Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the 150th anniversary of Colossian Baptist Church in Newport News, Virginia.

Colossian Baptist Church was established in 1867 on Mulberry Island, Virginia. Reverend Henry Harris and Reverend Walter Williams worked together to organize the church along with other members of the First Baptist Church in Hampton and locals from the Island. The group began to meet together with the hope that they could build a congregation born out of community and anchored in faith. These early services were held in a barn on Mulberry Island's Follies Farm, led by Reverend Williams.

Reverend Williams served as the church's pastor for its first five years. Following his service, he was succeeded by Reverend Thomas Poole in 1872 and Reverend Thomas Wright in 1887.

The congregation of Colossian Baptist Church continued worship in the Follies Farm Barn until it burned down in a fire. Reverend Aaron Wyatt, elected as pastor in 1894, oversaw the church's transition into their new building.

The church was then rebuilt in 1915 following a devastating windstorm, but the congregation soon needed to move again. In response to the outbreak of World War I, the United States Army bought and repurposed the Colossian Baptist Church property. That area is currently the United States Army Transportation Center at Fort Eustis, Virginia. Following their displacement, the church moved to Newport News, and has remained there ever since.

Reverend Irvin D. Melvin was named the first full-time pastor of Colossian Baptist Church in 1989, and the church has only grown stronger since that time through the expansion of their music, fellowship, and youth programs.

Reverend Peter A. Evans became the church's third full-time pastor in 1999. Under his leadership, the church broke ground on a new edifice in 2005, and construction was successfully completed in 2006.

Over the years, Colossian Baptist Church has continued to grow as it expands its outreach to the community. The church works with Greenwood Elementary School in a partnership dedicated to mentoring young men. Since 2014, the church has overseen the ``Christmas House'' program during December, which serves the local community by providing an avenue for the needy to access clothing, food, and more free of charge.

Over the last 150 years, Colossian Baptist Church has been served by many dedicated men of faith--Rev. Henry Harris, Rev. Walter Williams, Rev. Thomas Poole, Rev. Thomas Wright, Rev. Aaron Wyatt, Rev. Frank Ashby, Rev. David D. Harris, Rev. Thomas Ash, Rev. Andrew D. Holmes, Rev. Frank Rylander, Rev. William Cheeseman, Rev. Elick Edlow, Rev. James M. Lee, Rev. Irvin D. Melvin, Rev. Steven W. Banks, Rev. Lloyd Williams, Sr., and Rev. Peter A. Evans.

Mr. Speaker, as Colossian Baptist Church of Newport News, Virginia celebrates this historic milestone, its congregation can rejoice in 150 years of successful discipleship and service to the Hampton Roads community. I would like to congratulate Reverend Peter A. Evans and all of the members of the church's congregation. I hope that their next 150 years proves to be as rewarding and fruitful as the first.

Mr. Chair, I would like to include in the Record letters from Social Security Works, AFSCME, SEIU, and the Coalition on Human Needs.

Social Security Works,

October 4, 2017.

Hon. Cedric Richmond,

Chair, Congressional Black Caucus, House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Dear Representative Richmond: We are writing to express our

support for the FY18 Congressional Black Caucus (CBC)

Alternative Budget. Your budget outlines responsible

priorities, including strengthening Social Security benefits,

and demonstrates the CBC's commitment to the best interests

of the American people.

The CBC budget alternative is the complete opposite of the

cruel legislative proposals contained in the Republican FY18

House Budget Resolution. While the Republican budget proposes

cutting Social Security benefits and undermining Medicare and

Medicaid, the CBC Alternative Budget works to improve Social

Security and, more generally, our economic security, for all

of us, including seniors, people with disabilities, children,

and other vulnerable Americans.

The Congressional Black Caucus clearly understands that

Social Security is a solution to a number of challenges

facing the nation, including our looming retirement income

crisis. Most workers--especially African-Americans--have seen

their wages stagnate. They need insurance against the loss of

wages in the event of death disability or old age, which

Social Security provides, as opposed to more retirement

income savings, which are a far less effective solution.

Social Security is the primary retirement income for 72

percent of African-American seniors; we must work to protect

Social Security benefits from any cuts, and work to expand

its modest benefits.

The recommendation of the CBC Alternative Budget to adjust

the cost of living calculations by using the Consumer Price

Index for the Elderly (CPI-E) would be a great start to

strengthening our Social Security system. The current formula

for the Social Security cost-of-living-adjustment (COLA) is

slowly eroding the value of Social Security's already modest

benefits. Seniors and people with disabilities deserve a

yearly raise that keeps pace with their actual costs of

living, which are ever increasing due to the cost of

pharmaceutical drugs and medical expenses.

Thank you for introducing the CBC budget alternative. The

American people deserve a budget that fully funds vital

programs, and not one that makes cuts to pay for tax handouts

for wealthy Americans. We look forward to working with you

during the formation of next year's CBC budget alternative to

strengthen the proposal even further.

Sincerely,

Nancy J. Altman,

President.

Alex Lawson,

Executive Director.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Republican budget resolution and its intent to fast-track tax cuts to the wealthiest Americans and corporations. This resolution, first of all, is not serious. It assumes $800 billion in savings from the repeal of the Affordable Care Act, which we know will not happen. We have the Treasury Secretary being quoted as saying that ``massive tax cuts will actually reduce the deficit. . . .''

Well, we know how that works. You cut taxes for the wealthy and say they are going to pay for themselves. When that doesn't work and the deficit explodes, you come back and demand massive tax and massive cuts in Medicare, Social Security, and education.

Anyway, the Republican budget resolution, even if it did add up, makes the wrong choices for America. By calling for trillions of dollars in spending reductions, the Republican budget undermines America's investments in infrastructure, the environment, scientific research, and much more.

I wanted to use my limited time to focus on its harmful impacts on the jurisdiction of the Education and the Workforce Committee, where I serve as the Democratic ranking member. Under the Republican budget resolution, children in need of a healthy school meal, students in pursuit of an affordable college education, and workers in search of skills and training to get a better job all take the back seat to tax cuts to the wealthiest Americans and corporations.

