Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the Hampton Jazz Festival on its 50th Anniversary.

The idea for a jazz festival emerged after a visit between friends-- the President of Hampton Institute Jerome Holland and jazz entrepreneur and promoter George Wein, who was

noted for his festivals in Newport, Rhode Island, New York, California, and New Orleans.

This first festival was in 1968 when Hampton Institute--present day Hampton University--celebrated its 100th birthday with a musical night filled with jazz. This celebration took place on Hampton's campus at Armstrong Field. Artists that performed at the original festival included Dizzy Gillespie, Ramsay Lewis, Herbie Mann Quintet, Nina Simone and her Trio, Muddy Waters and his Blues Band, and many more. It was supposed to be just a one-time event, but the attendees loved it and wanted more. In 1970, the City of Hampton became the third partner when the festival moved from Hampton Institute to the newly built Hampton Coliseum due to growing crowds; it went on for three days and has been a tradition in Hampton Roads ever since.

The Hampton Roads community welcomes fans who travel from all over for the weekend long Jazz Festival each year. Many think of it as more than just a few concerts. The festival is a celebration of jazz, pop, blues, soul, and R&B music and artists. It is a time for fans and artists to celebrate the culture and the life of jazz. It is a terrific opportunity for the community to come together for a great time listening to great music. As a result, many events surround the dates of the festival, including parties, family reunions, class reunions and other gatherings.

There are fans who have attended the festival since its beginnings, and enjoy it just as much as they did when they were younger. And I count myself as one of those fans, as I attended the very first festival at Armstrong Field and have attended virtually every festival since. Because jazz is such a unique genre of music that crosses so many ethnic and cultural barriers, the festival is a way for different generations and diverse groups of people to come together and share in their love of jazz.

I commend Hampton University and the City of Hampton for their ongoing partnership to bring well-loved and critically acclaimed artists and musicians to Hampton Roads for this annual event. A record was set in 2011 for the festival when all three shows, featuring the artists Charlie Wilson, Kem, Jonathan Butler, Chaka Khan, Boyz II Men, and Maze featuring Frankie Beverly, sold out.

Last year's festival included Babyface, New Edition, Gladys Knight, and many more. Hampton strives to make the festival better and better each year with more artists and vendors, and I know this 50th Anniversary festival will be no different.

The remarkable success of the Jazz Festival has helped the City of Hampton build up the reputation of the Hampton Coliseum as a premier venue for the region. Thanks in part to the high profile acts that performed at the Jazz Festival, the Hampton Coliseum has been able to attract many popular artists and other events. As the Festival has grown in popularity, annual attendance is usually around 25,000 fans in recent years.

Mr. Speaker, I wish to mention a few names who have been instrumental to the success of the festival over the years--Dr. William Harvey, Joe Santangelo, John Scott, Joe Tsao, George Wallace, and Lucius Wyatt.

The 50th Anniversary of the Hampton Jazz Festival is to take place as it always does during the last full weekend in June and will include many fan favorites, including Jill Scott, Kem, Brian Culbertson, the O'Jays, Patti Labelle, and Maze featuring Frankie Beverly.

Mr. Speaker, as a fan of jazz and a regular attendee, I congratulate Hampton University and the City of Hampton as the Hampton Jazz Festival celebrates its 50th Anniversary. I look forward to a great weekend listening to some of my favorite artists knowing that this Hampton Roads tradition will continue for many years to come.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Illinois for his leadership on this legislation.

I rise in support of H.R. 2353, the Strengthening Career and Technical Education for the 21st Century Act, which will reauthorize the Perkins Career and Technical Education program. H.R. 2353 builds on the House's bipartisan efforts in the last Congress, when this Chamber passed CTE reauthorization by a vote of 405-5.

The research is clear: The United States workforce is suffering a skills gap. According to Georgetown University Center on Education and the Workforce, by 2020, 65 percent of all jobs in the United States will require at least some postsecondary education or skills acquisition. Yet, if the current trend holds, by 2020, our Nation will have more than 5 million fewer skilled workers than necessary to fill the high-skilled jobs which will be available. In Virginia alone, that is 30,000 open jobs; 17,000 are in the area of cybersecurity, and those jobs have salaries starting at $88,000.

This bipartisan, comprehensive reauthorization will improve program quality and services for students most in need of skills. It will also update the Federal investment in CTE to provide increased State and local flexibility, while ensuring greater accountability for program quality.

It ensures that there remains in place a Federal focus on equity of opportunity and the role of the U.S. Department of Education to protect and promote the civil rights of all students and compliance with Federal laws.

The bill also strengthens the Federal commitment to support delivery of high-quality CTE programs by retaining the Department of Education's full authority to approve or disapprove State and local plans.

The bill also requires Federal oversight, monitoring, and technical assistance to support program improvement and maintains full authority of the Secretary to enforce compliance with statutory program requirements and Federal civil rights laws.

I would like to thank the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Krishnamoorthi) and the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Thompson) for their bipartisan leadership, and the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Langevin) for his leadership as the chair of the CTE Caucus and for his dedication to realizing a comprehensive program reauthorization.

Mr. Speaker, this bill was unanimously reported by the committee. It has nearly unanimous support from business groups, educators, and community stakeholders, so I urge my colleagues to support the bill.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.

I rise in opposition to the ``Wrong'' CHOICE Act. In addition to what else is wrong with the bill, there are two significant problems with it impacting the jurisdiction of the Education and the Workforce Committee, where I serve as the ranking Democratic member.

First, the bill essentially eliminates the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. The Bureau has played a crucial role in making sure student loan borrowers are treated fairly and receive the protections that they deserve. It has shut down fraudulent student loan debt relief scams, resolved countless consumer complaints, and secured hundreds of millions of dollars in loan forgiveness for borrowers tricked into taking out costly private loans.

The bill also repeals the Department of Labor's fiduciary rule, which simply ensures that financial advisers put their retirement clients' interests first.

Workers getting ready to retire often seek assistance in making what would be the biggest financial decision in their life. Let's be clear: many of these just set aside a few hundred dollars a month throughout their career, and now have hundreds of thousands of dollars to invest. They are counting on their financial adviser to do right by them and their families. This rule simply says that they have to do right for the families and the workers, not what may generate the highest fees.

Mr. Chairman, this bill undermines key policy priorities impacting student loans and retirement savings. We should stand up for students and retirees and reject this bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H. Con. Res. 33, designating the George C. Marshall Museum and George C. Marshall Research Library in Lexington, Virginia, as the National George C. Marshall Museum and Library. I appreciate my good friend, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte), for sponsoring the resolution and note that the entire Virginia delegation has signed on as original cosponsors.

General George C. Marshall is a national hero, a distinguished public servant, and treasured piece of Virginia's history. Located in Lexington, Virginia, the George C. Marshall Museum and Library are located on the campus of the Virginia Military Institute, his alma mater.

General Marshall served our country as the Chief of Staff during World War II, Special Ambassador to China, Secretary of State, president of the Red Cross, Secretary of Defense, and is one of only five Army five-star generals in the United States.

After World War II, General Marshall was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 1953, for his role in developing the European Recovery Program better known as the Marshall Plan. This week we are commemorating the 70th anniversary of the Marshall Plan speech given on June 5, 1947, at Harvard University. The Marshall Plan contributed to European integration and growth in the aftermath of World War II.

As the holder of the George C. Marshall papers and with a mission to collect, preserve, and share information regarding the life and career of General Marshall, it is apt to make this institution the National George C. Marshall Museum and Library.

Mr. Speaker, considering the important place in our Nation's history that General Marshall holds, I urge my colleagues to support the resolution, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my Virginia colleagues for their leadership, and I urge my colleagues to support the resolution.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 1761.

