Katherine Clark

Ms. CLARK of Massachusetts

Ms. CLARK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, today we celebrate National DNA Day, which marks the completion of the Human Genome Project that produced the first complete DNA sequence of a human being. On the 15th anniversary of this milestone, the Broad Institute of MIT and Harvard will reach another remarkable achievement: having now sequenced a total of 100,000 human genomes since the conclusion of the Human Genome Project. Connecting MIT, Harvard, the Harvard teaching hospitals, and the life sciences and technology industries in Cambridge, MA and beyond, the Broad Institute is one of the world's leading biomedical research institutions. In the service of its mission to propel the understanding and treatment of disease, the Broad Institute is also one of the largest producers of human genomic information; it has made more genomic data available for health research than any other organization. Over the last decade, the Broad Institute has generated about ten percent of the world's entire knowledge base of human genomic data. Scientists in the United States and around the globe have used its data to research the underlying causes of devastating diseases, from common conditions such as heart disease, diabetes, and cancer to very rare childhood disorders. That tremendous progress reflects not only on the Broad Institute, but on the wisdom of our government to meaningfully invest in biomedicine with its launch of the Human Genome Project in 1990, from which we are still reaping the returns. I want to thank the Broad Institute for their commitment to science, health, and progress. I am incredibly proud to have this institution and their historic achievements within my district.

Ms. CLARK of Massachusetts

Ms. CLARK of Massachusetts. Madam Speaker, I am opposed.

Ms. CLARK of Massachusetts. Madam Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.

Ms. CLARK of Massachusetts. Madam Speaker, this is the final amendment to the bill, which will not kill the bill or send it back to committee. If adopted, the bill will immediately proceed to final passage, as amended. My amendment is a commonsense measure that protects the American people from corruption and conflicts of interest. My amendment simply states that before taking any action to eliminate or change a regulation, regulators must disclose any communications from the White House or the President's family advocating for the action and whether the President, his family, or any senior administration officials would benefit financially from such action. The American people need to have confidence that their government is working in the best interest of the people and not to enrich a President and his family and wealthy friends. Every day, the news is filled with stories that raise this very question. Does the Trump family benefit when the EPA loosens environmental safeguards on construction projects? Does Jared Kushner's deeply indebted family business receive favorable treatment when he advocates for certain policies? Do the President's sons get special permits from foreign governments when the President changes policies towards those countries? Who in the administration gets richer when our coasts are opened up to oil drilling, when tariffs are levied on steel, or when predatory lenders are allowed to prey on college students? President Trump has rejected the norm that all modern-day Presidents have followed. His refusal to release his tax returns or to remove himself from his family business necessitates codifying the norms and practices of previous Presidents into law in this disclosure. Congress must do its job and provide a necessary check on a President who has shown contempt for his basic duty to put Americans first. All of these policies affect American families. They affect the taxes we pay, the air we breathe, and whether our kids can afford to go to college. We deserve to know if these decisions are being made to enrich a President and if they are being made at the taxpayers' expense. This simple act of disclosure will allow the American people to judge for themselves who this administration is really looking out for. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. CLARK of Massachusetts. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Ms. CLARK of Massachusetts

Ms. CLARK of Massachusetts. First, I thank my colleague from Illinois, Congresswoman Kelly, for her leadership in this fight to reduce gun violence and for bringing us together this evening, as she has so many times, speaking so eloquently about gun violence, the effect in her district, and around our country. Tonight, I would like to focus on a particular type of gun violence. It is one that happens every 16 hours in America, when a woman is fatally shot by a former or current intimate partner. Here are some more horrific facts: In 8 out of 10 gun deaths involving intimate partners, the victims are women. The majority of mass shooters killed their intimate partner during their rampage, and the perpetrators of domestic violence are the shooters in more than half of all mass shootings. Abused women are five times more likely to be killed by their abuser if their abuser has access to a firearm. All of this adds up to a grisly reality: American women are 16 times more likely to be killed by gunshot than women in any other developed country. You don't have to look very hard to see there is something very wrong with this picture. The most powerful Nation in the world, with our proud tradition of innovation and ingenuity, appears to be completely impotent in reducing gun violence. At least that is what our Republican leaders would like us to believe. We do not debate or have votes on legislation that can help a domestic violence victim who wants to protect her family or wants to prevent her abusive partner from getting their hands on a gun. But if you are the gun lobby, you get a vote to allow those with a history of domestic violence to access guns. I am here to remind my colleagues that these actions come with a devastating price. The names I am going to read tonight are names of Massachusetts women whose domestic abusers have shot them to death. These are women who have died just in the last 5 years in Massachusetts. They are the ones who never get a vote in this Chamber. They are the ones the majority has not even tried to help: Eugenia Gomes Monteiro. Aracelys Valdez DeLeon. Nicole White. Amanda Glover. Jeannine O'Connor. Kelly Sugarman. Yahaira Hernandez. Lisa Trubnikova. Michelle Batista. Matilde Gabin. Mabilia Maranhao. Elizabeth A. Coyne. Ramonita Colon. Audilia DaVeiga. Julie Treadwell. Glomerys Martinez. Donna Zollo. Tyshianna Atkins. Belinda Torres. Keosha N. Gilmore. Lori Levangie. These women and other victims of gun violence deserve better, and we are doing nothing to prevent future deaths. These are just a portion of those who die every single day in this country. We can do better and we must do better. Again, I thank my colleague for all her work to make sure that we fulfill a promise to keep our families at home secure.

