA, his patients and his commitment to high quality health care nationwide are truly commendable. I ask my colleagues to join me in recognizing his notable career and outstanding achievements.

Mr. Speaker, I enter into the Record the story of a 17-year-old girl who fled her country with her 2-year-old daughter to escape constant physical and sexual abuse from the baby's father.

[From the National Immigrant Justice Center]

Lauren, a 17-year old, fled the country with her 2-year old

daughter due to constant physical, sexual and verbal abuse

from the baby's father. While in DHS custody, Lauren and her

baby were held in two ``hieleras'' for a total of six days

without adequate food and warmth.

Lauren is a 17-year-old who came to the United States with

her two-year-old daughter, Charise. Charise's father, Juan,

was physically and verbally abusive. He has hit, choked, and

raped Lauren and threatened to kill her and take their baby.

Lauren fled to the United States with Charise to live with

her parents and U.S.-citizen sister. While in DHS custody,

both Lauren and her baby were held in two ``hieleras'' for

about six days total. Lauren had to use her own clothing to

keep Charise warm because DHS only gave her an emergency

mylar blanket for Charise, despite the cold. Lauren slept on

the floor of her cell with Charise in between her legs. DHS

gave Charise two small burritos to eat each day, and gave

Lauren a piece of bread with deli meat and an apple twice a

day. When she asked for more food for her baby, who was

hungry and cold, DHS told Lauren there wasn't any more food

available.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Frank Alschuler on his 90th birthday, September 10, 2014.

Frank is a lifelong Chicagoan and Cubs fan. He graduated from George B. Swift Elementary School, the University of Chicago Lab School, Dartmouth College and Yale University School of Architecture and he served in the United States Navy.

He and his late wife, Marjorie Traxler, married on July 24, 1960. In 1965, they moved to Junior Terrace in Chicago's Uptown neighborhood where they raised their two children, Matthew and Mimi.

Frank was a founding board member of C4 (Community) Counseling Centers of Chicago, formerly known as EUCMHC, Edgewater Uptown Community Mental Health Center). Recognizing the need to serve the many low-income residents living with mental health concerns in the Uptown and Edgewater neighborhoods, the mental health center was opened in 1972. As a licensed architect, Frank volunteered his services to help the organization every step of the way. Now with five locations and an additional one under construction, C4 currently provides mental health services, crisis intervention, and substance use treatment to more than 10,000 at-risk children, adults and families annually. Now, 42 years later, Frank is still on the board and still helping with space planning.

In addition to C4, Frank also served on the board of Voice of the People in Uptown for over 40 years. Voice of the People has worked for and with low-income individuals and families in Uptown to create quality affordable housing. Working with early directors Irene Hutchinson and Anne Dee Harper, Frank helped build a tenant organizing group into a full-fledged neighborhood housing development organization. With Frank's expertise on the Board, the Voice went from managing one 6-flat to developing and managing hundreds of units of family housing in Uptown.

Frank and his late wife Marjorie instilled in their children and grandchildren the importance of giving back to the community. I wish him a happy celebration of a life well-lived, and good health in the coming years.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to bring up the Paycheck Fairness Act and a minimum wage increase, which would jump-start the middle class, instead of this partisan lawsuit attacking the President.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate John Marshall Law School in Chicago for spearheading a critical discussion about the needs and rights of older persons. Along with Roosevelt University in Chicago, John Marshall Law School has led the drafting of a model international convention to provide legal protections and guarantee human rights for older people. That model convention, the Chicago Declaration on the Rights of Older Persons, will be presented on August 1 before the 5th Session of the Open-ended Working Group on Ageing at the United Nations.

According to Ralph Ruebner, Associate Dean for Academic Affairs at John Marshall and a leader of the effort, ``It is vital that the world's aging citizens receive comprehensive legal protections and support under international law. This proposed convention will go a long way in helping achieve this.'' The drafting of the document involved months of work by experts and advocates in Chicago and from around the world, including Australia, Canada, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Paraguay, and United Kingdom.

On July 10 & 11, 2014, the 21st Belle R. and Joseph H. Braun Memorial Symposium hosted by John Marshall Law School, together with East China University of Political Science and Law and Roosevelt University, brought elder law and policy experts from around the world to Chicago to discuss issues from social protection and income security to fighting elder abuse to health care and caregiving.

