Jan Schakowsky

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. DeSaulnier). I am really glad to introduce Mark DeSaulnier, who has experience with this particular legislation.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to H.R. 1675, the Encouraging Employee Ownership Act. As a young housewife in suburban Chicago, I joined a handful of women in a successful campaign to get freshness dates on grocery products. At the time, expiration dates were coded. The stores knew, but consumers were in the dark about whether the milk they were buying had been on the shelf too long. Getting that information was really important. It gave us the facts and the power to make the right food choices for our families. Getting information about our stocks--whether those stocks are in the form of compensation or investments--is equally important. Again, information is power--the key to being able to protect the financial well-being of our families. Simply, workers deserve to know the value of the stocks they are receiving instead of wages. We are living in a time of serious wage stagnation. According to the National Employment Law Project, real hourly wages were 4 percent lower on average in 2014 than in 2009. So it is important for workers who are offered stock compensation to have accurate data about the value of those stocks. Similarly, we are experiencing a real retirement security crisis. Median savings for all working households is $2,500 for retirement. For those near retirement, it is $14,500--not a heck of a lot of money saved for retirement. So we need to encourage investments. But if we want Americans to invest, we need to give them information. They need to be able to judge the risks and make wise decisions. Yet, instead of giving American workers or investors more information, H.R. 1675 would give them less. This bill would double the threshold that triggers disclosure of information to workers. It would reduce the requirements for broker-dealers to be accountable for certain information that they provide. It would make it harder to find information on SEC filings, and it would give the SEC unilateral power to overturn congressionally enacted laws to protect investors. Those are all really bad ideas, and I think we should vote ``no'' on H.R. 1675.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Chair, during rollcall Vote No. 51 on H.R. 3700, I mistakenly recorded my vote as ``no'' when I should have voted ``Yes.''

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, how appropriate that the House Republican leadership decided to vote again on repealing the Affordable Care Act and defunding Planned Parenthood on Groundhog Day. In the movie Groundhog Day, Bill Murray's character relived the same day over and over again, and we are doing the same thing right here. This is the 63rd vote to undermine or repeal the Affordable Care Act. This is the 12th Republican attack on women's health in this Congress. While House Republicans have already passed 11 anti-women health measures and are now voting on their 12th, they have not passed one single measure that helps women get the health care that they need. So here we are--on only the 12th business day of the session--facing the same Republican attacks on women's access to health care. Republicans have said this bill will show the American people the difference between the political parties in this election year. You bet it will. The difference is clear. My Republican colleagues remain willing to play partisan politics at the expense of women's health and access to affordable, quality health care. Women of America are watching, and they don't like what they see. Never mind the fact that three House committees have already investigated Planned Parenthood following the release of the selectively edited videos, and never mind that a grand jury in Harris County cleared Planned Parenthood and, instead, indicted the two individuals who made the doctored videos. Facts matter. The truth matters. Despite my objection to the Select Investigative Panel on Infant Lives, as its ranking member, I will continue to fight to protect women's health. That is the promise of all Democrats. We will, once again, reject this legislation. This attempt to override is going nowhere, and it shouldn't.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, last year, Volkswagen was caught defrauding its customers selling vehicles that emitted 40 times more pollution than is allowed by law in its so-called clean diesel models. VW customers paid extra for vehicles they believed were both cleaner and better performing than other cars on the market, but that is not what they got. They have a right to join class action lawsuits to recoup their losses and hold VW accountable. But the Fairness in Class Action Litigation Act, which we will consider today, would weaken the ability of those customers to pursue class action claims. In the case of VW, the bill would limit classes to people with the same vehicle model, the same emissions-cheating device, and the same emissions system, even though all clean diesel customers were defrauded in the same way. It would shrink the class sizes and make it easier for VW to defeat or settle claims. Why would we make it easier for VW to avoid responsibility by making it harder for Americans to pursue justice? It is shameful that congressional Republicans are trying to do Volkswagen's bidding by weakening the rights their constituents currently have. I urge my colleagues to join me in opposing this bill.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this rule and the reconciliation bill, just another budget measure being used as a vehicle to defund Planned Parenthood. This is the 11th Republican attack on women's health in this Congress, including four prior votes to defund Planned Parenthood. While House Republicans have already passed 10 antiwomen health measures and are now voting on their 11th, they have not passed a single measure that helps women get the reproductive health care that they need. So here we are--Happy New Year and with a new House Speaker--facing the same old story: Republican attacks on women's access to health care in the very first week. The news this morning reported Republicans are saying this bill will show the American people the difference between the political parties in this election year. For me, that is a shameful admission. The difference is clear: My Republican colleagues remain willing to play partisan politics at the expense of women's