Bobby Scott

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I remind my colleague that his vote against the bill is a vote to deny about 34 percent of the workers in his district in Pennsylvania an average raise of $3,200, and that, in fact, wages for low-income workers have been going up, but only because States and localities have been increasing the minimum wage, just like this bill does. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin), the vice chair of the Education and Labor Committee.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), the distinguished Speaker of the United States House of Representatives.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Trone), the distinguished member of the Committee on Education and Labor.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I remind my colleague that his vote against this bill is a vote to deny about 35 percent of the workers in his district in Pennsylvania an average raise of about $3,200 a year. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Wild), a distinguished member of the Committee on Education and Labor.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time is left on both sides.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I remind my colleague from Texas that a vote against this bill is a vote to deny about 30 percent of the workers in his district in Texas an average raise of about $3,800 a year. I also will point out that the same CBO report that he cited cites the three most recent studies showing the number of jobs will actually go up as a direct result of the passage of this bill, and 27 million people are getting a raise. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Massachusetts (Mrs. Trahan), a distinguished member of the Committee on Education and Labor.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Velazquez), the chair of the Committee on Small Business.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from New York.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro), the chair of the Labor, Health and Human Services, Education, and Related Agencies Subcommittee of the Appropriations Committee.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee).

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire again as to the time remaining on both sides.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Carolyn B. Maloney), the vice chair on the Joint Economic Committee.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 15 seconds to the gentlewoman.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. I yield the gentlewoman such time as she may consume.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee), a leader of the Judiciary Committee.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record letters from the following organizations in support of the Raise the Wage Act: the National Employment Law Project, cosigned by 500 other organizations, AFSCME, the National Women's Law Center, Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, National Urban League, Disability Coalition, healthcare groups, Interreligious Working Group on Domestic Human Needs, First Focus Campaign for Children, NETWORK Lobby for Catholic Social Justice, Oxfam, Americans for Democratic Action, National Employment Lawyers Association, and a recent article in Politico by Reverend William Barber. National Employment Law Project, July 15, 2019. Dear Representative: The National Employment Law Project (NELP), a non-profit organization that advocates on behalf of workers in low-wage jobs, enthusiastically supports the Raise the Wage Act of 2019. We urge you to vote Yes on the bill and No on any Motion to Recommit when the measure comes before the House later this week. Last month, our nation marked a shameful milestone when the longest period passed without an increase since the 1938 enactment of the minimum wage. Nearly ten years have passed since the last increase to $7.25 on July 24, 2009. The cost of wage stagnation for workers making wages at or near the federal minimum wage is inexcusable in a country with the collective wealth we enjoy and with an economy that is booming for those who already live comfortable lives. The Raise the Wage Act will gradually raise the federal minimum wage to $15 by 2025, gradually eliminate the subminimum wages for tipped, disabled and youth workers, and eventually index the minimum wage so that it rises as all other wages rise. If signed into law, this Act will not only dramatically decrease poverty and income inequality. By phasing out subminimum wages and restoring the value of the federal minimum wage, this Act will also help address the systemically lower wages disproportionately affecting people of color, women and disabled workers as a result of the structural inequities baked into our current federal minimum wage policy. Though opponents of raising the minimum wage will claim that it will result in job loss, these prophesies of doom have no basis in fact. Just two weeks ago, a detailed and rigorous study of minimum wage increases since 2005, including the first increases that went to $15, demonstrated that there are no discernable negative effects on employment or hours worked. Rather, it found that minimum wage increases lead to substantial declines in household and child poverty. Further studies show that raising the minimum wage also leads to a reduction in suicides, a decrease in criminal recidivism, improved maternal and child health, increased consumer spending, increased worker productivity, lower turnover in jobs, and rise in employment of older workers. It's no wonder that the minimum wage enjoys such broad popular support, with polling showing 65% for a $15 federal minimum wage even in battleground Congressional districts. This bill is a crucial step forward in the move to raise wages, fight income inequality, reduce poverty, and eradicate at least some measure of racial, gender and disability discrimination that is inherent in our federal minimum wage policy. It is also an important step in making sure that working people achieve a more equitable share of the rewards of their labor. We hope that you will stand with the nearly 35 million workers who will receive a raise if the Raise the Wage Act is passed and vote Yes on the bill and No on any Motion to Recommit that is offered. Sincerely, Christine L. Owens, Executive Director.