In education, the budget harms students and families by undermining our Nation's education system, and instructs the House Education and the Workforce Committee to eliminate $20 billion in investments in higher education by providing less funding for Pell grants and student loans.

In terms of other instructions, it instructs the Department of Labor to reduce funding designed to provide job training, protect workers from wage theft, and ensure that there is a sufficient number of inspectors to make sure that workers can come home safely from their jobs.

The budget also threatens child nutrition programs. In fact, during the Budget Committee's hearings, it was made clear that child nutrition programs are a target for savings to pay for tax cuts.

Today, almost 10 million children and 20,000 schools have access to universal, healthy school meals, where children are served nutritious meals without the stigma or need for paperwork. Cutting investments in programs to ensure that children have healthy school meals to partially fund tax cuts shouldn't be our Nation's goal.

Mr. Chairman, the Federal budget is a statement of our values. Unlike other Democratic substitutes that responsibly strengthen our economy and expand opportunity for all Americans, the Republican budget undermines priorities in which students, workers, and their families take a hit, and lays the groundwork for a return to a regressive framework benefiting a wealthy few.

Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to join me in rejecting the Republican budget resolution.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Congressional Black Caucus budget, which is a more credible and responsible alternative than the underlying Republican budget.

The Nation's budget reflects its priorities, but the Republican budget continues to highlight the wrong priorities. It fast-tracks tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans and claims that unrealistic economic growth will pay for these cuts when, in reality, those tax cuts will ultimately be paid for by children, seniors, and those in need.

It cuts $1.5 trillion from Medicaid and Medicare and also cuts programs that support basic living standards, including nutritional assistance, and undermines national security by cutting diplomatic programs and foreign aid.

The Republican budget also cuts education, job training, research and development, and infrastructure. Their budget leaves hardworking American families out in the cold and would devastate our economic recovery after years of consistent job growth.

The Congressional Black Caucus budget is in stark contrast to the Republican budget. It is compassionate. The numbers add up. It addresses the needs of the most vulnerable and improves our economy. Unlike the Republican budget, the CBC budget uses real numbers, not overly optimistic growth projections and assumptions of things that won't happen.

The CBC budget proposes $3.9 trillion in revenue enhancements, and unlike the Republican budget, we show exactly how Congress can realistically reach this revenue target by outlining almost $11 trillion in revenue options from which Congress could pick and choose $3.9 trillion.

With the additional revenue, the CBC budget protects and strengthens the social safety net and commits the Federal Government to eradicating poverty in America.

Our budget includes a comprehensive infrastructure and jobs program, totaling over $1 trillion over 5 years, and according to the Economic Policy Institute, it will create 2 million jobs next year.

In addition, the CBC budget eliminates any further threat of sequestration, eliminating the arbitrary budget caps and across-the- board budget cuts that are scheduled for next year.

It allocates $200 billion for hurricane relief, $100 billion to address the looming pension crisis, and additional funding for our veterans.

Even with the elimination of the sequestration and strong investment in programs that we know will create jobs and economic opportunity, the CBC budget is still estimated to reduce the deficit, when compared to the baseline, by approximately $2.5 trillion over the next 10 years.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Richmond), who is the chairman of the Congressional Black Caucus.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee), who is a member of the Appropriations Committee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Danny K. Davis), the co-chair of the Congressional Black Caucus' Budget Task Force.

Mr. Chairman, can you advise how much time is remaining on both sides?

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 15 seconds just to point out that the healthcare plan in the budget is a public option, which CBO scores as a savings of over $100 billion. We have $1 trillion in spending for infrastructure, the same as the President has promised, but at least we pay for it.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).

Mr. Chairman, I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Texas.

Mr. Chairman, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from Texas.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/4\ minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Brown).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson).

Mr. Chairman, I yield an additional 15 seconds to the gentlewoman.

Mr. Chairman, the Congressional Black Caucus is a more compassionate, fiscally responsible alternative to the underlying Republican budget and does not rely on unrealistic growth projections or bizarre suggestions that massive tax cuts can pay for themselves. It makes our Tax Code fairer, protects and strengthens the Affordable Care Act, makes college more affordable, and ensures more Americans are lifted out of poverty. It also improves retirement security for our seniors.

With these targeted investments, our budget creates 2 million jobs next year and reduces our Nation's deficit by $2.5 trillion over the next decade and puts us on a more sustainable path compared to the CBO projections of our budget. I urge my colleagues to support the CBC budget.

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

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of S. 1866, but I also stand concerned about the humanitarian crisis going on in Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands in the wake of Hurricane Maria and also the other hurricanes that have been in the area.

More than 3.4 million people reside in Puerto Rico alone--U.S. citizens who are in need of full support of the Federal Government. This is more than the population of Wyoming, Vermont, North Dakota, and Alaska combined--U.S. citizens, yet they have no voting Members of Congress.

U.S. citizens in Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands serve in our military. In fact, Puerto Ricans serve in our military at a rate twice the general U.S. population, and they are hurting. They are fighting to survive, and they are in desperate need of food, clean water, medical supplies, and security.

Hurricane Maria essentially wiped out ports, roads, electricity, communications, water supply, crops, and many homes. Today, 97 percent of Puerto Rico's residents are still without power, and 40 percent do not have access to clean drinking water. So Americans in Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands are now homeless, displaced, and without food, water, fuel, and medication.

Congress and this administration have an obligation to act swiftly and to act boldly to ease the suffering of our fellow Americans in Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands. This bill, the Hurricane Relief Act, is well-intentioned and a good starting point.

But make no mistake, the limited flexibility offered to those affected by Hurricanes Harvey, Irma, and Maria in this bill will be helpful, but the bill does not go far enough to provide the kind of relief that is needed in Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands.

These Americans do not have voting representation in Congress that allows their representatives to most effectively advocate on their behalf. Therefore, it is incumbent on all of us to stand shoulder to shoulder with our fellow citizens and provide them with the support that they desperately need.

This is a life-and-death situation, and any further delay for aid will lead to unnecessary tragedy. So I urge this body to bring a full emergency supplemental bill to Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands to a vote. The citizens affected by the hurricane are running out of time.