health care. The women of America are watching, and they don't like what they see. Last fall, House Republicans threatened to shut down the government if must-pass omnibus legislation did not defund Planned Parenthood. Now, that effort was stopped, but only by promises to include a defunding provision in this budget reconciliation bill and by the creation of a select panel to investigate Planned Parenthood. Never mind the fact that three House committees have already investigated Planned Parenthood following the release of selectively edited videos manufactured by an antiabortion group and that none of these committees found any evidence of wrongdoing. Apparently, uninterested in the facts, Republicans have continued to make inflammatory and baseless claims. They also push forward on their new select investigative panel, meaning even more taxpayer dollars will be spent targeting the Nation's reproductive healthcare providers instead of improving America's access to critical healthcare services. Having established this select panel, House Republicans have now refused to wait for the panel to hold even its first meeting before voting, once again, to defund Planned Parenthood. In this atmosphere, it is hard to imagine that any investigation will be fair and objective. Members have already declared the organization guilty as charged, and there is no reason to believe that they will be more openminded with regard to others who provide safe and legal reproductive healthcare services in this Nation. Facts matter. The truth matters. Despite our objection to the creation of the select panel, as its ranking member, I will work to ensure that the investigation is as fair and transparent and as objective as possible.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. The relentless attacks on Planned Parenthood and other healthcare providers must stop and they will stop. Planned Parenthood serves almost 3 million American women, and there is no evidence of wrongdoing by Planned Parenthood to possibly justify the defunding of the Nation's leading provider of reproductive health care whose work helps to avoid thousands and thousands of abortions because they provide planned parenthood. We should stop this latest effort to defund Planned Parenthood--and we will because this bill is going nowhere--and instead take affirmative steps to improve women's access to health care in this great Nation. Enough is enough.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, it is a committee where I serve as the ranking Democratic member. We call it the Select Committee to Attack Women's Health. Now, that select committee was formed last fall after hearings were held and at which the Republicans accused in inflammatory language that somehow Planned Parenthood had violated the law. So these three committees that have already investigated Planned Parenthood have found absolutely nothing wrong with their activities. Yet, a select committee was appointed. The kind of language that was used is exactly the language that the murderer at a Planned Parenthood clinic in Colorado used. This kind of inflammatory language is used on one of the number one health providers for poor women in this country, and it is being attacked unnecessarily. Now, I serve as the ranking member on that select committee. We will do everything we can to not only defend Planned Parenthood, but to stop these relentless attacks on women's health care in this country. It is shameful. Enough is enough.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to thank Ted Beattie, the CEO of Shedd Aquarium for his decades of service and to wish him well as he retires. Ted has had an incredible impact on the Shedd Aquarium, the Chicago community, and marine wildlife around the world. My family and I have spent many enjoyable hours at Shedd Aquarium. Ted joined Shedd Aquarium in 1994. Under his leadership Shedd has added 6 permanent exhibits. His work brought creatures of the Caribbean Reef to Chicago, including sharks, stingrays, and of course, coral. He also brought us the Stingray Touch exhibit, which allows children of all ages to come in direct contact with these incredible creatures-- with no risk of harm, of course. Ted was instrumental in the re-imagining of the Oceanarium. There, Shedd Aquarium guests can experience the coast of the Pacific Northwest and the dolphins, sea lions, and otters that make it their home. Ted's work extends beyond Chicago and the shores of Lake Michigan. Under his leadership, Shedd established the Daniel P. Haerther Center for Conservation and Research. The center includes a portfolio of 18 global field research programs that help us understand and protect threatened marine life. I thank Ted for all he has done to help us bring the amazing wildlife of Earth's oceans to Chicago. He has helped introduce millions of Chicagoans and visitors to the incredible creatures living beneath the ocean's waves. I am especially grateful for all he has done to protect marine animals around the world.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I would challenge any one of my colleagues to go out on any street corner in the United States of America and ask people who are walking by: Do you think the people who are on the terrorist watch list who are not allowed to get on an airplane should be able to go into any gun store and buy a weapon of their choice? For example, a weapon that looks like this. This is a Smith & Wesson .223-caliber assault rifle. This is a weapon that is available to people who are on the terrorist watch list. It is also the weapon that was used by the shooters in San Bernardino to fire off 65 to 75 rounds and kill the coworkers of one of those shooters. Since 2004, over 2,000 suspects on the FBI's terrorist watch list have successfully purchased weapons in the United States. More than 90 percent of all suspected terrorists who attempted to purchase guns in the last 11 years were able to do that. It may not be the biggest issue, but, clearly, the American people don't think that potential terrorists should be able to buy guns. Let's do it. H.R. 1076 would ban the sale of weapons to any individual, according to the Attorney General, who is considered to be engaged in terrorist activities. Introduced by a Republican, this is bipartisan. Let's support Peter King's bill, the bill that many of us have gotten together to sponsor, as a beginning in order to say we are serious about protecting our communities.