Ms. CLARK of Massachusetts

Ms. CLARK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, next week is the fifth-year anniversary of the horrific shootings at the Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut. For a brief moment, it looked like we would actually honor those victims by voting on a bill that would improve background checks to keep guns out of the hands of dangerous criminals, but we should never have gotten our hopes up. There is one winner in the House, and it is the gun lobby. The majority has combined the background check bill with a bill that helps move forward the gun lobby's ultimate agenda: gutting States' gun laws. This bill forces every State to accept the concealed carry laws of every other State, including the 12 States that don't even require a permit to carry a concealed weapon in public, even into a school. Let's take one example of the dangerousness of this bill. A woman in an abusive relationship is five times more likely to be killed by her abuser if there is a gun involved. Let that sink in: bringing a gun into an abusive situation means the chances of a woman dying increases by 500 percent. So it makes all the sense in the world that, if this Congress were interested in public safety, saving lives, curbing gun deaths, that we would be talking about keeping guns out of the hands of dangerous people. But that is not what is happening here. We are talking about a bill that invites domestic abusers to buy a gun in a State with lax laws and legally carry that gun into any other State. This bill creates not only added danger for the public, but for law enforcement. And there is an extra kicker: this bill includes civil liability for police officers as they try to identify who can legally carry a weapon. The National Law Enforcement Partnership to Prevent Gun Violence wrote: ``The complete lack of consistent training standards, the different standards for identifying individuals that are too dangerous to carry, the uncertainty of a document's validity, and the exposure of agencies and police officers to civil liability create unacceptable risks to our Nation's 900,000 police officers and the public at large.'' Read the letters from prosecutors, from attorneys general, from law enforcement, all warning of the dangers of this bill. Anyone with common sense can tell you, this is not only an abdication of our duty to keep Americans safe; it is an overt favor to the rich and powerful gun lobby. But it is no surprise because the gun lobby is the only one who gets a vote on these issues in Congress. If you are a survivor of domestic abuse fleeing across State lines to protect your family, you do not get a vote. If you are a mom whose 6-year-old was murdered in Sandy Hook, you do not get a vote. If your mother or sister was gunned down during a prayer service at Emanuel Church, you do not get a vote. If you are one of the 93 people who die from gunshots every day in this country, you do not get a vote. But if you are the gun lobby, you get a vote every single time. Mr. Speaker, I don't need to tell you, this isn't the kind of action that Americans at home are demanding. We have heard their calls. We have taken the meetings. We have heard their pleas for help. But Republicans in Congress are trying to convince us we can't even try to prevent another death. Here in this Chamber, the moments of silence have turned into decades of inaction. And if that inaction wasn't scandalous enough, now this Congress is paving the way to actually increase gun violence in States that have acted responsibly to decrease it and prevent it. Who is going to pay? Not the rich and powerful gun lobby. No. It will be the next innocent victim of preventable gun violence. You remember, that is the person you couldn't even bother to give a vote.