As co-chair of the House Democratic Caucus Seniors Task Force, I work hard every day to ensure that older Americans can remain productive, participate in their communities, and age with dignity. I also know the importance of ensuring that ageism and other forms of discrimination are addressed and that legal rights are incorporated within a comprehensive framework. The Chicago Declaration on the Rights of Older Persons embodies those concepts, and I hope that next week's

meeting in New York furthers movement toward an international convention.

To give a sense of the importance and scope of this initiative, I am including Article 1, Purpose and Core Principles, and Article 2, Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms of Older Persons. I encourage my colleagues to read them, learn more about the Chicago Declaration, and join in the fight to promote the rights of older Americans.

The following are excerpts from the Chicago Declaration on the Rights of Older Persons.

Article 1--Purpose and Core Principles

(a) The purpose of this Declaration is to provide, advance,

and promote a basis for the development of a convention on

the full and equal enjoyment of all human rights and

fundamental freedoms by older persons, and to promote respect

for their inherent dignity.

(b) The principles recognized by this Declaration are:

1. Respect for inherent dignity;

2. Respect for individual autonomy, including the freedom

to make one's own choices;

3. Respect for the independence and capabilities of older

persons;

4. Respect for interdependence and caring relationships;

5. Respect for non-discrimination and equality under law;

6. Respect for family relationships and intergenerational

solidarity;

7. Respect for full and effective participation and

inclusion in society;

8. Respect for and recognition of older persons as part of

human and cultural diversity; and

9. Respect for aging as an integral and continuous part of

life.

Article 2--Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms of Older Persons

Older persons have the following rights and nothing in this

Declaration diminishes any greater rights granted to them

that may be contained in local, national, regional, or

international law.

(a) Equality, non-discrimination, and equal opportunity:

Discrimination against older persons on the basis of age is

prohibited.

(b) Quality of Life

1. Older persons have the right to the effective enjoyment

of the right to life, to live with dignity in old age, and to

make decisions about the quality of their lives.

2. Older persons have the right to support in making

decisions regarding their present and future circumstances.

(c) Liberty

1. Older persons have a right to liberty and security of

person.

2. Old age should never justify a deprivation of liberty.

3. Older persons have the right to personal mobility with

the greatest possible independence.

4. Older persons have the right to liberty of movement,

freedom to choose their residence, and the right to a

nationality.

(d) Equality Before the Law

1. Older persons have the right to equality before the law.

2. Older persons have the right to access to justice on an

equal basis with others.

3. Older persons are equal before the law and are entitled

without any discrimination to the equal protection and equal

benefits of the law.

4. Denial of legal capacity on the basis of old age is

prohibited.

5. Older persons have the right to assistance and support

in the exercise of their legal capacity.

(e) Health and Long Term Care

1. Older persons have the right to the enjoyment of the

highest attainable standard of physical and mental health and

long term care without discrimination on the basis of age,

including access to public health, preventive medicine,

palliative care, and rehabilitation.

2. Older persons have the right to the benefits of

scientific progress and health and long term care related

research.

3. Older persons have the right to self-determination in

health and long term care related matters and to make such

decisions based on informed consent.

4. Older persons have the right to dignity, privacy, and

autonomy in making health and long term care related

decisions.

5. Older persons have the right to express their wishes and

preferences regarding future health and long term care

related decisions and to have those expressions respected.

6. Older persons have the right to assistance and support

in receiving, understanding, and processing information in

making informed health and long term care related decisions.

(f) Adequate Standard of Living: Older persons have the

right to an adequate standard of living, including the right

to food, water, clothing, and housing, and to improve their

living conditions without discrimination on the basis of age.

(g) Housing

1. Older persons have the right to adequate housing.

2. Older persons have the right to choose on an equal basis

with others their place of residence, the persons with whom

they may live, and they are not obliged to live in any

particular living arrangement.

3. Older persons have the right to security of tenure free

from disproportionate interference.

(h) Living Independently and Being Included in the

Community

1. Older persons have the right to live independently and

to make choices to facilitate their full inclusion and

participation in the community.

2. Older persons have the right to access and choose a

range of in-home formal or informal care and other community

support services. This includes personal assistance necessary

to support independent living and inclusion in the community

and to prevent isolation or segregation from the community.

