Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 1761, the Protecting Against Child Exploitation Act. Although I support the goal of the bill, which aims to strengthen existing laws that criminalize engaging in sexual acts with a child that result in the production of an image or video, I am concerned that its overly broad language could cause unintended consequents that go beyond the sponsors' intentions. Make no mistake, our children deserve the strongest possible protection against such heinous acts and abuse. I am deeply concerned; however, that the bill does not take into consideration situations between consenting teenagers. Teenagers today have access to more technology than ever before, and far too many of them do not comprehend the seriousness of exchanging sexually explicit images of themselves with one another. Although I do not condone such behavior, I cannot support a bill that does not distinguish between those situations and the morally reprehensible crimes against children. I commend my colleague, Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee, for offering an amendment that would make consensual activity between a minor who is fifteen years old or older and an adult who is nineteen years old or younger punishable as a misdemeanor, rather than a felony. The amendment was narrowly tailored to make sure that the punishment for such consensual situations is proportionate to the severity of the crime. I was disappointed that the House did not adopt the Jackson-Lee amendment, and I cannot support the underlying bill without the inclusion of this important policy provision.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 115, the Thin Blue Line Act. This bill unnecessarily expands the federal death penalty, and does not further the laudable goal of bringing justice to the law enforcement officers who make the ultimate sacrifice for our safety and security.

The United States is in the minority of countries that still use the death penalty, and Americans' opposition to it has increased in recent decades, particularly as social scientists better understand the disparate effects of the death penalty on minority populations. A sentence of death is disproportionately used in cases involving defendants of color. According to U.S. Department of Justice, in 2011, 41.7 percent of all death row inmates were African American, despite only making up 13.1 percent of the population. Furthermore, since 1973, 159 people who were sentenced to death were later exonerated. There is no doubt that innocent individuals have been put to death in the United States--a fact that must

not be ignored in a country that values justice under the law.

I greatly respect and appreciate our law enforcement community. Local police, firefighters, and first responders put their lives on the line every single day to protect people in Oregon and across the country. Those criminals who target and murder police officers have no place in our society. Nothing in current law prevents those individuals from being prosecuted to the highest extent of the law, and to receive a sentence of death. Under current law, there are 16 aggravating factors that can be considered during criminal sentencing, and the federal government can allege the targeting or killing of a law enforcement officer--federal, state, or local--as an aggravating factor when considering the death penalty. This bill creates a 17th aggravating factor that is duplicative of existing law.

I will continue to do all I can to support our law enforcement officers, particularly the admirable men and women who serve our communities in northwest Oregon. This bill, however, is an unnecessary expansion of the death penalty, and I therefore cannot support it.

Mr. Speaker, today the House is voting on a harmful bill that puts the most vulnerable members of our community at risk. We know that millions will lose coverage. And the Affordable Care Act protects people with preexisting conditions--this bill does not. High- risk pools don't work.

My constituents are scared, and so are people across this country.

Arden from Gearhart, Oregon, wrote to me, distraught, because she and her daughter, Selah, could lose coverage. Arden took the loving step of adopting a child with special needs, and now the support program they rely on is at risk of being terminated by this bill.

This is a critical vote. I implore my colleagues to think about all of the people like Arden and Selah in their communities. Think about the millions across this country who risk losing coverage.

I implore my colleagues to do no harm. Vote ``no'' on this harmful bill.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the Senate amendments to H.R. 244, the FY2017 omnibus spending bill. This is not a perfect bill, but many priorities that are important to my constituents in Oregon and people around the country are funded and protected, and it prevents a government shutdown.

In March, President Trump released a budget proposal that, if enacted, would be devastating to Oregonians, Americans, and people worldwide. Thankfully, this omnibus bill largely bypasses the President's misguided funding recommendations, and instead focuses on making sure our federal dollars are being spent to help hardworking families get ahead, support vulnerable populations at home and abroad, and help grow the economy

This bill funds the National Endowment for the Arts and the National Endowment for the Humanities, and allows Legal Aid work to continue through Legal Services Corporation. There is a strong commitment to securing our infrastructure through robust funding of TIGER transportation grants and environmental cleanup projects, and there is funding for Flint, Michigan to continue upgrading its drinking water infrastructure. Importantly, the bill does not waste any taxpayer dollars to build a border wall between the United States and Mexico, and it does not include harmful policy riders to defund Planned Parenthood, unwind the consumer protections of Dodd-Frank, or withhold federal funds from cities and states that decline to enforce federal immigration law that is outside their jurisdiction.

In Oregon, I hear from families of all backgrounds who are struggling to maintain their economic security. This bill provides funding for the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program, and increases funding for housing programs such as Choice Neighborhoods, Housing Opportunities for People with AIDS, and Housing for the Elderly. The bill secures funding for Special Supplemental Nutrition for Women, Infants, and Children and provides robust funding for Meals on Wheels and summer Electronic Benefits Transfer, to address food insecurity among some of our most vulnerable Americans--children and seniors.

The bill also recognizes the devastating toll of the opioid epidemic in our communities by providing a $650 million increase over 2016 funding to help address this crisis. That funding, coupled with a $2 billion increase to the National Institutes of Health, will help fulfill the commitment Congress has made to partner with our states and communities to address this and other health crises facing our country.