I first want to point out that the case outlined by the chair of the Judiciary Committee that failed in Federal court could have been brought in State court and the defendant would have been subjected to extremely long, lengthy prison time for the heinous conduct that he had participated in.

Mr. Speaker, this legislation expands the use of preexisting mandatory minimum sentences. Although the bill does not technically create new mandatory minimums, it does expose additional defendants to preexisting mandatory minimum sentences of 15, 25, and 35 years.

While I support the underlying goal of punishing sex offenders--and they should be punished harshly--the use of mandatory minimums has time and time again been shown to be inappropriate.

This expansion of mandatory minimum sentences comes on the heels of the Attorney General's memorandum of May 12, 2017, which has been roundly criticized for directing all Federal prosecutors to pursue the most serious charges and maximum sentences, to include mandatory minimum sentences. This directive takes away from Federal prosecutors and judges the ability to individually assess the unique circumstances of each case, including any factors that may mitigate against imposing mandatory minimum sentences.

This law is particularly appalling because it would apply to people who I think we should all agree should not be subject to these long mandatory minimum sentences. I am talking about teenagers. Teenage sexting is widespread. Under this law, teenagers who engage in consensual conduct and send photos of a sexual nature to their friends or even to each other may be prosecuted and the judge must sentence them to at least 15 years in prison.

The law explicitly states that the mandatory minimums will apply equally to an attempt or a conspiracy. That means if a teenager attempts to obtain a photo of sexually explicit conduct by requesting it from his teenage girlfriend, the judge must sentence that teenager to prison for at least 15 years for making such an attempt. If a teenager goads a friend to ask a teenager to take a sexually explicit image of herself, just by asking, he could be guilty of conspiracy or attempt, and the judge must sentence that teenager to at least 15 years in prison.

Under the Federal code, the term ``sexually explicit conduct'' includes actual or simulated conduct. That means if a teenager asks another teenager for a photo simulating sex, even if the minor is fully clothed, that attempt would violate the law and the teenager must get a sentence of at least 15 years mandatory minimum for making that attempt.

This law does not allow the judge to consider whether or not the conduct may have been consensual between minors. This circumstance is irrelevant when the sentence is mandatory.

For decades now, the extensive research and evidence has demonstrated that mandatory minimum sentences fail to reduce crime, discriminate against minorities, waste the taxpayers' money, and often require a judge to impose sentences so bizarre that they violate common sense.

Unfortunately, there are already too many mandatory minimums in the Federal code. If we ever expect to do anything about the problem and actually address this major driver of mass incarceration, the first step we have to take is to stop passing new mandatory minimums or bills that expand existing mandatory minimums.

Mr. Speaker, we have to recognize that mandatory minimums in the code did not get there all at once. They got there one at a time, each part of a larger bill, which, on balance, might seem like a good idea. Therefore, the only way to stop passing new mandatory minimums is to stop passing bills that contain or broaden the application of mandatory minimums.

Giving lip service to the suggestion that you would have preferred that the mandatory minimum had not been in the bill and then voting for the bill anyway not only creates that new mandatory minimum, but it also guarantees that mandatory minimums will be included in the next crime bill.

Mr. Speaker, this bill would not be controversial if it did not contain mandatory minimums, but, unfortunately, it does. Therefore, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on H.R. 1761.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Foxx) and the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Lewis) for working with this side of the aisle on bipartisan comprehensive reauthorization of the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act.

Juvenile courts were established by States in the first half of the 20th century based on the emerging legal theory that children should not be held as fully responsible for their actions as adults, a theory borne out over time by scientific research on impulse control and brain development.

The opportunity to rehabilitate children became the focus of the system rather than punishment of offenders. Congress first articulated national standards for juvenile justice in the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act of 1974, or JJDPA. Long overdue for reauthorization, the bill creates important core protections for our children in the juvenile justice system in each State.

In the 15 years since Congress last reauthorized the program, there have been advancements in research and expansion of evidence when it comes to the prevention of youth incarceration and delinquency.

The bill we will consider today includes necessary improvements to Federal policy grounded in facts proving that the public investments in a continuum of trauma-informed care and alternatives to incarceration and secure detention produce positive results for at-risk youth. These results, in turn, will reduce crime and create long-term savings.

H.R. 1809 requires, for the first time, that State juvenile justice plans have to take into account the latest scientific research on adolescent development and behavior, recognizing the importance of prevention and early intervention in juvenile crime policy.

We shouldn't have to legislate this, but we have seen too often that slogans and sound bites have dictated our national approach to crime policy, particularly juvenile crime. These slogans and soundbites often do nothing to decrease crime. In fact, some have been actually shown to increase the crime rate.

H.R. 1809 encourages States to consider promising practices such as programming to ensure that youth have access to public defenders with juvenile court experience, the use of problem-solving courts as an alternative to probation and confinement, efforts to inform and aid juveniles in the process of sealing and expunging their juvenile records, and programming to address the needs of girls in or at risk of entering the system when developing State plans.

Finally, the bill retools the current title V Local Delinquency Prevention Grant programs retitled as the Youth Promise Incentive Grants for Local Delinquency Prevention Program to support communities in the planning and implementation of evidence-based prevention and intervention programs specifically designed to reduce juvenile delinquency and gang involvement.

Grant recipients would be required to analyze the unmet delinquency needs

of the youth in the community and then develop and implement a comprehensive strategy to address those unmet needs with an emphasis on program coordination.

Research shows that a community-wide coordinated approach to delinquency prevention that utilizes a continuum of services can actually save the community money and improve efficiencies.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to especially thank my colleagues for working with me on the title V provisions which are modeled after a bill I have been working on for nearly 10 years, the Youth PROMISE Act. I am confident that, if enacted, this incentive grant program will vastly improve the lives of and long-term economic opportunity for at- risk youth across the country. The collaborative work of this committee gives me hope that we can get full JJDPA reauthorization over the finish line this year.

Senators Grassley and Whitehouse have introduced a bill in the Senate already. I am optimistic that we will be able to produce a bill together that builds on the knowledge and experience of the last 15 years and makes its way to the President's desk for signature.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Wilson), a strong supporter of at-risk youth.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Cardenas), who has been working on juvenile justice issues since he was in the California Legislature and Los Angeles City Council.

Mr. Speaker, I thank, again, the gentleman from Minnesota for his leadership. I urge my colleagues to support the bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 1808, the Improving Support for Missing and Exploited Children Act. This bill will strengthen recovery and prevention efforts of missing and exploited children by renewing and updating support for the National Center for Missing & Exploited Children, or NCMEC.

The terror experienced by parents of a missing child is unfathomable. Both the child and the parents experience pain, trauma, fear, and uncertainty. This is why affected families need the full support of law enforcement, schools, businesses, and other entities that may be able to assist in locating and recovering missing or exploited children.

In 2013, Congress reauthorized the Missing Children's Assistance Act and updated the role of NCMEC. The organization was required, at that time, to coordinate with the Interagency Council on Homelessness in order to address the high number of sex trafficking victims who were homeless youth.

Now, in 2017, Congress is including several additional improvements. As this bill heads to the Senate, I will work with my colleagues in both Chambers to improve the reporting of characteristics of children trafficked as it relates to the Office of Juvenile Justice's triennial incidence of missing children study.

Mr. Speaker, despite the best efforts of NCMEC, more than 10,000 children go missing each year, and scores of children are forced into sexual exploitation and trafficking. I am hopeful that the enactment of these initiatives will assist in the efforts to end exploitation and trafficking. I am also hopeful that Congress will empower the work of NCMEC by appropriate funding in fiscal year 2018 and above.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the bill.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 1862.

While I support the underlying goal of punishing sex offenders, the existing Federal statutes already severely punish these offenses. This legislation, unfortunately, will impose a mandatory sentence of life imprisonment.