3. Older persons have the right to community services and

facilities that are responsive to their needs.

4. Older persons have the right to participate fully in all

aspects of life, including equal access to the physical

environment, transportation, information, communications,

technology, and other facilities and services open to the

public.

(i) Education: Older persons have the right to education,

training, and life-long learning without discrimination.

(j) Work and Employment

1. Older persons have the right to work, including the

right to participate in a workforce that is open, inclusive,

and accessible to persons of all ages.

2. Mandatory retirement based on age is prohibited.

(k) Land and Other Property

1. Older persons have the following rights without

discrimination on the basis of age or gender: to use, own,

transfer, inherit, and participate in the redistribution of

land and other property.

2. Older persons have the right to exercise self-

determination with respect to their property and the right

not to be arbitrarily or unlawfully deprived of their

property.

(l) Freedom from Torture or Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading

Treatment or Punishment: Older persons have the right to be

free from torture or cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment

or punishment.

(m) Freedom from Exploitation, Concealment, Violence,

Abuse, and Neglect

1. Older persons have a right to be free from all forms of

exploitation, concealment, violence, abuse, and neglect.

2. Older persons have the right to recovery and

reintegration when exploitation, concealment, violence,

abuse, or neglect is committed against them.

3. Older persons have the right to recovery and

reintegration in an environment that fosters dignity, health,

well-being, self-respect, and autonomy, and is sensitive to

self-identification and personhood.

4. Older persons have the right to be free from medical

abuse, including nonconsensual treatment, medication,

experimentation, and hospitalization.

5. Older persons may not be denied medical treatment or

have medical treatment limited on the basis of age.

(n) Freedom of Expression and Access to Information: Older

persons have the right to freedom of expression and opinion,

including, the freedom to seek, receive, and impart

information and ideas on an equal basis with others and

through all forms of communication of their choice.

(o) Freedom of Association: Older persons have the right to

freedom of association and to create their own associations.

(p) Respect for Privacy: Older persons have the right to

privacy, in all aspects of their lives, including, in their

home, family life, communications, intimacy, health, and

financial matters.

(q) Social Protection: Older persons have the right to

social protection, including income security, without

discrimination on the basis of age or gender.

(r) Participation in Social, Political, and Cultural Life

1. Older persons have the right to participate in cultural

life, recreation, leisure, and sport.

2. Older persons have the right to exercise political

rights, including the right to vote, stand for office, and

participate in the political process.

(s) Right to Assistance: Older persons have the right to

assistance in exercising the rights in this Declaration.

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

As the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Commerce, Manufacturing, and Trade, I am pleased that this bipartisan bill, H.R. 4450, the Travel Promotion, Enhancement, and Modernization Act of 2014, was reported out of the full Energy and Commerce Committee last week.

The bill, which authorizes the Brand USA program through fiscal year 2020, is an important achievement for our committee. I appreciate the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Upton) and the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Terry), the chairman of our committee and subcommittee, and the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman), the full committee ranking member, for helping to bring this legislation to the floor.

I strongly support Brand USA's mission of promoting international travel to the United States, and I have heard from travel and tourism professionals across my district about the need to reauthorize this program, but it is not just the Chicago area that benefits.

Brand USA supports an estimated 53,000 jobs and $3.4 billion in visitor spending each year from coast to coast,

according to the U.S. Travel Association.

I would like to thank Mr. Bilirakis and Mr. Welch, the sponsors of H.R. 4450, for their continued commitment to the promotion of international tourism. The sponsors worked with me to make some important improvements to this legislation during the committee markup process.

The amendment we made to the bill will make Brand USA even more accountable and economically viable, moving forward.

Due to our efforts, the bill incorporates several recommendations that the Government Accountability Office made in a 2013 report. The Department of Commerce is now required to establish specific publicly available timeframes and conditions for how Brand USA revises and resolves disagreements related to its in-kind contribution policy.

Having a set policy will not only promote greater transparency, but it will also, in the words of GAO, ``enable productive interactions and facilitate collaboration.''

GAO has also suggested that Brand USA be directed to develop a plan that specifies timeframes, methodologies, and data sources for measuring its performance and the campaign's impact.

