Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor ``The First Lady of Song'', Ella Fitzgerald on her 100th birthday.

Born on April 25, 1917 in Newport News, Virginia, Ella Jane Fitzgerald went on to define Jazz music for more than half a century. Fitzgerald's career first began when she performed at an amateur night contest at the Apollo Theater in 1934. She was just 17 years old and received first place. After overcoming a tumultuous childhood, Fitzgerald recorded her first major hit, ``A-Tisket A-Tasket,'' in 1938 just four short years after her appearance at the Apollo Theater.

In 1958, during the inaugural Grammy Awards, Fitzgerald won best jazz performance and best female vocal performance. Remembered for her humble demeanor, effortless stage presence, and inventive voice, Fitzgerald recorded more than 200 albums in her lifetime and sold over 40 million records. During her impressive and lengthy career, Fitzgerald worked with many other great jazz artists of the time including Duke Ellington, Nat King Cole, Frank Sinatra, and Dizzy Gillespie.

Ella Fitzgerald won 13 Grammy's during her lifetime, and was awarded the National Medal of Arts by President Ronald Reagan in 1987 and the Presidential Medal of Freedom by President George H.W. Bush in 1992.

Mr. Speaker, although Ella Fitzgerald is no longer here with us, her music is still celebrated throughout the world, especially in her

birthplace of Newport News, Virginia, and I hope that it continues to inspire well beyond her 100th Birthday.

Mr. Speaker, I rise with great pride to call attention to a group of young students who have distinguished themselves, their school, their community, and the city of Portsmouth, Virginia. The I.C. Norcom Greyhounds boys' basketball team had a remarkable season and I believe the Greyhounds deserve formal recognition for their accomplishments.

On March 10, 2017, the I.C. Norcom Greyhounds beat the Northside Vikings of Roanoke, Virginia, to win the Group 3A boys' state basketball championship, becoming the first basketball team, boys or girls, to win four consecutive state championships. The Greyhounds completed their 2017 season with an impressive 22-8 record.

I.C. Norcom won the championship in dramatic fashion, with a steal in the last six seconds of the game leading to a two point victory of 67 to Northside's 65. I.C. Norcom's boys' basketball team has had a consistent run of excellence in recent years, and has become a dominant force in Virginia high school sports.

I.C. Norcom was founded in 1913 as the High Street School, the first public high school for black students in Portsmouth. It was later renamed in honor of its first supervising principal, Israel Charles Norcom, a businessman, fraternalist, and leader in the Portsmouth community. Now, more than 100 years after its founding and three locations later, I.C. Norcom High School is still striving to ensure academic excellence for its students.

In addition to excelling on the basketball court, the Greyhounds are also doing great things in the classroom. I.C. Norcom has been nominated for Steve Harvey's Neighborhood Award and has partnered with community businesses to help tutor students.

I.C. Norcom students have been participating in the First College program--attending Tidewater Community College this semester and taking up to 14 college credits before they graduate. I.C. Norcom is doing a great job cultivating excellence both on and off the athletic field.

I would like to extend my enthusiastic congratulations to the I.C. Norcom players, their families, Principal Dr. Laguna Foster, Coach Leon Goolsby and the rest of his coaching staff on this most recent State Championship and on the team's continued excellence. On behalf of the citizens of the Third Congressional District of Virginia, I commend the team for this historic win, this historic run of championships, and wish the program years of continued success.

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

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 1304, the Self-Insurance Protection Act, purports to protect stop-loss insurers from being regulated at the Federal level. It appears that we are considering a bill that is a solution in search of a problem.

I am not opposed to stop-loss insurance or the purpose of stop-loss insurance. It can be helpful in shielding employers from unforeseen risks in many instances when they choose to self-insure and want to protect themselves from unexpected and unusually high expenses.

Now, while many self-funded plans, in conjunction with the purchased stop-loss, look like a traditional fully insured plan, stop-loss coverage itself is not regulated at the Federal level. There is no indication or suggestion that the administration would seek to regulate stop-loss insurance, so the bill prohibits Federal regulation of stop- loss insurance.

The Federal Government does not regulate stop-loss insurance today, and doesn't look like it is going to seek to regulate self-insurance in the foreseeable future, so it is difficult to ascertain exactly what the purpose of the bill is.

But employers, particularly small ones, do face risks when self- insuring. I think it is important that we ensure that employers are aware of the risks and protect them and their employees when appropriate. They can incur tremendous losses if the employee incurs a serious injury or illness.

Employees are also at risk of receiving fewer benefits because many consumer protections do not apply to self-funded plans.

Employers are legally prohibited from discriminating on the basis of health status, but stop-loss insurers are not. Many policies have provisions that will trigger immediate, even retroactive, increased premiums when the stop-loss insurer receives greater-than-expected claims.

To date, many States have taken action to regulate stop-loss insurance in order to protect both businesses and workers. Some have required a minimum, what is called attachment point. That is when the stop-loss insurance kicks in. Others have restricted the selling of stop-loss insurance with certain small group markets.

New York prohibits the sale of stop-loss insurance to small employers, and prohibits employers from serving as their own third- party administrators. North Carolina has chosen to regulate stop-loss insurance as if it were normal health insurance, holding stop-loss insurance to the same standards of others in the market.

Now, if States want to ban stop-loss insurance altogether, that should be a State prerogative. States have taken these steps because, frankly, self-insuring and stop-loss insurance come with greater risks to both employers and employees. Stop-loss plans place annual limits on services. Some place annual limits on services or exclude coverage for certain benefits, such as prescription drugs.

Furthermore, the renewal of stop-loss insurance is not guaranteed, so if an employer suddenly has high medical costs, the stop-loss insurer can refuse to renew or charge so much that it is no longer affordable.

In the committee markup, the gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Bonamici) offered a clarifying amendment to ensure that this legislation would not be construed to restrict the ability of States to regulate stop- loss insurance.

Chairwoman Foxx agreed to include such clarifying language in the committee report, agreeing with the intent of that amendment. Based on that understanding, that amendment was withdrawn.

The clarifying language is in the report, and that clarification is vital to ensure that there is nothing in the bill that incorrectly can be interpreted as to preempt or restrict a State's ability to regulate stop-loss insurance as they see fit, or otherwise restrict effective oversight and regulation of these policies at the State level. I appreciate the majority's willingness to work with us on the inclusion of that clarifying language.

Mr. Speaker, while I don't intend to oppose the legislation, I would note that it seems to be a distraction from the Republicans' recent failed attempt to repeal the Affordable Care Act. After 7 years of complaints, the Republicans offered an alternative which was demonstrably worse than the Affordable Care Act on every measure; more people uninsured, higher prices, and the policy you end up getting is worse.

Democrats will continue to resist any attempts to move this country backwards by making health insurance less accessible and less affordable to American families.

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, we are continuing to hear complaints about the Affordable Care Act. Whatever someone thinks about the Affordable Care Act, I think it is important to look at the replacement that was offered just over a week ago which actually would have made

things worse. It would have increased the number of uninsured, it would have increased the price, it would have reduced the quality of the product, and it would have made it less likely that insurance companies would come in and offer anything at all.

If we are going to amend the Affordable Care Act, we ought to improve it. We ought to make things better. We should first do no harm with the Affordable Care Act, and we should not allow this administration to sabotage the Affordable Care Act. When they said it might implode, we have to be careful that they are not doing the implosion. There are things that this administration can do to undermine the Affordable Care Act and sabotage it, and we would hope that we would join in a bipartisan effort to make sure that that does not happen.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, this bill prohibits Federal regulation of stop-loss insurance. The Federal Government does not regulate stop-loss insurance. It does not affect the States' ability to regulate the insurance, and that is where it should be done. So the bill does no harm. I would hope that, after this bill, we will refocus our efforts into addressing some of the challenges with the Affordable Care Act by first doing no harm, not going backwards like the bill did several days ago where the costs went up, the number of insurers went down, and the quality of the insurance was worse. We can improve healthcare coverage in this country, but we can't do it if the first step is a backward step.

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

I thank the gentleman for his good work on the budget.

Mr. Speaker, the budget is about choices, and those choices involve arithmetic. Apparently, the Republican strategy on the budget does not recognize arithmetic. When you start with a deficit, their strategy to deal with the deficit is to increase defense spending and to pass massive tax cuts. That will not end up helping the deficit.

As we have seen with the choice in health care, they made bad choices. Whatever you think about the Affordable Care Act, their plan was demonstrably worse. Their plan would increase the number of people uninsured by 24 million, bring higher prices and worse policies, but tax cuts for millionaires.

What I couldn't understand was not what were the ups and downs for politics, but who was for that--24 million more uninsured, higher prices, and worse policies?

Democrats will work with Republicans to improve the Affordable Care Act, but we are not going halfway and saying only 12 million uninsured and slightly higher prices and slightly worse policies. If we are going to have a policy to increase the number of insured, lower prices, and provide better policies, we will work.

We can also produce a better budget. For almost an hour, we have heard the problems with the budget introduced by the President of the United States. The Congressional Black Caucus is not just about complaints. We have a budget, and it is a responsible budget.

