Katherine Clark

Ms. CLARK of Massachusetts

Ms. CLARK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is an insult to the millions of American workers who deserve to be treated fairly and in a timely manner under the law. Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to reject this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. CLARK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Ms. CLARK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this amendment which would block the NLRB's election rule, an attempt to undermine collective bargaining rights. The NLRB enacted this rule to modernize and streamline the process for voting on union representation. To be clear, the NLRB undertook a very deliberative rulemaking process. It was transparent, and it included input from stakeholders and the public. The majority's claim that this rule enables ambush elections is false. These are commonsense adjustments that eliminate unnecessary delays that have hindered the union election process for decades. The election rule provides for the timely exchange of information so that issues can be resolved quickly. It improves workers' ability to hear from all sides prior to making a decision, and it reduces frivolous litigation. I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. CLARK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott), the distinguished ranking member of the Education and the Workforce Committee.

Ms. CLARK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Polis), a member of the Education and the Workforce Committee.

Ms. CLARK of Massachusetts. I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. CLARK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Ms. CLARK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this amendment. The underlying bill is already underfunded. The majority has imposed a $5 billion cut to the Labor-HHS bill below the 2017 omnibus level. This cut is as unnecessary as it is indiscriminate because it indiscriminately cuts programs in this bill without thought to the relative merit. For instance, this amendment would result in fewer infants and toddlers receiving Head Start's services, fewer students receiving financial aid to help afford college, fewer biomedical research grants, and cuts to public health emergency response. The list goes on and on. Investment is what we need to help build and strengthen our middle class, and this amendment threatens that. Mr. Chairman, I strongly urge Members to oppose this amendment.

Ms. CLARK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Chairman, I do not oppose this amendment. In fact, I support my colleague's effort to improve access to early childhood mental health promotion, intervention, and treatment. But I think it is important that we come back to why we are here tonight and why this $5 million for mental health programs is not included in this Labor-HHS bill under consideration. The reason is because this bill is being cut by $5 billion from FY17 levels. This is the end result that we get when the majority's efforts to slash nondefense spending come to fruition. We are forced to choose between lifesaving programs, such as mental health and substance abuse programs, and programs that invest in our future, like early childhood education or job training. We ought to be negotiating a bipartisan budget deal to lift the sequestration caps on both defense and nondefense programs. Then we could begin working on a bipartisan base that will allow us to adequately fund mental health and substance abuse prevention.

Ms. CLARK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, again, I rise not in opposition to this amendment, but I support this effort by my colleague as well. Let's increase behavioral health integration into pediatric primary care, for I, too, have seen the shortages of mental health providers in my home State and the very real and devastating impact that that has on families. This is a false crisis. There is $5 billion that we have cut from the FY17 levels, but this false crisis has very real impacts on the lives of children and their families. Let's get to the work of negotiating a bipartisan budget to lift sequestration caps on both defense and nondefense, and draft a reasonable Labor-HHS bill that adequately funds mental health and substance abuse prevention programs. We have the opportunity and we need to seize it.

Ms. CLARK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment.

Ms. CLARK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this amendment, which would remove protections for workers who report workplace injuries and prevent OSHA from collecting data necessary to identify and target the most hazardous workplaces and serious safety and health problems. Let's look at 2015. There were nearly 5,000 workers killed on the job by traumatic injuries and an estimated 50,000 deaths from occupational diseases. Each day, 150 workers in this country died because of exposure to workplace hazards. In 2015, there were 3.7 million workplace injuries reported, with more than half of them serious, but these numbers don't show the whole problem. Studies have shown that up to half of all workplace injuries are not reported on the OSHA injury log. One of the reasons is that some workers fear that they will be retaliated against or fired if they report an injury. The new OSHA rule strengthens protections for workers who report injuries, which will allow workers to report them more freely and result in more complete reporting. OSHA's injury tracking rule is an important worker protection measure that does three things. First, it prohibits employers from retaliating against workers who report workplace injuries. Second, it continues longstanding requirements that certain employers in high-risk industries submit summary injury and illness data to OSHA, which now must be done electronically. And, third, it requires large employers in high-risk injuries to submit more detailed injury and illness data to OSHA. These are critical protections for workers. They should not be overturned. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. CLARK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, Congress should support OSHA's efforts to protect workers and use their data to target safety and health efforts to the most dangerous workplaces. Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to reject this rider and to move forward with the underlying bill. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. CLARK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott), my friend, the distinguished ranking member of the Education and the Workforce Committee.