By explicitly requiring those criteria, the bill now gives the organization more direction on the type of information it should collect and establishes metrics that can more effectively determine the success of the program.

I was glad that the bill's sponsors proposed lowering the cap on in- kind contributions in the underlying bill, and I am thankful that Mr. Bilirakis joined me to offer an amendment to lower the cap even further during the full committee markup last week.

Every contribution to Brand USA, whether public or private, cash or in-kind, is important to the organization's ongoing success, but I believe that the program is in the best possible position to maintain and build on its success through robust cash contributions by the private sector.

Brand USA's continued long-term success is essential to communities that--like my district--realize the economic and cultural benefits of tourism and travel. Brand USA has been successful in its first few years, and I firmly believe that this legislation improves the program even more.

Again, I applaud Brand USA for its ongoing efforts to encourage people from all over the world to enjoy everything our country has to offer, and I assure the chairman of our subcommittee that we will benefit not just coast to coast, but also the center of the country as well.

I thank the sponsors for their continued efforts to ensure the longevity of this valuable program and strongly encourage my colleagues to support this important bill.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Nevada, Dina Titus, from a place that certainly benefits from tourism and is a place where many of us go to have fun.

It is now my pleasure to yield for such time as he may consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. Farr), who is from a beautiful area of the country.

Mr. Speaker, can I ask how many minutes remain on either side?

I have no more speakers, but I want to just make a couple of comments. I think in addition to this being a really important bill and recognized in a bipartisan way, I hope Members on both sides of the aisle will realize how good it feels when we work together, and maybe this could be the beginning or a model for how we can deal with legislation. There were some changes to the bill. We sat down. We agreed on them. We worked it out, and we have a product at the end of the day. It is called compromise. It is not a dirty word. We have achieved, I think, an excellent product.

The other thing I wanted to mention, we have talked about Big Sur, Carmel, Las Vegas, and other places. I just wanted to say that I am kind of pushing an idea for an organization called To Chicago, which is our tourism bureau to bring people to Chicago, especially for the summer. I thought a really good idea would be to promote: Come to Chicago, swim in Chicago, no sharks. And so I thought I would use this opportunity to push my ``no sharks'' idea for Chicago. You could add ``no salt'' as well, but I thought particularly ``no sharks.'' We have beautiful beaches in Chicago. So I am trying to get To Chicago under the banner of brand Chicago to promote my good idea of no sharks.

But there are so many ideas I think that we have for many small communities. I was in the delta of Louisiana at the original blues bars and blues restaurants down there, and all of us have something wonderful and unique in our communities. That is what Brand USA is about, to bring tourists not only to the likely suspects of places but to so many of our communities so they get the real flavor of the people, the diversity, the color, the smell, the feel, and the sound of the United States of America. So this is a great piece of legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I am going to continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I will close by just thanking the gentleman--all of the gentlemen--and ladies who have participated in making this important legislation come to fruition.

I do hope we are able to move it very quickly and, hopefully, unanimously here, move it over to the Senate and get it done right away. I urge all of my colleagues to support this bill to extend the Brand USA program and ensure it is successful, accountable, and transparent going forward.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, on Wednesday, July 16, 2014, the House will complete its consideration of H.R. 5016, the Financial Services and General Government Appropriations bill. The bill includes two amendments that would weaken important consumer product safety protections. I strongly oppose both provisions, as well as the underlying bill.

One of the provisions would reduce funding for the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) by $2 million and increase funding for the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) by $1 million. If that money would be dedicated to strengthening the CPSC's efforts to protect consumers, I might support it. However, it is the sponsor's intention that those additional CPSC funds be used to support the Commission's analysis of third-party testing to determine whether those requirements should be eased. That analysis has already been conducted by the CPSC. It sought public comment, reviewed the comments it received, and has so far not decided to revise its third-party testing requirements--a decision that is allowed under the statute. Throwing more money at the CPSC to redo an analysis it has already completed is a waste of taxpayer dollars, and it would do nothing to further the Commission's role of promoting the safety of American consumers.

The other provision would prohibit funds from being used by the Commission to finalize, implement, or enforce the proposed ``voluntary recall'' rule. It would limit the CPSC's ability to explore possible changes that could reduce or eliminate recall delays, make recall notices more effective, or address the small number of firms that do not follow through on agreed-upon corrective action plans. While we have seen significant improvements in recalls since the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act was signed into law almost six years ago, there is no justification for preventing the CPSC from continuing to enhance the voluntary recall process.

