Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to this proposal to amend the U.S. Constitution. This amendment, if ratified, would likely result in devastating cuts to programs like Social Security and Medicare that would harm Oregonians and families around the country. H.J. Res. 2, the Balanced Budget Amendment, would require the federal government to cut any spending that is not fully offset by incoming revenue, including spending on Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. I agree that Congress must act in a fiscally responsible manner, and we owe it to our children and grandchildren to not leave them with a country that has a significant debt burden. But there are many ways to be fiscally responsible, including finding smarter, better ways to provide important services and by making investments that actually grow the economy.

It is important to note that the majority is bringing this measure to the floor for a vote now, not long after the passage of their partisan tax bill that will further exacerbate income inequality and explode our deficit by about $1.9 trillion dollars. Our seniors deserve better than having their Social Security benefits-which they have earned over a lifetime of hard work-jeopardized under the guise of fiscal responsibility. If my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are serious about reining in federal spending, we should look to commonsense reforms, not across-the-board measures that put Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid at risk

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to say that we must refuse to accept gun violence as normal. Today, I stand with students from Oregon to Florida, who are courageously and peacefully demanding that their elected leaders take real action to prevent gun violence in their communities.

This past weekend I met Madeline, a high school student from Beaverton, Oregon. She said that now when she enters a classroom, her first thought is: where can she hide, and how could she escape.

As a mom, that broke my heart. And I heard from students in McMinnville, Oregon. They told me they are terrified when they hear a fire alarm because that is how the Parkland, Florida, massacre started.

How have we become a country where our students are afraid in their classrooms?

Mr. Speaker, we owe it to Madeline and to all of the students around the country to protect them from violence and to keep them safe in school and in their communities.

The STOP School Violence Act is a modest first step, but we must do more. We must listen to the voices of the students and work toward creating a safer future for them and for everyone.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Madam Speaker, I rise to oppose this legislation. Of course, infants born alive deserve healthcare. As Dr. Bera just explained, doctors are already obligated to provide that. But this bill threatens to send healthcare providers to jail and women to back alleys.

Instead of debating this bill, we should be working to reduce the rate of unintended pregnancies which, of course, reduces the number of abortions. History shows that when abortions are restricted or banned, they do not go away. They become dangerous and unsafe. Look at countries that restrict abortion. Every year, thousands of women die from unsafe procedures.

Yet here we are debating a bill that will make criminals out of doctors and will drive more women to hazardous self-help methods.

There are effective ways to reduce unintended pregnancies and improve maternal health, which is what we should be doing. Instead, this bill disregards the professional judgment of trained medical professionals. It imposes extreme new standards of care. That is why providers like the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists strongly oppose this legislation.

Madam Speaker, women in this country will continue rejecting archaic and counterproductive policies like this, just as my colleagues should reject this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I am deeply disappointed that the Department of Justice is ignoring States' rights and encouraging the prosecution of small cannabis businesses, many of which are in Oregon.

Earlier this month, the Department of Justice rescinded the Cole memo, which had provided Federal guidance to discourage prosecutors from charging individuals and businesses with Federal marijuana-related crimes in States where marijuana is legal. Oregon is one of those States.

Today, more than 700 small cannabis businesses operate across the State, where, like with alcohol, marijuana businesses are licensed, regulated, and taxed. These small businesses follow State law, create jobs in their communities, and pay taxes, yet now their livelihood is threatened because this administration wants to revive the futile war on weed.

This is absurd, especially when the Department of Justice should be putting its efforts and its resources into the extremely dangerous and addictive heroin and fentanyl.

Our small cannabis businesses should not be jeopardized by this misguided Federal policy. The voters have spoken. Their will must be respected.

Mr. Speaker, I am a Member of Congress, but I am also a mom. And as a mom, I am puzzled and, frankly, dismayed because Congress has not found a bipartisan way to provide long-term funding for the Children's Health Insurance Program.

More than 9 million children and pregnant mothers, including thousands in Oregon, receive basic health care through CHIP. In the past, this popular program has always had broad bipartisan support.

We must do better than the stopgap Band-Aid that is forcing States to rely on short-term funding and, importantly, leaving vulnerable families with uncertainty and with distress.