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Will the Chair please tell me how much time is remaining.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I would just like to say that youth workers--we have heard about youth workers--should not be paid less for the same work than anyone else. Several of my colleagues have pointed out that there may be a $9 billion loss in income. According to the CBO, that comes from families making more than $232,000 a year. Families making less than that will get an increase in pay. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank all of my colleagues, including members of the Committee on Education and Labor and Representatives across the Nation who have been instrumental in advancing this legislation. But most of all, I want to recognize the workers in communities across the country who stood up and demanded a fair day's pay for a fair day's work. There are some of them with us today, the Fight for $15 workers, the SEIU workers, and others from across the country. I also want to acknowledge a broad coalition of business support, including Business for a Fair Minimum Wage and the U.S. Women's Chamber of Commerce. Proposals to increase the minimum wage are always met with the same baseless predictions we have heard today. Opponents cried wolf in the 1930s, and we should not fear the impact of putting money in workers' pockets or, as President Roosevelt said in a fireside chat way back in 1938: ``Do not let any calamity-howling executive with an income of $1,000 a day . . . tell you . . . that a wage of $11 a week is going to have a disastrous effect on all American industry.'' Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to take that advice, pass the Raise the Wage Act and give a raise to 33 million Americans. It is a raise that is long overdue. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 582.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 3305, Designating the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 2509 George Mason Drive in Virginia Beach, Virginia as the ``Ryan Keith Cox Post Office Building.'' I appreciate my colleague, the gentlelady from Virginia, Mrs. Luria, for introducing this bill. Ryan Keith Cox is a Virginia Beach hero, a distinguished public servant and one whose legacy will live on forever. We will remember Ryan for his heroic actions during the Virginia Beach massacre on May 31, 2019. He saved dozens of lives by helping his colleagues find a safe space to hide during the mass shooting at the Virginia Beach Municipal Center. He was killed protecting two of his coworkers guarding a cubicle door while his coworkers huddled on the floor beneath two desks. The Virginia Beach community will remember Ryan as a cherished friend and one who always put others before himself. He was soft spoken, encouraging, positive and considered by all to be ``a good man''. He was active in his Church and participated in Anointed Voices, Men of Hope, the Male Chorus and the Men's Ministry at New Hope Baptist Church. Madam Speaker, the designation of this post office in Ryan Keith Cox's honor will forever remind us of his valor and his 12-year long career with the City of Virginia Beach. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, we are considering the Raise the Wage Act later this week. That proposal will gradually increase the Federal minimum wage to $15 an hour by 2025, and after that, adjust for inflation. I thank the gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Horsford) for convening this Special Order to discuss the minimum wage on behalf of the Congressional Black Caucus, because this gives us an opportunity to explore the historic and continuing intersection between race and the Federal minimum wage. When the Federal minimum wage was established under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, it purposely excluded many African American workers. Agriculture and most service workers, who are predominantly African American, were exempted from labor law protections. From 1930 to 1940, the share of Southern Blacks who worked in agriculture, in domestic service was over 40 percent. At the same time, the practice of tipping, which had originally enabled American employers to avoid paying wages to newly freed Black workers, was in effect. And the law also treated disabled workers as inferior and permanently codified some forms of labor as lower than minimum wage work. Those exclusions lowered labor standards in the South by excluding a large share of its workforce and denied African American workers access to basic labor protections. But in 1966, Congress finally amended the Fair Labor Standards Act to expand coverage to agriculture, restaurants, nursing homes, and other service workers. The benefits of that act were particularly strong for Black workers. Nearly one-third of Black workers gained protection under the Fair Labor Standards Act compared to only 18 percent of Whites. The size of that minimum wage increase in finally protecting a larger share of African Americans closed 20 percent of the Black-White earnings and income gap. Estimates based on the differential impact of the 1966 amendments by industry and wage levels within industry give a clear indication of how important the minimum wage protection was, because it established a Federal minimum wage. We know how effective it was because Black workers in industries that were not protected by the Fair Labor Standards Act were paid significantly lower than the minimum wage. After increases in minimum wage increased earnings by an average of 34 percent, studies found modest to positive job gains as a direct result of the increase in the minimum wage in the industries that came under the Fair Labor Standards Act protection. The poverty rate for African American children fell from a staggering 65 percent in 1965 to 39 percent in 1969 after the minimum wage expansion in coverage and increase to its highest value in real terms. That caused a rapid decline in childhood