Mr. Speaker, I ask that we pass the bill, but, after we pass it, get right to work on a full relief bill for Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands.

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

Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``Nay'' on rollcall No. 543.

personal explanation

Mr. Chairman, I rise as the designee of the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro), and I have an amendment at the desk, No. 113.

Mr. Chairman, this amendment would strike language in the bill that would prohibit the EEOC from using its funds to implement pay data collection.

Mr. Chairman, we know that racial and gender pay gaps exist in America. The Obama administration, a few years ago, created the National Equal Pay Task Force, which recommended this new data collection, the EEO-1 form, which would, for the first time, require employers to provide not just data on who is hired by race, sex, and ethnicity, but also to include pay data.

The EEOC has collected employer data since 1966. There has been no problem with confidentiality. So for 50 years we have gotten information on the race, sex, and ethnicity of those employed, but we do not have the pay data, and the pay data would expose the pay disparities where all the women are paid less than men. You don't find that on the present EEO-1 form.

Recently, the OMB, without warning or transparency, rescinded the EEOC's plan to collect the data, which was to begin in March. This amendment would make it clear that Congress should honor the purpose and spirit of title VII and permit the EEOC to carry out its statutory obligation to collect necessary data needed to enforce civil rights laws.

Mr. Chair, I would hope that we would adopt this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Frankel).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Serrano).

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

Mr. Chairman, the form is not a complaint. We know that there are pay disparities. This would allow the EEOC to notice gruesome problems and disparities and address them where appropriate.

In that hospital situation, it is obvious the situation is not appropriate, but we do know that pay disparities exist, and this would be information that would allow the EEOC to address them.

I would hope that we would allow the EEOC to do its job.

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

Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chair, I rise in support of this bi- partisan amendment that would increase funding for the Black Lung Clinics Programs in the Health Resources Services Administration (HRSA) by $2.7 million. This increase, when added to the $7.2 million provided in the appropriations bill being considered, will provide $10 million in total funding for Fiscal Year 2018. I want to commend Representative Griffith for his leadership on this issue.

The additional funding proposed by the amendment is fully offset by a reduction in program management, and the total amount of $10 million is equal to the permanently authorized amount. That level, I would note, has remained the same since the Black Lung Clinics Program was first authorized in the 92nd Congress as part of the Black Lung Benefits Act of 1972.

Today, there are 28 black lung clinics located in 15 coal mining states which, with small grants provided by HRSA's Federal Office of Rural Health Policy, serve as a lifeline for disabled miners.

In many cases, these coal miners spent a lifetime working in our nation's mines, but now face black lung disease--a debilitating and frequently fatal lung disease that continues to erode lung function even after a miner leaves work in the mines. Since 1968, 76,000 miners have lost their lives to black lung disease.

The black lung clinics program is expected to serve 13,800 miners this year. The need for these clinics is rising due to an increase in the number of black lung cases, coupled with an increased number of miners who are now seeking assistance following the closure of mines.

The rate of black lung disease in coal miners fell steadily in the 30 years following the enactment of binding coal dust exposure limits in the 1969 Coal Mine Safety and Health Act. However, that favorable downward trend started to reverse beginning in 2000, according to the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH). NIOSH is also finding that miners are becoming totally disabled from black lung at much younger ages.

The increase in black lung disease has been due in part to longer mining shifts, more powerful mining machinery, and mine operators cutting into more rock because the easiest reach coal has been mined out. Much of that rock is quartz bearing sandstone which, which when mined, releases large amounts of silica containing mine dust that is far more toxic than coal dust.

The most severe form of black lung disease, known as progressive massive fibrosis or PMF, has spiked dramatically. Earlier this year, NIOSH reported that the Stone Mountain Resources clinic in southwest Virginia had identified the largest cluster of PMF ever found--over 400 cases. National Public Radio has reported on large clusters in Kentucky and other states.

PMF produces large masses of scar tissue in the lung, and often the only means for survival is undergoing a high-risk lung transplant.

While funding for the black lung clinics has been frozen at virtually the same level for the past 5 years, a number of clinics, including many of those in Appalachia, have faced substantial increase in demand from coal miners for screening, diagnosis and pulmonary rehabilitation.

Clinics provide benefits counseling, including assisting miners with federal black lung benefits and state compensation claims.

Some clinics are so underfunded that they are operating with obsolete and inefficient diagnostic equipment, which needs to be upgraded.

Mr. Chair, we owe it to coal miners to get them the care and benefits they need and deserve. I urge a yes vote.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment, which would increase funding for youth employment activities under the Workforce Innovation Opportunity Act.

As has been stated, about 5 million of our Nation's youth are both out of school and out of work, so we have a choice: Do we invest to help our youth get on a good path towards a good job, or do we pay considerably more later?

We have to choose to invest now. This includes increased funding for youth employment activities that help out-of-school and out-of-work youth, and it helps fund summer jobs, on-the-job training, apprenticeship training, and others. The alternative is to pay much more later in incarceration, teen pregnancy, and public assistance. When we make these Federal investments now, we make investments in our communities, our Nation, and our shared future, and we save money in the future.

Mr. Chair, I support the amendment and urge its adoption.

Mr. Chairman, this amendment would reduce funding by 10 percent for programs administered by all accounts in the Labor-HHS appropriations bill. By making it across the board, it makes it more difficult for the agencies to actually administer their programs, making it harder, if not impossible, for the government to protect its citizens by enforcing wage and protection laws, ensuring safe workplaces, ensuring education for students with disabilities, support for those with drug addictions.

The bill, as the gentlewoman has already indicated, is already underfunded, and this would just make matters worse.

Mr. Chairman, I would hope we defeat this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank Ms. Bonamici, the vice ranking member of the Education and the Workforce Committee, for offering the amendment and for her leadership on issues affecting older Americans.

The Older Americans Act was first passed 50 years ago as part of Lyndon Johnson's War on Poverty. It helps older Americans live with dignity and stay connected with their communities. I am proud that last year we were able to pass a 3-year bipartisan reauthorization that increased funding for the programs. But had our investments in these programs actually kept up with inflation and growing populations, the authorization levels would have been even much more. But, thankfully, the reauthorization moved us in the right direction.