We make choices. The choices avoid those devastating cuts that we have heard about. The Congressional Black Caucus budget is realistic. It requires $3.9 trillion in additional revenues, but it outlines over $10 trillion in choices that could be made to come up with

that money, possibilities like canceling the Bush tax cuts. That is $3.9 trillion right off the bat. Over $10 trillion in total choices.

First, with that revenue, we cancel the sequester both for nondefense and for defense. Then we make investments in the future of American families with investments in education, job-creating infrastructure, the environment, scientific research, and maintain a strong social safety net. In the end, we reduce the deficit by a cumulative amount of an over $2 trillion reduction in the deficit.

So let's be clear. we are going to make choices with the budget, choices like we made a few years ago. People say a lot about the proposal by Senator Bernie Sanders and $900 billion for free college. Could we afford that? Just think, a couple of years ago, we passed, with one vote, an extension in tax cuts of $3.9 trillion. We could have, with the same amount of money, extended $3 trillion in tax cuts, and with the money left over, free college, but we didn't make that choice. All $3.9 trillion went to tax cuts. The $900 billion could have gone to free college.

Make no mistake about it, we are making choices. This year, again, we will make choices with our budget: massive tax cuts, or we can focus on a better feature and produce a more humane and responsible budget. I would hope that this year we make the right choice.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to manage the balance of the time remaining.

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

Mr. Speaker, as we talk about the Affordable Care Act, I think it is important to remind ourselves of the situation before it passed: costs were going through the roof, those with preexisting conditions could not get insurance, women were paying more than men, and every year millions of people were losing their insurance.

We passed the Affordable Care Act. Since then, the costs have continued to go up, but at the lowest rate in 50 years. Those with preexisting conditions can get insurance at the standard rate. Women are no longer paying more than men. Instead of millions of people losing their insurance every year, more than 20 million more people now have insurance.

The full name of the Affordable Care Act is the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.

Now your coverage can't be canceled if your insurance company decides that it has paid too much. Preventive services, such as cancer screenings, are free with no copays and deductibles. We are closing the doughnut hole. Those under 26 can stay on their parents' policies.

We also funded community health centers, made investments in education to produce more doctors, nurses, and other professionals. Through all of that, the Medicare trust fund is more solvent than it was before.

Still, the law is not perfect. But if we are going to make any changes, we ought to improve the law, not make it worse.

Incredibly this bill makes it worse. Now, the CBO has separated promises and press releases from reality. Twenty-four million fewer people will have insurance, and the Republicans call this choice in freedom to be uninsured. Most everybody else will pay more and get fewer benefits. All of those consequences will occur if the proposal actually works.

A number of States have done what this bill tries to do, and that is cover people with preexisting conditions without universal coverage. All of those attempts failed.

So the question we must ask is: Who will be better off if this bill passes? Certainly not older people who will face the bill's age tax. Certainly not veterans who will lose benefits. Certainly not senior citizens in nursing homes and people with disabilities because Medicaid is cut. Even the solvency of the Medicare trust fund will be worse.

But millionaires will get tax cuts.

Mr. Speaker, we have been hearing a lot of complaints and shortcomings about the Affordable Care Act, but if we are going to make any changes, we should improve it. Unfortunately, this bill makes things worse: 24 million will lose their insurance, most everybody else will pay more and get less. This bill should be defeated.

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

Mr. Speaker, I remind my distinguished colleague from Virginia that his vote for this bill will result in 56,100 more people from his congressional district in Virginia losing health care.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from the Mariana Islands (Mr. Sablan).

Mr. Speaker, I remind my colleague that his vote for this bill will result in 63,900 people from his congressional district in Florida losing healthcare coverage and care.

I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Courtney).

Mr. Speaker, I remind my colleague that his vote for this bill will result in 51,700 people in his district losing their coverage and care.

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a letter from the American Academy of Family Physicians, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American College of Physicians, the American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, and the American Osteopathic Association in opposition to the legislation.

[From the American Academy of Family Physicians, American Academy of Pediatrics, American College of Physicians, The American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, American Osteopathic Association, Mar.

7, 2017]

America's Front Line Physicians Express Serious Concerns With the

American Health Care Act

Washington, DC--After the release of the two budget

reconciliation bills today, the physician leaders of our

organizations, representing over 500,000 physicians and

medical students, visited with members of the House of

Representatives to urge that they ``First, do no harm'' to

our patients by rolling back key coverage, benefits and

consumer protections as required under current law, including

the Affordable Care Act. We are concerned that by rushing to

a mark-up tomorrow in the Energy and Commerce and Ways and

Means Committees, there will be insufficient time to obtain

non-partisan estimates of this legislation's impact by the

Congressional Budget Office, or for medical organizations

like ours and other key stakeholders in the health care

community to offer substantive input on the bill.

During our meetings with members of the House of

Representatives today, we shared our joint principles for

health care reform. They reflect our collective expertise,

and represent the health care needs patients present to our

members every day. We urge Representatives to utilize these

principles to evaluate any legislation to modify current law,

and ensure that patients and providers are not adversely

affected. While each of our organizations individually are

still reviewing the changes proposed by the American Health

Care Act, released just hours ago, we share a concern that it

will not meet our principles because it will likely result in

less access to coverage and higher costs for millions of

patients.

We urge House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-WI) and the chairs of

these two committees to reconsider the decision to move

forward with mark-up, and instead allow the time needed for a

thorough review of the bill to ensure that it meets our

overarching principle, ``First, do no harm'' to patients.

About the American Academy of Family Physicians

Founded in 1947, the AAFP represents 124,900 physicians and

medical students nationwide. It is the only medical society

devoted solely to primary care. Family physicians conduct

approximately one in five office visits--that's 192 million

visits annually or 48 percent more than the next most visited

medical specialty. Today, family physicians provide more care

for America's underserved and rural populations than any

other medical specialty. Family medicine's cornerstone is an

ongoing, personal patient-physician relationship focused on

integrated care. To learn more about the specialty of family

medicine, the AAFP's positions (5 page PDF) on issues and

clinical care, and for downloadable multi-media highlighting

family medicine, visit www.aafp.org/media. For information

about health care, health conditions and wellness, please

visit the AAFP's award-winning consumer website,

www.FamilyDoctor.org (www.family

doctor.org).

About the American Academy of Pediatrics

The American Academy of Pediatrics is an organization of

66,000 primary care pediatricians, pediatric medical

subspecialists and pediatric surgical specialists dedicated

to the health, safety and well-being of infants, children,

adolescents and young adults. For more information, visit

www.aap.org and follow us on Twitter @AmerAcadPeds.

About the American College of Physicians

The American College of Physicians is the largest medical

specialty organization in the United States. ACP members

include 148,000 internal medicine physicians (internists),

related subspecialists, and medical students. Internal

medicine physicians are specialists who apply scientific

knowledge and clinical expertise to the diagnosis, treatment,

and compassionate care of adults across the spectrum from

health to complex illness. Follow ACP on Twitter and

Facebook.

About the American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists

The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists

(The College), a 501(c)(3) organization, is the nation's

leading group of physicians providing health care for women.

As a private, voluntary, nonprofit membership organization of

more than 57,000 members. The College strongly advocates for

quality health care for women, maintains the highest

standards of clinical practice and continuing education of

its members, promotes patient education, and increases

awareness among its members and the public of the changing

issues facing women's health care. The American Congress of

Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG), a 501(c)(6)

organization, is its companion.

About the American Osteopathic Association

The American Osteopathic Association (AOA) represents more

than 129,000 osteopathic physicians (DOs) and osteopathic

medical students; promotes public health; encourages

scientific research; serves as the primary certifying body

for DOs; and is the accrediting agency for osteopathic

medical schools. Visit DoctorsThatDo.org to learn more about

osteopathic medicine.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Fudge).

Mr. Speaker, I remind my colleague that his vote for this bill will result in making things worse by 58,600 people in his district losing their healthcare coverage and care.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, today we are considering a bill that purports to make it easier for small businesses to obtain coverage, and tomorrow we will vote on a bill that will take away health insurance coverage for 24 million Americans and force everyone else to pay more for less. So not only are we considering a bill today that will make things worse, we are considering it a day before we vote on ruining health security for working families in order to provide tax cuts for the wealthy.

As we debate the possible replacement of the Affordable Care Act, I think it is instructive that we look back at what the situation was before the ACA passed.

Listening to some, you would think that the costs weren't going up at all. In fact, costs were going through the roof before the ACA, and small businesses, particularly, were having spectacular cost increases--and that is until somebody got sick. At that point, you were unlikely to be able to afford any insurance at all.

Every year before the ACA, small businesses were dropping insurance right and left, particularly after somebody got sick. Also, before the Affordable Care Act, people with preexisting conditions couldn't get insurance. Women were paying more than men. Millions of people were losing their insurance every year.

Since then, the costs have continued to go up, but at the lowest rate in the last 50 years. People with preexisting conditions can get insurance at the standard rate. Small businesses can cover their employees through the Affordable Care Act at the average cost, whether or not anybody in their small business has cancer or diabetes. Women are not paying more than men. Instead of millions of people losing their insurance every year, 20 million more people have insurance.