As a member of the Science Committee, I am committed to funding basic science research, mitigating the effects of climate change, and supporting healthy oceans and estuaries. I am glad the bill includes increases for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, which provides weather forecasting, oceanic and atmospheric research, ocean and coastal services, and fisheries management to the communities I represent.

As a member of the Education and the Workforce Committee, I am committed to making sure that all students can receive a quality education, from pre-K through college. The bill before us will provide supports for students, including reinstating year-round Pell grants, increasing Head Start funding by $85 million, and increasing Title I, IDEA, TRIO, and Gear Up funding over FY2016 enacted levels. I am disappointed, however, that Congress has raided the Pell Grant reserve fund to pay for other programs. I am also concerned that this bill significantly underfunds the Student Support Academic Enrichment Grants created in the bipartisan Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA). The ESSA provided $1.6 billion for these grants to enable school districts to provide locally-tailored programming and supportive services for students who need them most, including school-based mental health programs, drug and violence prevention programs, and well-rounded learning opportunities such as arts, music, and civics education. This bill only provides a fraction of the amount necessary to fully fund this grant program, and I will continue to advocate for full funding as we consider the FY2018 spending bills.

I am also disappointed that the bill reauthorizes the Scholarships for Opportunity and Results (SOAR) program that funds vouchers for private schools in Washington, DC, despite the program's negative outcomes for students. In fact, a study released just last week from the Department of Education showed that students who received SOAR vouchers had lower math scores than before their enrollment in the program.

Finally, I do not support yet another increase in defense spending, especially when the President has failed to outline a clear strategy for how he intends to use our powerful military around the world. With cuts to programs that protect the environment, provide consumer protections, and provide access to women's health services, it is shortsighted to further increase our defense spending without a plan in place from the President on how he will keep our country safe.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank our leaders in the House for working together on this bipartisan legislation that protects many of our most vulnerable communities and restores confidence in our economy by preventing a government shutdown. It is not a perfect bill, but one that I will support. I look forward to continuing to work with my colleagues on bipartisan agreements that will keep our communities safe, support public education, protect our natural resources, and create good jobs in our 21st century economy.

Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, too many workers in Oregon and across the country are still facing a great deal of economic uncertainty. They worry about rent payments, healthcare costs, saving for retirement, balancing family responsibilities and work, and making ends meet.

Congress should be considering policy changes that support workers, not a bill that threatens their economic security. This bill takes away overtime pay and, instead, a workers gets a vague IOU for compensatory time sometime in the future, and only if the comp time does not unduly disrupt the operations of the employer--whatever that means.

I would like to share the story of Anjeanette. She said:

I work as a waitress in a restaurant in Gresham, Oregon,

that is part of a large chain. I have three children. I have

never had a single paid sick day. A few years ago, when I was

working in construction, I sprained my ankle badly and

couldn't go to work for a week. I didn't have any paid sick

days, so I lost a whole week's pay, which meant I wasn't able

to pay all of my bills and I wasn't able to pay for gas.

Anjeanette is a single mother of three sons who also struggles to care for them when they get sick. In fact, when her youngest got the flu, her older son had to stay home from school to care for him.

In May and June, we celebrate Mother's Day and Father's Day. This is a perfect time for Congress to focus on legislation that allows parents like Anjeanette to be more present in their kid's lives and still pay their bills.

Instead, this legislation would result in taking their overtime pay from their pockets. The so-called Working Families Flexibility Act is not a solution.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to reject this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the life of Claire Lovell, an accomplished columnist and devoted resident of Seaside, Oregon.

North coast residents are richer for Claire's presence, and I join them in celebrating her life and her legacy. For 27 years, Claire's column chronicled the happenings of Seaside with cogent prose and an observant eye.

First known as ``Overheard: Notes from Seaside,'' and later ``Scene and Heard,'' her column was the first thing readers went to when they eagerly opened their newspapers. Indeed, some readers bought the newspaper just for her column.

Claire was a Seaside resident for almost all of her 96 years, and no one was better qualified to document the city's life. Whether she was sharing her observations on politics, popular culture, growing older, or the birth of her first great-grandchild, Claire enriched each topic with her signature verve and keen love of the written word.

In a recent column, Claire wrote: Whether one is 5-years old or 95, as the case may be, life's small pleasures are very important.

For decades, one of Seaside's small pleasures was reading her column. It is my honor to recognize Claire Lovell's many contributions to our community and to offer my condolences to her family and the Seaside community on the loss of this remarkable woman.

Her wit, wisdom, and well-chosen words will not be forgotten.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 353, the Weather Research and Forecasting Innovation Act, which also includes the Tsunami Warning, Education, and Research Act.

The Weather Research and Forecasting Innovation Act is a product of hard work and negotiation over the past two Congresses. I want to thank

Congressman Frank Lucas, Chairman Lamar Smith, and former Environment Subcommittee Chairs Jim Bridenstine and Chris Stewart, who were great partners in getting us here today.

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration is responsible for important work at the cutting edge of science and public service. Weather forecasting is one of the most critical tasks for our country. At a time when budget uncertainty jeopardizes some of the most fundamental services NOAA provides to our Nation, it is imperative that we support legislation like H.R. 353 to give the agency the resources and flexibility needed to fulfill its mission.