Ms. CLARK of Massachusetts

Ms. CLARK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I thank our ranking member for yielding and for all of his incredible work on this bill. Mr. Speaker, we were promised tax reform, but that is not what we are seeing in this bill. In fact, you don't have to dig far into this 429- page bill to see that it is a con, a cynical bait and switch for families at home. When this bill was released just 2 weeks ago, I started getting calls from families at home wanting to know how it would affect them. We dug into it, and I want to share just a few of those examples, but it didn't take long to see why it was developed in secret and why it is being rushed to a vote. On page 254, Republicans propose getting rid of a program that helps veterans find work when they come home. 300,000 veterans have been helped by the work opportunity tax credit. The repeal of this provision to reduce taxes for the very wealthiest is a coldhearted way to say thank you for your service. On page 113, this tax scam sends a bill to 9 million households who have extremely high medical costs. Tax breaks for billionaires are expensive; we get that. Under this plan, Americans who live in nursing homes, have a sick child, high medical costs will foot the bill. On pages 95 and 97, students get added to the list of Americans who will be forced to pay for the GOP's tax breaks for corporations. They will see increased debt and taxes. This bill says: Good luck, students. Building an economy that will not allow you to pay off the $1.3 trillion of existing student debt but, instead, will add $2.3 trillion in deficit, this bill was created for you. Just yesterday, the President's chief economic strategist was surprised when the CEOs gathered admitted they would not be investing their tax cuts in jobs and wages.

Ms. CLARK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, he should not have been surprised. Corporations are already sitting on record amounts of cash while generations of hardworking Americans have had to pay for tax experiments like this based on disproven economic theories. Let's not repeat the mistakes of the past. Let's reject this bill and work together to create bipartisan tax reform that is fair and benefits all families.

Ms. CLARK of Massachusetts

Ms. CLARK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, due to a prior family obligation, I was unable to vote on the following four rollcall votes. I would like the record to reflect how I would have voted. Rollcall No. 619--``Yes.'' Rollcall No. 620--``No.'' Rollcall No. 621--``Yes.'' Rollcall No. 622--``No.''

Ms. CLARK of Massachusetts

Ms. CLARK of Massachusetts. Madam Speaker, DREAMers are young people who are fighting to give back to the only country they have ever known as home. They are not political bargaining chips, and they didn't ask to be at the center of this immigration debate. They were brought here before they were old enough to know the difference. They grew up as our neighbors, our kids' classmates, and our friends. They are also taxpayers, teachers, medical students, and they are young people who are signing up to serve in our military. Let me tell you about some of the DREAMers I have met in my district. Richard Kim is a student at Tufts University. He was brought here by his parents from Korea when he was just 2 years old. His parents sacrificed a great deal in America--even becoming homeless and living in a car for a while--for the chance that Richard would have a better life than they had. Their son worked hard, got good grades, and, ultimately, was admitted into one of the best schools in the country. Now he is a freshman at Tufts University, studying international relations. One day, he wants to work here in Congress. Richard calls himself 100 percent American. In his words, he says: I grew up here just like everyone else. I want to make a difference in America because this is the place I call home. Let me tell you also about Mario Delgado. In Mario's words, he says: I know what it is like to live like a shadow in a room full of light, keeping my head down to make sure that I don't get sent back to a country that I know nothing of. So Mario kept his head down. He studied, worked through high school to help pay the bills, and saved up money for the future. Mario expects to graduate from college next year. He wants to work in the renewable energy industry. He says he intends to help America with the advancement of fusion energy. And then there is Marla, who started attending school in Framingham, Massachusetts, when she was in the first grade. She describes learning American history, listening to popular music, and watching the Disney channel like the rest of her friends, but something was different. Unlike her friends, she realized she couldn't get a driver's license. As a teenager, she suffered the crushing fear that every knock on the door could mean that she would never see her loved ones again. She feared that applying for college would mean exposing her family, a cruel reality for someone who was the valedictorian of her graduating class. When DACA was enacted, a life of fear became a life of possibility. Marla could now drive. She could earn and save money. She could go to college and contribute to her community. Marla not only went to college, she graduated at the top of her class. She bought a home and is now contributing her talents to the Commonwealth's innovation economy. Last week, Marla bravely came to me as a DREAMer, in front of her coworkers, because she wanted to make a difference. Madam Speaker, DREAMers are bright, young people who are American in their hearts and in their minds. They are American in every way but on paper, and their dream for a better future is unmistakably American. Their families have often endured poverty, violence, and persecution, but despite it all, they have excelled and charted their own path to success. Though they know no other country, they grew up with the threat of deportation and that their families could be torn apart at any given moment. The DACA program showed them a way to come out of the shadows, to lift their heads and reach for their dreams, and give back to a country they call home. Through DACA, 800,000 young people have been able to contribute to our workforce and our Armed Forces. As Marla put it, 800,000 is not just a number; it is birthdays, school events, graduations, homes, and memories. Reversing DACA would mean sending these talented young people to a country they don't even know, where they could potentially be our competitors in our workforce. We have all the tools we need to prevent that from happening and keep DREAMers like Richard, Mario, and Marla in our communities, where they can help us build successful futures. All we need is for leadership to allow us a vote. What these young people deserve is no different than what we want for our own children. If we fail to pass the Dream Act, we not only fail them, we fail to meet our potential as a country. Let's do what the vast majority of Americans are asking us to do. Let's give our DREAMers and the Dream Act a vote.