poverty amongst African Americans. Fifty years later, the Raise the Wage Act would have a similarly strong impact on African American workers. This past June marked the longest time in the history of the minimum wage where there was no increase in the minimum wage. Just about half of African American workers live in the 21 States where the minimum wage has not been increased over $7.25 an hour. Most of the States, in fact, have not waited for the Federal Government; they went ahead and increased it. But half of the African American population lives in the 21 States stuck at $7.25. To make matters worse, factoring for inflation, these minimum wage workers have actually suffered a cut over the last decade. So, as a result, millions of Americans who are working full-time still find themselves in poverty. In fact, one recent study showed that there is no city or county in America where a minimum wage worker working 40 hours a week can afford a modest two-bedroom apartment. So, for nearly a third of Black workers, this is important legislation. One-third of Black workers would get a raise if Congress passes the Raise the Wage Act. We have a responsibility and an opportunity to restore the value of the minimum wage, lift millions of hardworking people out of poverty, and boost the wages for African American families across the country. There is nothing more that we can do to actually reduce the wage and income gaps, the wealth gaps, that we have in America today than raise the minimum wage. So, this week, we must pass the Raise the Wage Act and restore President Roosevelt's promise of a fair day's pay for a fair day's work.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chair, I rise today in opposition to Amendment No. 47, which directs the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to reclassify public safety telecommunications officers, also called 911 dispatchers, as a protective service occupation in the U.S. Government's Standard Occupational Classification (SOC) system. This Amendment would have no direct effect on these workers' wages, benefits, or other resources; proponents of this reclassification have stated that ``the benefit of reclassification is recognition and respect.'' The SOC classification system is a federal statistical standard used across agencies in data collection. According to OMB, ``[t]he SOC is designed exclusively for statistical purposes.'' Changes to the codes affect multiple data sources frequently used by policymakers, researchers, and employers, including the American Community Survey, the nation's largest household survey; the Current Population Survey (CPS), the key source of our monthly employment numbers; and the Occupational Employment Statistics (OES), the authoritative source of employment and wage information by occupation. A standing committee at OMB, the SOC Policy Committee (SOCPC), is responsible maintaining the accuracy of these codes using well-defined principles. The SOCPC undertakes a routine revision of the codes roughly once per decade; the process spans multiple years and ``involves extensive background research, periods of public comment, review of comments, and implementation of revisions.'' During its latest revision, which began in early 2012 and was finalized in 2018, OMB specifically rejected comments requesting it reclassify 911 dispatchers as directed in Amendment No. 47. In its response to public comments presented in the May 2014 Federal Register, the Obama Administration's OMB explained it ``did not accept these recommendations based on Classification Principle 2, which states that workers are coded according to the work performed. The work performed is that of a dispatcher, not a first responder.'' In 2016, the previous administration's OMB declined a similar request for reclassification. Based on the principles OMB's policy committee applies to determine SOC codes, 911 telephone dispatchers are already properly and accurately classified. Furthermore, the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), in a written communication with the Education and Labor Committee on April 26, 2019, reported that the change made by H.R. 1629, a bill identical to Amendment No. 47, would ``impact computer systems, training, documentation, and other processes'' and that ``[s]uch unplanned changes require time and resources to implement and could adversely affect other survey activities.'' Moreover, changes outside of the routine revision process would undermine the goal of data continuity, limiting data sources' usefulness for their key purpose of statistical analysis; create precedent for disrupting the standard SOC revision process; and undermine the SOCPC's authority as experts to apply the classification principles to determine what accuracy requires. Public safety telecommunications officers perform critical, challenging work. They deserve our honor and gratitude for their efforts. However, considering the many alternative ways policymakers could confer ``recognition and respect,'' as the proponents are seeking, there is little policy justification for this Amendment's approach to achieving that goal. In conclusion, mandating a change to a statistical code would not affect these workers' wages, benefits, or other resources--but it would disrupt data series continuity; require significant additional work for government agencies, researchers, employers, and others; and intervene in an official, routine government data-collection and statistical process. Communications of April 26, 2019 From the Bureau of Labor Statistics to the Committee on Education and Labor Regarding H.R. 1629 (Same as Amendment No. 47) Questions related to H.R. 1629 1. How will H.R. 1629 impact the current population survey and occupational employment statistics? 