Ms. CLARK of Massachusetts

Ms. CLARK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in recognition of Master Sergeant Scott Forbes from Melrose, Massachusetts. On June 27, 2017, Master Sergeant Forbes will retire from the Air Force Reserve after 22 years of service to his country and his community. During his service, Scott was deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan. He most recently served with the 58th Aerial Port Squadron at Westover Air Base as an air transportation craftsman. Scott, his wife Susan, and their children Abygail and Jackson are valued members of our Melrose community. Scott and Susan grew up in Melrose, where they both attended high school. As a young man, Scott decided he would continue the tradition of service passed on by his late father Bill Forbes, who fought for the U.S. Army during the Vietnam War. The Forbes family tradition of service extends beyond their military contributions. Today, just as his father before him, Scott continues to serve families in our community as an alderman in Melrose. Scott, Susan, and the entire Forbes family exemplify the contributions of generations of service members and military families who have protected our country and continue to make our communities great places to live, work and raise a family.

Ms. CLARK of Massachusetts

Ms. CLARK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Illinois for his leadership on this bill; and also to Congressman Thompson for all he has done to bring this to where it is today, because millions of students and workers are eager to advance into good-paying, high-skilled technical careers. From childcare to manufacturing, to carpentry or computer science, jobs that require technical training are in high demand, and we want to make sure that students across the country have the skills they need to get hired and develop their careers. With this bill, we will help strengthen the Perkins career and technical education program that reaches over 11 million students every year. This bill will help policymakers measure what does and does not work in career and technical education, allowing us to build on past successes. It will ensure our CTE programs are aligned with the needs of high-demand growth industries to make sure that America is competitive globally, and it will support work-based learning and apprenticeships, and our early education and childcare workforce.

Ms. CLARK of Massachusetts. This will bring the Perkins program into the modern, 21st century global economy. This has broad bipartisan support. I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this act, and I urge them to fully fund the CTE programs and reject the proposed cuts of $168 million.

