Floor Statements

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman, Sergeant Major Walz from the State of Minnesota, for yielding me time.

I also would like to say to the chairman, we had a wonderful time traveling to Afghanistan to pay respect to our troops during Thanksgiving. I don't have to travel across the country with him, but I did travel halfway around the world with him.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to H.R. 1259.

Every Member of Congress supports accountability for employees at the Department of Veterans Affairs--everybody. Building a culture of excellence at the VA is critical to providing veterans the care and support they deserve.

However, H.R. 1259 does not further this goal, or improve outcomes at the VA. We are not going to be able to fire our way to better outcomes at the VA.

The question posed by the VA Accountability First Act is whether accountability or workers' rights are mutually exclusive. I, along with many of my colleagues, believe we can respect VA employees--a third of whom are veterans themselves--while also ensuring that poor-performing employees are held accountable.

This legislation violates workers' rights in two very specific ways:

First, it would erode due process protections by giving employees too little time--just 10 days--to prepare for a disciplinary hearing, and then just 7 days to file an appeal with the Merit Systems Protection Board.

Second, it goes much further than past accountability bills by eliminating the use of collectively bargained grievance procedures for frontline VA employees. Not only do collectively bargained procedures often lead to quicker and simpler solutions, but they also give added protection to potential whistleblowers by acting as a check against managers who may retaliate against an employee who raises an issue.

Mr. Chairman, there is no question that we have workforce challenges at the VA, but this bill does not solve them. Instead, it eschews the Senate's bipartisan accountability legislation in favor of a much more one-sided bill.

To my colleagues who voted on VA accountability legislation in the past: This is not the same bill. It goes much further. And I ask you to join me in opposing it.

This is the first time the majority has targeted collective bargaining at the VA in this way. Your vote against this bill today will show that you oppose this very tactic.

If we are serious about providing veterans the best care possible, we should focus on removing the Federal hiring freeze, advancing the appeals modernization bill, and other bipartisan efforts that will immediately improve veterans' access to high-quality care and support.

Mr. Chairman, I include in the Record a letter from the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees in opposition to this bill, a letter from the American Federation of Government Employees, as well as a letter from the American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, my amendment in the nature of a substitute would strike the text of H.R. 1259 and insert a new provision allowing the Secretary to suspend, without pay, any VA employee whose performance or misconduct threatens public health or safety, including the health and safety of veterans. It would give the Secretary the authority to remove a suspended employee after an investigation and review if the Secretary determines removal is in the interests of public health and safety.

Both parties share the desire to protect veterans from mistreatment or harm, especially when they are seeking medical care at a VA facility, but the language in my amendment would be more likely to achieve the majority's stated outcome of removing VA employees whose misconduct harms veterans.

We have voted on similar accountability bills before, but I want to point out that this bill goes much further in the wrong direction. While in the past we have had disagreements on procedure and the amount of time an employee is given to file an appeal, for the very first time, this version of the accountability bill is attempting to undermine VA employees' collective bargaining rights.

Buried in this bill is a new provision that would take away the rights of frontline VA employees to use collectively bargained agreements for settling grievances. This has not been a part of past negotiations, and the vote that Members take on the underlying bill should not be based solely on their votes on previous accountability bills.

Collectively bargained grievance settlement procedures often lead to quicker and simpler solutions, and they give added protection to potential whistleblowers. When these basic protections are undermined, we give too much power to managers whose goal may be to retaliate against someone who called out a mistake.

The bill, as it is currently being offered, does not provide enough time for an employee to get their case together to file an appeal. It undermines collective bargaining agreements negotiated in good faith between management and employees. It doesn't do enough to protect whistleblowers.

My amendment addresses our shared goal to create accountability at the VA. It would ensure that the Secretary has the authority to immediately suspend any VA employee whose behavior threatens the health and safety of veterans, and that the suspended employee does not accrue pay while the investigation is being carried out.

I hope that Members will join me and vote in favor of my amendment.

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

Mr. Chair, I continue to oppose the underlying bill and support my amendment.

I would assert that my amendment would apply to many of the employees in the scandals who were cited by our esteemed chairman.

I want to remind the body that several Republican speakers this afternoon repeated a phrase that the vast majority of employees at the VA are doing a good job. My amendment really does address those few employees who really do pose a threat to veterans' safety or health.

I would also say that I want to remind also the chairman and inform the body that we heard testimony from the bipartisan Commission on Care established through the Choice Act. They were charged with the responsibility of reviewing VA health care.

One of the co-chairs was appointed by a Republican--I believe the Senate majority leader--and the other by the White House. They both reported back that we cannot create excellence at the VA through enhancing the firing process.

