Suzanne Bonamici

Ms. BONAMICI

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

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

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

Ms. BONAMICI. 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.

Ms. BONAMICI

Ms. BONAMICI. 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.

Ms. BONAMICI

Ms. BONAMICI. 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.

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

Ms. BONAMICI. 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.

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

Ms. BONAMICI. 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.

Ms. BONAMICI. 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.

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

Ms. BONAMICI. 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.

Ms. BONAMICI. 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.

Ms. BONAMICI. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Ms. BONAMICI. 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.

Ms. BONAMICI. 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.

Ms. BONAMICI

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

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

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

Ms. BONAMICI. 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.

Ms. BONAMICI. 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.

Ms. BONAMICI

Ms. BONAMICI. 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.

Ms. BONAMICI. 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.

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