Recently, I met a wonderful family in Oregon that relies on CHIP for the health of their two kids. Their story pulled at my heart.

This is David. David is 5, and his brother, Jacob, is 20 months old, and both children have neurological conditions. Both require long-term medical care. David battles a life-threatening form of epilepsy that requires expensive medications as well as regular physical and occupational therapy.

Their mom, Renee, fears the worst. I spoke with her and their pediatrician, and she told me that, without long-term funding to support Medicaid and CHIP, she said: ``David could die. It's that simple.''

Mr. Speaker, this is about real people, and their lives are on the line. Funding CHIP is a good investment. In

fact, the Congressional Budget Office recently predicted that a 10-year reauthorization of CHIP would actually save the Federal Government $6 billion. It turns out preventing illness not only saves lives, it saves money.

There is no excuse for leaving CHIP unfunded. Working families like David and Jacob's family need to know that they will have health care when their kids need it. David and Jacob are children whose lives are at stake, but there are millions more like them in Oregon and across the country.

Mr. Speaker, David and Jacob deserve better. All of our Nation's children deserve better. It is that simple, and we must not let them down.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to this disastrous partisan tax plan that cuts rates for wealthy corporations and millionaires while leading to higher taxes for about 38 million working families.

There is a lot to not like about this bill. It actually eliminates the student loan interest deduction. That will increase the financial burden for about 12 million Americans who are juggling their student loan debt with housing, groceries, and childcare. The cost of higher education is already out of reach for too many. We should be making it easier, not harder for Americans to access higher education.

On top of that, removing the State and local tax deduction threatens funding sources for public education and will most certainly lead to cuts to America's public school budgets.

Mr. Speaker, across the country, families are working hard to get ahead. Let's not take away their opportunity. We need a Tax Code that leads to better jobs, better wages, and a better future for America, for our children and our grandchildren. This bill fails the test, and we should reject it and get back to working together.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 2936, the Resilient Federal Forests Act of 2017. The fire season this year was devastating in Oregon and across the west. It destroyed forestland, reduced air quality, and left a lasting mark on our communities. Congress must increase funding for wildfire suppression and fire prevention actions on public lands. At the same time, Congress can and must do this while maintaining foundational environmental laws. I cannot support this bill because it undermines the bedrock science- based decision-making processes undertaken by land management agencies, and would make it more difficult for states to receive federal funding for wildfire disasters.

I strongly support provisions in the bill that would find new and innovative ways to use wood as a building material for tall wood buildings. Cross-laminated timber and other innovative wood products create sustainable building materials, generate more value from timber harvests, and translate into more jobs in rural Oregon and around the country.

This legislation does not do enough to help communities fund wildfire suppression. It includes a process that would slow local access to much-needed funds, and it calculates funding without regard to true wildfire disaster needs. I joined my colleague, Congressman Schrader, in submitting an amendment that would address these problems and increase available funding for wildfire suppression. Unfortunately, the amendment was not accepted for floor consideration by the Rules Committee.

I have heard from counties, families, teachers, and school administrators in forest counties in my district who have told me they will

face great hardship if they do not receive the Secure Rural Schools payments they are owed. The last authorized Secure Rural Schools payment was distributed in FY 2016. Earlier this year, I joined my colleague Congresswoman Cathy McMorris Rodgers in introducing bipartisan legislation to reauthorize the program through FY 2017. I am frustrated the majority did not use this opportunity to reauthorize the Secure Rural Schools program and provide certainty to the forest counties who rely on these funds to educate students.

I am also concerned that this bill limits public participation in the management of public lands. It reduces the consideration of forest management alternatives to two options--action or no action. It creates overly broad exclusions for projects to skirt environmental review under the National Environmental Policy Act and the Endangered Species Act. In addition, it reduces opportunities for the public to engage meaningfully in these decisions. As a former consumer protection attorney, I am concerned about the inclusion of an arbitration pilot program that would force many challenges to federal forest management decisions to go through an agency-run arbitration process instead of through the judicial system.

We must manage our federal forests better, but we can do so without including these harmful provisions. I urge my colleagues to come back to the table and develop a more appropriate and effective solution.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to the dangerous tax plan that is currently being considered by the House Ways and Means Committee. House Republicans wrote this proposal behind closed doors and then presented it to Congress and the public just last week.