In addition to that, families now enjoy strong consumer protections. The full name of the Affordable Care Act is the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. Now there are no caps on what an insurance company pays, and they can't cancel your policy for anything other than nonpayment. Preventive services such as cancer screenings are available with no copay or deductible. Those up to 26 can stay on their parents' policy, and the doughnut hole is being closed.

The ACA did not cure every problem, but it went a long way to making Americans healthier and giving them some economic security. It could have gone further if, in the past 7 years, Republicans would have been willing to work with Democrats to build on the progress instead of forcing over 60 votes to repeal all parts of the Affordable Care Act.

If we do anything now, we ought to improve the situation, not make it worse. The Republican plan makes things worse. The CBO analysis concluded that 24 million fewer people will have insurance, and most of those that get insurance in the future will be paying more for policies that don't deliver as much.

For seniors, particularly, the costs will skyrocket. And, in fact, the prediction that the rates will go down in

the future are a result of the conclusion that so few seniors will be able to buy insurance that they will no longer be in the insurance pool.

The insurance pool would be younger, and, therefore, the costs would go down. But that is only because seniors won't be able to afford the insurance. Therefore, the insurance pool will be younger and cheaper for those who can actually afford it, but that is not a good thing for seniors who need the insurance and can't afford it.

So today we are considering another failed policy. The association plan ideas have been studied for years, and it has been concluded that it is a bad idea. Under the Affordable Care Act, essentially everybody pays average. If you change that arithmetic so some can pay a little less, then arithmetic matters. Everybody else is going to pay a little more.

In the association plans, quite frankly, I will admit, they will always work for the few that can get into them. That is because, if you can draw out your own group, if they are healthier than average and can pay less, they will pay less and the association will work. But if you pull out a group and it turns out they are a little sicker than average and the bids come in above average, then the association will dissolve and everybody will go back into the insurance pool.

So if you can pull out a group, they will always pay less until somebody gets sick, and then everybody jumps back into the insurance pool. The higher cost groups will be left behind. The lower cost groups will segment out, and then the rates will go down for a few and up for everybody else.

This is exactly why the American Academy of Actuaries has said that expanding association plans ``could result in unintended consequences such as market segmentation that could threaten . . . viability and make it more difficult for high-cost individuals and groups to obtain coverage.''

One of the other problems is a lack of regulation. If a group is allowed to circumvent State regulations, that policy may be cheaper because the policy is not as good.

There are a lot of ways that you can save money. You can pull out a group of just young men and save on maternity benefits. That would be cheaper for them but more expensive for everybody else.

And what happens when a new spouse needs coverage and tries to get it as an optional benefit? They won't be able to afford it.

Workers and businessowners are likely to get fewer benefits under the association approach and will be disadvantaged compared to those in the regular pool getting comprehensive benefits.

This is exactly why Consumers Union has stated that the legislation is ``likely . . . to provide minimal and nonuniform benefits.''

Mr. Speaker, this bill will make it easier to set up these kinds of associations and let them avoid State regulations, which could require solvency, nice solvency requirements, and consumer protections. The protections in this bill are not sufficient to protect consumers, and most States would require stronger capital requirements than the bill requires.

Much like the Republican replacement bill, this bill goes in the wrong direction, so I urge my colleagues to vote ``no.''

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Espaillat).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Courtney).

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

Mr. Speaker, would the Chair advise us how much time is available on both sides?

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

Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to point out a few letters that we have received, one from the Diabetes Association, which includes, in part: ``The Association has serious concerns that AHPs would lead to a two- tiered market, in which AHPs offer inadequate coverage to healthy groups only, while State-regulated plans provide adequate coverage with consumer protections but at an increasingly higher premiums. For these reasons, we urge you to oppose the Small Business Health Fairness Act of 2017, H.R. 1101.''

We have also received a letter, Mr. Speaker, from the National Association of Insurance Commissioners. They said in their letter: ``The legislation as written would eliminate all State consumer protections and solvency standards that ensure consumers receive the coverage for which they pay their monthly premium. These protections are the very core of a State regulatory system that has protected consumers for nearly 150 years . . . history has demonstrated that AHP- type entities have done more harm than good to small businesses.''

Mr. Speaker, we also received a letter from The Main Street Alliance, which said: ``In short, H.R. 1101 would result in higher premiums and poorer coverage for the most vulnerable small-business owners, would destabilize the small group market, and would lead small-business owners and employees to assume unnecessary financial risks.''

We also heard from the Consumers Union: ``Consumer's Union has long raised the inadequacies of AHPs . . . and urges Congress to reject them as likely to fragment the insurance risk pool and provide minimal and nonuniform benefits exempt from State benefit mandates.''

We also heard from a long coalition of consumer groups, providers, and labor unions which said that this bill would just move backward to a two-tiered system that makes it harder to purchase comprehensible, affordable coverage for all but a minority of small businesses.

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

American Diabetes Association,

March 21, 2017.

Hon. Paul Ryan,

Speaker, House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Hon. Nancy Pelosi,

Democratic Leader, House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Dear Speaker Ryan and Leader Pelosi: On behalf of the

nearly 30 million Americans living with diabetes and the 86

million more with prediabetes, the American Diabetes

Association (Association) is writing to express our strong

opposition to the Small Business Health Fairness Act (H.R.

1101). This legislation is nearly identical to legislation

considered by previous Congresses and that last passed the

House of Representatives in 2003. The Association opposed

that legislation and writes now to express our strong

concerns with this bill and the impact it will have for

people with, and at risk for, diabetes.

The legislation would create federally certified

association health plans (AHPs) with the goal of making

coverage more affordable for small businesses by allowing

them to band together to purchase coverage on behalf of a

larger insurance pool. We share the goal of making coverage

more affordable, but not at the expense of required consumer

protections, signed into law in 47 states, which ensure

people with diabetes have access to the services and

financial protection they need.

H.R. 1101 would broadly exempt AHPs from critical state

benefit standards, solvency rules, and consumer protections,

including requirements to cover health services essential to

those with diabetes. Specifically, H.R. 1101 would confer on

AHPs wide authority to:

Determine benefits to be covered: Other than requiring AHPs

to meet limited federal requirements for ERISA-governed

plans, H.R. 1101 would give AHPs broad discretion to omit

important health benefits.

Determine eligibility for coverage: While H.R. 1101 would

require AHPs to comply with ERISA non-discrimination

provisions, the AHP board would retain sole discretion to

approve applications for participation in the plan and to set

premiums based on an employer's health care claims

experience.

Maintain inadequate reserves: H.R. 1101 applies federally

determined solvency standards that are weaker than state

standards, exposing plan members to the risk of insolvency

and unpaid medical bills.

Because AHPs would compete with state-regulated plans on an

uneven playing field, they would likely cherry-pick healthy

small employer groups, making the risk pool in the state-

regulated market less healthy and more costly. In addition,

those who obtain coverage through an AHP would likely have

benefits that lack coverage for essential services and would

expose them to higher out-of-pocket costs and potential plan

insolvencies. In fact, numerous AHPs offered in the past have

gone insolvent and left consumers uninsured and with unpaid

medical bills.

The Association has serious concerns that AHPs would lead

to a two-tiered market, in which AHPs offer inadequate

coverage to healthy groups only, while state-regulated plans

provide adequate coverage with consumer protections but at

increasingly higher premiums. For these reasons, we urge you

to oppose the Small Business Health Fairness Act of 2017,

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

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, the bad idea in this plan has been exposed in one of the letters that I mentioned. I said there are a lot of consumer groups, and I just want to name the groups that signed the letter. The American Nurses Association; the Alliance for Retired Americans; the American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network; the American Diabetes Association; the American Federation

of State, County and Municipal Employees; the Association of Reproductive Health Professionals; Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law; Community Catalyst; Consumers Union; Families USA; International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America--the UAW; NARAL Pro-Choice America; the National Council of La Raza; the National Education Association; the National Institute for Reproductive Health; National Partnership for Women and Families; National Women's Health Network; Raising Women's Voices for the Health Care We Need; and the Service Employees International Union all oppose this legislation.

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

Mr. Speaker, I just want to quote from another letter that we received from Blue Cross Blue Shield Association. They say: ``We have very serious concerns that H.R. 1101 would create preferential rules that would allow an AHP to be entirely exempt from State regulation by being self-insured or follow the rules of a single State nationwide. Research clearly shows that creating special rules for AHPs and exempting them from State regulation would lead to major problems, including . . . increased insolvency risk . . . increased costs for older, sicker workers.'' Therefore, they are also in opposition to this legislation.

I include in the Record the entire letter.

BlueCross BlueShield Association,

Washington, DC, March 7, 2017.

Hon. Virginia Foxx,

Chair, Committee on Education and the Workforce, House of

Representatives, Washington, DC.

Hon. Robert C. Scott,

Ranking Member, Committee on Education and the Workforce,

House of Representatives, Washington, DC.