The northwest Oregon communities I represent and communities across the country rely on timely and accurate weather forecasts to decide when to harvest their crops, when to go to sea to fish, how to navigate the roads safely when there is freezing rain or snow and to prepare for possible flood conditions.

The National Weather Service provides excellent forecasting products to support our economy, but with the increasing frequency and severity of severe weather events, there can be and should be improvements in our forecasting capabilities and delivery. Improvements in forecasts can provide more lead time to allow communities to prepare, especially in severe weather events. More effective communication of forecast information to the public and those in harm's way can reduce the loss of life and property.

This bill connects the research side of NOAA--the Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research--more effectively to the forecasting needs of the National Weather Service, cultivating a research-to-operations pipeline that is essential for the continued improvement of our weather forecasting enterprise. The bill contains several provisions that will improve interactions and information sharing between NOAA's researchers and the National Weather Service. It improves communication between NOAA and the broader research and private weather communities. The bill also formally establishes the pilot program currently operating at NOAA to engage in contracts with the commercial sector for weather forecasting data.

Even the best forecasts will not adequately serve the public's needs unless there are effective communication systems in place. H.R. 353 directs NOAA to do more research, listen to experts, and improve its risk communication techniques.

The bill also establishes interagency coordination through the Office of Science and Technology Policy across multiple agencies outside NOAA that share responsibilities for weather research and forecast communications. This is essential, and it highlights the important role the Office of Science and Technology Policy and NOAA share to help speed the adoption of best tools and practices across the various agencies of the Federal Government.

The legislation before us today also includes the Tsunami Warning, Education, and Research Act, legislation I have introduced over the past three Congresses. The Tsunami Warning, Education, and Research Act seeks to improve our country's understanding of the threat posed by tsunami events by improving forecasting and notification systems, developing supportive technologies, and supporting local community outreach preparedness and response plans. This bill helps to address the risk faced by communities on both coasts and in the Gulf of Mexico by improving our mitigation and research program and enhancing community outreach and planning.

Many, if not most, of my colleagues represent districts that have experienced some kind of natural disaster. The threat of a catastrophic earthquake and tsunami is real because of the Cascadia Subduction Zone. West Coast Members take this threat very seriously.

I have heard from coastal communities, people who fish, the tourism and maritime industries, marine and public safety officials, sheriffs, emergency managers, small-business owners, older Americans, and students who are concerned that their communities are not prepared for a tsunami.

Students at Seaside High School, a coastal community in my district, engaged in a year-long project to educate Oregonians about the threat a tsunami has on lives and property. Three of the four public schools in Seaside are still located inside the tsunami inundation zone. The high school students have practiced their evacuation route, and they know that, in the projected time between a major earthquake and the devastating wave of a tsunami, they couldn't make it to higher ground. That is unacceptable.

The University of Oregon and Oregon State University are working on seismic warning systems and tsunami preparedness to help make sure that our communities are prepared and have the best research available to give the most warning time possible, and this bill compliments their work.

I am proud to have worked on this legislation which is so important to the people of northwest Oregon and all coastal communities, but I do remain very concerned that the funding level is below current spending. This cut would have serious consequences. The operation and maintenance funding for the buoy network we rely on to detect tsunami could decrease, adding hours of delay in appropriately warning coastal communities.

Tsunami warning centers in Alaska and Hawaii are likely to see a reduction in staff, resulting in gaps in coverage and creating greater risks because of time delays in sending out accurate warnings and, in some instances, not being able to provide adequate warning at all.

Tsunami are among the most deadly natural disasters. In the past two decades, tsunami have caused the deaths of roughly a quarter million people around the world. These disasters also have profound economic consequences. The 2001 tsunami in Japan caused more than $200 billion in economic losses.

We are fortunate, in the United States, to have been spared these catastrophes so far.

But our coastlines, from the Gulf of Mexico to Alaska, are very susceptible to the same kind of disasters we have seen in Indonesia and in Japan. It is not a matter of if, it is a matter of when.

Tsunami program activities protect coastal Oregonians just as hurricane forecasting protects coastal Floridians, Carolinians, and others up and down the East Coast of the United States. It is important that we reauthorize these lifesaving activities, and just as important to provide the necessary funding to support them.

I will work tirelessly with my colleagues to make sure this program receives the full funding it needs to serve our communities and save lives and property.

Although there are always areas where we can do more, this underlying bill, the Weather Research and Forecasting Innovation Act, with the tsunami bill, is a good bipartisan agreement and one that I am proud to support while continuing to ask for current levels of funding.

I ask my colleagues to join me in voting ``yes'' on H.R. 353.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson), the ranking member of the Science, Space, and Technology Committee.

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

Mr. Speaker, I continue to 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, in addition to thanking all my colleagues on both sides of the aisle who have worked so hard on this legislation, I want to take a moment, also, to thank all of the staff in our offices and committee on both sides of the aisle who worked so hard on this legislation.

I encourage all my colleagues to support the Weather Research and Forecasting Innovation Act, which includes the Tsunami Warning, Education, and Research Act. This legislation will improve weather forecasting and tsunami preparedness.