This expansion of mandatory minimum sentences of life without parole comes on the heels of Attorney General Sessions' memorandum of May 12, 2017, which has been roundly criticized for rescinding the Holder memo. The Sessions memo directs all Federal prosecutors to pursue the most serious charges and the maximum sentence to include mandatory minimum sentences. This directive takes away from Federal prosecutors and judges the ability to individually assess unique circumstances of each case, including any factors that may mitigate against imposing a life sentence in every case.

A life sentence is a most severe form of punishment, second only to the death penalty. Careful consideration should be given when our society imposes a life sentence, and judges should have the discretion in determining when this severe punishment should be imposed.

Now, I point out that this punishment would be imposed not only on the ringleader, but on anyone involved in a conspiracy. We have seen how that works in drug conspiracies where a girlfriend who takes a phone message or drives her boyfriend to a deal would be included in the boyfriend's conspiracy and subject to the same draconian mandatory minimum the boyfriend is subjected to.

In this case, the defendant would have to have a prior conviction. But life without parole would be the penalty upon a conviction, with no consideration being given to how long ago the conviction occurred or how serious a conviction was or what role the defendant played in the instant case.

For decades now, extensive research and evidence has demonstrated that mandatory minimums fail to reduce crime, they waste the taxpayers' money, they discriminate against minorities, and often require a judge to impose a sentence so bizarre as to violate common sense. Unfortunately, there are already too many mandatory minimums in the Federal code. If we ever expect to do anything about that problem and address this major driver of mass incarceration, the first step we have to take is to stop passing new mandatory minimums or bills that expand mandatory minimums.

Mandatory minimums did not get in the Federal code all at once--they got there one at a time, each one part of a larger bill, which, on balance, might have been a good idea. The only way to stop passing new mandatory minimums is to stop passing bills that contain mandatory minimums.

Giving lip service to a suggestion that you would have preferred that the mandatory minimum not have been in the bill and then voting for it anyway, just creates another mandatory minimum, and guarantees that those who support mandatory minimums will include them in the next bill. That is how we became number one in the world on incarceration.

Recent studies have shown that we lock up so many people that our incarceration rate is actually counterproductive. There are so many people in jail, so many people being raised with parents in prison, so many people with felony records, and so much of the Justice Department budget being used on prisons that aren't doing any good, that could have been used for constructive activities. We lock up so many people that the incarceration rate is actually counterproductive.

Mr. Speaker, I support the underlying goals of H.R. 1862 to punish sex offenders against children, but I do not support expanding mandatory minimums, in this case, life without parole.

Mr. Speaker, this bill would not be controversial if it had not included mandatory minimums, but, unfortunately, it does. So I, therefore, urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on H.R. 1862.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 1842.

While I support the underlying goal of punishing sex offenders, the existing sentencing laws already provide serious punishment for this conduct. Unfortunately, this legislation expands nonmandatory minimums to additional offenders.

This expansion of mandatory of minimums comes at the heels of Attorney General Sessions' memo, which has been roundly criticized for rescinding the Holder memo and directing all Federal prosecutors to pursue the most serious charges and the maximum sentence, to include mandatory minimum sentences.

The Sessions memo takes away, from Federal prosecutors, the ability to individually assess the unique circumstances of their cases and any factors which would mitigate against seeking the harshest sentence in every case. Once that offense triggers a mandatory minimum and once that is charged, the sentencing judge loses any discretion to assess the unique circumstances of the case and, upon conviction, must impose the mandatory minimum provided in the code.

This legislation is remarkable in that it extends a number of exceptionally high mandatory minimums to most defendants. The mandatory sentence of life without parole is expanded to apply to more cases. The mandatory sentence of 35 years is expanded. In other cases, the mandatory minimum would triple from 5 years to 15 years.

These are grave sentences, and the judge should have discretion in determining when they should be imposed. And these sentences would apply not only to the ring leader, but to everyone who may be involved in the activity and subject to a conspiracy conviction. The mandatory minimum eliminates the ability of the judge to consider the individual circumstances of the case or the culpability or the role of the defendant in that case.

For decades now, extensive research has been done on mandatory minimums, and the conclusions are: they do not reduce crime; they do not protect anybody; they waste the taxpayers' money; they discriminate against minorities; and they often require judges to impose sentences so bizarre that they violate common sense.

When you see how these are worked in drug cases, you can be reminded of President Obama's policy to consider full commutation. Those who are, essentially, first offenders who have been convicted of nonviolent, low-level activity in a drug case would be considered for commutation after 10 years.

Now, that seems reasonable, but what you ought to ask is the question: How did a low-level, nonviolent first offender get so much time that, after 10 years, they still need help from the President? The answer is: mandatory minimums. The judge had no choice but to impose that bizarre sentence.

Unfortunately, there are already too many mandatory minimums in the Federal code. If we ever expect to do anything about the problem and address that driver of mass incarceration, the first step we have to take is to stop passing new mandatory minimums or bills that expand existing mandatory minimums.

Mandatory minimums in the code did not get there all at once; they got there one at a time, each, part of a larger bill which, on balance, seemed like a good idea. Therefore, the first step we have to take in reducing mandatory minimums is to stop passing new ones or to stop passing bills that expand mandatory minimums.

For these reasons, while I support the underlying goals of H.R. 1842, to punish sex offenses against children, I oppose expanding the application of severe mandatory minimum sentences such as the 15 and 35 and life imprisonment.

Mr. Speaker, this bill would not be controversial without the mandatory minimums; but, unfortunately, they are in the bill, and I, therefore, urge my colleagues to oppose the legislation.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 984, the Thomasina E. Jordan Indian Tribes of Virginia Federal Recognition Act and I want to thank my fellow Virginian, Congressman Rob Wittman for introducing this bill, and the gentleman from Utah, Chairman Bishop and the gentleman from Arizona, Ranking Member Grijalva, for their leadership and cooperation in bringing the bill to the floor.

Four hundred ten years ago, the first English settlers founded Jamestown, Virginia. The founding of Jamestown represented a first step in the creation of our great Republic, and the success of this colony is owed to the help of the indigenous people of Virginia.

With this assistance, the Jamestown colony weathered a difficult first few years in the New World before expanding, with English colonists pushing further inland. The same Native Americans who had helped those first settlers were pushed from their land without compensation. Treaties, many of which precede our own constitution, were made in an effort to compensate Virginia's Native Americans. Unfortunately, as history has repeatedly shown, these treaties were not often honored.

Like many other Native Americans, and many other groups who were not white, and despite their contributions to the founding of our nation, Virginia's Indian Tribes were pushed to the fringes of society. They were deprived of their land, prevented from getting an education, and denied a role in our society. Virginia's Native Americans were denied their

very fundamental human rights and the very freedoms and liberties enshrined in our Constitution.

This bill will finally grant federal recognition to the Chickahominy Tribe, the Eastern Chickahominy Tribe, the Upper Mattaponi Tribe, the Rappahannock Tribe, the Monacan Indian Nation, and the Nansemond Tribe.

Federal recognition of Virginia's Indian Tribes will promote tribal economic development and allow Virginia's tribes to flourish culturally. Federal recognition, a process that has been ongoing for these tribes for over 30 years, will lead to a bright future for a whole new generation of tribe members.

Mr. Speaker, I was a member of the Virginia General Assembly in 1983 when many of these tribes first gained formal recognition from the Commonwealth of Virginia, and I am proud to be here today supporting federal recognition for these tribes.

The time has come for this Congress to act, and I therefore urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I remind my colleague that her vote for this bill could increase premiums for people with breast cancer in Tennessee by over $38,000.

Mr. Speaker, let's begin with a few facts:

Since the passage of the Affordable Care Act, costs have gone up at the lowest rate in 50 years;

Those with preexisting conditions get insurance at the standard rate;

Instead of millions of people losing their insurance every year, 20 million more people have insurance;

Personal bankruptcies are down 50 percent.