2. H.R. 1629 would require the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to implement a change in the Standard Occupational Classification (SOC) system regarding public safety telecommunicators. This requirement would alter the existing process for periodically reviewing and updating the SOC, which involves extensive background research, periods of public comment, review of comments, and implementation of revisions. Federal statistical agencies, including the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) are currently in various stages of implementing the 2018 revisions to the SOC (https:// www.bls.gov/soc/socimp.htm), which the Office of Management and Budget released in a November 28, 2017 Federal Register notice (https://www.bls.gov/soc/2018/soc2018final.pdf). In particular, the Current Population Survey (CPS) and the Occupational Employment Statistics (OES) program are actively using the 2018 SOC and any changes to the SOC structure would impact computer systems, training, and documentation as well as the systems of federal and other data users downstream, such as the BLS Employment Projections (EP) program and the Employment and Training Administration's Occupational Information Network (O*NET). The CPS is a monthly survey with a sample of 60,000 households. CPS occupational and industry data are coded according to the most detailed level of the relevant classification system possible, accounting for factors such as disclosure concerns for small occupations and the ability to code occupations based on the detail provided by household respondents. This CPS occupational coding system closely aligns with the SOC, but provides data on about 530 occupations, compared with 820 in the full SOC. The Census Bureau is responsible for applying occupational codes. An overview of how they are implementing the 2018 SOC is outlined here https://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/ library/working-papers/2019/demo/sehsdwp2019-19.pdf. Therefore, there is no guarantee that even if this change were to occur, the Census Bureau would code at that level of detail. The OES program could make the needed changes. The data would show changes in the employment and wages for major groups affected by the change in classification. 2. Will this bill have an impact on wage class service contracts? BLS is not involved in wage setting for service contracts. To the extent that any published BLS data are used in such wage setting, any changes to those data could impact wages. 3. Will implementing H.R. 1629 be difficult for the BLS to do? BLS uses the SOC in several surveys. Any changes to the SOC structure would impact computer systems, training, documentation, and other processes. Such unplanned changes require time and resources to implement and could adversely affect other survey activities. 4. Are there plans for a revision of occupational classifications? The SOC is revised periodically, with the interagency SOC Policy Committee making recommendations to OMB for changes. OMB has not officially stated when the next SOC revision will occur, although some indications are that the next SOC will be for the year 2028. If they follow past practices, OMB is likely to publish an initial Federal Register notice soliciting public comment around 2024. Detailed information on the revision process for 2018 is made available here, including a document called ``Revising the Standard Occupational Classification'' which provided detailed history on the revision process and guidance on submission of suggestions for changes for the 2018 SOC revision. 5. What other consequences are there if H.R. 1629 is implemented? Implementation of H.R. 1629 would alter the existing process for periodically reviewing and updating the SOC, which involves extensive background research, periods of public comment, review of comments, and implementation of revisions. The revision process includes solicitations of public comment in the form of Federal Register notices. During the lengthy and comprehensive SOC revision process, the SOC Policy Committee establishes interagency workgroups charged with reviewing comments received in response to Federal Register notices and providing recommendations to the SOC Policy Committee. Guided by the SOC classification principles and coding guidelines, the SOC Policy Committee reviews the recommendations from the workgroups and reaches decisions by consensus. This work process is established to ensure that the review is conducted in alignment with the 2018 SOC classification principles and coding guidelines, which are available starting on page 10 of the 2018 SOC User Guide (https://www.bls.gov/soc/2018/soc_2018_user_guide.pdf). In response to the May 22, 2014, Federal Register notice, the SOC Policy Committee received and reviewed six comments regarding 9-1-1 dispatchers. These dockets were reviewed simultaneously by the SOC Policy Committee and grouped under docket 1-0199 Dispatchers, Public Safety Telecommunicators. The full SOC Policy Committee response to docket 1-0199 is available at: https://www.bls.gov/soc/2018/ soc_responses_May_2014.htm. In response to the July 22, 2016, Federal Register notice, the SOC Policy Committee received and reviewed over 4,000 comments regarding 9-1-1 dispatchers. The full list of comments is available here. For comments related only to 9-1- 1 dispatchers, filter the subject column for ``Police, Fire, and Ambulance Dispatchers.'' The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) makes public comments available from https:// www.regulations.gov/document?D=OMB-2016-0006-0001. During the revision process for 2018, a guiding classification principle was added to emphasize the importance of maintaining time series continuity, to the maximum extent possible. Modifications to the structure in intervening years may be inconsistent with this principle.