They were astounded that more effort and resources have not been invested in the personnel function of the VA to better train our managers in progressive discipline and to do the kind of documentation that really will bring about effective accountability.

By the way, both of these co-chairs led, and do still, large, private sector healthcare organizations. They pushed back on a suggestion that we needed to enhance our dismissal process, our accountability process.

I do agree with the chairman and the ranking member that we have an opportunity to work together as Democrats and Republicans. We are not far apart on the bipartisan agreement that came out of the Senate.

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

Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I rise this morning to share with my constituents what we know about the Republican healthcare plan and, more importantly, what we don't know.

We know that the Republican proposal to replace the Affordable Care Act will cut taxes for the wealthiest people in America.

We know that it will eventually eliminate the Medicaid expansion, which is responsible for ensuring millions of Americans, including nearly 80,000 people in my district alone.

We know that the GOP replacement plan shifts costs to seniors and low-income families while restricting women's access to reproductive health.

We know that it is a windfall for the healthy and wealthy and a disaster for nearly everyone else.

Now, this is what we know about the GOP healthcare plan, but perhaps more alarming is what we don't know. My Republican colleagues cannot answer the two most important questions about their proposal: How much will it cost and how many people will it cover?

Mr. Speaker, Congress should not take any further action on this bill without knowing its impact on the budget and its consequences for the American people.

I am stunned--stunned--that my Republican colleagues are planning to move forward on a plan that is, quite literally, a matter of life and death for millions of American families without knowing exactly what they are moving forward with.

Mr. Speaker, in 2009 and 2010 when Democrats held a televised healthcare summit with Republican leaders, when the Senate HELP Committee marked up the Affordable Care Act over a full month and accepted 160 Republican amendments, and when the Senate Finance Committee held 31 meetings over 60 hours, even after that process, Republicans said that Democrats rammed the healthcare bill through Congress without reading it. Now the Republican majority is moving forward with their replacement plan without knowing what it costs and what it will mean for American families.

This level of hypocrisy and recklessness is insulting to the American people, and it is dangerous for the future of our healthcare system.

There is already plenty to dislike about what we know is in this bill. Who knows what we will find out when we uncover the rest.

Mr. Speaker, parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. Speaker, can the Chair tell me when the Congressional Budget Office will score the Republican ACA replacement bill?

Mr. Speaker, I apologize for that.

Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to rolling back workplace safety protections for American workers. This use of the Congressional Review Act would endanger employees and throw away four decades of precedent for the sole purpose of protecting companies that repeatedly violate safety standards.

The Occupational Safety and Health Administration, commonly known as OSHA, is among the best tools we have to ensure that companies adhere to basic safety standards. Because the agency's budget is so small compared to its critical task, OSHA relies on accurate data to focus on the companies that pose the greatest danger to employees.

The previous administration sought to clarify and codify the responsibility companies have to maintain an honest record of their employees' injuries and illnesses. This resolution would undermine OSHA's ability to target serial offenders by removing companies' obligation to keep reliable data about safety issues in the workplace. If passed into law, the resolution would essentially grant amnesty to companies with years of workplace safety violations, while sending a clear message to employers that the Federal Government is no longer committed to worker safety.

Mr. Speaker, I have asked the question many times since the President took office, and I will ask it again today: How does this give power back to the people? How does undermining workplace safety regulations support middle class Americans? How does protecting companies that repeatedly violate safety standards improve the life of workers? The answer is that it doesn't.

I call on my colleagues to stand with working Americans who deserve a safe workplace and vote ``no'' on this resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a letter from the UAW opposing the repeal of this rule and also a letter from National Nurses United in opposition to H.J. Res. 83.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor and congratulate Mark Hawkins, who will retire tomorrow after 29 years as chief executive officer of Altura Credit Union in Riverside, California.

After nearly three decades, Mark's greatest contribution is likely not to the credit union, which grew significantly under his leadership, but to the members of our community who have benefited so much from his commitment to supporting the Inland Empire.

Whether it is academia, athletics, the arts, or charitable organizations, Mark has been a fixture in promoting the institutions that define and enrich our community. His work with organizations, including the United Way, the Kiwanis Club, and the University of California-Riverside, has strengthened our community and expanded opportunities to thousands of Inland Empire residents. I know he will continue that work for many years to come.

Once again, I congratulate Mark on his well-earned retirement, and I thank him for his continued service to our community.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Virginia for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to overturning the Fair Pay and Safe Workplaces rule under the Congressional Review Act. Undoing this rule would once again allow unethical Federal contractors to collect billions of dollars from taxpayers while stealing from, endangering, and discriminating against their employees.