Dear Madam Chairwoman and Mr. Ranking Member: The Blue

Cross and Blue Shield Association shares your commitment to

ensuring small employers are able to provide their employees

with high quality, affordable health coverage. However, we

are concerned that H.R. 1101, the ``Small Business Health

Fairness Act'' would not accomplish this critical goal, as it

does not reflect key principles that are essential to

ensuring a viable private health insurance market: (1) all

competitors should abide by the same set of rules; and (2)

states should have clear authority to regulate.

Today, small businesses are able to join together to

purchase coverage through association health plans (AHPs).

AHPs are currently regulated by the states, just like other

insurance in the small group market, and can be a good option

for small employers who want to provide their employees with

affordable coverage.

We have very serious concerns that H.R. 1101 would create

preferential rules that would allow an AHP to be entirely

exempt from state regulation by being self-insured or follow

the rules of a single state nationwide. Research clearly

shows that creating special rules for AHPs and exempting them

from state regulation would lead to major problems,

including:

Increased insolvency risk: The legislation as drafted would

allow for some AHPs to be entirely exempt from state

regulation, and instead operate under very limited federal

rules and oversight. Past experiences with these kinds of

arrangements left millions without health coverage and unpaid

claims due to insolvencies.

Increased costs for older, sicker workers: Ultimately, H.R.

1101 would make it much harder for small employers with

older, sicker workers to obtain coverage. This is because

lower-cost groups would move to a more loosely regulated AHP

with fewer benefit and rating rules, while older and/or high-

cost groups would remain in traditional insurance plans.

Attached is a compendium of research findings, which

provides overwhelming evidence that AHP legislation would

make health insurance less accessible, less affordable and

less secure for small employers and individual consumers.

We look forward to working with you on solutions that can

be taken to improve access and affordability for small

employers.

Sincerely,

Alissa Fox,

Senior Vice President.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, association plans will help the fortunate few who can get in so long as the members of that association remain healthier than average. But everybody else will pay more. Furthermore, these plans, when they are formed under the bill, will evade important State regulations that could improve solvency and provide important consumer protections.

This is not unlike the philosophy, I guess, on the other replace bill where 24 million fewer people will have insurance; the rest will pay more and get less; while millionaires benefit with huge tax cuts. In this, the fortunate few benefit to the expense of everybody else.

I would hope we would defeat the legislation.

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

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to claim the time in opposition, although I am not opposed to the amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the intent of the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Washington, which seems to allow health association plans that are currently in existence to continue to operate under existing State and Federal law. In fact, giving States the ability to regulate association plans is very important. That is why I oppose the underlying bill.

The amendment also points out another interesting fact, and that is associations currently exist under current law, and the underlying bill simply unravels most of the regulations that apply to them, and this amendment would at least maintain State regulations.

We know that this bill creates winners and losers. The winners are those who are young and healthy enough to be invited into an association. The losers are small businesses and employers who are older, sicker, or just have more costly health bills. There is no guarantee that plans under this legislation will have the standard level of benefits or consumer protections, and that is why I am disappointed that the majority failed to rule any Democratic amendments submitted to the Rules Committee in order, although each and every one was germane.

The gentleman from New York (Mr. Espaillat), who is a member of the committee, offered an amendment that

would have protected the ability of the States to regulate any association health plan, including regulation related to benefits, consumer protections, and rating restrictions. Representative Torres from California offered an amendment to ensure that association plans cover 10 essential health benefits under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.

One amendment was offered by Representatives Susan Davis of California and Suzanne Bonamici from Oregon--both committee members-- would have required association plans to provide for women's health benefits, including maternity care.

Representatives Bonamici, Davis, and Wilson also offered an amendment to prevent this legislation from taking effect if it would lead to increased premiums for older workers. These older workers will not be able to get into the associations because they would increase average costs of the association, and the point of the association is to get away from high-cost enrollees like older Americans. So these older people will be left out of the pool with other older and sicker workers where they will necessarily be paying more.

It is simple arithmetic. Their amendment would have been particularly important because we know that the Republican replacement plan contains an age tax that will severely disadvantage older populations.

None of the Democratic amendments, although germane, were allowed under the rule, and there does not seem to be any earnest attempt to look to try to correct the shortcomings of the bill. So while I do not intend to oppose this amendment, I do not think the amendment is enough of an improvement of the bill, nor does it change the underlying fact that the legislation does not adequately protect small businesses, workers, and their families, nor does it help those left behind who are not invited into the association who will necessarily be paying more.

Mr. Speaker, if those on the other side of the aisle want to go on a rescue mission, they ought to improve things, not make things worse. For most Americans, this bill will make things worse, and, tomorrow, 24 million Americans will be left out while many others will be paying more for less while millionaires get huge tax cuts. That is not an improvement.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would point out that when one size fits all, everybody can benefit; but when you start picking and choosing winners and losers, some will benefit and many others will lose. Under this bill, a fortunate few who get into association plans will benefit; everybody else loses.

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

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chair, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I rise in opposition to H.R. 985. In addition to the legislation's many problems that have already been mentioned by my colleagues, I am particularly concerned about what the bill does in the so-called FACT Act, which will have a devastating impact on workers exposed to asbestos.

I am acutely aware of the devastating impact that asbestos exposure has on working men and women in this country because I represent an area with several shipyards. In the last few decades, in my district alone, several thousand local shipyard workers have developed asbestosis, lung cancer, and mesothelioma from asbestos exposure that occurred between the 1940s and 1970s. Hundreds of these workers have already died, and asbestos deaths and disabilities are continuing due to the long latency period associated with this illness.

I believe that we cannot consider the legislation affecting the victims of asbestos exposure without remembering exactly who caused the problem. Court findings show that the companies made willful and malicious decisions to expose their employees to asbestos. Here are a couple of examples.

One case, in 1986, after hearing both sides, the New Jersey Supreme Court declared:

It is indeed appalling to us that the company had so much

information of the hazards of asbestos workers as early as

the mid-1930s and that it not only failed to use that

information to protect the workers, but, more egregiously, it

also attempted to withhold this information from the public.

A few years earlier, the Superior Court, Appellate Division, in New Jersey said that: ``The jury here was justified in concluding that both defendants, fully appreciating the nature, extent, and gravity of the risk, nevertheless made a conscious and coldblooded business decision, in utter and flagrant disregard of the rights of others, to take no protective or remedial action.''

In a separate case in Florida, after hearing both sides, the court declared that:

The clear and convincing evidence in this case revealed

that, for more than 30 years, the company concealed what it

knew about the dangers of asbestos. In fact, the company's

conduct was even worse than concealment. It also included

intentional and knowing misrepresentations concerning the

danger of its asbestos-containing product.

That is who we are talking about. These are the types of companies who will benefit from this legislation. Any suggestion that people are getting paid more than once is absurd. The fact of the matter is, because of bankruptcies, most of them aren't getting anywhere close to what they actually should be receiving, but the bill before us does not help those victims. It actually hurts them.

The bill is nothing more than a scheme to delay the proceedings and allow the victims to get even less than they are getting now. Because of the delay, many of the victims will die before they get to court. This helps the guilty corporations that have inflicted this harm on innocent victims because, if the plaintiffs die before they get to court, their pain and suffering damages are extinguished. If they can delay the cases enough so that the plaintiffs die before they get to trial, the corporations will not only get to delay their payments, but when they finally pay, they will pay much less.

These are the people who made those conscious and coldblooded business decisions. Those are the ones who will actually benefit from this legislation at the expense of hardworking, innocent victims. The victims of this corporate wrongdoing oppose this bill.

Regrettably, many of those victims are our veterans because they were working aboard Navy ships.

Mr. Chair, we should reject this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I don't blame the gentleman. I appreciate the opportunity to discuss the Affordable Care Act. As we discuss this, as he has indicated, it helps a little bit to talk about what the situation was before the Affordable Care Act passed.

We knew that costs were going through the roof. We knew that those with preexisting conditions, if they could get insurance, would have to pay a lot more for that insurance. We knew that women were paying more for insurance than men. We knew that millions of people every year were losing insurance. That is what was going on before.

People talk about small businesses. Well, small businesses had trouble getting insurance because if they had a person with a chronic illness, it would be unlikely that they could afford small-business insurance. But now, the costs have continued to go up, but they have gone up at half the rate they were going up before.

Those with preexisting conditions can now get insurance at the average rate. Women are no longer paying more than men. And 20 million more people have insurance, not millions of people losing insurance every year, 20 million more people have insurance.

Now, the full name of the Affordable Care Act is the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. There are certain protections, like insurance companies can't cut you off after they have paid a certain amount. There are no more caps. They can't rescind your policy. After you get sick, they can't just decide not to renew your policy. There is no copay or deductible for prevention and cancer screening. We are closing the doughnut hole. The average senior has saved already about $1,000 because of the Affordable Care Act support for closing the doughnut hole. Those under age 26 can stay on their parents' policies. Those are some of the benefits of the Affordable Care Act.

Now, we didn't solve all of the problems. There are still problems. But if we are going to change the Affordable Care Act, we ought to improve the Affordable Care Act. Unfortunately, the bill that was introduced in the middle of the night fails on a number of areas.