Still, all we hear are complaints, press releases, and promises about something better. But CBO has debunked this proposal by pointing out that 24 million fewer people will have insurance, that costs will go up, and insurance will cover less.

So, whatever you think about the Affordable Care Act, this bill makes things worse--except for millionaires, who get a tax cut.

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

Mr. Speaker, I remind my colleague that his vote for this bill could take healthcare protections away from over a million people in Tennessee with preexisting conditions.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Bonamici), the vice ranking member of the Committee on Education and the Workforce.

Mr. Speaker, I remind my colleague that his vote for this healthcare bill will take away protections for over 600,000 people in Oregon with preexisting conditions.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Takano).

(Mr. TAKANO asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the Democratic whip.

(Mr. HOYER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I remind my colleague that his vote for this bill could take away protections of over 4.5 million people with preexisting conditions in Texas who might have access to coverage, but if they have diabetes, their rates could go up $5,000.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Adams).

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a letter from Common Sense Kids Action that explains that: ``This jeopardizes the health and well-being of America's kids and will alarm any parent who understands the importance of health insurance for their children and family.''

common sense kids action,

April 25, 2017.

Re H.R. 1628--OPPOSE.

Hon. Diane Black,

Chairwoman, House Budget Committee,

House of Representatives, Washington, DC.

Dear Representative Black: On behalf of the millions of

American kids and families who rely on comprehensive,

dependable health insurance to stay healthy and to get

medical treatment when they need it, we are writing to

respectfully express our strong opposition to your bill, H.R.

1628, the American Health Care Act (AHCA). We have added this

bill to our Common Sense Legislative Ratings Tool as an

``Against Kids'' bill and will communicate our position to

our parent and teacher members.

Common Sense is the nation's leading independent nonprofit

organization dedicated to helping kids thrive in a rapidly

changing world. We empower parents, teachers, and

policymakers by providing unbiased information, trusted

advice, and innovative tools to help them harness the power

of media and technology as a positive force in all kids'

lives. The policy arm, Common Sense Kids Action, is building

a movement of parents, teachers, business leaders, and others

dedicated to making kids our nation's top priority by

supporting policies at the state and federal level that

contribute to the building blocks of opportunity for kids.

Access to affordable and quality medical care for kids is

certainly one of those key building blocks.

Thanks to current law, including the Affordable Care Act,

Medicaid, and the Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP),

95% of young children in the U.S. today have health

insurance. That's a remarkable achievement. With health

insurance, parents are more likely to seek medical care for

themselves and for their children, helping to prevent

illnesses from developing and shortening their duration when

they occur. However, the AHCA will result in 24 million fewer

Americans having coverage, including millions of children.

This jeopardizes the health and well-being of America's kids

and will alarm any parent who understands the importance of

health insurance for their children and family. The

Affordable Care Act certainly needs to be fixed, but if

Congress has the goal of making sure that all families and

businesses have access to affordable and comprehensive health

insurance, it could improve the law for everyone without

forcing millions of kids and their parents to lose access to

critical medical care.

As Congress continues to grapple with this issue, health

insurance programs, we think these facts about children's

health insurance from the Congressional Budget Office and the

Georgetown University Center for Children and Families are

important to keep in mind:

Ninety-five percent of children age 0-5 are insured today.

Forty-five million of those children access health care

through two programs: about 37 million through Medicaid (a

federal-state program) and 8 million through CHIP, the

Children's Health Insurance Program.

Children are the single-largest group of persons covered

under Medicaid.

Under the Affordable Care Act, as you know, many states

expanded Medicaid with help from the federal government,

increasing coverage for kids and families, including coverage

for mental health care.

Changes being considered, including under the AHCA, would

cut funding to Medicaid by as much as $880 billion over the

next 10 years.

The AHCA, when compared with current law, would result in

24 million fewer Americans with health insurance by the year

2026.

Even with changes recently suggested to your bill,

America's kids will be best served by strengthening the

Affordable Care Act and preserving Medicaid and CHIP, not by

repealing the Affordable Care Act and block granting or

establishing a per capita cap on Medicaid. We urge you to

keep our children's future foremost in your thinking,

withdraw your bill, and work on a bipartisan basis to support

measures that protect and strengthen children's health care.

Thank you for your consideration of our views and we would be

happy to talk with you at any time about this and other

issues that matter to America's children and families.

Sincerely,

Danny Weiss,

Vice President, Federal Policy,

Common Sense Media/Kids Action.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Jeffries).

(Mr. JEFFRIES asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record an article in Consumer Reports dated May 2, 2017, entitled: ``How the Affordable Care Act Drove Down Personal Bankruptcy.''

How the Affordable Care Act Drove Down Personal Bankruptcy

Expanded health insurance helped cut the number of filings by half

(By Allen St. John)

As legislators and the executive branch renew their efforts

to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act this week, they

might want to keep in mind a little-known financial

consequence of the ACA: Since its adoption, far fewer

Americans have taken the extreme step of filing for personal

bankruptcy.

Filings have dropped about 50 percent, from 1,536,799 in

2010 to 770,846 in 2016 (see chart, below). Those years also

represent the time frame when the ACA took effect. Although

courts never ask people to declare why they're filing, many

bankruptcy and legal experts agree that medical bills had

been a leading cause of personal bankruptcy before public

healthcare coverage expanded under the ACA. Unlike other

causes of debt, medical bills are often unexpected,

involuntary, and large.

``If you're uninsured or underinsured, you can run up a

huge debt in a short period of time,'' says Lois Lupica, a

bankruptcy expert and Maine Law Foundation Professor of Law

at the University of Maine School of Law.

So did the rise of the ACA--which helped some 20 million

more Americans get health insurance--cause the decline in

bankruptcies?

The many experts we interviewed also pointed to two other

contributing factors: an improving economy and changes to

bankruptcy laws in 2005 that made it more difficult and

costly to file. However, they almost all agreed that expanded

health coverage played a major role in the marked, recent

decline.

Some of the most important financial protections of the ACA

apply to all consumers, whether they get their coverage

through ACA exchanges or the private insurance marketplace.

These provisions include mandated coverage for pre-existing

conditions and, on most covered benefits, an end to annual

and lifetime coverage caps. Aspects of the law, including

provisions for young people to be covered by a family policy

until age 26, went into effect in 2010 and 2011, before the

full rollout of the ACA in 2014.

``It's absolutely remarkable,'' says Jim Molleur, a Maine-

based bankruptcy attorney with 20 years of experience.

``We're not getting people with big medical bills,

chronically sick people who would hit those lifetime caps or

be denied because of pre-existing conditions. They seemed to

disappear almost overnight once ACA kicked in.''

The first attempt to repeal and replace the ACA, in March,

failed to gain enough Congressional support and never came to

a vote.

Then in April, details of a new replacement plan were

released. Although President Donald Trump has said that this

new version, like the first bill that was pulled from

consideration, will cover pre-existing conditions, the

revised law gives states broad latitude to allow insurance

companies to increase rates for consumers with an existing

illness.

A Rare and Costly Diagnosis

Since the start of the year, more than 2,000 consumers have

answered an online questionnaire from Consumer Reports'

advocacy and mobilization team, sharing their experiences

with the ACA. Katie Weber of Seattle was one of them.

In 2011, she had just landed her first job out of college,

as a teacher with AmeriCorps, she explains in a phone

interview. That's when the unusual numbness in her hand

began, which she--and her doctor--at first mistook for a

pinched nerve.

Then came debilitating headaches and nausea and,

ultimately, a diagnosis of medulloblastoma, a fast-growing

cancerous brain tumor.

The treatment for her tumor was straightforward: surgery,

radiation, then chemotherapy. Figuring out how to pay for it

was much less clear. She worried that the insurance she had

through AmeriCorps wouldn't cover enough of her bills.