Right outside this building, on January 20, President Trump promised to give power back to the people and empower everyday Americans. I do not understand how allowing Federal contractors to hide records of wage theft, safety violations, and discrimination keeps that promise.

I am particularly concerned with what repealing this rule will mean for our Nation's veterans. Because Federal contractors are encouraged to employ the men and women who have served, they will be greatly affected if we let companies off the hook for repeatedly violating workplace laws.

In addition, President Obama's executive order helps to guarantee that Federal contractors comply with longstanding law that protects veterans and people with disabilities from discrimination in the workplace. It also encourages contractors to recruit, hire, promote, and retain these individuals.

This is why the Paralyzed Veterans of America wrote a letter to the Speaker and minority leader asking that they oppose this resolution to ensure fair and safe working conditions for our veterans. PVA was also joined in a separate letter by Vietnam Veterans of America and disability advocates, including Easterseals, the American Association of People with Disabilities, and dozens more opposing the resolution we are debating today.

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record both letters.

Paralyzed Veterans of America,

Washington, DC, January 30, 2017.

Hon. Paul Ryan,

Speaker of the House of Representatives, House of

Representatives, Washington, DC.

Hon. Nancy Pelosi,

Democratic Leader, House of Representatives, Washington, DC.

Dear Speaker Ryan and Democratic Leader Pelosi: Paralyzed

Veterans of America urges you to reject a Congressional

Review Act (CRA) disapproval resolution of the 2016 Federal

Acquisition Regulation rule designed to reduce employment

discrimination against people with disabilities and veterans,

including those with service-connected disabilities. PVA is

the nation's only Congressionally-chartered veterans' service

organization solely dedicated to representing veterans with

spinal cord injuries and/or diseases.

Disapproving this rule will weaken important

nondiscrimination and affirmative hiring provisions intended

for people with disabilities and veterans. For more than four

decades, individuals with disabilities and veterans have been

protected by federal laws against discrimination in

employment with employers that do business with the federal

government. In addition, these landmark laws (Rehabilitation

Act of 1973 and Vietnam Era Veterans' Readjustment Assistance

Act of 1974) have required large federal contractors to take

affirmative action to recruit, hire, promote, and retain

these individuals, who traditionally face higher unemployment

rates than their peers. The Federal Acquisition Regulation

(81 Fed. Reg. 58562)--that is being targeted by this CRA

resolution of disapproval--simply ensures that companies that

want to do business with the federal government disclose

whether they have been in violation of these longstanding

requirements.

Please ensure that veterans and other individuals with

disabilities are not denied fair and equal employment

opportunities by voting against the CRA resolution of

disapproval of the Federal Acquisition Regulation published

at 81 Fed. Reg. 58562.

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,

Carl Blake,

Associate Executive Director.

Mr. Speaker, the Federal Government, which spends billions of dollars contracting with private companies every year, has an obligation to demonstrate and promote responsible behavior. We should not be in the business of working with contractors who repeatedly violate our Nation's labor laws, particularly when they harm the veterans who have served our Nation so bravely.

Repealing this rule sends the wrong message to employers, the wrong message to veterans, and the wrong message to hardworking Americans who deserve to be treated with respect in the workplace.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Raskin) as well as the gentlewoman from Washington State (Ms. Jayapal) for hosting this important Special Order hour. Congressman Raskin and Congresswoman Jayapal are two of the newest members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, and I want to express my gratitude for their leadership.

Mr. Speaker, last week, President Trump issued an executive order that violated America's basic commitment to projecting hope and tolerance around the world. With a stroke of his pen, he turned his back on a humanitarian crisis and shut the door on desperate families fleeing unspeakable violence. It has taken just 2 weeks for this administration to undermine our moral authority and weaken our role in promoting peace and stability in a volatile world.

In airports across the country, in streets of coastal cities and midwestern towns, in States that voted for Secretary Clinton and in States that voted for President Trump, the American people are expressing their outrage at the Muslim ban. Patriotic men and women are standing up for the compassionate, exceptional country we strive to be.

Religious leaders are standing up to say: This is not who we are.

Veterans are standing up to say: This is not what we fought for.

There was a time when Republican leadership stood with them. These two tweets to my right are a memorial to a time when Vice President Pence and Speaker Ryan were prepared to publicly oppose policies they called un-American. Now, when faced with the reality of this policy, Speaker Ryan is choosing to support the ban. Our Vice President deleted his tweet. We had to search around to find the original tweet, and it is right over there.

