Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I was regrettably detained and missed Roll

Call vote number 538. Had I been present, I would have voted no.

Mr. Speaker, today, I recognize Peter Harvell, who will retire as Director of Veterans Benefits and Services of Framingham, Massachusetts on September 28, 2017. Peter's lifetime of service shows us how one person's undeterrable mission to help others can positively impact his broader community.

Peter has dedicated the past 13 years to helping veterans by connecting them with state and federal benefits, partnering with community organizations, and ensuring the stability and growth of their mental and financial health.

Peter has been one of our veterans' strongest advocates in the towns of Sudbury and Framingham. He partnered with local food banks, jail diversion task forces, and legal aid services to help veterans and service members who fell on hard times. He worked with the VFW, the American Legion, and local National Guard units to host welcome home ceremonies. He paid our veterans their due respect on national holidays. Above all, Peter maintains relationships and provides support to our Gold Star families.

Prior to his service to the towns of Sudbury and Framingham, Peter spent 23 years in the U.S. Army serving in the U.S. Special Operations Command. After preparing OPERATION EAGER ANVIL in DESERT STORM and coordinating NATO missions in Bosnia, he returned home to continue service as a congressional liaison at USSOCOM for two years.

Peter's dedication and leadership honor our Commonwealth and our country. We thank him for his years of service and wish him a happy and successful retirement.

Mr. Chairman, as the designee of the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro), I offer amendment No. 154.

Mr. Chairman, this amendment would restore funding for the mental health programs cut in this bill. Specifically, it would reverse the $142 million in cuts to SAMHSA's mental health block grant and restore funding for Project AWARE State grants and Healthy Transitions, which were both eliminated in the underlying bill.

For so long, mental health issues were relegated to the shadows, approached with the shame and misunderstanding that only exacerbates pain for people and their families; but today, we know how widespread these issues are, and we need to approach them without stigma and treat them the same way we would treat other illnesses.

According to Mental Health America, one in five adults has a mental health condition, yet more than half of Americans with a mental illness receive no treatment. Many families without health coverage or whose coverage will not cover mental health or recovery programs rely on services funded by SAMHSA's mental health block grant. This amendment would restore those funds.

This amendment also restores funding for Project AWARE and the Healthy Transitions grant program, which were created in the aftermath of the Sandy Hook school shooting, which took the lives of 6 adults and 20 beautiful children. In response to this tragedy, the administration and Congress came together to support several new programs to help communities identify and treat behavioral disorders.

The Project AWARE program, often referred to as a mental health first aid, seeks to increase awareness of mental health issues among our children, train teachers and other school staff to identify and respond to mental health issues, and connect children to the appropriate behavioral health services.

The Healthy Transitions program improves access to treatment and support services for young adults with serious mental health conditions.

Together, we can make our communities more welcoming, compassionate, and safe for everyone, and restoring this funding is an essential part of that effort.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Oklahoma for yielding me time.

While this amendment increases career and technical education funding, a worthy goal that I support, it comes at the expense of funding for critical higher education programs that support low-income and minority students.

Career and technical education funds help ensure students are well prepared for further education employment in high-skilled, high-demand jobs in the 21st century economy.

In days before the election, President Trump, in reference to CTE, said: ``We're going to start it up big league.''

Secretary DeVos, a few months ago, said: `` . . . this administration is committed to supporting and highlighting career and technical education.''

Despite these promises, the Trump-DeVos budget cuts CTE by $168 million, or 15 percent.

I am glad to see my colleagues on the other side of the aisle proposing to increase our investment in this critical area, but I am deeply concerned that the amendment proposes to slash $70 million in funding.

Mr. Chairman, this amendment would decimate the ability of the Department of Education to meet the needs of Americans by indiscriminately transferring $44 million to the spending reduction account. This does nothing to improve the bill, which is already underfunded. The majority has imposed a $5 billion cut to the Labor-HHS bill below the 2017 omnibus level. Further cuts are completely unnecessary.

That is not all. This $5 billion is also below the nondefense levels allowed under the Budget Control Act. We have the resources available, but the majority refuses to allocate them to essential programs funded through this bill. The Department will simply have to do less with less. That is not good for the American people, and it is not good for our constituents.

A Department with fewer resources to oversee the Student Aid portfolio, and as Mr. Scott pointed out, the Office of Inspector General's ability to promote efficiencies within the Department and investigate fraud, will be hampered.

Mr. Chair, for these reasons, I oppose the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chair, I rise in strong opposition to this amendment, which would cut the NLRB's budget by nearly $100 million below the House bill, which is already $25 million below the fiscal year 2017 level.