Mr. Speaker, I encourage everyone to support this bipartisan legislation, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the American Health Care Act--TrumpCare--and to express my relief that it was removed from consideration before a vote. This proposal would have been a disaster for Oregonians and Americans. People would pay more and get less, and if they couldn't afford to pay more, they'd be out of luck.

Many would face a future without health insurance, or with inadequate coverage. The bill was especially bad for seniors, whose rates would have increased significantly.

Without coverage, working families are a cancer diagnosis or a heart attack away from economic ruin. When I worked at Legal Aid, many clients were struggling to repay medical debt after getting sick with no insurance or insurance that didn't cover their needs. We can't go back to the days when medical debt forced people into bankruptcy.

At my recent town hall meeting in McMinnville, Oregon a woman told me that her father-in-law suffered a massive stroke. Without coverage under the ACA, their family wouldn't have been able to afford the helicopter transport to Portland or his care at a rehabilitation facility.

Astoundingly, the TrumpCare bill also eliminated essential health benefits; several important consumer protections the Affordable Care Act added to insurance. By removing these benefits, TrumpCare would not cover many critical services, like mental health care, emergency room services, and maternity care. This change in the bill, added late at night in a desperate but unsuccessful attempt to gain more support from conservatives, would mean that people would once again buy insurance policies that would not cover their needs.

Additionally, TrumpCare made meaningless the ACA guarantee that people with preexisting conditions cannot be discriminated against or denied coverage. With TrumpCare, people with pre-existing conditions would face insurmountable bills if unexpected illness or injuries occur.

Finally, women would stand to lose significantly under TrumpCare. Women who get lifesaving cancer screenings and care at Planned Parenthood would have to find a new provider. Without insurance plans covering maternity care, women would struggle to get prenatal care--or simply go without. New mothers without insurance could face $50,000 in bills after a cesarean section.

I was strongly opposed to TrumpCare because it was terrible policy for Oregonians and Americans. I will continue to do everything in my power to protect Oregonians from the pay more, get less policies that are currently under consideration by the leadership of the House of Representatives.

Americans need the stability of knowing they will have affordable health care coverage. I stand ready to work with all of my colleagues on policies that improve access to affordable health care for everyone.

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

Mr. Chair, I rise today in support of the amendment to protect student loan borrowers from the dangerous provisions of the SCRUB Act.

More than 40 million Americans have student loan debt. Roughly one- quarter of these borrowers are behind on their payments either in delinquency or default. The Federal Government has a responsibility to protect these borrowers and American taxpayers from unscrupulous institutions that saddle students with exorbitant debt in exchange for an education of dubious value.

Hardworking students, like those who attended Corinthian Colleges or ITT Tech, could be harmed if Congress passes a law that potentially strips them of a clear process for having their debt forgiven after institutions fabricate job placement figures or close unexpectedly.

This bill could allow institutions like Corinthian Colleges to require pre-dispute arbitration clauses, and prohibit class-action lawsuits--making it much less likely that students will get the justice they deserve when a school misrepresents the quality of its programs.

Millions of borrowers who rely on popular income-driven repayment plans could be left without options for keeping their payments affordable.

Active-Duty servicemembers could lose access to deferment benefits.

Rules banning incentive pay could be undone, exposing student veterans and others to aggressive marketing.

This bill could weaken Federal protections for millions of student loan borrowers when, instead, Congress should be working together to make college more affordable.

I encourage my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Davis), the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Higher Education and Workforce Development.

Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Polis), the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Early Childhood, Elementary, and Secondary Education.

Mr. Chairman, the SCRUB Act is completely unnecessary. Agencies can already review and repeal regulations that are no longer needed. The only thing this bill does for people with student loan debt is give them less certainty that their investment will be worth it.

At a time when a college degree or credential is a critical tool for securing a family-wage job, it makes no sense to threaten to rescind rules that shield Americans from career programs that leave students with large debts and low wages.

I encourage all of my colleagues to adopt this amendment to safeguard consumer protections for student loan borrowers.

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

Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment to exempt rules related to title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act from the misguided provisions of the SCRUB Act.

Title I is the core feature of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, a critical civil rights law that holds States accountable for helping all students succeed.

The SCRUB Act threatens rules for implementing title I, which, in turn, threatens students. For example, title I rules clarify important accountability requirements that we passed into law just last session with strong bipartisan support.

Clear rulemaking is necessary to give education leaders certainty so they can benefit from the law's new flexibility and innovate on behalf of students.

Title I rules also include important details about the use of assessments in schools. These rules were negotiated with broad consensus. Would the SCRUB Act repeal them and deny States clarification about reducing the burden of testing?

My colleagues across the aisle may argue that no rule should be exempt from the SCRUB Act and that somehow the unelected commission in the bill will identify only bad rules. I am not so sure. The commission in the bill could create any methodology for targeting rules and, without knowing the commission's method, it is disingenuous to say that essential rules, good rules, wouldn't be affected.

Additionally, rules are rarely black and white as the majority suggests. Title I accountability rules, for example, sometimes push States to report on how they are serving each subgroup of students. But where some local officials may complain, these rules make sure that low-income and minority families are being counted.

Will the commission hear the concerns of those families?