``My dad said to me, `Your health is the most important

thing. If you have to declare bankruptcy at age 23, it's no

big deal,' '' Weber says.

Because of the ACA, she says, it never came to that. After

her year with AmeriCorps, the new healthcare law enabled her

to get coverage under her parents' insurance plan.

The ACA provisions required that the family's insurance

company cover her even though she had already been diagnosed

with cancer. That would not have been the case before the

ACA, which mandates the coverage of pre-existing conditions

for all consumers.

Later, when she aged out of her parents' insurance, Weber

was able to enroll in Apple Health, Washington state's

version of Medicaid, a program that was expanded once the ACA

was passed. That coverage, she says, has been crucial to her

financial and medical well-being, especially once the cancer

returned last fall.

Weber says she now spends more time discussing treatment

options and less time worrying how she'll pay for MRIs and

drugs. These are covered in full under her Apple Health

policy.

``Cancer is really expensive,'' she says. ``My insurance

saved my life.''

Numbers Plummet

If you want further testimony about how much personal

bankruptcies have dropped over the past decade, talk to Susan

Grossberg, a Springfield, Mass., attorney.

For more than 20 years she has helped consumers push the

financial reset button when debt triggered by divorce,

unemployment, or a costly illness or medical episode became

too much to handle. ``Medical debt can get really big really

quickly,'' Grossberg says. ``When you're in the emergency

room they're not checking your credit score while they're

caring for you.''

With the advent of the ACA--and before that, expanded state

healthcare in Massachusetts--she says fewer clients with

large medical debts walked through her door.

Grossberg adds that her bankruptcy business has slowed so

much that she has been forced to take on other kinds of legal

work--landlord-tenant and housing discrimination cases--to

cover her own bills.

The American Bankruptcy Institute suggested that veteran

Chicago bankruptcy attorney and trustee David Leibowitz could

also help parse the reasons for the decadelong decline.

First, he says, the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and

Consumer Protection Act of 2005 made it more difficult for

consumers to file for bankruptcy. The law required credit

counseling and income verification and forced many consumers

to seek protection under Chapter 13, which restructures, but

does not eliminate, most debt. The piles of paperwork also

meant most filers needed a lawyer, which made bankruptcy more

costly and therefore not an option for many poor consumers.

Then there was the economy. After a slow and steady

recovery following the housing crisis of 2008, Leibowitz

explains that American consumers generally had fewer problems

with their mortgages, better employment prospects, and

greater access to credit, which made them less likely to

file.

The final factor, according to Leibowitz, has been the ACA,

which afforded health coverage to many more consumers and

expanded protections for all.

Of course, not everyone sees such a direct connection

between the decline in bankruptcies and the emergence of the

I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Norcross).

Mr. Speaker, I remind my colleague that his vote for this bill can take away protections for over 800,000 people with preexisting conditions in Louisiana. For example, those with breast cancer could see their premiums go up by over $34,000.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Delaware (Ms. Blunt Rochester).

(Ms. BLUNT ROCHESTER asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Krishnamoorthi).

(Mr. KRISHNAMOORTHI asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Espaillat).

(Mr. ESPAILLAT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

(Ms. LEE asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Maxine Waters).

(Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Walz), the highest ranking enlisted soldier ever elected to Congress.

(Mr. WALZ asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Hawaii (Ms. Hanabusa).

(Ms. HANABUSA asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, could you advise us how much time is remaining on both sides?

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Mrs. Bustos).

(Mrs. BUSTOS asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from New Hampshire (Ms. Shea-Porter).

(Ms. SHEA-PORTER asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I remind my colleague that his vote for this bill could take away protections for preexisting conditions from almost 6 million people in California who would have access to coverage. Those with diabetes could see their premiums go up by $5,000 a year.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Crist) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

(Mr. CRIST asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

No. Just for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

Would the Speaker advise how much time is remaining?

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Engel) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

(Mr. ENGEL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. David Scott) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

Mr. Speaker, would the Speaker advise again how much time is remaining?

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/4\ minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Clyburn).

Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), the Democratic leader, for our closing statement.

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

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to a remarkable woman who has dedicated the last 40 years of her life to serving the citizens of the Commonwealth of Virginia--my friend, closest adviser, and chief of staff, Joni Ivey.

Joni was born and raised in Newport News, Virginia. She grew up in Newsome Park and was one of seven children of Willie and Carnetta Ivey. She graduated from Carver High School in 1971, the last graduating class of the segregated high school that was closed when local schools were racially integrated. Joni went on to attend Christopher Newport University and graduated from Norfolk State University.

I first met Joni in 1976, when she was working on Reverend Henry Maxwell's unsuccessful campaign for the Newport News City Council. I was impressed with her work ethic, her dedication to her community, and her political acumen. I was so impressed that I asked her to serve on my first campaign for the House of Delegates in 1977. That started a 40-year friendship and working relationship that took us to the House of Delegates after that election to the Virginia Senate in 1983, and ultimately to the United States Congress in 1993.

Joni has served alongside me every step of the way and has been a selfless, behind-the-scenes public servant for the citizens of Virginia. Serving the public and helping those most in need has always driven her. Her passion in this regard has helped ground me and our staff to focus on what we can do every day we are fortunate enough to be in a position to make better the lives of those we serve.

Joni's commitment to this ideal is not just at work. Joni spends nearly every waking moment of her free time outside of the office helping others, either through her involvement in her church, Ivy Baptist Church in Newport News, or work with the local NAACP where she once served as branch president, by tutoring young people in Newport News, working with the local food bank, or through her service in The Links, Incorporated. Joni has always given back to her community.

Even with all that she does in her community, she always has time for her family. She is a proud aunt to her nieces and nephews, a dedicated daughter to her mother, and a caring sister to her siblings.

Over the last 40 years, she has also mentored hundreds of members of our staff and helped guide them in their careers. Thanks in part to her leadership with my office, a vast majority of our current and former permanent staff members got their start in our office as interns or fellows and grew into talented and instrumental staffers. Joni showed them how they could make a real difference working in government. Her dedication to our staff has helped make me a more effective legislator, and I am forever grateful for that.

Mr. Speaker, Joni LaVerne Ivey retires from her service to the United States House of Representatives and to my office this week. This will be a hard-earned and well-deserved retirement, and I know that she will remain as active in Newport News and around Hampton Roads as she is now, but perhaps a little less restrained now that she no longer has to worry about me or our office.

I know Joni has never sought public recognition for her hard work, but on behalf of our entire current and former staff and the citizens of the Third Congressional District of Virginia, I thank her for her dedicated and selfless service to our community, our Commonwealth, and our Nation.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 3 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, under current law, if an employee wants to work overtime, put the money in the bank where it can earn interest, and use it to cover the cost of taking some time off later with the permission of the employer, he can do that today without this bill.

But under H.R. 1180, instead of getting paid for overtime work in the next scheduled paycheck, the employee might not get paid until as much as a year later, when his employer decides to let him take that comp time.

This legislation simply weakens the protections available in the Fair Labor Standards Act--the original family-friendly workplace law--at the very moment that we really ought to be strengthening the law.

Under H.R. 1180, it would be legal to withhold workers' overtime pay for a long time. This would be otherwise a violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The bill would allow you to undermine the 40-hour workweek by creating a mechanism that allows employees to earn time off to be with their families only if they spend extra time at work beyond a 40-hour workweek.

It undermines a worker's ability to earn overtime pay, which many workers rely on to send their children to college, save for retirement, or make a down payment on a house.

Because the legislation makes it cheaper for employers to assign overtime to employees who agree to accept comp time instead of actual cash wages, this legislation makes it extremely likely that the only employees who will be asked to work overtime are those who agree to get comp time instead of actual time and a half paid cash.