This amendment would bring funding for supportive services, nutrition programs, and caregiver supports in line with the authorized level. Even though these are not fully adequate to address the total need, it is another step in the right direction. So I support the amendment and our commitment to older Americans. We can maintain that commitment by adopting this amendment, so I thank the gentlewoman for offering it.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Chairman, this amendment would take money from important college access programs, GEAR UP and TRIO, and use it to increase important funding for career and technical education. Because of the way the amendment is drafted, it would also jeopardize funding for minority- serving institutions to be used to increase that funding. This amendment reduces funding for programs meant to improve college access for low-income students.

First of all, whether it is CTE or TRIO, all of these programs don't have enough money. One should not be stripped for the sake of another. By lifting one program that leads to one opportunity over neglecting another that leads to another opportunity, you limit the choice of future life outcomes at a time when members of the next generation should be able to choose the best opportunity for them.

Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this amendment and try to fund both more robustly.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Chairman, one of the agencies affected by this amendment is the Department of Education's Office of Inspector General that is responsible for conducting independent and objective audits and investigations. It is through this agency that we can review offices like the Federal Student Aid office, and Congress can learn about policies and practices that need to be improved. It was just last March that the OIG investigated that department and found that Congress needs to do more to

monitor colleges with unstable finances in order to protect students and taxpayers from abrupt school closures.

Any cuts to this agency will reduce the chances that such findings will be made, and reduce consumer protections. Therefore, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this amendment.

Mr. Chair, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.

Mr. Chair, as my colleagues have made clear, this amendment would impose a 45 percent cut on the NLRB budget. The NLRB would expect that these cuts could lead to the closure of regional offices in 17 States, but it is really the American workforce and our economy that would suffer.

We benefit from a worker's right to exercise freedom of association. These cuts will delay NLRB-conducted representation or decertification elections and delay democracy for workers who deserve a timely vote.

In the past 3 years, the NLRB has reinstated 7,000 workers who were unlawfully fired by their employers, and the NLRB has awarded over $191 million to workers in backpay or fees.

Mr. Chairman, justice delayed is justice denied. Delayed justice is what this amendment would inflict.

Mr. Chairman, I urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, this amendment irresponsibly cuts funding for coal mine safety and health by 10 percent, cuts 96 positions in the Mine Safety and Health Administration, or MSHA. The Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977 established MSHA and requires MSHA to conduct four wall-to-wall inspections every year on underground mines and two wall-to-wall inspections for every surface mine. These are mandatory and required for safety in the mines.

MSHA is required to conduct spot inspections every 5 days at those coal mines that release large amounts of combustible methane since those mines have the highest risk of fires and explosions.

In addition to the mandatory and spot inspections, MSHA responds to hazard complaints from miners, investigates discrimination complaints, and provides compliance assistance with standards such as the new rule to prevent the scourge of black lung disease.

If this amendment is enacted, 96 positions will be cut and MSHA will have to choose between the mandatory inspections or meeting its obligation to implement these other essential functions. It can't do both, yet all of these functions are necessary to protect the health and safety of miners.

Mr. Chairman, the preamble of the Mine Act of 1977 states: ``The first . . . concern of all in the coal''--or other--``mining industry must be the health and safety of its most precious resource--the miner.'' This amendment abandons Congress' commitment to America's miners and should be rejected.

Mr. Chairman, I include in the Record a letter from Cecil E. Roberts, the International President of the United Mine Workers of America, in opposition to this amendment.

United Mine Workers of America,

Triangle, VA, September 7, 2017.

Members of the House of Representatives,

U.S. Congress, Washington, DC.

Dear Representative: On behalf of the United Mine Workers

of America, I strongly urge you to reject the Amendment

offered by Representative Mark Meadows of North Carolina that

would reduce the Coal Mine Safety and Health program and

workforce at the Mine Safety and Health Administration.

At a time when mining fatalities are on the rise, we should

be looking for ways to increase enforcement and oversight of

mining

operations, not make it harder to ensure that our miners are

safe.

America's miners put their lives and limbs on the line

every single day for us. Our government has a responsibility

to do all it can do to ensure they come home to their loved

ones at the end of their shift. This amendment is a step

backward in safety, putting miners at greater risk. I

strongly urge that it be rejected.

Sincerely,

Cecil E. Roberts,.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment offered by Mr. Walberg that

would block the National Labor Relations Board election streamlining rule because this amendment would result in reverting to a previous rule that would result in needless delays in the process for conducting union representation elections.

The election streamlining rule was adopted in 2015, and it has increased transparency, reduced frivolous litigation, and decreased the opportunity for bad actors to improperly delay union elections.

The preelection process previously had been open to manipulation, delay, and drawn-out preelection maneuvering. I point out that the so- called 11-day election that has been referred to can only occur if both sides agree to a consent election.

Another part of the rule requires the employer to provide more modern forms of employee contact information to the union prior to the elections, such as email addresses and phone numbers, as opposed to the previous requirement that the employer only provide home addresses. Under the new rule, employers must provide this electronically within 2 days of ordering an election.

By ensuring that there is a timely transfer of more complete voter contact information, the rule removed another obstacle that had denied workers the opportunity to be more fully informed prior to voting on whether or not to form a union. The employer, of course, already has unfettered and unlimited access to communicate with employees, even on work time.

I also want to point out that the NLRB's election procedures are now settled law. Every court where this rule has been challenged has upheld the rule. The fifth circuit, for example, said that the Board ``acted rationally and in furtherance of its congressional mandate in adopting the rule.''

The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia held that ``the Board engaged in comprehensive analysis of a multitude of issues relating to the need for and the propriety of the final rule.''

Mr. Chairman, history has shown when workers' rights are respected, the economy benefits. Protecting workers' rights to make their voices heard helped build a strong middle class. Research shows that the erosion of union density has weakened the middle class and exacerbated wage stagnation by breaking the essential link between increasing worker productivity and rising wages.

This amendment undermines workers in their ability to exercise their right to collectively bargain. Plain and simple, the workers have a right to join a union, and if they ask for an election, they should get an election--not a delay, not interference, and not retaliation.

Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk made in order under the rule.

Mr. Chair, this amendment would prohibit the use of funds in this act to prepare for or facilitate the transfer of the Department of Labor's Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs into the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.

The amendment would ensure that these two important agencies charged with distinct missions to enforce workplace discrimination laws are not unduly burdened by the administration's plan to transfer responsibilities of Contract Compliance into the EEOC.

Although both agencies enforce discrimination laws, they differ in their authorities, their scope, and their responsibilities. For example, Contract Compliance only addresses discrimination by Federal contractors, unlike the EEOC, which enforces the laws as they relate to virtually all employees.

Contract Compliance is responsible for ensuring that the Federal contractors and subcontractors take affirmative action to ensure that all individuals have equal opportunity for employment. EEOC was created by title VII of the Civil Rights Act, and its support for affirmative action is voluntary.

Contract Compliance, the focus is on contract compliance, and the ultimate sanction is disbarment of a Federal contractor. It gets its authority through an executive order and accomplishes much of its enforcement through the administrative process. By contrast, EEOC is established by statute and makes and enforces Federal statutes through lawsuits in Federal courts. Other distinctions:

The ultimate client for Contract Compliance is the Federal Government, while EEOC's clients are private employees;

EEOC is complaint driven, unlike the Office of Federal Contract Compliance;

Contract Compliance can audit contractors, EEOC cannot;

EEOC has subpoena power, Contract Compliance does not;

Contract Compliance does not have the authority to file lawsuits and get punitive damages, EEOC can seek punitive damages and lawsuits;

Contract Compliance enforces the Vietnam Era Veterans' Readjustment Act, the EEOC does not;

EEOC protects employees from genetic discrimination, Contract Compliance does not.

The proposal to transfer the Office of Federal Contract Compliance into the EEOC came about by some ideological groups that want to shrink the Federal Government, but it is unwise because it is opposed by civil rights groups and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

To underscore the collective voice and opposition to this transfer, the Senate Committee on Appropriations adopted language last Thursday that says that the committee rejects the budget's proposal to begin plans to merge the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs with the EEOC.

Mr. Chair, the realignment of responsibilities would ask the EEOC to do considerably more with a lot less in terms of expertise, personnel, and funding. Further, this combination would derail the EEOC's efforts to reduce its backlog of charges while simultaneously trying to collect vital data relevant to the enforcement of civil rights laws.

The enforcement of civil rights laws would be best served if we in Congress would fully fund both the EEOC and the Office of Federal Contract Compliance so that they both can do the vital work of securing the right to work in a place free of harassment, retaliation, and other forms of discrimination.

For these reasons, I ask my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, we know that there are a lot of contractors who have significant wage violations. It should be a privilege to contract with the Federal Government. Taxpayers should not be asked to subsidize companies that engage in willful and repeated wage theft.

This amendment only applies to contractors with repeated willful violations, not technical violations that could result from good faith difference in interpretation of rules and regulations--willful and repeated.

Awarding contracts to those kind of contractors is not only unfair to workers, it is unfair to law-abiding contractors who play by the rules but are forced to compete on an unlevel playing field with those who cut corners.

Mr. Chairman, I include in the Record a letter from the American Civil Liberties Union.

American Civil Liberties Union,

Washington, DC, September 7, 2017.

Vote YES on Amendments No. 113, No. 184, and No. 186 to H.R. 3354, the

Make America Secure and Prosperous Appropriations Act, 2018

Dear Representative: On behalf of the American Civil

Liberties Union and our more than two million members and

supporters, we urge you to support the following amendments

that may be offered during floor consideration of H.R. 3354,

the Make America Secure and Prosperous Appropriations Act,

2018:

1. Amendment No. 113 (preserving funding for the EEOC/EEO-1 equal pay

data collection)

In July, the House Appropriations Committee adopted the

Harris Amendment to defund implementation of the Equal

Employment Opportunity Commission's (EEOC) revised Employer

Information Report (EEO-1). Amendment No. 113, offered by

Representatives DeLauro, Frankel, and Scott to the FY18 CJS

appropriations bill, would preserve funding for that critical

equal pay initiative.

The data collection at issue, through the EEO-1 that

employers already must use to document the demographics of

their workforces, is a critical tool to lift the cloak of

secrecy that shrouds pay decisions in this country. Without

such transparency, the pernicious gender and race wage gaps,

and the discrimination that causes them, will continue to

flourish. The new EEO-1 revision was adopted after extensive

public comment and would have deterred intentional pay

disparities, facilitated employers' good faith efforts to

comply with equal pay laws, and identified appropriate

targets for federal enforcement of nondiscrimination law.

Instead of supporting this measured approach to eliminate

the pay gap, the EEO-1 has been undermined by members of

Congress and the Trump Administration's Office of Management

and Budget, which recently halted implementation of the EEO-1

equal pay data collection. Because OMB has ordered a review

and requested that the EEOC undertake a new effort, the

Harris amendment could unnecessarily tie the agency's hands.

Members should vote in favor of the DeLauro-Frankel-Scott

amendment in order to preserve the ability of the EEOC to

continue to make meaningful progress on equal pay. A vote

against this amendment is a vote against equal pay.

2. Amendment No. 184 (no funding to eliminate OFCCP and transfer duties

to EEOC)

The Trump administration's FY2018 budget submission to

Congress recommended the elimination of the Department of

Labor's Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs

(OFCCP) and the transfer of its functions to the EEOC. This

amendment, offered by Representatives Conyers and Scott to

the FY18 Labor-HHS-Education appropriations bill, would

withhold federal funding in order to prevent implementation

of this ill-advised proposal.

These vital and distinct agencies have different missions

and different areas of expertise. The EEOC seeks to remedy

complaints of discrimination in employment. The OFCCP more

broadly oversees the employment practices of federal

contractors who are required to proactively monitor workplace

diversity and pay equity, make meaningful efforts to recruit

qualified applicants from under-represented groups, and

eliminate barriers to equal opportunity for various

disadvantaged groups, including veterans and individuals with

disabilities. The administration's proposal would jeopardize

the uniquely important missions of each agency and weakens

our government's ability to effectively enforce our nation's

civil rights laws. It would also place an extraordinary

burden on the EEOC which already has an excessive workload

and a well-known backlog. Finally, numerous organizations

that work with these agencies--from civil rights, women's

rights, and workers' rights groups along with business groups

such as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce--oppose the

administration's proposal.