This is not the kind of bipartisan tax plan we need to help lift up working families, grow our economy, and lead to a better future for our constituents. In fact, under this proposed plan, about 80 percent of the benefits will go to the wealthiest 1 percent. While helping out wealthy individuals and corporations, the proposal hurts many working families by getting rid of deductions for

State and local taxes and medical expenses, for example.

Mr. Speaker, there is another place where this bill will hurt working families. Mr. Speaker, Benjamin Franklin said: ``an investment in knowledge pays the best interest.'' When it comes to education, this plan is an inexcusable lost opportunity.

Education is one of the smartest investments we can make, and tax policy is a place where there is tremendous potential to do great things. Unfortunately, this tax proposal shortchanges America's schools, students, and teachers.

Ninety percent of students attend public schools, yet this tax plan starves public education by making changes to the property tax deduction and reducing funding sources for the bipartisan Every Student Succeeds Act.

On top of that, the plan would turn 529 college savings plans into a Trump-DeVos private school voucher scheme that will primarily aid wealthy families and will further undermine our public education system.

This tax plan doesn't just hurt our students, it also hurts teachers. Right now, across the country, teachers pay an average of $500 a year out of their pockets to help stock their classrooms with supplies like pencils, notebooks, and materials to enhance learning, and that has been offset by a $250 classroom supplies deduction, which is the least we could do to help those hardworking, underpaid teachers, but this bill eliminates that deduction for classroom supplies.

We should all also be deeply concerned about the consequences of this GOP tax plan for families who invest in higher education. The bill eliminates the student loan interest deduction, making it harder, rather than easier, for millions of Americans who are working to pay off their student loans.

On top of that, the bill repeals the lifetime learning credit and the Hope scholarship credit, has major reductions in tax credits for tuition, and will make employer-paid tuition count as income.

That is the wrong direction. We need a tax proposal that helps, not hurts, students and working families.

This proposal takes away important investments in education, and at the same time will add about $1.5 trillion to the deficit, leaving our children and grandchildren to pay the bill.

Mr. Speaker, this plan will limit opportunities for people to get ahead. That is wrong. We should come back to the table and craft a plan that works for all Americans, not a plan that strongly and wrongly favors those at the top.

Mr. Speaker, I thank Ranking Member Scott for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the so-called Save Local Business Act. This administration and this Congress have already weakened workplace protections that keep Americans safe from discrimination at their jobs, and make sure that they receive fair pay and provide additional opportunities to save for a secure retirement.

Joint employer provisions make sure that employers cannot escape liability for violating worker protection laws. This standard makes our laws on overtime pay, on safe workplaces, on minimum wage enforceable.

What this bill does not do is turn franchisors into employers unless they act like employers. I spent years as a lawyer representing franchisees, and I know this won't turn franchisors into employers.

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a letter from the Signatory Wall and Ceiling Contractors Alliance. They oppose this bill because it would put law-abiding small businesses at a competitive disadvantage with unscrupulous companies that don't respect worker's rights and don't pay workers the wages they have earned.

Signatory Wall and

Ceiling Contractors Alliance,

Saint Paul, MN, October 5, 2017.

Hon. Paul Ryan,

Speaker of the House,

House of Representatives, Washington, DC.

Hon. Nancy Pelosi,

Minority Leader,

House of Representatives, Washington, DC.

Dear Mr. Speaker and Leader Pelosi: I am writing on behalf

of the Signatory Wall and Ceiling Contractors Alliance

(SWACCA) to express our strong opposition to H.R. 3441, the

``Save Local Business Act.'' This legislation will not

benefit honest small businesses that create good jobs with

family-sustaining wages and benefits. It will actually place

such employers at a permanent competitive disadvantage to

unscrupulous companies that seek to thrive solely at the

expense of their workers and taxpayer-funded social safety-

net programs.

SWACCA is a national alliance of wall and ceiling

contractors committed to working in partnership with our

workers and our customers to provide the highest-quality,

most efficient construction services. Through the superior

training, skill, and efficiency of our workers SWACCA

contractors are able to provide both cost-effective

construction services and middle class jobs with health and

retirement benefits. Our organization prides itself on

representing companies that accept responsibility for paying

fair wages, abiding by health and safety standards, workers

compensation laws, and unemployment insurance requirements.