The Consumer Product Safety Commission plays a critical role in protecting all Americans from hazardous products. This mission is too important for Congress to constrain CPSC's flexibility in determining, through an open and responsive process, the best way to carry out its goals.

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

Mr. Chairman, all of us know that hardworking men and women in all of our districts are having a rough time these days. Many are paid low wages or wages that are not enough to meet their family's basic needs. Those problems are made even worse when workers are the victims of wage theft.

Billions of dollars are actually stolen from workers through wage theft, and wage theft occurs when workers are forced to work off the clock, denied earned overtime pay, or paid less than the minimum wage. Workers can lose pay because of illegal paycheck deductions, be denied their final paychecks, or not be paid at all.

Interfaith Worker Justice, based in Chicago, has been working to stop wage theft for years. In 2008, its executive director, Kim Bobo, wrote a book called ``Wage Theft in America: Why Millions of Working Americans Are Not Getting Paid--And What We Can Do About It.''

My amendment is one step we can take to do something about it. My amendment is simple. The idea is the same idea that has been offered on the House floor by my friend and colleague, Representative Keith Ellison, and is supported by the Congressional Progressive Caucus.

It says that Federal contractors have a duty to pay their workers their legally-earned wages and that corporations that don't pay their workers their legally-earned wages shouldn't benefit from Federal contracts. Similar language has successfully been added to the Energy and Water and Department of Defense Appropriations bills.

Wage theft has been documented. One study of workers in Chicago, Los Angeles, and New York City found that 26 percent were paid below legal minimum wage levels, 76 percent were denied earned overtime, and 70 percent were not paid for work outside of their regular shifts.

The North Carolina Justice Center found that workers in that State lost $33 million in pay because of wage theft over the course of 5 years. The Economic Policy Institute found that, ``In total, the average low-wage worker loses a stunning $2,634 per year in unpaid wages, representing 15 percent of their income.''

This is a problem in many sectors, and that includes Federal contractors. A report by the Senate Health, Education, and Labor and Pensions Committee revealed that 32 percent of the largest Department of Labor penalties for wage theft were levied against Federal contractors.

National Employment Law Project found that 21 percent of Federal contract workers were not paid overtime and 11 percent had been forced to work off the clock.

Federal contract employees deserve to receive the dollars they have earned, the dollars that they need, the dollars they would spend in their communities, and the dollars that taxpayers awarded the contractors for those wages.

All workers should be safe from wage theft, but my amendment is much more modest. It just says that a contract under this FY 2015 Appropriations bill can't be awarded to a corporation found to be in violation of wage requirements under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

It says that corporations that cheat their employees out of hard- earned wages are not deserving of taxpayer-funded Federal contracts. It sends a clear message: obey the law, pay your workers the wages they have earned, or we won't give you the benefit of a taxpayer-financed Federal contract.

Allowing corporations to get away with violating the law is not just bad for their workers and taxpayers, it is unfair to the businesses that are competing for Federal contracts but won't engage in wage theft to get a competitive edge.

Do we really want to tell corporations that they can violate the law and steal wages from their workers and still get a Federal contract, or do we want to take a small stand by saying that only companies that play by the wage rules we have enacted will be eligible?

I hope we can agree that breaking the law in order to underpay workers is not acceptable, certainly should not be rewarded, and certainly not with taxpayer dollars. I urge my colleagues to help the workers who work for us. Support the Congressional Progressive Caucus amendment.

I certainly urge a ``yes'' vote on the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Offered By: Ms. Schakowsky

Amendment No. 17: At the end of the bill (before the short

title), insert the following: S6201

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to H.R. 3301.

My Republican colleagues argue that we need more bills like H.R. 3301 to transport oil and gas as quickly as possible, but building a modern energy infrastructure for the 21st century requires more than just drilling more wells, laying more pipelines, filling more rail cars with crude oil, and putting more tanker trucks on our highways.

A modern 21st century infrastructure must address the threat of climate change, the biggest energy challenge we face as a country.

Republicans can deny it all they want, but we can't have a meaningful conversation about America's energy infrastructure without also having a conversation about climate.