I ask my colleagues to protect vulnerable students across the country by supporting this amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Polis), the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Early Childhood, Elementary, and Secondary Education.

Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Davis), the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Higher Education and Workforce Development.

Mr. Chair, may I inquire to the remaining time, please?

Mr. Chair, title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act is a key Federal law for advancing equity in our Nation's classrooms. The rules implementing title I provide important details that make sure historically underserved students have access to an equal public education. These rules are too important to entrust to a mysterious commission.

I am very proud of the work I did in the State legislature repealing unnecessary education rules and statutes. We did it in a very collaborative, bipartisan manner through existing processes. That is what we should be doing, not going through this SCRUB Act.

I urge my colleagues to protect title I rules, stand up for educational equity, and support the amendment.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.J. Res. 66.

Working families in my home State of Oregon and across the country deserve the opportunity to retire with security and dignity. Unfortunately, that is not a reality for far too many Americans who face a growing retirement security crisis. In fact, nearly 40 million private sector workers, including an estimated 1 million in Oregon, do not have access to retirement savings plans at their jobs.

The AARP and others have noted that people who do not save for retirement risk becoming dependent on social safety net programs that increase costs for taxpayers.

Mr. Speaker, Congress has not stepped up to address our country's retirement security crisis, so several States, including my home State of Oregon, have developed and implemented innovative solutions that will help workers save for retirement.

Oregon's program is set to launch in just 5 months. Workers who do not have access to a retirement plan through their employer will have access to a plan facilitated by the State. It is not mandatory--workers can opt out--and there is minimal paperwork for employees. Oregon's plan is portable, so workers can keep their retirement savings when they change jobs.

Consider Oregonian Penny Wicklander, who has worked hard but hasn't had access to a good retirement plan. Penny managed an apartment complex for low-income seniors, and she saw the hardships that residents faced without retirement security. Some lived on $10 in the last 10 days of the month. She said, in support of Oregon's plan:

No one wants to retire into poverty and rely on public

services, but it's hard to plan for the future when there are

so many other financial challenges facing our families. We

need a simple retirement account that makes it easy for

everyone to save part of what they earn, regardless of where

they work.

Bobbie Sotin, a home care worker who cares for seniors and people with disabilities doesn't have access to a retirement savings plan through her employer. Bobbie said:

Working with seniors in poverty, many care providers see

their own future every day. Once they reach retirement age,

they have to make the decision to live in poverty or keep

working until they die. Even if it

means just $50 or $100 more per month, that kind of income

would make a huge difference to each and every one of us.

Penny, Bobbie, and people across the country need access to retirement savings plans. Oregon and several other States are working to fill that need. Congress should be supporting them and encouraging retirement savings programs like Oregon's and similar plans in California, Illinois, Connecticut, and Maryland. Instead, House Republicans are advancing a Congressional Review Act joint resolution of disapproval that would endanger these plans, discourage other States from taking action, and undermine states' rights.

Specifically, this resolution would nullify an important Department of Labor rule that simply clarifies that these State-based savings plans do not run afoul of ERISA, the Employee Retirement Income Security Act. The safe harbor rule went into effect last October.

Now, my friends on the other side of the aisle may characterize this as ``closing regulatory loopholes'' and they may question whether more government is the answer, but that is not what this is about.

The National Conference of State Legislatures and the State treasurers of Oregon, Illinois, and California submitted letters in opposition to this resolution. They found the ``DOL safe harbor provides flexibility to states, codifies clear protections for employers who facilitate retirement savings arrangements for their employees, and enables innovative solutions to addressing the growing retirement crisis facing this country.''

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record these letters and several other letters in opposition to this resolution.

February 10, 2017.

Hon. Paul Ryan,

Speaker of the House,

Washington, DC.

Speaker Ryan: Earlier this week, Reps. Tim Walberg and

Francis Rooney introduced two resolutions of disapproval

(H.J. Res 66, H.J. Res 67) to roll-back key Department of

Labor (US DOL) rules. These resolutions will limit our

abilities as states to provide solutions to the growing

retirement savings crisis, and could make it harder for small

businesses to participate in state-run programs.

We are writing to ask that you defend our state's rights by

voting ``No'' on H.J. Res 66 and H.J. Res 67.

The rule in question gives clarity for states across the

country to provide access to retirement savings options for

millions of private-sector workers. California, Illinois, and

Oregon are all in the process of implementing legislatively

approved state-administered plans that will enable nearly 8

million private-sector workers to save their own money for

retirement.

As Treasurers, we chair the respective Boards governing our

state plans and have been actively working with employers,

employees, payroll providers, and financial service

organizations for the last two years. The reality is, that

without access to an easy and affordable savings vehicle, far

too many workers risk retiring into poverty and becoming

overly reliant on Social Security or state and federal safety

net programs.

The final rule from US DOL provides key protections for

employers who facilitate enrollment for their employees--

confirming a safe harbor from ERISA and protecting businesses

from litigation or liability related to state programs--while

maintaining key consumer protections for program

participants.

While this rule has been finalized, opponents are seeking

to repeal or weaken the rule through the Congressional Review

Act. We respectfully request that you oppose efforts to

repeal the rule and vote no on H.J. Res 66 and H.J. Res 67.