Furthermore, the legislation creates significant uncertainty for workers. An employer could decide that an employee cannot take comp time on the dates requested because the employer said it would be an undue disruption to business operations.

My Democratic colleagues and I are working on a Working Families Agenda with real solutions that would boost wages for working people and help them balance work and family life. An employee should be able to earn time off without sacrificing overtime pay. This is exactly what the Healthy Families Act would do. It would allow workers to earn up to 7 paid sick days.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, 92 groups that actually represent working people sent a letter urging the Committee on Education and the Workforce to oppose the legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a letter which is led by the National Partnership for Women & Families. It points out that we should be taking up real solutions, such as legislation, to raise the minimum wage, Schedules That Work Act, family and medical leave, and other responsible solutions. These solutions would truly help working families, yet the majority has refused to support any of these initiatives.

May 1, 2017.

Dear Member of Congress: We, the undersigned organizations,

urge you to oppose the so-called Working Families Flexibility

Act (H.R. 1180/S. 801), a smoke-and-mirrors bill that would

offer working people a pay cut without any guaranteed

flexibility or time off. As members of Congress on both sides

of the aisle acknowledge, people today are struggling to

manage the demands of job and family, and to make ends meet

and plan for the future. We urgently need lawmakers to update

our nation's workplace policies to meet 21st century

realities, but the Working Families Flexibility Act would be

a grievous step in the wrong direction. It is, at best, an

empty promise that would cause considerably more harm than

good.

The Working Families Flexibility Act would offer a false

choice between time and pay. Supporters claim the bill would

give hourly workers more flexibility and time with their

loved ones by allowing them to choose paid time off, rather

than time-and-a-half wages, as compensation for working more

than 40 hours in one week (``comp time''). But people would

only get more time with their families after spending extra

hours away from them at work, and the bill does not guarantee

that workers could use the time they earn when they need it.

Moreover, the bill would do nothing to address the need all

working people--not just those who work overtime--have for

guaranteed access to paid sick days and paid family and

medical leave. Too few employers provide these protections

now, especially to their hourly workers.

The Fair Labor Standards Act currently allows employers to

provide flexibility and

time off without compromising workers' right to be paid

fairly for the hours they work. The types of flexibility

allowed under the FLSA include alternative start and end

times, compressed or variable work hours within a week, split

shifts, work at multiple locations, and paid or unpaid time

off. Proponents of the Working Families Flexibility Act set

up a false dichotomy that would force workers to choose

between flexibility and overtime pay when, in reality, the

FLSA does nothing currently to prevent employers from

offering both.

The ``worker flexibility'' offered by the Working Families

Flexibility Act would magnify the power imbalance between

employees and employers. The proposal would give the

employer, not the employee, the ``flexibility'' to decide

when, and even if, comp time could be used. The bill would

allow employers to deny requests if an employee's use of comp

time would ``unduly disrupt'' operations, or grant leave on a

day other than the one requested. This means the Working

Families Flexibility Act would provide no guarantee that

workers could use their earned time to care for a sick child,

attend a parent-teacher conference, or help an aging parent.

Employers could veto an employee's request to use their time

even in cases of urgent need. The bill would also allow

employers to ``cash out'' an employee's comp time in excess

of 80 hours, or discontinue the comp time program altogether,

with just 30 days' notice. This means an employee's carefully

crafted plan to bank time for a child's birth or surgery

could be thwarted by an employer's decision to cash out the

employee's time.

The Working Families Flexibility Act would put workers'

economic security at risk and provide an interest-free loan

to employers. An employee who does not participate in an

employer's comp time program could be penalized with fewer

hours, bad shifts and lost overtime hours. The bill would

permit employers to defer compensation for unused comp time

for as long as 13 months, creating an interest-free loan for

employers and hardship for workers. It also would not provide

any protections for employees when firms collapse or go

bankrupt, meaning workers could lose the value of their

unused comp time altogether.

The Working Families Flexibility Act would provide few

protections for workers and no additional resources to the

U.S. Department of Labor for education, investigation and

enforcement. The U.S. Department of Labor's (DOL's) Wage and

Hour Division already struggles to enforce the Fair Labor

Standards Act (FLSA) with too few investigators and a small

budget--and DOL is facing a draconian reduction in funding

that threatens its ability to maintain current operations,

let alone engage in robust enforcement. This bill would add

significant new provisions to the FLSA, but it would not

provide additional funds for education and enforcement

efforts the new provisions would require. Workers would have

few remedies in cases of employer misconduct pursuant to the

bill, and would not be able to rely on an under-resourced

Wage and Hour Division for assistance. Wage theft (nonpayment

or underpayment of wages for hours worked) would be

exacerbated because it would be easier for employers to avoid

overtime compensation obligations without consequences.

Instead of wasting time on smoke and mirrors, Congress

should focus on policies that would meaningfully improve

people's economic security and provide the time they need. We

urge Congress to adopt:

The Healthy Families Act (H.R. 1516/S. 636), which would

make earned paid sick days available to millions of workers

and build on the success of paid sick days laws that have

been, or will soon be, implemented in seven states and 32

localities;

The Family And Medical Insurance Leave (FAMILY) Act (H.R.

947/S. 337), which would create a national paid leave

insurance program--modeled on successful state programs in

California, New. Jersey, Rhode Island and, soon, New York and

the District of Columbia--that would allow workers to take

paid time to care for a new child; care for a seriously ill

family member; address their own serious health condition; or

manage certain military caregiving responsibilities;

The Schedules That Work Act, which would give workers more

control over their schedules and incentivize predictability

and stability in shifts and work hours; and

An increase in the minimum wage, including the elimination

of the sub-minimum ``tipped'' wage, which would lift millions

of families out of poverty.

People simply should not have to work more than 40 hours in

a week and forgo pay to earn time to care for themselves or

their loved ones. We urge Congress to reject the Working

Families Flexibility Act and instead adopt family friendly

workplace policies that provide true flexibility--not an

empty promise that would make life appreciably more difficult

for people who are already struggling

Sincerely,

1,000 Days, 9to5, National Association of Working Women,

9to5 California, 9to5 Colorado, 9to5 Georgia, 9to5 Wisconsin,

A Better Balance, American Federation of Labor and Congress

of Industrial Organizations (AFL-CIO), American Association

of University Women (AAUW), American Federation of Government

Employees, American Federation of Teachers, (AFL-CIO),

California Work & Family Coalition, Center for Law and Social

Policy (CLASP), Center for Popular Democracy, Coalition for

Social Justice, Coalition of Labor Union Women, Coalition on

Human Needs, Communications Workers of America (CWA),

Connecticut Working Families Party, Connecticut Women's

Education and Legal Fund (CWEALF), Daily Kos, Demos, Economic

Policy Institute Policy Center, Economic Progress Institute,

Faith in Public Life, Family Forward Oregon, Family Values @

Work, Feminist Majority.

Indiana Institute for Working Families, Innovation Ohio,

Institute for Science and Human Values, Inc., Interfaith

Worker Justice, International Brotherhood of Teamsters,

International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace &

Agricultural Implement Workers of America (UAW), Jewish Women

International (JWI), Jews United for Justice, Jobs With

Justice, Labor Project for Working Families, The Leadership

Conference on Civil and Human Rights, Legal Aid at Work, Los

Angeles Alliance for a New Economy (LAANE), Main Street

Alliance, Maine Women's Lobby, Make it Work, McKenna Pihlaja,

MomsRising.org, Mothering Justice.