Now, we would know precisely how bad a bill it is if they would wait a couple of days for the CBO to score the bill. It would point out all of the flaws. But there are just a couple.

One is just a fundamental principle that it purports to cover preexisting conditions without a mandate for coverage. We know that if you allow people to wait until they get sick before they buy insurance, people will wait until they get sick before they buy insurance. The average insurance pool is sicker, more expensive. Healthy people drop out, and the thing spirals out of control. We don't have to speculate how this works because we know.

New York State tried it, and the cost went up so much that when the Affordable Care Act came in with a mandate, the cost for individual insurance dropped more than 50 percent. Washington State tried it. It got so bad that by the time it got going a couple of years, nobody could buy insurance. Nobody could buy insurance in the individual market. So we know what happens when you try to cover people with preexisting conditions without a mandate.

So this plan, when it starts off with that policy, we know it is bound to fail.

We also noticed another flaw: that it saves money by allowing people to purchase insurance that doesn't cover everything. We have people buying insurance now that have to buy the basic essential benefits package. When you can start picking and choosing, you might save a little money, but things like maternity care, if that becomes an optional coverage, then anybody that wants that will not be able to afford it.

It will cost whatever it costs to have a baby. They just have to pay the bill. They might as well not have insurance. So that is because, if anybody purchases maternity insurance, it is because they expect to have a baby in the coming year, and it becomes unaffordable. If everybody pays the average, everybody pays everything, then everybody can afford the maternity coverage.

So allowing people to pick and choose what they want, that might help a few, but those that need that coverage won't be able to afford it.

A final flaw, as the gentleman pointed out, is massive tax cuts. Well, when you reduce the revenue available, two things happen: there is less support for Medicaid, and there is less support for people in paying their premiums. So in the fullness of time, fewer people will be insured; and so you have a plan with fewer people insured, watered-down benefits, and a plan that is ultimately going to fail.

That is not an improvement. If we are going to deal with the Affordable Care Act, we ought to have an improvement; and until we have an actual improvement, we ought to leave the Affordable Care Act alone.

I am delighted to be here discussing the Affordable Care Act with the gentleman, warning people that, if they go forward without a Congressional Budget Office evaluation so they know what is going on, we may have a plan that is a lot worse than even before the Affordable Care Act.

Shortly after the Affordable Care Act passed and went into effect, a young lady approached me in a store--she was a clerk in a store--and said: Bobby, don't let them repeal ObamaCare because my son is alive today because of ObamaCare.

I said: Well, what do you mean?

She said: Late last year, he was diagnosed with a fatal disease for which there is a cure, but we couldn't afford the cure. Thankfully, he lived to January 1, when ObamaCare kicked in, and we can afford the cure. My son is alive today because of the Affordable Care Act.

If it is repealed, what happens in that case? What happens in all of the other

cases when people don't have insurance? We have heard it represented that, well, anybody can get health care. All they have got to do is show up at the emergency room.

Well, yeah, that is fine. You can show up at the emergency room with a stroke, but you can't get blood pressure pills that could have avoided the stroke to begin with. They can stabilize you and send you home, but in terms of a cure or a surgery that may cure the problem, you don't get that. You just get stabilized in the emergency room, and that is not health care. We need people with insurance so they can obtain the preventive care and the corrective care that will get them off on the right track.

The gentleman talked about stripping coverage. When you take that kind of money out of the system, less support for Medicaid, fewer people getting Medicaid, less support for premium support so that people can actually afford it--if you look at the proposal, a lot of people can't use the tax cut because it is insufficient to pay the premium and they don't have the rest of the money.

So we need to make sure that CBO scores this. They will highlight all of these problems. They will show that many fewer people will be insured and that it is not an improvement. We shouldn't do anything unless we are actually improving the Affordable Care Act.

To add insult to injury, part of the scheme is to allow insurance companies to charge senior citizens even more. Right now they are limited to three times what they charge everybody else. Their bill allows up to five times. That is a two-thirds increase in the cost. So if the tax credit wasn't enough to begin with, it is going to get worse.

That is right.

When everybody pays an average, if you allow some people to pay more, some people are going to pay less, but it is a zero-sum game. Every time they show somebody can pay less, then know that somebody will pay more. They have a scheme, for example--they call it association plans-- where you get a group of healthy people, they come from out of the insurance pool and get a better rate because the insurance company will look at the association and say: Those are the young, healthy people, I can give them a better rate. They can save money.

What happens to everybody else? They have to pay more.

Last time they came up with this idea, the research showed that 80 percent of the people will pay higher premiums if you allowed people to withdraw from the pool, a healthy group. Now, actually, it will always work, because the group you pull out, if the bids come in higher than average, nobody is going to buy the insurance. They are going to go right back into the regular pool. So any time you have one of these things, it will only work if you are pulling out young, healthy people, and that leaves behind, for everybody else, higher rates.

In fact, when we passed the Affordable Care Act, the estimated cost on a family policy was about $1,000 a year on the family policy for uncompensated costs shifted on to the insured public. In fact, in Virginia, it is estimated that approximately $15 a month is paid on everybody with insurance, $15 a month to go to the 400,000 people that would have had insurance if we had expanded Medicaid.

So if you have 100 employees, you can just figure you are paying about $1,500 a month extra because we did not expand Medicaid. 400,000 people will go to the hospital, won't pay, and when people with insurance go, they just have to pay a little extra, about $15 a month per person in the Commonwealth of Virginia because of that.

Mr. Speaker, well, that part of the Affordable Care Act has actually improved the quality of service.

There are other things in the Affordable Care Act, such as funding for education of more providers, more doctors and nurses, and other providers because we have a lack of professionals. One area, for example, is psychiatry. If the Veterans Administration hired all the psychiatrists they need, there wouldn't be any for anybody else. We are so far behind. And the Affordable Care Act provides for that service.

As you pointed out, there is a difference between the ability to pay for the services and the services that are there. People frequently compare the single-payer plan in Canada, which in many areas is a rural area. So you don't have the critical mass of population to support a high-tech medical system. So if you are going to have a baby, it is probably going to be delivered by a family doctor, not an obstetrician. In some areas, you have to go 200 miles to find a neurosurgeon. That doesn't have anything to do with the fact that they can pay for the services. It is just that the services aren't there.

So when people talk about the health delivery system, as you pointed out, that is different. The fact that you can actually pay for services doesn't diminish the opportunity to have those services there; it actually increases the possibility that those services will be there.

Mr. Speaker, the gentleman indicated, in rural areas, one of the things that we have done is funded community health centers, which provides, where there are no professionals, a community health center where you can actually go to get comprehensive primary health care and then referred to a specialist somewhere if that is needed. That funding would be obviously in jeopardy.

As you pointed out, when you have tax cuts in terms of resources, that will translate into fewer people actually insured. They will have watered down benefits. And because there is no mandate to ensure that everybody is in the pool and they are trying to cover preexisting conditions, you have a prescription for disaster. That is not an improvement of the Affordable Care Act.

We need to insist that CBO score the legislation before we start taking votes so that people know exactly what they are getting into.

Mr. Speaker, the clinics will shut down. Insurance companies will stop writing insurance if people can wait until they get sick before they buy insurance. The insurance companies reacted to that system in Washington State by selling nobody any insurance. So we know what is going to happen.

The CBO, when they score this, will point that out, and we will know exactly what the problems are.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California for organizing the Special Order so that we could actually discuss some of the problems with going forward without a CBO score, without knowing what we are doing. Certainly, it is not an improvement in the Affordable Care Act.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.J. Res. 83, the Congressional Review Act resolution of disapproval that will undermine workplace safety and health. It does so by overturning a clarifying rule issued by OSHA on December 9, 2016, to ensure accurate occupational injury and illness reporting.

Now, first of all, it is strange that we are reversing a rule through the Congressional Review Act that creates no new compliance or reporting obligation, imposes no new costs. It simply gives OSHA the tools to enforce an employer's continuing obligation to record injuries and illnesses.

Spurred by the court of appeals decision, which blocked OSHA from citing continuing violations outside the 6-month statute of limitations, OSHA updated its recordkeeping rule. This new rule makes it clear that employers have a continuing obligation to record serious injuries and illnesses on an OSHA Log if they failed to comply with the requirement to record the injury at the time the injury or illness occurred.

Since the enactment of OSHA in 1970, accurate data on workplace injuries and illnesses has been recognized as an

important tool for protecting worker safety and health.

Since 1972, employers in higher hazard industries have been required to record the occurrence of each serious occupational injury or illness within 7 days on a ``Log of Work-Related Injuries and Illnesses.''

An annual summary of this law must be posted for 3 months starting in February of each year in a conspicuous place where employees' frequent records must be kept for 5 years.

While most employers faithfully comply with OSHA's rules, there are a number of well-documented incentives for employers to underreport workplace injuries. These incentives include lower workers' compensation rates, more favorable treatment in public contracting, and a lower chance of having a future OSHA inspection.

Underreporting means that workplace hazards are masked, making it less likely that employers or employees become aware of patterns that would indicate the need to take corrective actions to prevent future injuries. If injuries and illnesses are not on the log, OSHA may overlook hazards at a worksite during an inspection and consequently leaving workers exposed to correctable dangers.