The US DOL safe harbor provides flexibility to states,

codifies clear protections for employers who facilitate

retirement savings arrangements for their employees, and

enables innovative solutions to addressing the growing

retirement crisis facing this country.

We are happy to provide additional information. Thank you

for your support.

Sincerely,

John Chiang,

California State Treasurer.

Michael Frerichs,

Illinois State Treasurer.

Tobias Read,

Oregon State Treasurer.

In summary, proponents of this Congressional Review Act resolution are rushing to nullify a rule that will make it easier for people save for retirement. That is unacceptable. Every American deserves to retire with dignity, and this resolution puts that fundamental American value at risk.

I ask my colleagues to join me in opposing H.J. Res. 66.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott), the ranking member of the Committee on Education and the Workforce.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Neal), the ranking member of the Committee on Ways and Means.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Davis), a senior member of the Committee on Education and the Workforce.

Mr. Speaker, just to clarify, there was a comment made that these are government-run plans. Under these plans, the States establish the framework for deducting the contributions, but these will be managed by investment professionals, not by the State.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr.

DeSaulnier), my colleague, and a leader on the Education and the Workforce Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I assure my colleague that, as someone with a consumer protection background, I would not be opposing this resolution if it had consumer protections. In fact, this rule applies when States have strict investor protections.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Maxine Waters), the ranking member of the Financial Services Committee.

May I inquire as to the remaining time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer), a senior member of the Ways and Means Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record additional letters in opposition to this resolution.

Service Employees

International Union,

Washington, DC, February 13, 2017.

Dear Representative: On behalf of the two million members

of the Service Employees International Union (SEID), I urge

you to vote against H.J. Res 66 and H.J. Res 67, resolutions

disapproving of the Department of Labor's rules relating to

retirement savings arrangements established by states and

qualified state political subdivisions. The Department of

Labor rules make it easier for small employers to offer their

workers access to programs for retirement savings and achieve

an essential component of the American dream.

There is a retirement savings crisis in our country. Fifty-

five million workers do not have access to a retirement

savings plan at work. As a result, nearly half of all workers

have no retirement assets--no pension, no 401(k), and no IRA.

States have stepped in to begin to address this crisis with

innovative legislation that gives workers the opportunity to

set aside their own money in low-fee, professionally managed

savings accounts. Importantly, private sector money managers

and administrators will be hired to run these programs on

behalf of the states, generating American jobs. The

Department of Labor issued rules that clarified that

employers would not be subject to the fiduciary

responsibilities and reporting requirements of the Employee

Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) under these state

initiatives.

In addition to helping workers achieve a dignified

retirement, the state initiatives provide small businesses

with easy, low-cost access to a retirement savings plan.

Small employers are the least likely to offer retirement

savings plans because the cost can be prohibitive and the

ERISA requirements can be onerous at the start. The state

initiatives also are fiscally prudent actions that will save

public spending. A new study by Segal Consulting estimated

that state Medicaid costs would be reduced by $5 billion

within the first ten years of implementation of the state

plans. Those savings would grow exponentially over time as

more workers retired with greater amounts of savings.

Five states--California, Connecticut, Illinois, Maryland

and Oregon--have enacted legislation and will soon begin

taking payroll contributions. About half of states have

studied or are studying this concept. Massachusetts and

Vermont are considering legislation that would also allow

employer contributions. Contrary to misinformation being

spread about these plans, the program funds are not

guaranteed by the state, and state and participating

employers will have no liability for the payment of

retirement funds earned by the participants. These state

plans are bipartisan public/private initiatives that

appropriately use states as laboratories for innovation. They

are a win for workers, for employers, and for governments at

all levels.

SEIU is also deeply concerned with efforts under the

Congressional Review Act (CRA) to circumvent the Executive

Branch process of rulemaking and issuing regulatory guidance.

Using the CRA authority to undo Agency regulations and

guidance crafted carefully and with public input strips away

the importance of the rulemaking process. Using this

authority could significantly weaken or undo past and future

rules that protect workers.

SEIU respectfully urges you to vote against resolutions

H.J. Res 66 and H.J. Res 67 disapproving of these important

rules. We may add votes on this legislation to our

legislative scorecard. If you have any questions please

contact John Gray, Legislative Director.

Sincerely,

Mary Kay Henry,

International President.

I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky), the co-chair of the Congressional Task Force on Seniors.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur), a senior member of the Appropriations Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 10 seconds to the gentlewoman.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), the Democratic leader of the U.S. House of Representatives.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to inquire as to the remaining time, please.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Sarbanes).

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

I thank all of my colleagues who came this afternoon to speak in opposition to this resolution. It shows how important it is to the working people in our States and in our districts. These are people who do not have a retirement plan. That is who we are looking out for.

I urge all my colleagues today to stand up for workers who deserve that chance at saving for retirement and who will get that chance because Oregon and other States have stepped up and are taking action.

Again, the Department of Labor safe harbor rule applies to States that have strict investor protections. We wouldn't be here today if those strict investor protections were not maintained.

I especially urge my colleagues, particularly those of us who are concerned about states' rights, not to undermine States like Oregon and all the others that have stepped up to create these innovative solutions. There is a gap. That is why so many people today do not have retirement savings.