Unfortunately, however, we increasingly find ourselves

bidding against companies that seek to compete solely on the

basis of labor costs. They do so by relieving themselves of

the traditional obligations associated with being an

employer. The news is littered with examples of contractors

who have sought to reduce costs by willfully violating the

laws governing minimum wage, overtime, workers compensation

unemployment insurance, and workplace safety protections. The

key to this disturbing business model is a cadre of labor

brokers who claim to provide a company with an entire

workforce that follows them to job after job. It is a

workforce that the actual wall or ceiling contractor controls

as a practical matter, but for which it takes no legal

responsibility. In this model workers receive no benefits,

are rarely covered by workers compensation or unemployment

insurance, and are frequently not paid

in compliance with federal and state wage laws. The joint

employment doctrine is an important means for forcing these

unscrupulous contractors to compete on a level playing field

and to be held accountable for the unlawful treatment of the

workers they utilize.

As an association representing large, medium, and small

businesses, we oppose H.R. 3441 because it proposes a

radical, unprecedented re-definition of joint employment

under both the FLSA and the NLRA that goes far beyond

reversing the standard articulated by the NLRB in Browning-

Ferris or returning to any concept of joint employment that

has ever existed under the FLSA since the Act's passage. H.R.

3441's radical and unprecedented redefinition of joint

employment would proliferate the use of fly-by-night labor

brokers by ensuring that no contractor using a workforce

provided by a labor broker would ever be deemed a joint

employer. This is because the bill precludes a finding of

joint employment unless a company controls each ``of the

essential terms and conditions of employment (including

hiring employees, discharging employees, determining

individual employee rates of pay and benefits, day-to-day

supervision of employees, assigning individual work

schedules, positions and tasks, and administering employee

discipline)''. H.R. 3441 goes further by expressly

countenancing a company using labor brokers retaining control

of the essential aspects of the workers' employment in a

``limited and routine manner'' without facing any risk of

being a joint employer.

Simply put, H.R. 3441 would create a standard that would

surely accelerate a race to the bottom in the construction

industry and many other sectors of the economy. It would

further tilt the field of competition against honest, ethical

businesses. Any concerns about the prior administration's

recently-rescinded interpretative guidance on joint

employment under the FLSA or the NLRB's joint employment

doctrine enunciated in Browning-Ferris can be addressed in a

far more responsible manner. Make no mistake, H.R. 3441 does

not return the law to any prior precedents or standards. It

creates a radical, new standard. This standard will help

unethical employers get rich not by creating more value, but

instead by ensuring their ability to treat American workers

as a permanent pool of low-wage, subcontracted labor that has

neither benefits nor any meaningful recourse against them

under our nation's labor and employment laws.

On behalf of the membership of SWACCA, thank you in advance

for your attention to our concerns about this legislation.

Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any

questions or require additional information.

Sincerely,

Timothy J. Wies,

President.

Mr. Speaker, this legislation would leave workers behind and would give a free pass to unscrupulous companies that violate labor laws. Please oppose this legislation.

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

I am in its current form.

Mr. Speaker, this is the final amendment to the bill. It will not kill the bill or send it back to committee. If adopted, the bill will immediately proceed to final passage, as amended.

Mr. Speaker, the bill we are debating today is another assault on hardworking Americans who are desperately trying to put food on the table for their families, scrape together enough money to pay for child care, and have a roof over their heads.

My colleagues on the other side of the aisle are saying that they need this bill to save local businesses. We all support local businesses in our community. But my colleagues suggest that unless they pass this law, franchisors will become joint employers. Well, if they act like franchisors and control brands and standards, and they don't do things like hire, fire, and supervise the franchisees' employees, they won't be. In other words, if they act like a franchisor and not an employer, they won't be considered a joint employer.

In fact, this bill could actually harm franchisees and take away their independence because it would allow franchisors to indirectly control the labor relations of its franchisees, but be insulated from liability for violations that might arise from that control.

Now, my amendment would require that if a franchisor directs a franchisee to take an unlawful action that would violate labor laws, then the franchisor shall be considered a joint employer for the purpose of the violation.