Ms. CLARK of Massachusetts

Ms. CLARK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, yesterday we grieved for 59 Americans who were killed watching a concert and 527 people who were injured as bullets rained down on them. As horrible as it is, it is only an inflection point on the daily loss of life to gun violence. We have had our grisly House ritual of expressing our heartfelt grief, followed by a moment of silence, but the moments have extended into years. Families at home did not send us here for our thoughts and prayers. No one in this Chamber was elected to tackle our country's challenges with moments of silence. We were elected to work together, to debate, to argue, even fight tooth and nail about the problems Americans are facing and what we can do to help, but that is not what we are doing here. Even after the massacre of children and now the worst massacre by guns in American history, our Republican leaders continue to block debate on commonsense gun safety legislation that is backed by Americans across the spectrum of political ideology. Now we have had our moment of silence, so it is back to business as usual: Members of Congress who call a mass shooting evil and turn around and take cash from the gun lobby. The leadership of this House is so enamored with silence that one of the only policies that they will talk about is silencing guns. Why would you endanger our police officers and families by remaining silent on solutions to reduce gun violence and promote a bill that deregulates silencers? There is only one explanation, and that is that the monstrous roar of the gun lobby is drowning out the voices of families, it is drowning out compassion, and it is drowning out common sense. Many say there is nothing to be done. There is a falsehood that any commonsense solution will lead directly to Americans losing their guns and their Second Amendment rights. This is as pernicious as it is cowardly. This is the United States Congress. Americans think that we are strong enough to have this debate on reducing gun violence. Why don't we? Don't shrug off the loss of life. Don't be complicit in the daily carnage of gun violence. Mr. Speaker, it is time for each of us to stand up, to do our jobs, to come together and debate solutions, and to bring them to a vote. American families are counting on us, and they are watching.

Ms. CLARK of Massachusetts

Ms. CLARK of Massachusetts. Madam Speaker, today I rise for Emilia. This is her story: Eighteen years ago, Emilia was pregnant with her second child. She was happily married, financially secure, and eager to welcome a new baby into her family. After Emilia's baby was diagnosed with Down syndrome, she was even more determined to raise her baby with love and compassion. Imagine her devastation when, after a 20-week ultrasound, the baby was diagnosed with fetal hydrops and a battery of tests revealed her baby would not survive to term. Emilia made a wrenching decision to terminate her pregnancy rather than have her baby suffer. Emilia's hospital didn't provide abortion services, so she went to Boston and had to pass through a wall of picketers that told her she was a murderer. In the waiting room, she realized every other patient had the same story: no one was carrying a healthy baby. Every woman there was experiencing profound loss. Under a 20-week ban, none of these moms can make a decision for their families with their doctors. We would make that decision for them in Congress. On behalf of Emilia, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on H.R. 36. We must stop the ban.

Ms. CLARK of Massachusetts

Ms. CLARK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I was regrettably detained and missed Roll Call vote number 538. Had I been present, I would have voted no.

Ms. CLARK of Massachusetts

Ms. CLARK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, today, I recognize Peter Harvell, who will retire as Director of Veterans Benefits and Services of Framingham, Massachusetts on September 28, 2017. Peter's lifetime of service shows us how one person's undeterrable mission to help others can positively impact his broader community. Peter has dedicated the past 13 years to helping veterans by connecting them with state and federal benefits, partnering with community organizations, and ensuring the stability and growth of their mental and financial health. Peter has been one of our veterans' strongest advocates in the towns of Sudbury and Framingham. He partnered with local food banks, jail diversion task forces, and legal aid services to help veterans and service members who fell on hard times. He worked with the VFW, the American Legion, and local National Guard units to host welcome home ceremonies. He paid our veterans their due respect on national holidays. Above all, Peter maintains relationships and provides support to our Gold Star families. Prior to his service to the towns of Sudbury and Framingham, Peter spent 23 years in the U.S. Army serving in the U.S. Special Operations Command. After preparing OPERATION EAGER ANVIL in DESERT STORM and coordinating NATO missions in Bosnia, he returned home to continue service as a congressional liaison at USSOCOM for two years. Peter's dedication and leadership honor our Commonwealth and our country. We thank him for his years of service and wish him a happy and successful retirement.