Under this amendment, the NLRB would be required to furlough 1,500 employees for at least 140 days. That means 1,500 employees across 26 States would be unpaid for nearly 5 months. As a result, the NLRB would develop a backlog of 10,000 to 12,000 cases, which would indefinitely delay the resolution of pending cases of unfair labor practices.

Perhaps my colleagues don't realize that most of the NLRB's work is not controversial. At the regional level, about 21,000 charges are filed every year, and 95 percent of those charges are dismissed or resolved within 60 to 70 days after an investigation of facts. In other words, 19 out of 20 charges filed are resolved without litigation.

For charges at the regional level, 90 percent of the cases with probable merit are settled, which means they are resolved without needing to be heard before the NLRB's five-member board.

For cases taken to the board, about 70 percent of the decisions are unanimous, meaning they are bipartisan. That is how the process is supposed to work.

Why would we cripple an agency that is tasked with enforcing Federal labor laws? Does the majority believe that labor laws should not be enforced? Should a worker who is unlawfully fired for exercising their rights be met with a sign on the door that says, ``Closed. Will reopen in 5 months''?

Closing the NLRB for 5 months would exacerbate disputes between employers and employees, and create a harmful disruption to our economy.

Mr. Chair, I urge that we reject this amendment.

Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott), the distinguished ranking member of the Education and the Workforce Committee.

Mr. Chairman, this amendment is an insult to the millions of American workers who deserve to be treated fairly and in a timely manner under the law.

Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to reject this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this amendment which would block the NLRB's election rule, an attempt to undermine collective bargaining rights. The NLRB enacted this rule to modernize and streamline the process for voting on union representation.

To be clear, the NLRB undertook a very deliberative rulemaking process. It was transparent, and it included input from stakeholders and the public.

The majority's claim that this rule enables ambush elections is false. These are commonsense adjustments that eliminate unnecessary delays that have hindered the union election process for decades.

The election rule provides for the timely exchange of information so that issues can be resolved quickly. It improves workers' ability to hear from all sides prior to making a decision, and it reduces frivolous litigation.

I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott), the distinguished ranking member of the Education and the Workforce Committee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Polis), a member of the Education and the Workforce Committee.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this amendment. The underlying bill is already underfunded. The majority has imposed a $5 billion cut to the Labor-HHS bill below the 2017 omnibus level.

This cut is as unnecessary as it is indiscriminate because it indiscriminately cuts programs in this bill without thought to the relative merit. For instance, this amendment would result in fewer infants and toddlers receiving Head Start's services, fewer students receiving financial aid to help afford college, fewer biomedical research grants, and cuts to public health emergency response. The list goes on and on.

Investment is what we need to help build and strengthen our middle class, and this amendment threatens that.

Mr. Chairman, I strongly urge Members to oppose this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Chairman, I do not oppose this amendment. In fact, I support my colleague's effort to improve access to early childhood mental health promotion, intervention, and treatment. But I think it is important that we come back to why we are here tonight and why this $5 million for mental health programs is not included in this Labor-HHS bill under consideration.

The reason is because this bill is being cut by $5 billion from FY17 levels. This is the end result that we get when the majority's efforts to slash nondefense spending come to fruition. We are forced to choose between lifesaving programs, such as mental health and substance abuse programs, and programs that invest in our future, like early childhood education or job training.

We ought to be negotiating a bipartisan budget deal to lift the sequestration caps on both defense and nondefense programs. Then we could begin working on a bipartisan base that will allow us to adequately fund mental health and substance abuse prevention.

Mr. Chairman, again, I rise not in opposition to this amendment, but I support this effort by my colleague as well.

Let's increase behavioral health integration into pediatric primary care, for I, too, have seen the shortages of mental health providers in my home State

and the very real and devastating impact that that has on families.

This is a false crisis. There is $5 billion that we have cut from the FY17 levels, but this false crisis has very real impacts on the lives of children and their families.

Let's get to the work of negotiating a bipartisan budget to lift sequestration caps on both defense and nondefense, and draft a reasonable Labor-HHS bill that adequately funds mental health and substance abuse prevention programs. We have the opportunity and we need to seize it.

Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this amendment, which would remove protections for workers who report workplace injuries and prevent OSHA from collecting data necessary to identify and target the most hazardous workplaces and serious safety and health problems.

Let's look at 2015. There were nearly 5,000 workers killed on the job by traumatic injuries and an estimated 50,000 deaths from occupational diseases. Each day, 150 workers in this country died because of exposure to workplace hazards.

In 2015, there were 3.7 million workplace injuries reported, with more than half of them serious, but these numbers don't show the whole problem. Studies have shown that up to half of all workplace injuries are not reported on the OSHA injury log. One of the reasons is that some workers fear that they will be retaliated against or fired if they report an injury.

The new OSHA rule strengthens protections for workers who report injuries, which will allow workers to report them more freely and result in more complete reporting.