In other words, if a franchisor acts like an employer, then they should be held accountable for their actions as an employer. Workers must be able to get their hard-earned overtime pay and the wages they are owed. This is common sense.

This motion would protect small businesses, promote the independence of franchisees, and, importantly, cure the defect in the bill that insulates franchisors from liability for exercising control over their franchisees' labor or employment relations.

Mr. Speaker, this legislation currently is an attack on workers' rights.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to adopt my amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the Ruthie and Connie LGBT Elder Americans Act, legislation I am introducing to support our country's LGBT seniors.

The LGBT senior population is growing and is estimated to include nearly 6 million Americans by 2030. Unfortunately, the same generation of LGBT people who fought for rights in the workplace, equal marriage, and societal recognition are once again marginalized as they age.

LGBT seniors have fewer support services, higher poverty rates, more social isolation, and inadequate access to healthcare services compared to the rest of older Americans. One of the primary barriers to providing services to LGBT seniors is a basic lack of information.

The Older Americans Act, or OAA, already requires the Administration on Aging to collect data on the individuals receiving OAA services and the efficacy of OAA programs; but if we collected data on sexual orientation and gender identity, we could better understand this population and provide services that best fit their needs.

Unfortunately, the data we do have shows that the poverty rate is higher for LGBT seniors, which is likely because many have faced discrimination while working, they have historically been unable to legally marry, and they have experienced gender and racial inequalities. We also know that LGBT elders are less likely than their peers to have community support and caretakers to help them.

I know from speaking with LGBT seniors that many fear discrimination when receiving home healthcare services. They are twice as likely to be single and four times more likely to not have children. These are complex and important issues that require a personalized solution.

The bill I am introducing today with Colorado Senator Michael Bennet and Florida Representatives Ted Deutch and Charlie Crist would help bridge the gap between LGBT seniors and the services they need.

The bill is named for Ruthie Berman and Connie Kurtz, who sued the New York City Board of Education years ago for domestic partner benefits, and won their landmark case in 1994. In the decades since, Ruthie and Connie have continued their advocacy and fight as champions of LGBT rights.

Our bill would amend the Older Americans Act to improve services for LGBT seniors and require data collection on sexual orientation so better decisions can be made.

Additionally, the bill would permanently establish a National Resource Center on LGBT Aging and provide grants for organizations working to improve LGBT services, including access to healthcare and long-term care. The resource centers and the grants will help States and localities reach out to LGBT older adults and provide culturally competent support.

By requiring specific consideration for LGBT seniors in the Older Americans Act, we can provide needed support to a vulnerable yet overlooked population.

I thank my colleagues for their work on this important issue, and I hope many others will join us in supporting this bill to help our LGBT senior communities.

Mr. Speaker, I thank Mr. Lipinski for yielding and also for

organizing this Special Order for the Climate Solutions Caucus. I also want to thank the founders of the Climate Solutions Caucus, Congressman Ted Deutch from Florida and Congressman Carlos Curbelo also from Florida, where they can see at their doorstep what issues like sea level rise mean to their communities.

Mr. Speaker, I am really pleased to join with my colleagues from the bipartisan Climate Solutions Caucus this evening to highlight the importance of taking action on climate change, something that matters so much to my constituents at home in Oregon, but also to the country and to the planet.

This is an important issue that really is a moral imperative. This is about preserving our natural resources for our children, our grandchildren, and for generations to come. Addressing climate change is also vital to our Nation's economy, as we have had some discussion about that this evening, and also to national security, but, really, the health of the planet.

Now, the district I am honored to represent out in Oregon is breathtakingly beautiful, and it is really full of potential. The majestic Columbia River is the northern boundary of the district, and the rugged Pacific Ocean is on the western boundary. It has a thriving outdoor recreation economy. As my colleague from New York mentioned, that is an important sector that cares a lot about the changing climate.

I also have in my district the heart of Oregon wine country. People in my district fish. They fish in our rivers, our lakes, and our ocean. They hike in our forests. They ski in our back country and on our mountains. We rely on those natural resources in our backyard to support a significant part of our economy, but we are very vulnerable to the effects of climate change.