Ms. CLARK of Massachusetts

Ms. CLARK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Massachusetts. I am glad to share in this bipartisan moment of admiration for his work with my colleague from Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to urge my colleagues to defeat the previous question so that we can bring a resolution to the floor. This resolution will ensure that the House meets its constitutional responsibility to conduct oversight of the executive branch by investigating potential conflicts of interest of President Donald J. Trump. It reads: ``Whereas, on October 18, 2016, then-candidate Donald J. Trump communicated via Twitter: `I will Make Our Government Honest Again--believe me. But first, I'm going to have to #draintheswamp in DC'; ``Whereas, President Trump subsequently nominated a team of wealthy and connected insiders to lead his Cabinet, many of whom have been forced to withdraw from consideration because of irrevocable conflicts of interest; ``Whereas, as President-elect, President Trump announced that he would be `leaving his great business' to his adult children, a move he felt would be `visually important'; ``Whereas, President Trump has taken no steps to untangle his financial interest in his business holdings, to limit his ability to advise the nominal managers of The Trump Organization, or to prevent other interests from currying favor with the White House by doing business with companies that might benefit the President's bottom line; ``Whereas, President Trump has reversed White House policy and now refuses to release visitor logs to the public; ``Whereas, on May 30, 2014, President Trump stated: `If I decide to run for office, I will produce my tax returns, absolutely'; ``Whereas, on January 24, 2016, President Trump stated that he would release his `very big returns . . . in the next period of time'; ``Whereas, on February 25, 2016, President Trump changed his position and stated that, although he could not release his tax returns while under audit, he would do so `as soon as the audit is done'; ``Whereas, on May 11, 2016, President Trump communicated via Twitter: `In interview I told @AP that my taxes are under routine audit and I would release my tax returns when the audit is complete, not after election!'; ``Whereas, on January 22, 2017, White House senior adviser Kellyanne Conway stated that `the White House response is that he's not going to release his returns'; ``Whereas, President Trump has directed the Congress to act on comprehensive reform of the Internal Revenue Code; ``Whereas, without the President's tax returns, the public cannot know how the full extent to which any proposed reforms will personally benefit the President; ``Whereas, on January 11, 2017, President Trump insisted that he has `no dealings with Russia'; ``Whereas, it has been widely reported that President Trump sought and received funding from Russian investors, especially when American banks stopped lending to him after his multiple bankruptcies; ``Whereas, Donald Trump, Jr., who runs day-to-day business operations for his father's companies, has stated: `Russians make up a pretty disproportionate cross-section of a lot of our assets. We see a lot of money pouring in from Russia'; ``Whereas, on March 20, 2017, James B. Comey, Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, confirmed the existence of a Federal investigation into multiple connections between the Trump campaign and the regime of Russian President Vladimir Putin; ``Whereas, it has been reported that President Trump has personally guaranteed over $300 million in loans to German financial institution Deutsche Bank AG; ``Whereas, the Trump administration is now responsible for overseeing multiple investigations into the trading and lending practices of Deutsche Bank AG and for negotiating a potentially multibillion-dollar settlement with the bank related to its trading of mortgage-backed securities; ``Whereas, these matters represent only a few of the many instances in which President Trump has broken his promise to `drain the swamp'; ``Whereas, under the Constitution of the United States, the United States Congress has a responsibility to conduct oversight of the executive branch of government; ``Whereas, the majority of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform of the House of Representatives rejected an amendment to have the committee's oversight plan that would have tasked the committee with investigating the President's conflicts of interest; ``Whereas, members of the Committees on Energy and Commerce, Foreign Affairs, the Judiciary, Homeland Security, and Ways and Means of the House of Representatives have each advanced resolutions of inquiry designed to obtain information about the President's ongoing conflicts of interest; ``Whereas, the majority has blocked each of those resolutions from consideration on the House floor; ``Whereas, the continuing refusal of the majority to conduct even basic oversight of the Trump administration diminishes the status of the Congress as a coequal branch of government; ``Whereas, this continued neglect undermines the credibility of the House of Representatives and raises a question of the privileges of the House; ``Now, therefore, be it Resolved, That the House of Representatives directs the following persons to take the following actions: ``(1) President Trump is directed to transmit to the House of Representatives copies of any document, record, memorandum, correspondence, or other communication in possession of the Executive Office of the President, or any portion of such communication, that refers or relates to President Trump's proposal to maintain an interest in his business holdings, while turning over day-to-day operation of those interests to his sons Donald J. Trump, Jr. and Eric Trump. ``(2) In support of transparency in government and the longstanding tradition of the disclosure of tax returns of Presidents and Presidential candidates, the Secretary of the Treasury is directed to provide the Committee on Ways and Means with the tax return information of Donald J. Trump for tax years 2007 through 2016 for review in closed executive session by the committee as provided under section 6103 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, and directs the committee to hold a vote on reporting such information to the full House of Representatives. ``(3) The Director of the Office of Government Ethics is directed to publish any waiver or exception granted to any officer or employee of the government to the January 28, 2017, executive order entitled `Ethics Commitments by Executive Branch Appointees'. ``(4) The Administrator of General Services is directed to provide the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform of the House of Representatives with any legal analysis supporting its March 23, 2017, conclusion that Trump International Hotel in Washington may maintain its lease with the Federal Government, despite an express prohibition on elected officials taking part in the lease. ``(5) President Trump is directed to provide visitor logs for both the White House and Mar-a-Lago to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform of the House of Representatives on a rolling and ongoing basis, and directs the committee to hold ongoing votes on reporting the contents of such visitor logs to the full House of Representatives.'' Mr. Speaker, I filed this resolution because it appears to me and the American public that Mr. Trump has drained the swamp and funneled it into the Oval Office. Trump's billionaire, special interest friends are now in charge of policies that impact every American, every family, and every child. Everything from education to health care to taxes are in the hands of people who have never sent their kids to public schools, who have never had to take out a loan to pay for college, and who have never had a medical bill they couldn't afford--and all of this is in the hands of a President who refuses to release his tax returns. While Trump fights to keep Americans in the dark about which of his other friends he owes special favors to--whether it is Big Oil, foreign banks, lobbyists at Mar-a-Lago, or the Russians--Republicans seem to be happy to look the other way. Transparency and accountability are not partisan ideas. Families at home deserve a Congress that works together to be the necessary check that our Constitution provides over this unaccountable administration. I urge my colleagues to defeat the previous question.