National Asian Pacific American Women's Forum (NAPAWF),

National Association of Social Workers (NASW), National

Center for Lesbian Rights, National Coalition 100 Black Women

Central Ohio Chapter, National Council of Jewish Women

(NCJW), National Education Association (NEA), National

Employment Law Project, National Employment Lawyers

Association, National Institute for Reproductive Health,

National Network to End Domestic Violence, National

Partnership for Women & Families, National Women's Law

Center, NC Justice Center, NETWORK Lobby for Catholic Social

Justice, New Jersey Citizen Action, New Jersey Time to Care

Coalition, New York Paid Leave Coalition, Ohio Domestic

Violence Network, Ohio Women's Public Policy Network, OUR

Walmart.

PathWays PA, People For the American Way, People's Action,

PL+US Paid Leave for the U.S., Progress For All, Project

IRENE, Restaurant Opportunities Center of Pennsylvania (ROC-

PA), Restaurant Opportunities Centers United (ROC), Sargent

Shriver National Center on Poverty Law, Service Employees

International Union (SEIU), Southwest PA National

Organization for Women, The Body Is Not An Apology (TBINAA,

Inc.), Texas Organizing Project, The Voter Participation

Center, UltraViolet, Unitarian Universalist Women's

Federation, Voices for Progress, Women Employed, Women's

Foundation of Florida, Women's Law Project, Women's Voices

Women Vote Action Fund, Working America, Working Partnerships

USA, Young Invincibles, YWCA USA.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this legislation, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Bonamici), the vice ranking member on the Committee on Education and the Workforce.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro), the ranking member of the Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education Subcommittee of the Appropriations Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the Democratic whip.

(Mr. HOYER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Takano), the ranking member of the Workforce Protections Subcommittee of the Education and the Workforce Committee.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. Jayapal).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, there was mention about the legislative history back in the 1980s. The fact is there was no mention in legislative history that Congress passed the comp time legislation to be family friendly or to provide flexibility. The legislation was passed purely to respond to States' and localities' concerns about fiscal pressures created by the Supreme Court case Garcia v. San Antonio Metropolitan Transportation Authority. So I think it ought to be clear that these are entirely different issues.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Espaillat).

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentleman from New York.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the gentlewoman to show where in the bill the penalties are actually more than they are today?

I yield to the gentlewoman from North Carolina.

And how is that different from what the Federal law is now?

Mr. Speaker, in the meanwhile, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from Alabama (Mrs. Roby).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds just to include in the Record section 216 of the Fair Labor Standards Act, which says essentially the same penalties are available in the present law as in the bill.

Sec. 216. Penalties

(a) Fines and imprisonment

Any person who willfully violates any of the provisions of

section 215 of this title shall upon conviction thereof be

subject to a fine of not more than $10,000, or to

imprisonment for not more than six months, or both. No person

shall be imprisoned under this subsection except for an

offense committed after the conviction of such person for a

prior offense under this subsection.

(b) Damages; right of action; attorney's fees and costs;

termination of right of action

Any employer who violates the provisions of section 206 or

section 207 of this title shall be liable to the employee or

employees affected in the amount of their unpaid minimum

wages, or their unpaid overtime compensation, as the case may

be, and in an additional equal amount as liquidated damages.

Any employer who violates the provisions of section 215(a)(3)

of this title shall be liable for such legal or equitable

relief as may be appropriate to effectuate the purposes of

section 215(a)(3) of this title, including without limitation

employment, reinstatement, promotion, and the payment of

wages lost and an additional equal amount as liquidated

damages. An action to recover the liability prescribed in

either of the preceding sentences may be maintained against

any employer (including a public agency) in any Federal or

State court of competent jurisdiction by any one or more

employees for and in behalf of himself or themselves and

other employees similarly situated. No employee shall be a

party plaintiff to any such action unless he gives his

consent in writing to become such a party and such consent is

filed in the court in which such action is brought. The court

in such action shall, in addition to any judgment awarded to

the plaintiff or plaintiffs, allow a reasonable attorney's

fee to be paid by the defendant, and costs of the action. The

right provided by this subsection to bring an action by or on

behalf of any employee, and the right of any employee to

become a party plaintiff to any such action, shall terminate

upon the filing of a complaint by the Secretary of Labor in

an action under section 217 of this title in which (1)

restraint is sought of any further delay in the payment of

unpaid minimum wages, or the amount of unpaid overtime

compensation, as the case may be, owing to such employee

under section 206 or section 207 of this title by an employer

liable therefor under the provisions of this subsection or

(2) legal or equitable relief is sought as a result of

alleged violations of section 215(a)(3) of this title.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.

I include in the Record letters from AFSCME and the National Education Association in opposition to the legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I want to point out that AFSCME, the NEA, ATU, and other public service unions have written letters in opposition.

One from AFSCME: ``Our experience in the public sector has revealed that employers' control over the use of compensatory time inflicts very real hardships on public employees entitled to compensatory time for their overtime work. Employees request specific dates for valid reasons. Employees need the earned time off for milestones such as children's birthdays, family and friends' weddings. . . .''

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself an additional 30 seconds.

``Giving the employer veto power has been burdensome and abused by employers in the public sector and it has been cause for litigation. In theory, employees may take compensatory time within a reasonable period after making the request. In practice, it creates problems for employees denied the time when they need it and the language of the law becomes a false promise.''

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).

Mr. Speaker, how much time do I have remaining?

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

I include in the Record a letter from the Amalgamated Transit Union against the bill.

Amalgamated Transit Union,

Silver Spring, MD, May 1, 2017.

Dear Representative: On behalf of the Amalgamated Transit

Union (ATU), the largest labor organization representing

public transit workers in the United States, I am urging you

to oppose the Working Families Flexibility Act of 2017 (H.R.

1180). The title of the legislation is extremely misleading,

as the bill actually provides flexibility only to employers--

not workers--and hurts working families who are already

struggling to make ends meet.

In response to an epidemic of workers plagued by mandatory

excessive hours, Congress in 1938 made the wise decision to

pass the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), establishing the

40-hour workweek that we all take for granted today. This

landmark legislation, requiring that employers pay a time-

and-a-half cash premium for overtime work, serves as the only

deterrent from employers demanding excessive hours by making

overtime work more expensive for them. H.R. 1180 would remove

this barrier.

Forced overtime is already a serious problem in the transit

industry, and many of ATU's bargaining units are increasingly

in the private sector and thus subject to FLSA rules. If

privatized transit operations were provided with the

``flexibility'' to offer workers comp time instead of being

paid time-and-a-half for overtime, we would see prolific

abuse of overtime. Intercity bus operators are already exempt

from FLSA overtime provisions, and as a result, there has

recently been one horrific crash after another on U.S.

Highways caused by driver fatigue. In fact, according to the

National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB), driver fatigue

is responsible for a staggering 36% of fatalities due to

intercity bus crashes. If H.R. 1180 is passed, it would lead

to widespread fatigue throughout the transit industry as

well. Quite simply, more buses will be involved in crashes

due to fatigued drivers, and innocent people will die.

Moreover, the so-called flexibility under this bill is one-

sided, putting management in total control. Private transit

companies, which generally cast safety concerns to the wind

and have no regard for anything other than the bottom line,

would be able to decide if a requested absence on a

particular day would ``unduly disrupt'' business operations

and specify an alternative date which is not at all

convenient for an employee.

The need to discourage working people to the brink of

exhaustion is as necessary today as it was nearly 80 years

ago. America needs to maintain the disincentive for employers

to force workers to spend more time away from their families.

If additional hiring is needed, then workforces should be

expanded. In the transportation industry, this is a matter of

life and death.

H.R. 1180 is bad for workers, dangerous for transit

passengers, and another example of a solution in search of a

problem. Please oppose and work to defeat this ill-advised

legislation.

Thank you for your consideration of our views.

Sincerely,

Lawrence J. Hanley,

International President.

Mr. Speaker, under this bill, there are no advantages to the employee. Without this bill, an employee can work overtime, make the money, and then have enough money to afford to be able to take subsequent time off without pay. That is about what this bill does.