My constituents are already experiencing challenges: Our wine and agricultural industries are concerned about drought as global temperatures continue to rise. Coastal communities are worried about the vitality of the commercial fishing and shellfish industries as high levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere change ocean chemistry.

I was really thrilled that we had an Oregonian from Oregon State University come to the Climate Solutions Caucus and talk about adapting to ocean acidification.

Our region has faced higher spring and summer temperatures and earlier snowmelt, and, as a result, a snowboard shop in my district is now selling more skateboards and fewer snowboards.

Climate change is not a partisan issue. Nationwide, fishers, farmers, small-business owners, and our servicemen and -women are changing the way they do their jobs because of climate change, regardless of political affiliation.

The economic, health, and environmental consequences of climate change are well known, and our understanding about how to address climate change continues to improve.

People in the United States and around the world are facing threats from rising sea levels, from ocean acidification, from more frequent and severe weather events from record droughts and flooding and rising global temperatures. We can no longer sit back and debate whether we should take action. The time is now. It is critical that we support scientific research about the climate and that we build on, rather than break down, decades' worth of progress on this issue.

Now, one important area of research is the connection between extreme weather events and climate change. Although it is not possible to say that climate change causes one particular extreme weather event, it is critical that we know more about climate change and how it increases the frequency and the severity of these events. Learning more about this correlation can help families, communities, and businesses make informed choices and adopt climate strategies.

Now, this year has seen poignant example after example with so many devastating extreme weather events. We need to do everything we can to make sure our communities are prepared to keep families safe.

We have had wildfires in the Western United States for a long time, but since the mid-1980s, they have been increasing in frequency and in duration, threatening lives, threatening public health and property. It has been unusually hot and very dry in the Northwest.

Fires and severe smoke create dangerous conditions for all populations. In Portland, Oregon, on Labor Day, the sky was gray, full of smoke from wildfire. This is especially problematic for pregnant women, for seniors, for children, for anyone with chronic health conditions like asthma. Residents and communities miles away from the wildfires saw ash falling on their homes, their cars, and throughout their neighborhoods.

This year's hurricanes have devastated communities, of course, across Texas, across the Southeast, and in the U.S. islands. About 70 percent of our fellow citizens in Puerto Rico are still without power.

These storms are increasing in frequency and severity, and lives are being lost every year.

Mr. Speaker, it is so important that we take action, and that is why I am so pleased to be here today to help highlight the importance of this issue.

As Representative Lipinski noted and others have, Mr. McNerney and others, we can take action to address climate change and grow the economy. It is not an excuse to say this will be bad for the economy, because we can grow those renewable energy industries. There is so much potential in wind power, wave energy, solar energy. Those are good, high-paying, family-wage jobs. We can grow those economies and address climate change at the same time.

Mr. Speaker, addressing climate change is going to save lives; it is going to save property. I am so pleased to be part of this bipartisan group that is working together in equal number of Democrats and Republicans to call attention to this important issue, and I will continue to work with the caucus to emphasize the importance of congressional action.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleagues on the bipartisan Climate Solutions Caucus for their dedication to this effort. I know it is quite a relief to my constituents back home in Oregon to know that there are bipartisan Members who are committed to addressing this critical issue.

Again, Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleagues for their dedication to this effort. I look forward to the progress that we will make together on behalf of our constituents, our communities, our country, and our planet.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be on the floor this morning to introduce bipartisan legislation with my colleague on the Education and Workforce Committee, Congressman Drew Ferguson from Georgia.

Our bill, Promoting Apprenticeships Through Regional Training Networks for Employers' Required Skills Act, or PARTNERS Act, will help close the skills gap by increasing opportunities for small- and medium- sized businesses to establish apprenticeships and work-based learning programs.

When I visit communities in northwest Oregon, I hear from many Oregonians who still feel left behind because they don't have the skills they need to compete in today's economy. They are not alone. Many jobs today do not require a 4-year degree, but do require more than a high school diploma. In fact, those jobs make up about 53 percent of today's labor market, but only 43 percent of today's workers are trained at this level.

This creates a skills gap, leaving businesses struggling to find workers with appropriate skills, and workers without meaningful pathways to better paying jobs.