The American people deserve better.

Let's be clear. The President's executive order makes America less safe. The only threat to America posed by Syrian refugees is to our conscience. Instead of protecting the homeland from terror, the President has gift-wrapped powerful propaganda for our enemies.

This is not just my opinion or the opinion of Democrats in Congress. This is what we have heard from dozens of national security experts from both parties. They are warning us that this executive order is a stain on our reputation and a setback for counterterrorism efforts around the world. Yet congressional Republicans remain silent.

Mr. Speaker, our democracy has endured and prospered for more than two centuries because of our system of checks and balances. Congress has a responsibility to act when the executive branch advances reckless and ill-conceived policies. We are failing to fulfill that duty by refusing to repeal the Muslim ban, by refusing to investigate the President's many conflicts of interest. And by refusing to stand up for America's most basic principles, my friends across the aisle are putting our global leadership and the integrity of our government at risk.

If ever there was a time to choose your country over your party, this is it.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor Fred Korematsu Day. I could hardly imagine a more relevant time to celebrate his fight for freedom and equality.

When the United States incarcerated 115,000 Japanese Americans during World War II, including my parents and grandparents, Fred Korematsu resisted Executive Order 9066 and courageously stood up for the oppressed when few others would.

History often forces us to ask ourselves: How would we have acted if we lived in that moment? Through the President's recent executive order, we no longer have to wonder.

How you react to the Muslim ban today is how you would have reacted to the imprisonment of my grandparents and parents 75 years ago. If you are silent today, you would have been silent

then. If you are complicit today, you would have been complicit then.

This great institution is facing an enormous test of our commitment to liberty and justice for all. Let our children and grandchildren look back and see that we passed that test.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my dear colleague, Bonnie Watson Coleman, for yielding to me.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my strong opposition to the nomination of Betsy DeVos for Secretary of Education. To start, President-elect Trump's nominee to lead our country's education policy has absolutely no experience in public schools: not as a teacher, not as a student, and not as a parent. That lack of experience makes her efforts to privatize public education particularly shameful.

I was a public schoolteacher for more than 24 years--I taught high school--which means that I have spent at least 24 more years in a public school classroom than Betsy DeVos. If she actually stepped inside of a classroom in a public school, here is what she would find: she would find teachers who are giving everything they can, their passion, their time, and often their own money to give kids the best education possible. She would find facilities in need of repair, classrooms in need of modern equipment, and programs in desperate need of funding. She would find students who deserve to receive an exceptional education that will help them reach their potential.

But Ms. DeVos has no interest in supporting America's public education system. Instead, she will insert a profit motive into our children's education that will cripple our public schools and punish the millions of children who attend them every day. The Obama administration pushed public schools on a race to the top. Betsy DeVos will create a race to the bottom line.

The result of her work in Michigan serves as a warning to schools across America. By using her personal fortune to influence policy, Betsy DeVos engineered a massive influx of for-profit charter schools into the State of Michigan. Michigan taxpayers now hand for-profit charter schools $1 billion every year, and, in return, many of those schools underperform public schools while evading accountability.

The opportunity that comes with a good education is what makes the American Dream possible for each new generation. If we abandon our public schools, we abandon the millions of children and parents who rely on them as a path to a brighter future.

It is very simple. The Senate should not confirm a Secretary of Education who does not believe in public education. Senate Democrats and Republicans must send a clear message to parents, teachers, and students across the country that we stand by our public schools. I hope they will do so by rejecting this nomination. I thank my dear colleague from the State of New Jersey. I appreciate this opportunity to let my views be known and to make a plea with our colleagues in the other house to do their duty and hold out for a Secretary of Education who actually believes in public education.

If I might join in a little more, I became a teacher-- more than, wow, gosh, it must be 30 years ago now--having experienced the disparity in the public schools in the Boston, Massachusetts, area; some days being a substitute teacher in Brookline, Massachusetts, and other days being a substitute teacher in inner city Boston. The contrast between the wealthy Brookline School District and then the inner city Boston where you walk through a metal detector woke me up. And I really believed that if we did not address the achievement gap in our country, that if the American Dream of social economic mobility was only available to some and not all of our students, that our very democracy would be in jeopardy.

It pains me to see from the incoming Trump administration such a superficial, extreme profit-driven notion of improving our schools. I wish that both President-elect and Betsy DeVos could see some of the great work that is being done at my schools in my congressional district where we have a teacher--I am blanking on his name, but he is responsible for one-fourth of all the Latinos in the State of California that score 4s and 5s on the physics AP test. Remarkable work being done in a regular school that does not cherry-pick its students. It is a public school in the Val Verde Unified School District that is making remarkable strides. This work is not being looked at carefully, is being overlooked, and it is a shame that we have a nominee for Secretary of Education, Betsy DeVos, who has such a terrible history, who is committed to actually tearing down our public school system.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to show my support for America's middle class.