OSHA's injury tracking rule is an important worker protection measure that does three things. First, it prohibits employers from retaliating against workers who report workplace injuries. Second, it continues longstanding requirements that certain employers in high-risk industries submit summary injury and illness data to OSHA, which now must be done electronically. And, third, it requires large employers in high-risk injuries to submit more detailed injury and illness data to

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott), my friend, the distinguished ranking member of the Education and the Workforce Committee.

Mr. Chairman, Congress should support OSHA's efforts to protect workers and use their data to target safety and health efforts to the most dangerous workplaces.

Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to reject this rider and to move forward with the underlying bill.

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

Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in recognition of Master Sergeant Scott Forbes from Melrose, Massachusetts. On June 27, 2017, Master Sergeant Forbes will retire from the Air Force Reserve after 22 years of service to his country and his community.

During his service, Scott was deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan. He most recently served with the 58th Aerial Port Squadron at Westover Air Base as an air transportation craftsman.

Scott, his wife Susan, and their children Abygail and Jackson are valued members of our Melrose community. Scott and Susan grew up in Melrose, where they both attended high school. As a young man, Scott decided he would continue the tradition of service passed on by his late father Bill Forbes, who fought for the U.S. Army during the Vietnam War. The Forbes family tradition of service extends beyond their military contributions. Today, just as his father before him, Scott continues to serve families in our community as an alderman in Melrose.

Scott, Susan, and the entire Forbes family exemplify the contributions of generations of service members and military families who have protected our country and continue to make our communities great places to live, work and raise a family.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Illinois for his leadership on this bill; and also to Congressman Thompson for all he has done to bring this to where it is today, because millions of students and workers are eager to advance into good-paying, high-skilled technical careers.

From childcare to manufacturing, to carpentry or computer science, jobs that require technical training are in high demand, and we want to make sure that students across the country have the skills they need to get hired and develop their careers.

With this bill, we will help strengthen the Perkins career and technical education program that reaches over 11 million students every year. This bill will help policymakers measure what does and does not work in career and technical education, allowing us to build on past successes. It will ensure our CTE programs are aligned with the needs of high-demand growth industries to make sure that America is competitive globally, and it will support work-based learning and apprenticeships, and our early education and childcare workforce.

This will bring the Perkins program into the modern, 21st century global economy. This has broad bipartisan support.

I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this act, and I urge them to fully fund the CTE programs and reject the proposed cuts of $168 million.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Massachusetts. I am glad to share in this bipartisan moment of admiration for his work with my colleague from Georgia.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to urge my colleagues to defeat the previous question so that we can bring a resolution to the floor. This resolution will ensure that the House meets its constitutional responsibility to conduct oversight of the executive branch by investigating potential conflicts of interest of President Donald J. Trump.

It reads: ``Whereas, on October 18, 2016, then-candidate Donald J. Trump communicated via Twitter: `I will Make Our Government Honest Again--believe me. But first, I'm going to have to #draintheswamp in

Mr. Speaker, the President and I do agree on one thing: designing a healthcare system is complicated.

But the effects of TrumpCare are as simple as they are devastating: 24 million hardworking Americans will lose their coverage; your healthcare costs and premiums will go up, and your coverage will go down; and for those of us between the ages of 50 and 64, we are about to be hit with an age tax just when we need coverage the most, just when we are trying to help with college tuition and save for our retirement. As we face an opiate crisis in this country that takes 120 American lives a day, TrumpCare will close the door on treatment for over 1 million Americans.

Our President tells us that he is a dealmaker. This is the ultimate bad deal for the American people, and we should reject this bill.

Mr. Speaker, well, here we are, on International Women's Day, 7 years from when we started the Affordable Care Act, 60 votes to repeal behind us, and yet only this week we have had the big reveal of what the plan will be for replacement. What are we seeing? We don't have any cost information, but we know we are going to protect wealthy insurance executives, and we know that an estimated 15 to 20 million Americans will have their health insurance ripped away from them.

Let me introduce you to one who is concerned about her ongoing coverage. Her name is Stephanie Chaney, and she is from my district in Framingham, Massachusetts. She is a recent grad student at Lesley University, where she studied to be a clinical counselor and dance therapist. She was diagnosed with a rare and extremely painful joint disease, and because of the ACA, she got the treatment she needed.

Because she was a student and not employed, the healthcare law and the changes we make are going to have a direct impact on her life. She worries that if she cannot find another affordable plan, she will have to start over again. Let's think of her and do the right thing by Americans with their health care.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Colorado for all her leadership.

We are barely 6 weeks into this new Congress and the Republicans are back at it again, attacking comprehensive health care for American women. The regulation under attack says that in order to be awarded title X funding, you must be able to deliver the services. Those services are family planning and related preventative health services.