Mr. Speaker, because of underfunding, OSHA only has sufficient resources to inspect a workplace once every 140 years on average. So the likelihood that they might show up in the next 6 months is obviously remote. To be effective, OSHA must have reliable injury and illness data to target its scarce resources towards work sites where employees are facing the greatest dangers. Understated injury rates may mean that OSHA will bypass work sites that need to be inspected.

Without reliable recordable injury rates, private contractors and public sector officials will not be able to make sufficiently informed decisions when assessing the safety records of prospective contractors and subcontractors.

Mr. Speaker, OSHA's practice for the last 40 years and the decisions of the bipartisan and independent OSHA Review Commission have upheld the principle that every day an employer fails to record an injury was a continuing violation for the purpose of calculating time limits under OSHA's statute of limitations. That is not totally open-ended but limited to the 5-year requirement that employers are required to maintain these injury records.

In spite of this 40-year precedent, a 2012 D.C. Court of Appeals decision known as Volks Constructors upended the 40-year precedent when it held that OSHA did not have the authority to issue a citation for an occurrence of a violation that extended beyond the 6-month statute of limitations as set forth in OSHA. The court noted that OSHA's previous regulation provided for no specific articulated continuing obligation to record injuries beyond 7 days.

There was a concurrent opinion in the Volks decision which made it clear that a regulation, which expressly provides for an employer's continuing obligation, would be lawful.

Now, when you talk about what the court decided and what Mr. Garland wrote, that was on the previous regulation, not on this one.

Informed by the guidance of the court, OSHA has issued a new rule which does make it clear that an employer's duty to maintain an accurate record of workplace injuries and illnesses is, in fact, an ongoing obligation.

So let's be clear, eliminating this rule means that employers who want to underreport injuries will face no sanctions if the injuries go back more than 6 months. Rolling back this rule essentially creates a vast safe harbor for noncompliance and creates the perverse incentive for underreporting.

The premise behind the resolution today is that it is unlawful. If that is the case, Congress should repeal the regulation. But no court has reviewed this new rule, only the predecessor. There has been no appeal of the new rule that has been lodged since the new rule was issued in December.

The proper course of action is to have the courts decide the legal question since arguably they are in the best position to interpret the laws and evaluate the precedents. This especially makes sense since one of the concurring opinions in the Volks case identified abundant legal precedent for tolling the statute of limitations when there are continuing violations in other laws that are nearly identical to the reporting requirements in OSHA. These include the Consumer Credit Reporting Act and the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act.

On the other hand, if the purpose of passing this resolution is just to eliminate the possibility of OSHA's clarifying rule could ever be found lawful, then it is obvious that H.J. Res. 83 is an ideological attack without any regard for consequences to worker safety.

On the other hand, if there is a bona fide view that OSHA lacks the adequate legal basis for the rule, then the constructive solution would be to amend OSHA and provide for the clarifying statutory authority. We should not be repealing the rule because we know what happens when this deterrent is eliminated. After OSHA lost its authority to enforce the violations outside the 6-month window under the Volks decision, there was a 75 percent reduction in the number of citations issued for underreporting, and that is according to OSHA data.

So, Mr. Speaker, there has been no hearing held on this final rule or this resolution. There has been no assessment of the consequences of underreporting of injuries which will occur if this resolution is adopted, and there has been no evaluation of any alternative way to ensure accountability for employers who flout the law. There has just been a headlong rush to push this resolution to the floor just a few days after its filing.

So given the complete lack of deliberation regarding this new rule, this Congressional Review Act resolution is premature, at best, but it will definitely have regrettable consequences to the health and safety of the people that we are charged to protect.

Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote.

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, prior to yielding, I just want to make a comment that the court struck down the previous rule, not the rule which is the subject of this resolution. The previous rule did not have a specific citation about a continuing obligation. This rule does. The excerpts from the Garland concurring decision says:

None of this is to say, as the petitioner suggests in its

opening brief, that a statute of limitations like OSHA's

statute of limitations can never admit to a continuing

violation for a failure to act. To the contrary, where a

regulation or statute imposes a continuing obligation to act,

a party can continue to violate it until that obligation is

satisfied.

This regulation specifically cites the obligation as a continuing obligation.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume before I yield to the gentleman from Florida.

The law requires the keeping the records for 5 years. If there are bogus records, you ought to have an obligation to keep them correct. That has been the interpretation for 40 years, up until this decision.

We need the money to do their job. If they do their job, if we provide them with some funding, they can show up more than once every 140-some years.

We keep talking about a court decision that affected another resolution, not this one.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Soto).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Takano), a hardworking member of the Committee on Education and the Workforce.

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

Mr. Speaker, there are 2,000 inspectors at OSHA. There are 8 million work sites. We can't expect them to visit every 6 months when the funding only allows them to visit each workplace once every 140-some years. You would have to show up at each place every 6 months to catch these violations within that timeframe.

Mr. Speaker, for 40 years, the obligation to record these injuries has been considered a continuing obligation. If the purpose is to overrule the regulation because it is inconsistent with the statute, then we should fix the statute. But this resolution just gives relief to those who fail to record injuries and illnesses in violation of their legal obligation to do so.

As Americans discover the plan to repeal this OSHA rule through a resolution of disapproval, there are a lot of professional organizations, in addition to the ones that have already been introduced, that have been alarmed by this resolution.

The American Public Health Association has written:

Injury and illness records are invaluable for employers,

workers and OSHA to monitor the cause and trends of illnesses

and injuries. Such data is essential for determining

appropriate interventions to prevent other workers from

experiencing the same harm. . . . For decades, the public

health community and government agencies have identified a

widespread undercount of work-related injuries and illnesses.

This includes investigations by the GAO, the Bureau of Labor

Statistics and academic researchers. H.J. Res. 83

will have dire consequences for injury prevention and

undermine 40 years of occupational injury surveillance in the

United States.

The AFL-CIO has written:

In the absence of enforcement, there is no question that

the underreporting of injuries, already a widespread problem,

will get much worse, undermining safety and health and

putting workers in danger.

A group of 66 professional workplace safety groups wrote:

The OSHA clarifying rule on maintaining accurate records

imposes no new costs to business, but is critical to assuring

that workplace fatalities and injuries are prevented.

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

Mr. Speaker, I ask for a ``no'' vote.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to express my concerns with H.R. 228. While the legislation seeks to provide additional flexibility and support to Indian tribes--a worthy goal--I remain concerned that it could have the effect of weakening the services provided to families and children in Indian tribes.

Currently, Indian tribes have the option to consolidate certain federal funding streams related to work and job training into one grant. H.R. 228 includes a number of changes to this consolidation option and expands the number of programs that can be consolidated.

The legislation could be interpreted in an overly broad fashion resulting in the inclusion of programs that may not be appropriate to include--programs or services only ``related to'' job training, skill development, and economic development, or other related goals.

Last Congress, the legislation was given a sequential referral to the Education and the Workforce Committee, on which I serve as Ranking Member. However, the legislation was not considered in the Committee and we have yet to assess its impact on education and training programs within our jurisdiction.

Specifically, our Committee has an interest in ensuring that program funds are used for their intended purpose. Whether the TANF program or Head Start, adequate reporting and oversight protect beneficiaries and ensure the quality of services. For example, Head Start performance standards are vital to the success of the program.

While I do not intend to oppose the legislation, I encourage continued robust oversight of the programs impacted by this bill to ensure that quality and effective education and job training programs remain available to our nation's tribes.

Mr. Speaker, our country is experiencing a retirement security crisis. Nearly 40 million private sector workers do not have access to a retirement savings plan at their jobs. The data and research also show that many middle- and low-income workers lack the ability to save enough on their own for retirement. Too many Americans lack access to retirement savings plans and too few are able to build a retirement nest egg on their own.

Unfortunately, Congress has not stepped up to comprehensively address our country's retirement security challenges, but many States have stepped up and enacted innovative solutions to expand working people's access to retirement savings. California passed a law establishing a program that is estimated to provide 6.8 million workers access to a retirement savings plan. In Illinois, more than a million people are expected to benefit from the State's retirement savings program.

Six other States have enacted programs. Dozens more have considered proposals to study or implement State-based retirement plans. Several of these States have worked with the Obama administration's Department of Labor on rules to ensure that their workplace retirement savings initiatives did not inadvertently run afoul of ERISA, the Federal law establishing minimum standards for private sector pensions.

Last August, the Department of Labor finalized the rule specifying the ERISA safe harbor conditions for State payroll deduction retirement savings plans. The rule went into effect last October.

In December, the Department of Labor finalized another rule that made certain cities and counties eligible for the same safe harbor protections. This rule only went into effect last month.

Now, if there are legitimate concerns with the rules, the Trump administration has the administrative tools available to appropriately amend the final rules in the same fair, thoughtful, transparent manner in which they were promulgated. However, this CRA disapproval resolution, which was just introduced last week, will nullify the rule that puts a safe harbor in place to ensure the plans do not run afoul of ERISA. At the same time, under the CRA rules, it would make it impossible to enact a similar rule to protect these savings plans in the future without specific congressional approval.

