Suzanne Bonamici

Ms. BONAMICI

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

Ms. BONAMICI. 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.

Ms. BONAMICI. 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.

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

Ms. BONAMICI. May I inquire as to the remaining time.

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

Ms. BONAMICI. 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.

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

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

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

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

Ms. BONAMICI. 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.

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

Ms. BONAMICI

Ms. BONAMICI. 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.

Ms. BONAMICI. 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.

Ms. BONAMICI. 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.

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

Ms. BONAMICI

Ms. BONAMICI. 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.

Ms. BONAMICI

Ms. BONAMICI. 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.

Ms. BONAMICI

Ms. BONAMICI. 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.

Ms. BONAMICI

Ms. BONAMICI. 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.

Ms. BONAMICI

Ms. BONAMICI. Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule and the underlying bill, H.R. 7, a dangerous attack on the right of women to make their own decisions about their health and their bodies. On Saturday, I, too, joined the peaceful march in our Nation's Capital with hundreds of thousands of women and men. Millions more marched in Oregon, across the country, and around the world to demand that our voices be heard. This legislation, one of the majority's first priorities under the Trump administration, won't create jobs. It will create barriers to reproductive health care for countless women. It will disproportionately affect low-income women, young women, women of color, women in rural communities, and immigrant women. This bill turns back the clock. It puts women's lives at risk. Restricting abortion does not make it go away. It makes it unsafe. This bill will drive women back to back alleys. I urge a ``no'' vote on the rule and on H.R. 7.

Ms. BONAMICI

Ms. BONAMICI. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this budget resolution. The Affordable Care Act saves lives. Today I want to talk about Mark Rouska from Tualatin, Oregon. Mark was diagnosed with stage IV renal cancer, and doctors told him the cancer had metastasized to his lungs. He had to resign from a job he loved as a special education teacher. Without chemotherapy, he would probably not be alive. That treatment costs about $20,000 a month, but because he has insurance through the Affordable Care Act, Mark pays about $175 a month. At the end of this month, Mark and his wife, Patrice, will celebrate their 31st anniversary. Repealing the Affordable Care Act will endanger health coverage for millions of people. One of them is Mark. I will do everything in my power to protect the many Oregonians who rely on the Affordable Care Act. I urge my colleagues to oppose this resolution.

Ms. BONAMICI

Ms. BONAMICI. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I urge my colleagues to support this bill. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

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