But with the bill, it allows the employers to work people overtime and avoid paying the overtime wages. The employer just lets the people take their comp time when work is slow, so the employer never has to pay the overtime.

This bill allows the employer to decide when the comp time can be taken. The employee can request, but the employer has the final word because the bill says that the comp time can be denied if the time off unduly disrupts operations.

And guess who gets to decide that measure?

Those employees who want to work extra time to make extra pay will lose that opportunity to fellow employees who agree to ingratiate themselves to the employer by saving their employer money by accepting comp time instead of overtime pay. There is no coercion. Preference is just given to those who will accept the comp time and not the real wages.

Mr. Speaker, this bill offers nothing to the employees. It offers the employer the opportunity to avoid paying overtime. That is why all of the representatives of workers oppose the legislation, and I think we should, too.

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

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

Yes, I am opposed.

Mr. Speaker, this is the final amendment to the bill, which will not kill the bill nor send it back to committee. If adopted, the bill will immediately proceed to final passage, as amended.

Mr. Speaker, the underlying bill would undermine workers' access to overtime pay and provide them with no real benefit in return, and that is why all of the groups representing workers oppose it. So, instead of undermining employment protections that boost wages for working Americans such as overtime pay, we should work towards ensuring that American workers can remain healthy while on the job.

Critical to that goal is guaranteeing true workplace flexibility by ensuring that workers do not have to choose between their health and their paycheck. So, if the majority is truly concerned about American workers, then the majority should work with us to provide workers the paid time off they need to care for themselves and their families. They could easily do that by supporting the Healthy Families Act, which would give workers the right to earn up to 7 paid sick days.

This motion to recommit would protect workers by ensuring that only employees who are subjected to this comp time arrangement would be those who have at least 7 paid sick days. Providing paid sick days is not only good for working families, it is also good for business, public health, and our overall economy. Providing paid sick days decreases employee turnover and prevents illness from being spread throughout the workplace.

If we are truly concerned about workers, we should not ask them to spend more time away from their families and forfeit their overtime pay in order to take the time off when they are sick or when they need to care for a sick child.

Mr. Speaker, while we are considering this bill, we are also considering healthcare legislation that Republicans are trying to pass which would rob American families of protection under the Affordable Care Act that requires coverage for preexisting conditions.

We know that President Trump has promised to repeal the ACA on day one, and Republicans have spent 7 years complaining about the law and voting time after time to repeal all or parts of the law, but they have never developed a comprehensive proposal to actually deliver on their promises of better care at lower costs.

If we are going to make changes to the Affordable Care Act, we should improve health care for working families, not make it worse. Incredibly, every proposal the Republicans have come up with actually makes things worse.

Under the recent Republican plan, 24 million fewer people would be covered, and everybody else will pay more and get less. While their plan inflicts pain on those most in need, the wealthiest 2 percent of Americans get massive tax cuts.

Under that plan, the typical working family would suffer an increase in healthcare coverage costs of about $2,000 a year, for the average family with a head of household age 55 to 64, the bill would increase costs by over $7,000.

Recent changes in the Republican health plan would unravel many of the protections that American families currently enjoy in their healthcare coverage, including ending current protections for people with preexisting conditions. The Republican health plan would return us to the days when health insurance coverage was unaffordable for many individuals with preexisting conditions. That bill directly violates the commitment made by President Trump and House Republicans to protect individuals with preexisting conditions.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to drop their attempts to take away quality health insurance coverage for those with preexisting conditions. Instead, we should adopt this motion which takes a small step in ensuring that workers can access paid sick leave that allows them to remain healthy, including accessing medical treatment needed to treat or address preexisting conditions.

Mr. Speaker, I urge adoption of the motion, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 1242, the 400 Years of African-American History Commission Act, which was introduced earlier this year by Senators Tim Kaine, Mark Warner, Roy Blunt, and Cory Booker. I was proud to introduce the House version, which has the support of Representatives Taylor, Richmond, Wittman, Beyer, McEachin, Lewis, Comstock, Connolly, Griffith, Goodlatte, and many others.

I would like to thank Chairman Chaffetz, Ranking Member Cummings, Mr. Comer, and Mr. Connolly for their assistance in bringing the bill to the floor today.

This bill would establish a commission to begin the planning of programs

and activities across our Nation to recognize the contributions of African Americans since their first arrival as African slaves in the English colonies at Point Comfort, Virginia, in 1619, almost 400 years ago.

Slavery was an abhorrent institution, but the history of Virginia and our Nation cannot be fully understood without first recognizing the role played by the slave trade. This institution was the foundation of the colonial and early American agricultural system. The 20 slaves who arrived at Point Comfort in Hampton, Virginia, in 1619 were the first on record to be forcibly settled as involuntary laborers in the English colonies.

This bill will establish a commission to recognize and highlight the resilience and contributions of African Americans since 1619. From enduring slavery to fighting in the Civil War, to working against the oppressive Jim Crow laws, to struggling through the civil rights movement, the rich history of African Americans in the United States and their contributions to our Nation began hundreds of years ago. Obviously, this history does not end there.

The commission established by this bill will be charged with the important task of planning, developing, and implementing a series of programs and activities throughout 2019 to tell the full story of African Americans over the last 400 years. This 15-member commission will include historical experts instead of politicians. Therefore, the true legacy of African Americans will be truthfully told.

It would be a great disservice not only to African Americans, but to all Americans, if we fail to appropriately recognize this important milestone in our Nation's history.

Mr. Speaker, I again thank the chairman and ranking member of the committee, Mr. Comer and Mr. Connolly, for their leadership in bringing this bill to the floor.

I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to call attention and recognize the Eastern Star Lodge No. 13 in Hampton, Virginia. Eastern Star Lodge No. 13 is celebrating its 150th Anniversary tomorrow and has worked in continuous and faithful service to the Commonwealth of Virginia over this time.

Prince Hall Masonic lodges have a long history in the Commonwealth, tracing their history to 1775 when Prince Hall and fourteen other free blacks joined a British army lodge of Masons stationed in Boston, Massachusetts and, following their departure, formed their own lodge: African American Lodge No. 1. Prince Hall became the lodge's first Grand Master.

By establishing this organization, Prince Hall and his compatriots were, in 1775, taking some of the first steps to form one of America's first formal African-American institutions.

Organized in 1866 and charted a year later in 1867, Eastern Star Lodge No. 13 was placed at the forefront of growth and development of Prince Hall Masonry in the Commonwealth of Virginia, and in our nation. For 24 years, Eastern Star Lodge No. 13 was one of the only Prince Hall Masonic lodges in Hampton Roads, before helping to expand Prince Hall Masonry throughout the Tidewater region. More recently, resulting from a number of lodge mergers, Eastern Star Lodge No. 13 is one of the largest Subordinate Prince Hall Lodges in Virginia.

I have heard the question asked: ``when is a man a Mason?'' According to Joseph Fort Newton's ``The Builders,'' a man becomes a Mason when he has sympathy for others, the ability to empathize, when he looks for the upside in things, and when he keeps faith in himself, in his fellow men, and with his God. The real secret to Masonry, Newton writes, is the ability to give all to the world.

In this spirit, countless members of Eastern Star Lodge No. 13 have served in their community and in leadership positions. Through their service and through their commitment to their community, members of Eastern Star Lodge No. 13 have done their part to provide mentorship, dispense charity, and ``aid in the uplifting of humanity'' through their charitable endeavors.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to extend my enthusiastic congratulations to Mr. Antonio Hinton, Sr., who currently serves as the leader of Eastern Star Lodge No. 13 and all the members of this historic lodge on the celebration of 150 years of continuous service to Hampton and the Commonwealth of Virginia. It is my profound hope that through their work, members of Eastern Star Lodge No. 13 continue to provide support and service to their community.