For these reasons, we urge members of the House to support

Amendment No. 184 that would prevent the elimination of

Mr. Chairman, I support the amendment, and I urge its adoption.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment, which blocks OSHA's ability to improve tracking of injuries and illnesses in workplaces across the country.

One of the problems we have is that Federal OSHA and State OSHA plans have less than 2,000 inspectors to cover 8 million workplaces nationally. If you do the arithmetic, each Federal OSHA inspector can inspect a workplace about once every 159 years. State OSHA might be able to do it once a century. So the fact that you have something on site that is there for them to see if they ever get there, the problem is they never get there.

We need to make sure they have the information to know which ones to go to, which ones are the dangerous sites. The scarce resources that OSHA needs to precisely target those resources is a result of these reports. For large employers, and each illness with summary information from smaller employers, that is how they figure out where to visit.

This rule also protects workers against discrimination if they report injuries. GAO has found that workers fear reporting injuries, especially where employers impose sanctions or reduce bonuses for work- related injuries.

This amendment would upend this important rule which allows OSHA to target their resources to inspect those that really need inspecting. This amendment would upend the rule and compromise its transparency and worker protections.

The information is not individually identifiable. People are protected. But

the courts have said that this information is not confidential.

This amendment would rig the system against worker safety by depriving OSHA of the information they need to target the workplaces, so I request a ``no'' vote on this amendment.

Mr. Chair, I rise in support of Amendment No. 66, offered by Representative Jayapal, to strike the $535 million increase for ICE enforcement and instead add $30 million to ICE's Office of the Inspector General and $10 million to DHS's Office of Civil Rights and Civil Liberties. This additional oversight funding would support investigations of sexual assault in immigration detention as mandated by the Prison Rape Elimination Act.

The Prison Rape Elimination Act (PREA) was passed in 2003 as a result of a remarkable bipartisan effort led by Congressman Frank Wolf and myself in the House and Senators Jeff Sessions and Ted Kennedy in the Senate.

Ten years after passage of PREA, in 2014, DHS finalized regulations to comply with PREA. This year, 2017, is the first in which DHS is instituting those regulations by auditing its facilities for compliance.

We must aid DHS in its efforts to investigate and prevent sexual abuse. According to the Office of Inspector General (OIG) at DHS, during the two-year period from May 2014 to July 2016, it received over 1,000 complaints from detainees reporting sexual abuse or assault. The Office of Inspector General investigated only 24 of those complaints-- that is 2.4 percent of the total complaints that were made by detained immigrants.

Immigrant detainees also face barriers to reaching the Inspector General's telephone hotline for reporting abuse, because, according to a 2013 report from the Government Accountability Office (GAO), approximately 14 percent of calls placed to that hotline did not go through because, for example, the call was not answered.

This Amendment is an essential step to giving DHS resources to comply with PREA and protect immigrants from sexual abuse and assault in detention facilities.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentlewoman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the number of amendments that were made in order by the Rules Committee, but I am appalled that the majority chose not to include one of my amendments, No. 63, to division F of H.R. 3354, which would strike a prohibition against using Federal funds for the purpose of transportation needed to desegregate public schools. This language has found its way into every appropriations act since at least 1974.

The language in sections 301 and 302 of division F of the bill really represent a relic of an ugly history when States and school districts across the Nation resisted meaningful integration of public education for decades after the Supreme Court's ruling in Brown v. Board of Education. That resistance has worked.

According to the GAO last year, our schools are more segregated by race and class today than they were in 1968. The persistence of these riders, if unchallenged, is morally reprehensible and has no place in 2017. I stand with the Congressional Black Caucus in calling for a total removal of this offensive language in any fiscal 2018 appropriations act.

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

Mr. Chair, this amendment would prohibit the EPA from spending any funds to ensure that States fulfill their obligations under the Clean Water Act to help clean up the Chesapeake Bay. If passed into law, this amendment would endanger the progress we have made in restoring the Chesapeake Bay watershed and would put in jeopardy not only the Chesapeake Bay itself, but also critical economic contributions that the bay provides.

Since the Chesapeake Bay agreement was signed in 1983, the most recent agreement signed in 2014, bay States and the Federal Government have invested significant resources in cleanup and restoration efforts. Cooperation is critical in these efforts, and only under the cooperative agreement agreed upon in the Chesapeake Clean Water Blueprint are we seeing a lot of progress being made. But the Chesapeake Bay cleanup efforts are part of backstops that make sure that each State does what it has actually promised to do. With these safeguards in place, States have to certify that their investments are not made in vain and that other States will also make good on their investments.

This amendment would undermine this historic collaboration, endanger historic progress we have made, and give States a loophole to avoid meeting their responsibilities under the Clean Water Act.

I believe that, instead of offering amendments that undermine Chesapeake Bay restorations, we should be investing even more resources to ensure that they are successful.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to reject the amendment.

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

Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition of H.J. Res. 111, which will overturn the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau's rule, prohibiting forced arbitration for many consumer contracts, including student loan contracts.

Banks and large corporations often take advantage of ordinary Americans by burying forced arbitration clauses and boiler plate fine print in standard contracts.

When corporations force consumers to secretly arbitrate with handpicked firms, which rely on those same corporations for repeat business, the system is rigged.

Take, for example, Matthew, who enrolled in a for-profit aviation school that closed before Matthew could finish his degree. At the recommendation of the school, he had taken out $56,000 in private student loans.

With debt and no credential because the school had closed, Matthew joined a class action with thousands of other students. But due to a class action ban in the loan contract, the court ruled that thousands of individual students must individually settle their disputes with the bank in arbitration.

That means each individual student had to hire their own lawyer, take time off to present their case, and everything else you have to do to present a case. That is why most victims of this kind of fraud will never collect what they are owed.