This afternoon, the House will also consider a CRA disapproval resolution which would overturn the month-old rule aimed at helping certain cities and counties offer workplace retirement programs.

Mr. Speaker, Congress should not be in the business of destabilizing efforts that increase workers' ability to save for retirement, and we should not be going out of our way to undermine states' rights to implement their own innovative solutions. These two resolutions represent an attack on our Nation's working families. Congress must stand up for working people who do not have access to retirement plans at their jobs. America's working families deserve an opportunity to be able to save enough to retire with dignity and peace of mind.

I urge my colleagues to reject both of these CRA joint resolutions of disapproval.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today on behalf of myself and Representatives Robert Wittman, Donald McEachin, and Scott Taylor to honor Dr. Katherine Goble Johnson, Dorothy Vaughan, and Mary Jackson, an extraordinary group of women from Hampton Roads, Virginia recently featured in the critically acclaimed and Oscar-nominated film Hidden Figures. Tomorrow evening, Senators Warner, Kaine, and Brown are joining me in hosting a screening of Hidden Figures here at the United States Capitol. I would like to take a moment to recognize the accomplishments of the remarkable women depicted in this film

Breaking down barriers of both gender and race at the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, these women, and many like them, laid the groundwork for John Glenn to become the first American to orbit the earth, and for Neil Armstrong to walk on the moon. I am proud that their stories are reaching a wider audience.

Though she began her career as an educator, in her 28 years working for the National Aeronautics and Space Administration and the National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics (the forerunner to NASA) Dorothy Vaughan helped pave the way for the diverse workforce and leadership NASA enjoys today. Beginning at NACA Langley in 1943, Mrs. Vaughan was assigned to an all-black computer pool. By 1949, she was the Section Head of her group, becoming NACA's first black supervisor and one of NACA's first female supervisors. Mrs. Vaughan was one of the first to master computer programming and said that she felt like her work at NASA Langley put her on ``the cutting edge of something very exciting.''

While she broke barriers at NACA, Mrs. Vaughan also took an active role in her community as a member of Alpha Kappa Alpha Sorority, Inc. and a longtime member of St. Paul AME Church of Newport News.

Early on, Dr. Katherine Goble Johnson showed that she was an exceptionally bright young woman. Graduating high school at 14 and college at 18, Dr. Johnson worked as an educator before relocating to Newport News where, in 1953, she began her work at NASA Langley. She too was assigned to an all-black computer pool. Within weeks of her entry in the NASA ranks, Dr. Johnson was asked to temporarily assist in the Spacecraft Dynamics Branch in the Flight Dynamics and Control Division. She never left. There, she became known for her knowledge, accuracy and contributions in providing trajectories necessary to successful spaceflight.

Dr. Johnson has been the recipient of numerous awards throughout her 33 year career with NASA, and was recently awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom by President Barack Obama. A leader in her community, Dr. Johnson has served as President of the Lambda Omega Chapter of the Alpha Kappa Alpha Sorority, Inc. and as a Trustee and Elder at Carver Memorial Presbyterian Church in Newport News, Virginia, where she continues to be a dedicated member.

Mary Jackson was born and raised in Hampton, Virginia, and attended the Hampton Institute, now Hampton University. She too was an educator prior to joining NASA, and after a circuitous journey found her way to NASA Langley working as a mathematician in 1951, reporting to Dorothy Vaughan. Following additional math and physics work at previously segregated Hampton High School, Mrs. Jackson became NASA's first black female engineer in 1958.

An accomplished mathematician, she remained committed to ensuring that NASA's female professionals had the opportunity to succeed and finished her 34 year career as Langley's Federal Women's Program Manager working to hire and mentor NASA's next generation of leaders.

Mrs. Jackson kept active in her community, as a member of Bethel AME Church in Hampton, the Newport News-Hampton Chapter of the Continental Societies, Inc., and Alpha Kappa Alpha Sorority, Inc.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank Margot Lee Shetterly, author of Hidden Figures, for shining a spotlight on the remarkable story of these women. As the daughter of a NASA Langley scientist, Mrs. Shetterly was surely steeped in the accomplishments of these great women growing up. I would also like to thank Theodore Melfi, director of the film, actors Octavia Spencer, who played Dorothy Vaughan, Janelle Monae, who played Mary Jackson, and Taraji P. Henson, who played Katherine Johnson, and all others who played a part in telling these women's stories on the silver screen.

Mr. Speaker, I am proud that the stories of these exceptional women are no longer hidden. It is my hope that this film will help inspire the next generation of leaders to challenge themselves and to strive to break through any bathers they may face.

I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.J. Res. 58, the joint resolution of disapproval of the rule submitted by the Department of Education relating to teacher preparation programs.

This resolution would not only block the rule in question, but according to the rules of the CRA, it would tie the hands of this and of any future administration from re-regulating the provisions until a successful reauthorization of the Higher Education Act might take place.

Mr. Speaker, this rule in question provides clarity to States on how to increase teacher preparation program quality, transparency, and the equitable distribution of well-prepared teachers. It was promulgated to enable compliance with the statutory provision included in the 2008 reauthorization of the Higher Education Act.

According to a study by the Education Schools Project, more than 60 percent of new teachers feel unprepared to enter the classroom. We also know that disadvantaged students are taught disproportionately by new, inexperienced, and underprepared teachers. Congress sought to address this in the HEA reauthorization through the inclusion of requirements that are clarified by this regulation. Congress clearly intended for these equity-focused provisions to be meaningfully implemented; however, absent Federal regulation, the bipartisan intent of Congress has gone unfulfilled.

Despite statements made by many on the other side of the aisle, the Department of Education did engage in extensive consultation with stakeholders and the public in drafting and then in finalizing this rule. The draft rule put forward in 2014 lacked the appropriate flexibility and was met with overwhelming resistance. Through an extended comment period, the Department worked for more than 2 years to revise the rule and produce a final rule with considerably more flexibility for States and institutions.

Regardless of how flexible the rule is or not, I believe that, upon careful review of the regulation and the statutory provisions, the final rule is clearly within the scope of the agency's regulatory authority. Whether one thinks

the rule is perfect or flawed, the substance of the final rule is reasonable and is clarifying an interpretation of how to comply with statutory requirements.

It is now 2017. Federal requirements to improve teacher preparation program quality and transparency have gone largely unfulfilled since the 2008 reauthorization. In such an instance, it is well within the purview of the implementing agency to regulate and more clearly interpret statutory requirements to prompt meaningful compliance and inform Congress and the agency in subsequent reauthorizations.

The executive overreach or illegality of a rule and the disagreement with the substance of the rule are not two sides of the same coin. Republicans now control the executive branch. President Trump has administrative tools at his disposal to revise or to completely rewrite this regulation. It is clear, based on the history of the implementation of these provisions, that regulatory clarity is necessary. The responsible approach would be to utilize those tools to improve the regulation.

In the history of the Congressional Review Act, Congress has only used it once to disapprove a regulation. Instead of engaging in the hard work of governing by revising the teacher preparation rule, my colleagues have resorted to this act of repealing yet another rule that is meant to support our Nation's families and children. It is unnecessary, and we must recommit to doing the right thing for those whom we serve.

I urge my colleagues to reject this resolution.

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

rise in strong opposition of H.J. Res. 57. This resolution takes aim at the heart of the Every Student Succeeds Act, or ESSA. That bill passed with overwhelming bipartisan support. This resolution would strike down regulations that provide necessary clarity to States about what it means to ensure that all students are taught to high standards, and what it means to provide accurate data on student academic performance and resource equity.

States now lack direction needed to proceed with implementation of the bill. Just last week, the Department removed all ESSA technical assistance to the States from the public domain, despite numerous and repeated requests for technical assistance from State and local leaders.

Mr. Speaker, when Congress came together to pass ESSA, we made a promise, the promise of stability and consistency and a full replacement of No Child Left Behind. And while we promised new flexibilities, those flexibilities came with guardrails to guide the decisionmaking, to ensure protections for vulnerable students, and to support educators and school leaders. This resolution breaks that bipartisan promise.

Contrary to the wishes of some, ESSA was not a blank check to States from the Federal Government. ESSA is a fundamental approach with much power restored to the State and local level, but it comes with Federal protections for vulnerable students. So we must not waver in our commitment to give States the support and guidance they need to move forward.

Mr. Speaker, some claim the regulations are unnecessary because States can just read the law and implement it. But we all know, based on precedence and common sense, that the new landscape of ESSA would necessitate regulatory clarity from the executive branch, just as all Federal agencies routinely update existing regulations as new legislation is passed.

Providing stakeholders with direction and clarity about how to carry out the Federal laws as big as the Elementary and Secondary Education Act is not new. No Child Left Behind led the Bush administration to undergo similar rulemaking, and it was more than 2 years before the regulations were fully realized. It also enabled States, in their efforts, to move forward with timely submission of their ESSA plans.