Colleagues, please join us in opposing H.J. Res. 66.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

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

I rise in strong opposition to H.J. Res. 67, which would nullify the Department of Labor rule enabling certain State political subdivisions, such as cities or counties, to establish payroll deduction retirement savings plans.

Working families across the country deserve the opportunity to retire with security and dignity. That is not a reality for millions of Americans. In fact, about 40 million private sector workers do not have access to retirement savings plans at their jobs and are struggling to make ends meet.

Several States, including my home State of Oregon, have developed and are ready to implement innovative solutions that will help workers save for retirement. Municipalities are also interested in stepping up to address this challenge and help their residents save. These are people who do not have a plan currently. They want help; they need help in saving.

So in August of 2016, the Department of Labor issued its final rule providing guidance and clarity to States and private sector employees on the kind of State-based payroll deduction retirement savings programs that would not be subject to ERISA, the Employee Retirement Income Security Act.

As part of that August 2016 final rule, the Department of Labor indicated that it would initiate another rulemaking process to consider whether and how to include other jurisdictions. The Department of Labor invited and considered public comment on this process.

As a result, in December of 2016, the Department of Labor issued a final rule that would allow certain localities under specific conditions to establish retirement savings programs.

To be eligible, the locality must have an authority under relevant State law; it must be larger than the least populous State, which is currently Wyoming, at approximately 600,000 residents; it must not be in a State that has already enacted a statewide payroll deduction savings plan; and it must implement and administer the plan for its workers.

Now, according to the Department of Labor's final rule, three cities, New York City, Philadelphia, and Seattle, were identified as having potential interest. New York City's comptroller has noted that 57 percent of the city's private sector workers do not have access to a retirement plan at their place of employment.

This final rule just went into effect last month, and now my friends on the other side of the aisle are rushing to repeal the rule and prevent the Labor Department from issuing any substantially similar rule in the future.

Congress should be in the business of helping people save for retirement, not in the business of unfairly limiting or jeopardizing workers' ability to save for retirement; nor should Congress go out of its way to undermine the rights of cities and counties to implement innovative solutions that are needed for their residents.

I urge my colleagues to reject H.J. Res. 67 and get to work on meaningful solutions to address our country's retirement security crisis. America's working families deserve the opportunity to be able to save enough to retire with dignity and security.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley), the chair of the House Democratic Caucus and a senior member of the Ways and Means Committee.

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

Mr. Speaker, to clarify further, this rule simply amends the State rule that we addressed in H.J. Res. 66, that gives the safe harbor to jurisdictions with strict investor protections.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Espaillat), a new member of the Education and the Workforce Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley) because New York, according to their comptroller, has noted that 57 percent of the city's private sector workers do not have access to a retirement plan at their place of employment.

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

This has been a good discussion, but I want to reemphasize that there is a need in this country. People are insecure about their retirement. There are too many people--millions of people across the country--who do not have retirement savings. So, today, my colleagues aren't coming here and saying: We have a plan; let's help these people save for retirement.

Instead, they are going to make it harder for States and municipalities who are stepping up to fill this critical need.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to stand with workers who deserve a chance at saving for retirement and who will get that chance because, as with the State bill, now there are several large municipalities stepping up to help.

I urge my colleagues not to undermine the work of those cities and municipalities that are working to enact innovative solutions. Again, these are managed by investment professionals. There are investor protections in these plans. People do not have to participate, but they are hungry for this opportunity. Millions of people across the country are watching.

Where is the solution?

Let's not get in their way. Please join me in opposing H.J. Res. 66 and H.J. Res. 67.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.J. Res. 58, which would undermine the requirement that States assess the quality of their teacher preparation programs and weaken efforts to provide educators with high-quality teacher preparation programs.

There is no doubt that our country needs highly skilled and diverse educators, and that means attracting good people by providing them with high-quality preparation and ongoing support, especially early in their careers. Many teacher preparation programs are meeting this charge-- recruiting diverse candidates, offering rigorous practicums, and providing supports that follow them into their classrooms.

But some programs are still preparing large cohorts of educators for fields that are not in demand. And, according to one survey, more than 60 percent of teachers still enter the classroom feeling unprepared for one of the toughest, most important jobs in America.

Many of us readily agree that the regulations governing transparency and program quality for teacher preparation are not perfect. But, let's remember that this resolution would effectively demolish key provisions at the Higher Education Act, which was last reauthorized in 2008, and in which Members from both sides of the aisle agreed that States needed to provide better data on the quality of their teacher preparation programs.

If the rules for improving teacher preparation programs are unnecessary, as my friends across the aisle may contend, I would ask them to explain why critical sections of the Higher Education Act remain largely unimplemented, nearly a decade after Members of Congress wrote the requirements into law. Without regulations, provisions of the 2008 reauthorization will continue to go unfilled. Taxpayer-funded grants will continue to support ineffective programs for teachers in high-needs schools.

The truth is, Democrats and Republicans could probably reach consensus about how we might like to see these regulations amended and improved. I am sure we all support robust data on how new teachers are performing and being supported in the classroom. And I am sure we all support States and institutions using data to continually strengthen their preparation programs.