If each victim only loses a little bit, virtually nobody will bring a claim. With the class action, at least you can achieve an injunction so the corporation will stop. Each plaintiff might receive a little bit, but without the class action, the corporation is free to continue the fraud.

Without this rule, the banks will continue to use forced arbitration clauses to advance their special interests at the expense of innocent victims who will be ripped off.

Mr. Speaker, that is why we need to stand with consumers. I urge my colleagues to do that: stand with consumers, reject this repeal of the important rule, and vote ``no'' on H.J. Res. 111.

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

The amendment shifts workers who repair super yachts and large, luxury watercraft out of coverage under the Longshore and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act and into coverage under State workers' compensation programs.

But it doesn't just amend the longshoremen act. Rather, it creates a problem with the Coast Guard law. The Coast Guard opposed an identical amendment last year because it creates widespread damage to Coast Guard regulatory and enforcement authorities, implicates U.S. treaty obligations, and could affect the collection of tonnage taxes on foreign flagged vessels.

The Department of Labor also opposes the amendment because it could lead to uncertainty and foster litigation under the longshoremen coverage. Moreover, by shifting workers out of longshoremen into the weak State workers' comp laws such as Florida, it could permanently impoverish workers.

Last year, the Florida Supreme Court held that the Florida workers' compensation law was so anemic that it was unconstitutional.

If the goal is to provide reasonable insurance rates, then it should be in the insurance industry not by complicating the Coast Guard, by complicating the Department of Labor, and denying workers their benefits under the Longshoremen's Compensation Act.

Mr. Chairman, I include in the Record a letter from the Committee on Education and the Workforce opposing this amendment.

Committee on Education and the Workforce, House of

Representatives,

Washington, DC, July 12, 2017.

Re Opposition to Making Amendment 302 in Order as part of the

National Defense Authorization Act for FY 2018 (H.R.

2810)

Hon. Pete Sessions,

Chairman, Committee on Rules,

House of Representatives, Washington, DC.

Hon. Louise McIntosh Slaughter,

Ranking Member, Committee on Rules,

House of Representatives, Washington, DC.

Dear Chairman Sessions and Ranking Member Slaughter: I am

writing to request that you not make Amendment 302 in order

as part of the rule for the FY 2018 National Defense

Authorization Act (H.R. 2810).

The amendment offered by Representatives Frankel and Byrne

changes the definition of a ``recreational'' vessel under

U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) boating safety authorizing

legislation. The amendment authors' goal is to change

workers' compensation coverage for those repairing luxury

water craft and superyachts by shifting coverage for these

workers from the Longshore and Harbor Workers Compensation

Act (LHWCA) into state workers' compensation programs.

However, the amendment does not amend the LHWCA. Rather it

changes the definition of ``recreational vessel'' under

Section 4301 of Title 46 (the Federal Boat Safety Act of

1971). According to the Coast Guard, this approach to

amending the LHWCA will have adverse collateral impacts on

Coast Guard regulatory and enforcement authorities, implicate

U.S. treaty obligations, and affect collection of tonnage

taxes on foreign flagged vessels. The USCG statement,

attached to this letter, notes that this provision could:

Exclude vessels now covered under the U.S. implementing

legislation for the International Convention on the Control

of Harmful Anti-Fouling Systems on Ships, and reduce

available civil monetary penalties to deter violations;

Allow a foreign vessel owner to exempt itself from tonnage

taxes by declaring its vessel to be under repair; and,

Allow foreign flagged vessels to avoid requirements for

safety management systems under the International Safety

Management Code.

The U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) objected to this

provision in the last Congress, as it would ``lead to

uncertainty and foster litigation regarding Longshore Act

coverage'' because the definition of ``recreational'' vessel

introduces subjective criteria.

This identical amendment was included in the House National

Defense Authorization Act for FY 2017 as Section 3512, but

was removed in the House-Senate conference following the

numerous objections raised by the U.S. Coast Guard and the

U.S. Department of Labor.

None of these concerns have been considered in hearings

within the respective committees of jurisdiction for USCG or

DOL, and deserve careful consideration before being brought

to a vote.

I thank you for your consideration of this request.

Sincerely,

Robert C. Bobby Scott,

Ranking Member.

Encl: U.S. Coast Guard Views on Amendment to the National

Defense Authorization Act (this set of views applied to the

identical language included in Amendment 302 that was adopted

in Section 3512 the FY 2017 National Defense Authorization

Act).

Coast Guard Views on Sec. 3512 of H.R. 4909, the NDAA for FY17

The Coast Guard would oppose the previously referenced

amendment to 46 U.S.C. Sec. 4301. As a general matter, it

seems like this proposed amendment is out of place. Sec. 803

of the American Investment and Recovery Act amended sec.

2(3)(F) of the Longshore and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act

(33 U.S.C. Sec. 902(3)(F)), a statutory regime squarely

within the purview of the Department of Labor (DOL). Indeed,

in 2011, it was DOL--not the Coast Guard--that promulgated

the rule in question that, according to industry background

documentation, would appear to be the root cause of this

issue. Thus, any changes to address this issue should be more

properly directed either to the Longshore and Harbor Workers'

Compensation Act or to DOL and its implementing regulations.

Aside from the amendment's misplaced statutory location,

the proposed amendment contains numerous drafting issues. For

example, the proposed amendment contains no limitation of the

``dismantling'' language to those activities ``in connection

with the repair of such vessel.'' Irrespective of the

drafting issues, the proposed amendment would not provide any

immediate relief as the draft language contains terms

undefined by statute that prevent it from being self-

executing. Finally, if adopted, the amendment would likely

create a wholly unnecessary bifurcated regulatory scheme

between the DOL regulations under 20 C.F.R.

Sec. Sec. 701.501-701.505 and additional regulations

promulgated by the Coast Guard.

The proposed change to the definition of a ``recreational

vessel'' to include ``any vessel, including a foreign vessel,

being repaired or dismantled [. . .] during such repair or

dismantling if the vessel (1) shares elements of

design and construction of traditional recreational vessels

(as so defined); and (2) when operating is not normally

engaged in a military, commercial, or traditionally

commercial undertaking'' has significant impacts on Coast

Guard regulatory and enforcement authorities.