Ms. CLARK of Massachusetts

Ms. CLARK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, the President and I do agree on one thing: designing a healthcare system is complicated. But the effects of TrumpCare are as simple as they are devastating: 24 million hardworking Americans will lose their coverage; your healthcare costs and premiums will go up, and your coverage will go down; and for those of us between the ages of 50 and 64, we are about to be hit with an age tax just when we need coverage the most, just when we are trying to help with college tuition and save for our retirement. As we face an opiate crisis in this country that takes 120 American lives a day, TrumpCare will close the door on treatment for over 1 million Americans. Our President tells us that he is a dealmaker. This is the ultimate bad deal for the American people, and we should reject this bill.

Ms. CLARK of Massachusetts

Ms. CLARK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, well, here we are, on International Women's Day, 7 years from when we started the Affordable Care Act, 60 votes to repeal behind us, and yet only this week we have had the big reveal of what the plan will be for replacement. What are we seeing? We don't have any cost information, but we know we are going to protect wealthy insurance executives, and we know that an estimated 15 to 20 million Americans will have their health insurance ripped away from them. Let me introduce you to one who is concerned about her ongoing coverage. Her name is Stephanie Chaney, and she is from my district in Framingham, Massachusetts. She is a recent grad student at Lesley University, where she studied to be a clinical counselor and dance therapist. She was diagnosed with a rare and extremely painful joint disease, and because of the ACA, she got the treatment she needed. Because she was a student and not employed, the healthcare law and the changes we make are going to have a direct impact on her life. She worries that if she cannot find another affordable plan, she will have to start over again. Let's think of her and do the right thing by Americans with their health care.

Ms. CLARK of Massachusetts

Ms. CLARK of Massachusetts. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Colorado for all her leadership. We are barely 6 weeks into this new Congress and the Republicans are back at it again, attacking comprehensive health care for American women. The regulation under attack says that in order to be awarded title X funding, you must be able to deliver the services. Those services are family planning and related preventative health services. The majority is correct, we are not talking about abortion because abortion is not funded by title X. Why would Republicans oppose this regulation? Because it allows them a backdoor way to make funding decisions based on ideology, not quality of care. Don't we want the best health outcomes for the over 4 million patients who benefited last year from HIV tests, breast exams, and contraception coverage under title X? Title X-funded healthcare providers around this country are high- quality professionals who provide needed care for millions of families, many of whom are underserved. I oppose this resolution.

Ms. CLARK of Massachusetts

Ms. CLARK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question so we can bring up the Presidential Conflicts of Interest Act. Mr. Speaker, American families are worried. Over the last month, I have been flooded with messages from my constituents who are anxious about the direction of our country. Never before has our country been forced to ask its incoming President if he is motivated by service to his country or if he is motivated by personal enrichment. Never before have we had a President- elect who will act as both landlord and tenant of a publicly owned property being used for private profit. Never before have we had the same people who are running a President's businesses also act as official advisers and agents. Never has a President-elect owed millions of dollars of debt to foreign banks. The next administration will shape how our tax dollars are spent, who the Federal Government does business with, and the integrity of America's standing in the global economy. Every President in modern history has taken voluntary steps to ensure his financial interests do not conflict with the needs of the American people. Yet, the current President-elect refuses to place his assets and his businesses in a blind trust. The American people are left wondering whether their President-elect will work in their best interest or to line his own pockets. Mr. Speaker, this is unprecedented. There should be no question about whether the administration will put the needs of Americans first. There is nothing partisan about transparency and accountability that comes with being the leader of the free world. That is why we should all support the Presidential Conflicts of Interest Act. This bill strengthens transparency in the Oval Office and guarantees that the needs of the American people will never compete with or be beholden to a President's financial interests. This bill ensures that the President and Vice President's assets are placed in a certified blind trust. The bill also requires Presidential appointees to recuse themselves from matters involving the President's financial conflicts of interest. Every President in recent history, from President Johnson to President Obama, has voluntarily used some form of blind trust or placed their assets in an investment vehicle over which they had no control. Our bill simply aligns the President-elect and future Presidents with this long-held practice. The American people are counting on our leadership. Every Democrat and every Republican should want to eliminate uncertainty and promote transparency and accountability in the executive branch. I ask my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question so we can bring this urgently needed legislation to the floor.