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Madam Chair, I rise in support of my amendment to H.R. 2500, which would require the Secretary of Defense to submit a report to Congress regarding the Department's progress implementing the 91 priority recommendations from the Comptroller General of the United States. I would like to thank my colleague Congresswoman Barbara Lee for cosponsoring this amendment. I would also like to thank Chairman Smith and the House Armed Services Committee for their work on this important legislation. The 91 priority recommendations in GAO-19-366SP report was sent to the Department of Defense to address major challenges in nine key areas: Acquisitions and Contract Management, Readiness, Building Capacity to Drive Enterprise-Wide Business Reform, Defense Headquarters, Health care, Cybersecurity, Infrastructure, Financial Management, and Preventing Sexual Harassment. These recommendations address challenges that affect the Department's ability to accomplish its mission. Every Congressional Black Caucus alternative budget for the past decade has made implementing GAO's recommendations a priority to encourage DoD to save taxpayer dollars and to be more prudent with the enormous amount of resources they are provided to defend our country. As we work to strengthen our nation's Armed Forces to counter threats from our adversaries, we must ensure that DoD roots out waste, fraud, and abuse within the agency. While DoD has successfully implemented some of the recommendations made by the GAO, there is more work to be done. Today, DoD faces new challenges in our national security with the rise of cyber crimes, international terrorism and nuclear threats. Our military has been stretched and exhausted from being involved in two wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. We should be doing everything we can to ensure that DoD funds are used to strengthen our national security. Each fiscal year, the Department is appropriated hundreds of billions of dollars and is the largest employer in the federal government. It is critical that DOD accounts for every dollar. The GAO report has 17 recommendations for financial management. GAO reports that DoD has failed to properly produce correct financial information. This is a serious problem for a Department that receives such a significant share of federal taxpayer dollars. Auditing the Pentagon and encouraging DoD to continue to implement the remaining GAO recommendations would lead to tens of billions in cost savings for taxpayers by bringing a culture of financial accountability to the Pentagon. Madam Chair, it is imperative that DoD address and implement the GAO's remaining priority recommendations. If cost is the issue that is preventing the implementation, the required report to Congress will outline the estimated funding needed to assist DOD with the implementation. I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting this important amendment to ensure DoD's efficient use of taxpayer dollars.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize the achievements of Margaret ``Peg'' Seminario, who has made the health and safety of American workers her life's work and is retiring after 42 years of tireless advocacy. Through her more than four decades of work at the AFL-CIO, Peg has been instrumental in securing the health and lives of millions of workers. Peg began her work at the AFL-CIO in 1977 during the early years of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA). She worked with many of the authors of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 to develop the policies, win the court decisions, and build the infrastructure that have helped millions of American workers realize their right to safe workplaces. She worked closely with the labor leaders who fought to pass the Occupational Safety and Health Act and the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act--George Taylor, Tony Mazzocchi, Jack Sheehan and many others. She played a major role in assembling the evidence, preparing comments, testifying at hearings, and assisting allies in passing almost every OSHA safety and health standard over the past 42 years including: silica, beryllium, asbestos, lead, noise, ergonomics, machine guarding, methylene chloride, lockout-tagout, and workers' Right-to-Know. These standards prevented countless injuries, deaths and occupational diseases. She led the effort to protect working people from occupational exposure to anthrax, bird flu, SARS, workplace violence, and tuberculosis. She led the fight to win passage of the James Zadroga 9/11 Health and Compensation Act that provided health care and compensation for the first responders who got sick after they responded to the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001. Peg served on numerous National Academy of Sciences and federal advisory committees, providing her expertise on a wide range of workplace safety and health issues, including the extent and nature of work-related injuries, illnesses, and deaths occurring in the United States. Peg was also one of the first professional women to work at the AFL- CIO, blazing the path for those who followed, and she served as a mentor for generations of women labor leaders. She advised those inside and outside the labor movement on practical strategies to move forward on seemingly insoluble issues. As she kept workers' goals in mind, her feet were always planted in practical politics. She approached the toughest political challenges by asking a simple, familiar question: ``What makes sense?'' Working with the business community and other traditional foes of labor were part of her strategic arsenal when that approach ``made sense'' to accomplish the goals of working people. With an advanced degree in industrial hygiene from the Harvard School of Public Health, she served as a trusted advisor to almost every Assistant Secretary of Labor for OSHA--Democrat and Republican--over the last 40 years. Finally, she understood the role that worker empowerment and labor unions play in ensuring the safety of working women and men. ``Let's call Peg'' was the first thing out of the mouth of generations of members of Congress and congressional staff. She testified before numerous congressional committees and provided valuable information and advice to lawmakers on every budget, every piece of legislation designed to strengthen worker protections, and every response to legislative efforts to weaken or dismantle OSHA, the Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA) or the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH). Madam Speaker, there are men and women across the county who are alive today because of her work. They may not know who she is. She will not receive their gratitude. But they owe their health, their limbs and their lives to the work she has done over 42 year long career. I thank Peg for all that she has done for America's workers.