Ms. CLARK of Massachusetts

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

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

Ms. CLARK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Oklahoma for yielding me time. While this amendment increases career and technical education funding, a worthy goal that I support, it comes at the expense of funding for critical higher education programs that support low-income and minority students. Career and technical education funds help ensure students are well prepared for further education employment in high-skilled, high-demand jobs in the 21st century economy. In days before the election, President Trump, in reference to CTE, said: ``We're going to start it up big league.'' Secretary DeVos, a few months ago, said: `` . . . this administration is committed to supporting and highlighting career and technical education.'' Despite these promises, the Trump-DeVos budget cuts CTE by $168 million, or 15 percent. I am glad to see my colleagues on the other side of the aisle proposing to increase our investment in this critical area, but I am deeply concerned that the amendment proposes to slash $70 million in funding.

Ms. CLARK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, this amendment would decimate the ability of the Department of Education to meet the needs of Americans by indiscriminately transferring $44 million to the spending reduction account. This does nothing to improve the bill, which is already underfunded. The majority has imposed a $5 billion cut to the Labor-HHS bill below the 2017 omnibus level. Further cuts are completely unnecessary. That is not all. This $5 billion is also below the nondefense levels allowed under the Budget Control Act. We have the resources available, but the majority refuses to allocate them to essential programs funded through this bill. The Department will simply have to do less with less. That is not good for the American people, and it is not good for our constituents. A Department with fewer resources to oversee the Student Aid portfolio, and as Mr. Scott pointed out, the Office of Inspector General's ability to promote efficiencies within the Department and investigate fraud, will be hampered. Mr. Chair, for these reasons, I oppose the amendment.

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

Ms. CLARK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chair, I rise in strong opposition to this amendment, which would cut the NLRB's budget by nearly $100 million below the House bill, which is already $25 million below the fiscal year 2017 level. Under this amendment, the NLRB would be required to furlough 1,500 employees for at least 140 days. That means 1,500 employees across 26 States would be unpaid for nearly 5 months. As a result, the NLRB would develop a backlog of 10,000 to 12,000 cases, which would indefinitely delay the resolution of pending cases of unfair labor practices. Perhaps my colleagues don't realize that most of the NLRB's work is not controversial. At the regional level, about 21,000 charges are filed every year, and 95 percent of those charges are dismissed or resolved within 60 to 70 days after an investigation of facts. In other words, 19 out of 20 charges filed are resolved without litigation. For charges at the regional level, 90 percent of the cases with probable merit are settled, which means they are resolved without needing to be heard before the NLRB's five-member board. For cases taken to the board, about 70 percent of the decisions are unanimous, meaning they are bipartisan. That is how the process is supposed to work. Why would we cripple an agency that is tasked with enforcing Federal labor laws? Does the majority believe that labor laws should not be enforced? Should a worker who is unlawfully fired for exercising their rights be met with a sign on the door that says, ``Closed. Will reopen in 5 months''? Closing the NLRB for 5 months would exacerbate disputes between employers and employees, and create a harmful disruption to our economy. Mr. Chair, I urge that we reject this amendment. Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott), the distinguished ranking member of the Education and the Workforce Committee.

Ms. CLARK of Massachusetts

Ms. CLARK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, as the designee of the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro), I offer amendment No. 154.

Ms. CLARK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, this amendment would restore funding for the mental health programs cut in this bill. Specifically, it would reverse the $142 million in cuts to SAMHSA's mental health block grant and restore funding for Project AWARE State grants and Healthy Transitions, which were both eliminated in the underlying bill. For so long, mental health issues were relegated to the shadows, approached with the shame and misunderstanding that only exacerbates pain for people and their families; but today, we know how widespread these issues are, and we need to approach them without stigma and treat them the same way we would treat other illnesses. According to Mental Health America, one in five adults has a mental health condition, yet more than half of Americans with a mental illness receive no treatment. Many families without health coverage or whose coverage will not cover mental health or recovery programs rely on services funded by SAMHSA's mental health block grant. This amendment would restore those funds. This amendment also restores funding for Project AWARE and the Healthy Transitions grant program, which were created in the aftermath of the Sandy Hook school shooting, which took the lives of 6 adults and 20 beautiful children. In response to this tragedy, the administration and Congress came together to support several new programs to help communities identify and treat behavioral disorders. The Project AWARE program, often referred to as a mental health first aid, seeks to increase awareness of mental health issues among our children, train teachers and other school staff to identify and respond to mental health issues, and connect children to the appropriate behavioral health services. The Healthy Transitions program improves access to treatment and support services for young adults with serious mental health conditions. Together, we can make our communities more welcoming, compassionate, and safe for everyone, and restoring this funding is an essential part of that effort. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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