Ms. CLARK of Massachusetts

Ms. CLARK of Massachusetts. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding. Republicans today are asking us to spend more than $1.5 million to conduct a radical, dangerous inquisition that targets and intimidates private citizens. To satisfy their seemingly unquenchable obsession with rolling back women's reproductive rights and access to basic health care, this overreaching panel recklessly has demanded names, and interferes in the lives of law-abiding students, scientists, and researchers whose private lives and jobs have been turned upside down by their own government. What do we have to show for this display of government abuse? Absolutely nothing. In fact, it is worse than nothing. Today, they are invoking institutional responsibility to ask the taxpayers to foot a bill for $800,000 of their own cost overruns. This is money that could have been used to help families, feed the hungry, help our veterans and military families, and go toward education. I urge my colleagues to reject this dangerous abuse of power and taxpayer funding.

Ms. CLARK of Massachusetts

Ms. CLARK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to demand a vote on commonsense gun safety legislation. It has been 26 years since our country has passed any meaningful gun safety legislation. I have only been in the House for a little over 2\1/2\ years, and we have had 10 moments of silence to recognize victims of mass shootings during that time. After Fort Hood in April of 2014, when 19 people were shot in a deadly rampage, Republican leaders brought us together for a moment of silence, but there was no discussion about honoring those lives with our action. In May of 2014, the country came together after a massacre in Santa Barbara, and families looked to our Nation's leaders to see what they could do. What did they hear? More silence. In June of 2015, nine parishioners were murdered by a hate-filled radical--who was able to get his gun because of a loophole--while they were at a Bible study at the Emanuel Church in South Carolina. While those lost inspired our country, the Members of Congress bowed their heads in silence and did nothing else. Then there was Chattanooga, Roseburg, Colorado Springs, and San Bernardino. Dozens were murdered in senseless killing sprees. And while the country demanded a vote to finally do something about gun violence, this Congress responded with silence. Three months ago, after the worst gun massacre in modern history took place at the Pulse nightclub in Orlando, Florida, some of us had finally had enough. If our friends in the LGBT community have taught us anything, it is that silence equals death. And this is no time to be silent. Our frustration, and the frustration of the American people, resulted in a sit-in that gave voice to the American families who are fed up with a Congress that is cowed into silence by the rich and powerful gun lobby. Here we are, 3 months later, and House Republicans have spent more time thinking about how they can punish us for that sit-in than doing anything to address the gun violence devastating Americans. In July, rather than allow debates and votes on keeping American children and families safe, Republican leaders adjourned this House. Since then, an additional 2,015 Americans were killed by guns. In Chicago alone, 3,000 people have been killed or injured by guns just this year. This is a public health crisis, and this Republican Congress has returned to its routine silence instead of working to keep Americans safe. I am here to tell you, the American people will not forget and will not continue to stand for this silence and inaction. Every single day, victims and survivors of gun violence come and tell their heart-wrenching stories to Members of Congress. I have stood with Felicia Sanders as she gathered the courage to stand in front of our Nation's Capitol and tell the story that no mother should have to tell. At Emanuel Church in North Carolina, Felicia's son, Tywanza, ran toward the gunman while trying to shield others in his Bible study group. Tywanza was only 26 when Felicia said her final goodbye. I have had the honor of thanking Catherine Bodine for coming and telling her story to the American people. Her abuser, who had prior felony convictions, found a loophole, purchased a gun online with no background check, no waiting period, nothing. Catherine was shot three times trying to protect her 10-year- old daughter. Her daughter, Sami, the girl she called her best friend and her inspiration, died in her arms. These mothers, and thousands more like them, get up every single morning and summon the bravery to be beacons for change this country is asking for. Although their lives are forever changed by violence, they take it upon themselves to fight for their communities, tell their stories, and make sure that no other family has to experience this horror. My question, Mr. Speaker, is this: If everyday people, moms like Felicia and Catherine, can find the courage to fight for change, why is their courage met with the cowardice of silence? Let's have a vote, have the debate to honor the lives that they have lost and that we have lost as a country, and let's end this stony, callous silence.

Ms. CLARK of Massachusetts

Ms. CLARK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to bring up H.R. 1217, the bipartisan expanded background checks legislation, to honor the memory of Aimee Kirst, a victim of gun violence who never received a moment of action on the House floor.