But, unfortunately, my Republican colleagues appear unwilling to have that conversation about how to give teacher preparation programs the tools they need to improve. Instead, they have offered this resolution that would essentially guarantee that important provisions in law are never fully implemented by this administration, or a future administration, because this resolution is under the Congressional Review Act, which, until recently, has been used successfully only once. It is a blunt instrument that actually bans Federal agencies from providing similar protections in the future.

So instead of fixing the teacher preparation regulations and upholding congressional intent in the Higher Education Act, supporters of this resolution are turning their backs on the law. The resolution is an overreaction. It appears to be part of a dangerous agenda to do permanent damage to the Department of Education's important oversight and enforcement responsibilities.

I urge my colleagues to oppose this and work together on amending the regulations.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.J. Res. 57.

This resolution is an extreme measure that will disrupt and delay the implementation of the bipartisan Every Student Succeeds Act, an important law that replaces the failed policies of No Child Left Behind by carefully balancing the need for more local control in education with strong Federal civil rights protections for students.

Today, sadly, the promise of the Every Student Succeeds Act is in jeopardy. This resolution appears to be part of a larger effort to dismantle the oversight and enforcement responsibilities of the Department of Education which would harm all students.

If my Republican friends are serious about successfully implementing the

law we all worked so hard to pass, they would not be demolishing a key set of regulations, and certainly not while States are currently finalizing their plans to implement the new accountability systems and public reporting requirements outlined in the regulations.

These regulations give States considerable flexibility and guidance. For example, they provide additional time to identify schools for comprehensive and targeted support. They ensure that parents are notified if their school is identified for additional support and explain how parents can get involved in their school's improvement efforts, and they give States flexibility to use multiple indicators in evaluating schools. These regulations are reasonable clarifications that reinforce the intent of the law.

Of course, my colleagues might disagree with some elements of the regulations, but this is the wrong way to change them. If my colleagues were serious about changing the regulations, then they would involve stakeholders and have a collaborative and transparent process to amend the rules through the public notice and comment process.

Unfortunately, without critical rules for implementing the Every Student Succeeds Act and the ability to write similar rules in the future, I expect we will see two things happen, both of which are detrimental:

Some States will take an anything-goes approach, which could hurt our 15 million public school students and, historically, is particularly damaging to African-American students, Hispanic students, Native American students, students with disabilities, and English-language learners. Remember the original Elementary and Secondary Education Act was about equity.

Other States, without clear rules for compliance, will simply continue existing policies--many of which are a legacy of the No Child Left Behind era--and miss out on the important flexibility and positive changes in the new law.

Using the Congressional Review Act to dismantle important regulations for the Every Student Succeeds Act will create a great deal of uncertainty and threaten the implementation of the law. Certainty is what our school districts need, and it risks critical equity protections for disadvantaged students.

The resolution before us is an extreme measure. It is entirely avoidable. The administration can revise these regulations, but instead, the supporters of this resolution are choosing to gut this important law by making implementation essentially unfeasible and uncertain.

Mr. Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to stand with our students across this country and vote ``no'' on this resolution, and then let's work together to amend the regulations.

Mr. Speaker, this is Fatemeh. She is not a terrorist. She is a 4-month-old baby girl who is in immediate need of open heart surgery. Her parents desperately want the best care for her, so they planned to bring her from their home in Iran to Portland, Oregon, to one of the best hospitals for pediatric heart surgery. That is where Fatemeh's uncle and grandparents all live. They are U.S. citizens.

Then President Trump hastily issued the executive order, and the family's plans were brought to a halt. The order is supposed to expire in 90 days, but Fatemeh's family does not know if she can wait that long.

Now, I don't know what the President had in mind when he signed that order, but it probably wasn't baby Fatemeh. Keeping 4-month-old babies out of our country does not make us safer. It puts her life in danger and it diminishes the United States in the eyes of the world.

My office has reached out to Fatemeh's family in Oregon to be of assistance, but it is heartbreaking and disgraceful that this even happened. I hope the courts invalidate this unconstitutional executive order soon, and I hope it is in time for baby Fatemeh.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.J. Res. 37.

President Obama's Fair Pay and Safe Workplaces rule reinforces employment protections and laws that help veterans, individuals with disabilities, older Americans, minorities, and LGBTQ workers. It protects workers in our country so they receive a fair day's pay for a fair day's work.

This rule was passed in response to discovering that billions of taxpayer dollars went to companies that violated Federal workplace laws. A contractor who cheats workers out of their pay, endangers their safety at work, or engages in discriminatory practices should be required at least to disclose this information when bidding for Federal contracts. Taxpayer dollars should not support the exploitation of workers. That is just common sense.

The resolution before us would also remove critical protections for workers that allow them to access our judicial system. The Fair Pay and Safe Workplaces rule bans forced arbitration in workplace discrimination and sexual assault cases for contracts of $1 million or greater, a policy already in place at the Department of Defense that was enacted with broad bipartisan support in 2010. Workers deserve the opportunity to have their day in court to seek justice for their sexual assault and discrimination claims.

I oppose this resolution to disapprove of these protections because it gives serial law violators a free pass at the cost of workers' safety, and it disadvantages the law-abiding contractors in Oregon and across the country who follow our Nation's laws.

H.J. Res. 37 before us today would reward unlawful and discriminatory conduct. I urge my colleagues to oppose it.