The change in the definition would expand the current

exclusion for ``recreational vessels'' from the U.S.

implementing legislation for the International Convention on

the Control of Harmful Anti-Fouling Systems on Ships.

Specifically, civil penalties for owners of ``recreational

vessels'' are statutorily limited to $5,000 as compared to

the $37,500 maximum penalty for all other vessel owners.

The change in the definition could be construed to allow a

foreign vessel owner to exempt itself from tonnage taxes

required under 46 U.S.C. Sec. 60301, by claiming that its

vessel is ``being repaired'' and thereby a recreational

vessel exempted from tonnage taxes.

The change in the definition could also be construed to

allow foreign flagged vessels to avoid the requirements to

maintain a safety management system onboard under 46 U.S.C.

Sec. 3201, et seq. by claiming that its vessel is ``being

repaired'' and thereby a recreational vessel exempted from

Safety Management Requirements under the International Safety

Management Code.

In addition to these statutory impacts, there are numerous

Coast Guard regulations not related to Longshoreman and

Harbor Workers' Compensation Act authorities that would be

impacted by the change. These include:

33 C.F.R. Sec. 95.001

33 C.F.R. Sec. 151.51

46 C.F.R. Sec. 2.01-7

46 C.F.R. Sec. 4.03-50

46 C.F.R. Sec. 67.11

46 C.F.R. Sec. 136.105

This list is by no means exhaustive. Given the time for

review, the Coast Guard has not been able to conduct a

comprehensive review of statutory and regulatory impacts that

would be implicated by this change. Furthermore, as drafted,

this change would require the Coast Guard to reallocate a

substantial amount of financial and personnel resources to

ensure that its regulations were in alignment with the

revised definition. Such an undertaking is wholly

incompatible with the current fiscal climate.

Mr. Chairman, I urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Polis) for proposing this amendment.

The Rebuild America's Schools Act would help ensure that each of our Nation's 50 million public school students, taught by 3 million teachers, will have access to safe, healthy, and high-quality learning facilities and internet access sufficient for digital learning in the classroom.

This bold proposal would create nearly 2 million jobs, improve student learning, and revitalize under-resourced communities.

The Rebuild America's Schools Act is a win for students, families, workers, and the economy; and any responsible infrastructure proposal put forth by Congress should include a bold investment in our Nation's public schools.

Mr. Speaker, this bill was introduced on the 63rd anniversary of Brown v. Board of Education because, despite the promise of Brown, our public school facilities remain largely separate and woefully unequal.

Last year, on the 62nd anniversary of Brown, Ranking Member Conyers and I unveiled the findings of a GAO report that found that more students are attending schools highly segregated by race and class.

Now, that most recent GAO report examining the state of our public schools' infrastructure saw that low-income and minority students are served by poor and inadequate school facilities.

If we are to fully achieve the promise of Brown, then no child should remain in a classroom with a leaking roof or a broken heating system. All students should have equitable access to science labs or spaces for high-quality career and technical educational programs.

Mr. Speaker, 12 States do not invest any money in capital construction projects in public schools, leaving responsibility of ensuring high-quality classrooms up to localities and local property taxes, which virtually guarantees inequitable funding between high- and low-income districts.

This bill targets Federal funding for school infrastructure to districts and school buildings with the greatest need for improvement to their physical and digital infrastructure, which would be an important step in fulfilling the promise of Brown.

All too often, when Congress talks about infrastructure investment, we speak only about investments in roads, bridges, and other public buildings. Public schools are often left out of the conversation, but schools must be part of that conversation on infrastructure.

The Rebuild America's Schools Act will ensure safe drinking water in schools, prevent instructional materials like textbooks from being ruined

as a result of broken heating and air-conditioning systems, and improve air quality that students breathe in the schools. It will bring access to digital learning for more than 11 million students in nearly 20,000 schools who do not already have it. Finally, the bill would mean high- quality jobs for nearly 2 million pipefitters, construction workers, and other hardworking Americans.

Mr. Speaker, I urge Members to defeat the previous question so we can debate and pass the Rebuild America's Schools Act. We owe it to America's students and hardworking families.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman, and I have to point out that, after redistricting last year, I no longer represent the Richmond area.

And I certainly miss my friends from Richmond.

I certainly am.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentlewoman for yielding, and want to point out that, as we discuss healthcare, we have to notice that the Republicans are using a very flawed reasoning to try to sell TrumpCare to the American public.

They say: ``We have a bill, and if you don't like the status quo, therefore, you have to support the bill.''

And if you ask: ``Well, what's in the bill?'' They say: ``Well, you have to do something.''

``What's in your bill?''

``I don't like the Affordable Care Act.''

``What's in your bill?''

``The present law is called ObamaCare.''

There is no discussion about what the bill actually does or whether or not it improves the status quo and how the bill will affect American families every day.

But we do know something, based on the CBO report, and that is that TrumpCare is significantly worse than the current policy on every level.

They complain about costs. Costs will go up under this bill. And the only way anybody saves money on premiums is because the policies won't cover as much of the costs. That is because they will cover a lower percentage of the costs, and they will cover fewer benefits.

This was confirmed today by the CBO, which said that 22 million fewer people will have health and coverage under this plan; and the policies that people buy will cover a lot less than they cover now.

Mr. Speaker, at some point, we have to recognize fundamental principles of arithmetic. If you give massive tax cuts to the wealthiest Americans and corporations, as TrumpCare is proposing, you will have less money to help those who actually need money to afford insurance.

Less money means fewer people covered by Medicaid, fewer people receiving subsidies to help them buy their insurance, and policies that cover a smaller portion of the costs.

According to the CBO, TrumpCare will have a severe impact on rural America, threatening the services covered by rural hospitals which, in many areas, are the biggest employers in the area.

CBO also points out that the hardest hit will be those with preexisting conditions, low-income Americans, and seniors. But even those making $100,000, around $100,000, will also be hurt.

Mr. Speaker, why is the Senate even considering this bill? Who benefits? Maybe it is just those wealthy Americans who will get a huge tax cut as people lose their insurance.