Currently, government rules allow for only 11 percent of salaried workers to be eligible for overtime pay. Contrast that to 1975, when the income threshold for overtime pay covered 65 percent of our salaried workers. This is because Department of Labor rules prohibit workers who earn more than $23,660 a year from earning overtime pay.

Recently, I was joined by more than 30 of my colleagues in calling for this administration to raise the income threshold to $69,000. At this level, we could cover the same number of workers who were eligible in 1975. For 35 years, American workers have increased their productivity, yet they have not been rewarded. Let's remember that it is a strong middle class that drives economic growth.

Be bold, Mr. President. Your administration can help middle class families. Raise the income threshold for overtime pay.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to stand against the tactics used by the House Republicans for their partisan fights. I find it unconscionable that the House Republicans would threaten the funding of the Department of Homeland Security over the President's executive action on immigration.

We just saw what happened to our friends in France, and now, they are going to play games with our national security and threaten its funding. This executive action isn't an election strategy or a scheme to grow the Federal Government; it is a moral imperative.

The President acted because this House refused to even vote on the bipartisan comprehensive immigration bill. It was widely expected that a vote on that bill would have succeeded.

Our broken immigration system has forced millions to live their lives in fear. The President's action is the right thing to do, is the humane thing to do.

I oppose the defunding of this executive action, Mr. Speaker, and I oppose the threatening of the funding of the Department of Homeland Security and, by extension, our national security.

``The President shall, at stated times, receive for his services, a compensation, which shall neither be increased nor diminished during the period for which he shall have been elected, and he shall not receive within that period any other emolument from the United States, or any of them.

``Before he enter on the execution of his office, he shall take the following oath or affirmation:--`I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.' ''

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlelady, the dean of our delegation in California. I come to the floor with tremendous pride and a heavy heart as we say good-bye to two of the greatest liberal legislators California has ever known--Henry Waxman and George Miller.

I had the honor of receiving Henry Waxman's endorsement for my very first congressional bid in 1992, but I had been an admirer of his long before that. I believe Henry's career will be judged favorably by history.

Going back to his cofounding of the Los Angeles County Young Democrats with Congressman Howard Berman back in 1973, his passion for social justice has long been storied. I have to say, as a Member from the Inland Empire where we suffer from some of the worst air quality in the Nation, I am grateful for Henry's commitment to clean air.

He has been a stalwart of progressive values, conducting powerful investigations on water pollution, AIDS, and tobacco, to name a few. Who else could have cajoled executives of tobacco companies to claim that nicotine was not addictive under oath? Only Henry.

Let me turn to the other liberal titan, George Miller. George's work on education and labor issues are unparalleled, from leading the effort that raised the minimum wage in 2007 to his commitment to protecting Pell grants and expanding college accessibility for all students.

His support of my bid to the Education and the Workforce Committee made one of this teacher's lifelong aspirations a reality. To honor George, I plan on renaming the committee Education and Labor when we retake the majority.

George's passion and presence on the House floor and in committee was powerful and will be missed.

The commitment that both these men had to the right issues, not always the easy or popular issues, makes them true public servants and examples for the rest of us to follow.

While there is no question that both Henry and George have earned their retirement, the House is losing two of its fiercest liberal voices. I am humbled to have served one term alongside these gentlemen, but selfishly wish that I could work with them for many more years.

In departing, they are leaving big shoes for the rest of us to fill, but I can safely speak for all of us when I say to Henry and to George: It has been an honor.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Barnett Grier, who lived to be 99 years old and passed away last week.

The son of a slave, Mr. Grier grew up in Charlotte, North Carolina. He was a physicist, a businessman, a teacher, and an author. But it was perhaps the title of civil rights activist for which he was best known.

In 1951, Mr. Grier published his autobiography, entitled, ``Trek to Equality,'' which detailed his family's struggles in Riverside, California. When his family was transferred to our community to form the west coast division of the Naval Weapons Research Center, the African American families, including Mr. Grier's, did not receive assistance in their move.

He continued to work in Riverside and later founded the Habitat for Humanity, created a scholarship for local students, and established an advisory committee on African American students.

Barnett Grier affected the lives of countless residents in the Inland Empire. Because of his passion and his dedication to our community, his memory will undoubtedly live on.