I hear from employers and workforce organizations about the importance of a qualified workforce. They want to identify new opportunities to strengthen skills training.

Apprenticeships and work-based learning programs are a win-win. They provide individuals with paid, on-the-job training and classroom instruction. Employers can align training with the skills they need at their workplaces, and workers can learn while they earn.

Unfortunately, small- and medium-sized businesses often lack the infrastructure and resources to establish apprenticeships or work-based learning programs on their own. So the PARTNERS Act addresses this by establishing a grant program to support the creation and expansion of industry and sector partnerships that will help small-and medium-sized businesses develop work-based learning programs and provide support programs for workers.

Industry and sector partnerships will bring together employers, education, training, labor, and community-based organizations to develop work-based learning programs that benefit workers and the economy as a whole.

In Oregon, these partnerships could address, for example, workforce development needs in rapidly growing sectors like healthcare and technology.

Under the PARTNERS Act, the partnerships would use grant funds to recruit workers, develop training curriculum, and provide workers with access to tools, work attire, transportation, childcare services, and mentorship support. These support services help businesses retain employees and help workers balance caring for and providing for their families.

Importantly, Mr. Speaker, this bill results in no additional cost to taxpayers because it authorizes the use of 50 percent of the funds deposited in the H1-B nonimmigrant petition account, and these will be used by the Department of Labor for the partnership grants. This funding source was suggested by the administration in a June 2017 executive order on apprenticeships.

Through stronger investments and work-based learning programs, we can build pathways to get more people back to work, to provide our Nation's businesses with the workforce that will improve productivity and efficiency.

I thank Mr. Ferguson for his leadership, and I urge my colleagues to join us in supporting this bipartisan legislation that will help people in our districts across the country access good jobs.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to urge the immediate passage of the Dream Act to bring certainty to the more than 10,000 DREAMers in Oregon and DREAMers across the country.

I have met with DREAMers in my State of Oregon, and tearing them away from their lives would be a tremendous loss for our communities. DREAMers like Daniel, a dedicated second grade teacher, DACA allowed him to come out of the shadows and give back to his community.

But with President Trump ending DACA, Daniel is rightly anxious about his future. He worries about the effect on his students if he is forced to leave abruptly in the middle of the school year.

When we threaten DREAMers, we put their futures at risk, but we also risk harming the many people who rely on them, like Daniel's students.

Mr. Speaker, we must work together and pass the Dream Act immediately. We just pledged, ``with liberty and justice for all.'' Let's bring justice to the DREAMers and pass the Dream Act.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to urge swift reauthorization of the Children's Health Insurance Program and the Community Health Center Program. CHIP keeps kids covered by providing basic healthcare to about 9 million children and pregnant mothers, including thousands of Oregonians.

The providers and families in our States deserve certainty that that funding for these programs will be there when they need it. The lapse of these programs is already hurting our constituents and our communities.

At Virginia Garcia, a teaching health center in my district, payments for their residency program stopped abruptly. The clinic's executive director said that they cannot, in good conscience, stop these residencies, but they are very nervous about spending precious reserves when they had anticipated these grants would be fully funded.

There is no excuse for delay when it comes to the health of our children and families. We must continue commonsense investments in our Nation's health by reauthorizing the Children's Health Insurance Program and the Community Health Center Program immediately.

Madam Speaker, today I rise for Eva, an Oregon doctor who is one of the compassionate providers women turn to when facing an unintended or dangerous pregnancy.

Oregon has rejected restrictions on abortions, but because of bans or restrictions in other States, Dr. Eva provides healthcare services, including abortion, to women from around the country.

One patient was a high school senior who could not get an abortion in her home State. She spent weeks saving every penny she could to buy a plane ticket and pay for the procedure.

Instead of making women fly across the country, instead of debating this bill, and instead of cutting programs like the Teen Pregnancy Prevention Program, which my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have done, we should be focused on preventing unintended pregnancies, and we should be expanding access to comprehensive reproductive care, something the Oregon Legislature did when they passed the landmark Reproductive Health Equity Act.

Madam Speaker, when abortion is banned, it does not go away. It drives women to unsafe back alleys and to dangerous self-induced abortions. We must stop efforts to stand between women and their healthcare providers. Please vote ``no'' on H.R. 36.