If this resolution of disapproval is enacted, States will have no ability to prepare State plans that require Federal approval until after the Department reestablishes requirements and criteria, causing an unwelcome and unnecessary delay for States eager to move forward, leaving ESSA unregulated before States to just wait until the new regulations are passed, and also undo months of work that is currently underway.

In effect, the lack of clarity on how to effectively utilize the new flexibilities, while meeting statutory requirements, may lead many States to revert to--they have to revert to something--maybe the No Child Left Behind narrow policies and systems, the very policies that the ESSA eliminated.

Mr. Speaker, where the law's requirements are ambiguous, agency interpretation is necessary to set a Federal floor. Without that floor, compliance with the Federal law becomes subjective, with different standards being applied from State to State. This kind of subjectivity was the same problem we had with No Child Left Behind when States relied on guidance without regulation.

Under that scheme, the Department could not be held accountable for treating one State different from another, and that is what we are correcting through the enactment and regulation of ESSA's core requirements. Those requirements must be applied fairly across all States. That is the whole point of a Federal law.

The Department conducted hundreds of meetings, held public forums and listening sessions, and read and responded to thousands of comments to produce a consensus-driven rule. The Department made significant revisions before finalization, and they were met with praise from teachers, State education chiefs, local administrators, parents, and civil rights communities.

Regardless of whether you think the rule is perfect or flawed, the substance of the rule is a reasonable interpretation that provides clarity for States to enable their compliance with statutory requirements. Now, President Trump has administrative tools at his disposal to revise or completely rewrite this regulation. However, it is clear, based on history of implementation of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act that regulatory clarity is necessary.

Using the CRA to block the rule is unnecessary and shortsighted. It hurts students and schools. It undermines a bipartisan intent of Congress and leaves States in a lurch by causing confusion and delays for the submission of their State plans. It also undermines equity protections for vulnerable students that the law was intended to serve.

This resolution threatens the success of the law we fought so hard to pass, so I urge a ``no'' vote.

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

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

Before I address the disapproval resolution, I just want to acknowledge the important role Federal contractors have in meeting the needs of the Federal Government. Employment and critical services in many districts, including my own, are heavily reliant on Federal contractors, including those who serve a critical role for our Nation, supporting the needs of the military, the Coast Guard, Homeland Security, and many others.

That said, it is imperative that contractors are bidding on a level playing field when they compete for contracts. Unfortunately, this resolution would effectively reward contractors who cut corners, endanger the rights of their workers, and, studies show, compromise quality.

Although most Federal contractors obey labor laws, studies by the GAO, the Senate HELP Committee, and others document that Federal contractors with histories of serious, willful, and repeated violations of labor employment and nondiscrimination laws continue to be rewarded with Federal contracts.

For context, it is important to know that contracting rules already require agencies to determine whether or not a prospective contractor is responsible before awarding a contract. Amongst the criteria considered is whether or not the contractor has ``a satisfactory record of integrity and business ethics,'' and ``a satisfactory performance record.''

As previous speakers have noted, violations can already be considered. However, contracting officers don't have access to a list of those violations until this rule is issued, nor are contracting officers required to review a bidder's labor violations history.

The rule implementing the executive order on Fair Pay and Safe Workplaces does not add any extra layers of review. Rather, it would fill that data gap by requiring contractors to disclose whether they have violations of 14 longstanding labor laws, including the Fair Labor Standards Act, OSHA, Vietnam Era Veterans Readjustment Assistance Act, and nondiscrimination laws.

It only applies to contracts over $500,000, so we are not talking about mom-and-pop operations. But if listing those violations of fair pay and safe workplace laws constitutes an administrative burden, more the reason to make them be listed.

They are to be disclosed. And although we have heard about allegations, and although some violations may not be final, the only thing that has to be disclosed are those violations for which there has been an agency determination. That is, an allegation is made, it is investigated, and the company has been found to be in violation. It may be on appeal or whatnot, but there has at least been an agency determination of guilt.

The rule requires contracting officers to focus on whether such violations are serious, repeated, willful or pervasive. The rule helps bring those contractors with a history of violations into compliance by way of labor compliance agreements so they can continue to be considered for contracting opportunities while they improve their records.

Some have mislabeled this rule as the ``blacklisting rule,'' but this suggestion and characterization ignores the rules' meaningful compliance provision. The reality is that this rule would, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service, encourage agency contract officials to push bidders with serious labor law violations ``to enter into labor compliance agreements'' rather than to disbar or suspend them.

I want to point out that a coalition of 20,000 construction contractors submitted testimony to the Small Business Committee where they wrote: ``Employers--primes and subs have more rights, remedies and redress for non-responsibility determinations based on lack of integrity or business ethics under the executive order than the current Federal Acquisition Regulation procedures specifically provide.''

Now, this testimony suggests that the rules are far more contractor- friendly than the detractors have characterized.

It would be premature to dismantle this rule because it hasn't even been put into effect because it has been under a court injunction. Further, repealing the rule under the CRA would bar future consideration of substantially similar rules unless Congress enacts subsequent enabling legislation.

So the bottom line is that there are winners and there are losers if this legislation passes. The winners, if this legislation passes, would be companies who willfully, and repeatedly, and pervasively violate labor laws. The winners would be the contractors who cut corners and gain an unfair competitive advantage over law-abiding contractors.

The losers will be workers who are employed by Federal contractors. They will be more susceptible to wage theft, unfair working conditions, and unsafe workplaces run by unscrupulous contractors. Losers will be the law-abiding contractors who lose contracts because they abide by the laws protecting their workers.

This is why the Fair Pay and Safe Workplaces rule enjoys support from a widespread number of businesses, veterans, civil rights, and labor organizations from the Easterseals to Paralyzed Veterans of America, to the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights and the International Brotherhood of Teamsters. That is why I oppose this legislation.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Bonamici), the vice ranking member of the Committee on Education and the Workforce.

Mr. Speaker, can you advise both sides how much time is remaining.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Norcross), a member of the Committee on Education and the Workforce.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Espaillat), a member of the Committee on Education and the Workforce.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Johnson), a member of the Judiciary Committee.

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

Mr. Speaker, I just want to restate a couple of provisions.

One is this underlying regulation only applies to contracts in excess of $500,000. As previously stated, this information that is to be disclosed can already be considered in contracting. This regulation makes it available so it can be considered.

It is not just allegations. We are talking about agency determinations after an investigation.

Now, the regulation requires consideration of the fact of whether or not a determination is final or whether it is on appeal. That is to be considered. But not all violations in the fullest of time are to be considered at all. Only those that are serious, repeated, willful, or pervasive violations of fair pay and safe workplace violations are to be considered.

And so for the people who are not blacklisted, the guilty are encouraged to participate in labor compliance agreements so they can continue to receive contracts while they improve their records.

In closing, Mr. Speaker, let us recall who the winners and losers are if this resolution of disapproval passes. The winners will be the unscrupulous contractors who cut corners and compromise the safety of their workers. The losers will be the workers, who are the most susceptible to wage theft and unfair working conditions, and the law- abiding contractors who face unfair competition.

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record three letters: one from The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, another from the American Industrial Hygiene Association, and, finally, one from a coalition of 134 business, labor, and civil society groups which stand in opposition to this resolution of disapproval.

The Leadership Conference on

Civil and Human Rights,

Washington, DC, January 31, 2017.

Hon. Paul Ryan,

Speaker of the House,

Washington, DC.

Hon. Nancy Pelosi,

Minority Leader,

Washington, DC.

Dear Speaker Ryan and Minority Leader Pelosi: On behalf of

The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, a

coalition charged by its diverse membership of more than 200

national organizations to promote and protect the civil and

human rights of all persons in the United States, we write in

strong opposition to the use of the Congressional Review Act

(CRA) to repeal the regulations implementing the Fair Pay and

Safe Workplaces Executive Order.

The Fair Pay regulations represent a much-needed step

forward in ensuring that the federal contractor community is

providing safe and fair workplaces for employees by

encouraging compliance with federal labor and civil rights

laws, and prohibiting the use of mandatory arbitration of

certain disputes.

Employers that have the privilege of doing business with

the federal government also have a responsibility to abide by

the law. The Fair Pay regulations are crucial because they

help ensure that federal contractors behave responsibly and

ethically with respect to labor standards and civil rights

laws. They also encourage companies applying for federal

contracts to comply with federal civil rights laws such as

the Fair Labor Standards Act (which includes the Equal Pay

Act), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, the Americans with

Disabilities Act of 1990 and the Occupational Safety and

Health Act, and their state law equivalents. The Executive

Order also bans contractors from forcing employees to

arbitrate claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act as

well as claims of sexual harassment and sexual assault.

We urge you to oppose any attempts to roll back the

protections that stem from the Executive Order on Fair Pay

and Safe Workplaces. The Order and implementing regulations

provide strong protections against the federal government

contracting with employers that routinely engage in

discrimination based on race, sex, age, or disability,

violate workplace health and safety protections, withhold

wages, or commit other labor violations. If you have any

questions, please feel free to contact June Zeitlin, Director

of Human Rights Policy.

Sincerely,

Wade Henderson,

President & CEO.

Nancy Zirkin,

Executive Vice President.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this resolution of disapproval.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.