The majority is correct, we are not talking about abortion because abortion is not funded by title X.

Why would Republicans oppose this regulation?

Because it allows them a backdoor way to make funding decisions based on ideology, not quality of care.

Don't we want the best health outcomes for the over 4 million patients who benefited last year from HIV tests, breast exams, and contraception coverage under title X?

Title X-funded healthcare providers around this country are high- quality professionals who provide needed care for millions of families, many of whom are underserved. I oppose this resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question so we can bring up the Presidential Conflicts of Interest Act.

Mr. Speaker, American families are worried. Over the last month, I have been flooded with messages from my constituents who are anxious about the direction of our country.

Never before has our country been forced to ask its incoming President if he is motivated by service to his country or if he is motivated by personal enrichment. Never before have we had a President- elect who will act as both landlord and tenant of a publicly owned property being used for private profit. Never before have we had the same people who are running a President's businesses also act as official advisers and agents. Never has a President-elect owed millions of dollars of debt to foreign banks.

The next administration will shape how our tax dollars are spent, who the Federal Government does business with, and the integrity of America's standing in the global economy.

Every President in modern history has taken voluntary steps to ensure his financial interests do not conflict with the needs of the American people. Yet, the current President-elect refuses to place his assets and his businesses in a blind trust.

The American people are left wondering whether their President-elect will work in their best interest or to line his own pockets.

Mr. Speaker, this is unprecedented. There should be no question about whether the administration will put the needs of Americans first. There is

nothing partisan about transparency and accountability that comes with being the leader of the free world. That is why we should all support the Presidential Conflicts of Interest Act.

This bill strengthens transparency in the Oval Office and guarantees that the needs of the American people will never compete with or be beholden to a President's financial interests. This bill ensures that the President and Vice President's assets are placed in a certified blind trust.

The bill also requires Presidential appointees to recuse themselves from matters involving the President's financial conflicts of interest. Every President in recent history, from President Johnson to President Obama, has voluntarily used some form of blind trust or placed their assets in an investment vehicle over which they had no control. Our bill simply aligns the President-elect and future Presidents with this long-held practice.

The American people are counting on our leadership. Every Democrat and every Republican should want to eliminate uncertainty and promote transparency and accountability in the executive branch. I ask my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question so we can bring this urgently needed legislation to the floor.

Mr. Speaker, last night I was regrettably detained by a snow storm and missed votes. Had I been present, I would have voted yes on H.R. 361, yes on H.R. 615, and yes on H.R. 623.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, here we go again. Instead of prioritizing the needs of women and families, we are once again discussing a bill that attacks women's rights.

When I ask women in my district what they need, they talk about not being able to find quality, affordable child care. But here in Congress we are talking about a bill that tells women they don't have a right to plan their own family.

Women in my district talk about making sure they receive equal pay for equal work. What are we talking about? A bill that tells women that politicians are better able to make their health decisions than they are.

Women in my district talk about making sure victims and survivors of domestic violence have the resources they need to build a better life. But we are talking about a bill that tells women that if they become pregnant because they were raped, they better have a police report to prove it.

American women pay taxes, raise their families, contribute to our economy, and are over half of the electorate. Yet rather than helping these women succeed and grow our economy, we give them this bill that forces backward ideological beliefs into women's private medical decisions.

I urge my colleagues to get back to work for women and families of this country and reject this dangerous bill.

Mr. Speaker, almost every day I hear from the families in my district who are frustrated by the disconnect between what they need and the discussions that we have here in Congress and Washington. Only 1 week into the 114th Congress, the Republican majority is back with the same divisive agenda that is at the root of the public's frustration.

Instead of focusing on policies that help families succeed, House Republicans have introduced legislation that not only risks our national security but tears families apart. In this time of increased terrorism, what do these amendments target? American Dreamers, young people who were brought to this country as children. These amendments jeopardize our national security and do nothing to fix our broken immigration system. These amendments represent dangerous, mean- spirited, divisive politics at its worst, and I hope they are defeated.

Mr. Speaker, over the Thanksgiving holiday, I was able to spend time not only with my extended family but with the families of my district. And it struck me--not for the first time--how disconnected much of the conversation in Washington is from the concerns of typical families.

At the beginning of this week, we had an opportunity for a bipartisan agreement on making tax credits for working families permanent. But that has been derailed by cynical posturing.

In 2012, the earned income tax credit and the child tax credit helped lift 10.1 million people out of poverty. These programs work for working families. But instead of voting on a broader bill today to help working families and businesses alike, we are kicking the can down the road once again. This is a process that benefits the status quo and holds the needs of working families hostage to another time when it is politically convenient--and it is no way to govern.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to continue working towards long-term tax policies that will help families who cannot afford to wait any longer for Congress to do right by them.