We have a rapidly diminishing window to act to reduce our carbon pollution before the catastrophic impacts of climate change are irreversible. In fact, we are seeing, today, the devastating consequences in many parts of our country.

The International Energy Agency has concluded that, if the world does not take action to reduce carbon pollution before 2017, then dangerous levels of carbon emissions will be locked in by the energy infrastructure existing at that time.

The energy infrastructure decisions that we make today will have a real impact on whether we can mitigate climate change in the future or lock in carbon pollution for generations to come.

My Republican colleagues don't like to hear this message, and that is reflected in the bill we are discussing today. If enacted into law, H.R. 3301 would move us backward in our fight to address climate change. It essentially pretends that climate change doesn't exist.

H.R. 3301 would rubberstamp permits for pipelines to carry tar sands crude from Canada into the United States. Tar sands crude is the dirtiest fuel on the planet, from a climate perspective, but this bill creates a permitting process for cross-border pipelines that makes it difficult, if not impossible, for the Federal Government to say no.

The bill even allows the oil industry to make major modifications to its pipelines without getting any approval at all. That means, if a company wants to increase its pipeline capacity or reverse an existing pipeline to carry more tar sands crude from Canada into the United States, the company can just do it, no questions asked.

Building new tar sands pipelines or expanding existing ones could have a profound environmental impact, but the bill allows for no meaningful environmental review.

For a cross-border pipeline, the bill says the Federal Government can only examine the environmental impact of the cross-border segment of the project. It is almost hard to believe that that is what the bill does, but it is true.

For a pipeline spanning hundreds of miles, the environmental review will focus on only a tiny part that crosses the U.S. border. That eliminates the possibility of any meaningful examination of the carbon pollution impacts of these pipelines. That is irresponsible.

We know, from our examination of the Keystone XL pipeline, that it will facilitate the production of tar sands crude which is, on average, 17 percent more greenhouse gas intensive than the average crude refined in the United States. We should be examining the carbon impact of every pipeline before we approve it, not ignoring the problem altogether.

That brings us back to Keystone XL. This bill gives TransCanada virtual assurance that Keystone XL will be approved. Even if President Obama finds that the Keystone XL pipeline is not in the national interest and denies the national permit, this bill allows TransCanada to simply reapply and approve it under the new rubberstamp process, with no consideration of the profound environmental climate.

I want to remind my colleagues that this debate and this vote are part of the permanent record. Don't betray your grandchildren and their grandchildren by condemning them to a planet where it is hard to breathe and agriculture is affected.

The future will belong to the country that builds an energy infrastructure to support a cleaner, low-carbon economy. It is our responsibility to lead the country and even the world in that direction.

This bill takes us backwards. I urge my colleagues to oppose H.R. 3301.

Mr. Speaker, in the United States, we have always had a bipartisan tradition of assisting fellow hardworking Americans who have fallen on hard times--until now. As they are looking for their next job, we used to make sure that they had assistance through unemployment insurance to cover their basic needs. That is why yesterday I stood with Congresswoman Dina Titus, Donna Edwards, Gwen Moore, and nearly a dozen group advocates for what we are calling ``Witness Wednesdays.'' We all read stories about real people, submitted by them, who are struggling since their unemployment insurance has expired.

During that event, the National Women's Law Center released a study with some very sobering statistics. Women, particularly older women, women of color, and women heads of households, are deeply affected by unemployment, as are their children by the lack of emergency unemployment insurance benefits.

Last year, in my State of Illinois, more than 140,000 children lived in households headed by a long-term unemployed parent. Also, in my State, by the end of the year, nearly a quarter-million people will be left without benefits they need to meet their families' basic needs if we don't renew emergency unemployment insurance.

These are real people and real families behind these numbers. These are people looking for jobs. I am going to read four stories from Illinoisans who have suffered setbacks as they look for the work they need--for us to renew unemployment insurance without any further delay.

Chris from Glenview, Illinois, says:

My husband and I will never recover financially and are

praying we will not lose our home. I don't think I will ever

be able to retire, which is concerning as I have health

problems. My 28-year-old son is still living at home because

he was unemployed for over a year and is now serving coffee

for minimum wage. He has a bachelor's degree from Loyola

University, and between his student loans and our parent

loans, we will all be in debt for the rest of our lives. We

are not alone. I know of so many who are struggling as we

are.

Sue from Chicago says:

Due to new management at the HIV/AIDS agency where I worked

for over 10 years, I was fired on May 23 in order for them to

save money. I am 58 years old, have an auto-immune liver

disease that limits me physically and requires regular health

care from specialists, as well as six medications. I have no

savings and retirement is a laughable matter. Because I had

no warning that this was going to happen, I am now looking at

having no income, no health, and having to move from Chicago

to downstate Springfield, where the cost of living is much

lower, though job prospects are dismal.

Dinah from Chicago says:

I am losing my hair, apartment, and car. I have borrowed

from everyone in my family, hoping to pay them back soon. I

have worked since 1993 and am now unemployed. Soon I will be

in a shelter, car repossession, and bald. I am looking for

work. I have been on several interviews but so far no luck.

And Celia from Chicago says:

I had a job interview in December 2013, about the time my

unemployment ran out. I really wanted this job. It was not

just the fact that I would be able to pay bills; the work

would be rewarding. Unfortunately, the tension I felt when it

was clear that I had to get this position, that there would

be no extension of benefits, caused me to freeze up at the

interview when asked to display my skills. This had never

happened to me. I am usually the type to have no problems

once I land the interview.

My confidence is way down. I am 62. I have no income and

can't seem to find decent jobs to even apply to. I have had

to regularly take money out of my retirement savings in order

to stay out of debt. The worst thing about this time after a

good career is to feel dropped, disappeared, and no longer of

value. There is a dry feeling, dusty, of everything being

cheap and on sale and no way to get back. I am ashamed of

being out of the work world.

Chris, Sue, Dinah, and Celia are 4 of nearly 5 million Americans who will continue to suffer and struggle if we don't renew emergency unemployment insurance by the end of this year. We should vote and pass the bill to renew unemployment insurance without any further delay.

Mr. Speaker, on June 12, 2014, I was unavoidably detained during the vote on the Democratic Motion to Recommit H.R. 4457, America's Small Business Tax Relief Act (rollcall No. 308). Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to thank and congratulate the Decalogue Society of Lawyers, which this year celebrates its 80th anniversary.

Founded in 1934 to fight anti-Semitism and other forms of discrimination and intolerance,

the Decalogue Society has a proud record of achievement. It is the oldest Jewish Bar Association in the United States, representing the values and concerns of the Jewish community while working to protect the rights and privileges of all Americans. The Decalogue Society strives to promote justice in society and to advance and improve the law, the administration of justice, and the legal profession.

All of us are proud to be a nation of laws, and we strive to ensure that ``equal justice under the law'' is not just a motto but a reality. The Decalogue Society recognizes that lawyers play an essential role in maintaining a free society committed to equal justice. It works to ensure that we as a nation understand and value the role of the legal profession in reaching that goal, even as its lawyers participate in social action and cooperate in diverse movements for the public welfare.

The Decalogue Society maintains vigilance against public and private practices which are anti-social, discriminatory, anti-Semitic or oppressive and joins with other groups and minorities to protect legal rights and privileges. The Decalogue Society's active Social Action Committee has organized volunteers for ``Mitzvah'' projects at soup kitchens, food pantries, and retirement residences. With a strong commitment to public welfare and human rights, the Decalogue Society, in conjunction with other minority bar associations, has raised awareness about special situations in the courts and in the workplace that present challenges for people of various faiths.

Access to competent legal representation is an essential ingredient for making sure that the laws of the land are just and fairly enforced. The Decalogue Society provides free continuing legal education to assist members and non-members alike in becoming better informed lawyers. It extends critical educational and financial support to those lawyers who work to end discrimination and represent the rights of the most vulnerable among us. The Decalogue Foundation was created in the 1960s to provide scholarships for deserving law students. It has established nine endowment funds at the Hebrew University Law School and six Chicago-area law schools. It also has a mentorship program for law students and young lawyers to help them network, hone their interviewing skills, and find jobs.

I hope that my colleagues will join me in congratulating the Decalogue Society for its commitment to the ideals of religious freedom and racial tolerance and for its efforts to encourage and assist those women and men who want to pursue future legal careers in public service. Chicago, Illinois and the United States all benefit from its activities and from its commitment to the principles of law and equality.