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, since 9/11, 750,000 refugees have been resettled and welcomed into the United States of America. Not one of them has ever appeared on a terrorist watch list or been accused of terrorism. Yet, Republicans say that for homeland security, we should keep these refugees from Syria out of our country. About 40,000 people in the United States of America are on the terrorist watch list right now and they are not allowed to get on an airplane. But they are allowed to go into any gun store and buy any weapon that they would like, a weapon that looks like this, for example. This is a picture of a Smith & Wesson .223-caliber assault rifle. This is the kind of weapon that the suspects fired in San Bernardino. Sixty-five to 75 rifle rounds were sent, and people are dead. That was the 355th mass shooting in our country just this year. We need to pass legislation that prohibits people on the terrorist watch list from getting a weapon, and we should do it now. Prayers and thoughts are not enough.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to bring my colleagues' attention to a recent report from the Institute for Policy Studies, ``Billionaire Bonanza: the Forbes 400 and the Rest of Us.'' This report exposes just how drastic wealth inequality in America has become. As a whole, America is now wealthier than it has ever been before. But that wealth is concentrated in the hands of just a few Americans. The 20 wealthiest individual Americans have more wealth than the lowest 50% combined--that is, 20 Americans with more wealth than 152 million Americans. The report ``Billionaire Bonanza'' found that the wealthiest 186 members of the Forbes 400 own as much wealth as the entire Latino population in America. The wealthiest 100 households in America own about as much wealth as the entire African American population in the United States. Economic inequality is also racial inequality. Congress needs to enact common-sense policies to close the loopholes that have allowed for this extreme wealth inequality. It is time to raise revenue so we can increase opportunities for those at the lowest rung of the economic ladder to climb toward the top. I thank Chuck Collins and Josh Hoxie, the authors of this critical report, and I urge my colleagues to consider their proposals and to take action against the unsustainable concentration of wealth in America.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Chairman, my amendment would preserve an existing consumer right that has been on the books for many years, but section 4125 of this legislation would prevent consumers from pursuing breach of warranty claims against product manufacturers that inaccurately claim Energy Star compliance. As I said, in doing so, it would eliminate an existing consumer right. While I see no justification for this change, I see the motive. The Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers, which represents 95 percent of U.S. home appliances and has endorsed this provision, wants to avoid liability. Consumers pay a premium for Energy Star products. But they don't pay extra because they have a sense of charity; they do it because they have been promised the Energy Star appliances will enable reduced energy usage and lower operation costs. In fact, Energy Star products promise a 10 to 25 percent energy efficiency improvement as compared to Federal minimum standards. So when a manufacturer falsely claims to be Energy Star compliant, consumers are left with a more expensive product without any of the promised benefits. It amounts, really, to fraud. In the past, manufacturers--including AHAM, the association, members Samsung, LG, and Whirlpool--have falsely claimed that their products meet Energy Star specifications. Consumers have mobilized to be compensated for those false claims, and they deserve that right. My amendment would enable them to retain it. AHAM claims that my amendment would ``discourage robust participation'' in the Energy Star program. And frankly, I don't see that as a problem. If manufacturers can't stand by their claims of Energy Star compliance, then they shouldn't participate in the program. Those manufacturers that continue to make Energy Star products will reap the rewards, including higher consumer demand and bigger profits, and that is a win for consumers, honest manufacturers, and the Energy Star program. So I ask my colleagues, please, to support this amendment. I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Chairman, all this would be fine if it weren't the case that we have members of the Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers that actually have falsely claimed that their products meet Energy Star specifications. And nothing in the remedy actually says that the consumer will have the right to reclaim their money that they spent on the washer or the dryer or the appliance that was bought because they thought that they would both save energy and, over time, that they would save money as well. As I said earlier, this rule, this law, has been in place for many years. It does not interfere with the fact that this is a voluntary program, that the companies decide if they want to participate in Energy Star to be an Energy Star product, but it does say they have to keep their promise. And they have to keep their promise not just to the EPA or to some regulatory framework; they have to keep their promise to the individual consumer who has actually laid out the bucks to buy that product. This provides an opportunity for that consumer to be able to reclaim a product if it is found not to meet the Energy Star promise that they made of 10 to 25 percent energy efficiency improvements. So it seems to me, why would this body go about the business of taking away a consumer right? I thought we were supposed to be in the business of trying to figure out how we are going to adequately protect consumers not in the generic sense, but in the individual sense. That is the kind of protection that we have had, and that is the kind of protection I believe that we should maintain; and this section, put in at the behest of the industry, makes no sense. I think it weights toward the manufacturers and away from the consumers something that we all want to achieve, which is more energy efficiency. Mr. Chairman, I am very disappointed, as someone who has been a consumer advocate for a very long time in many ways, especially in terms of truth in products, truth in labeling, that we ought to be able to rely on that Energy Star label to know that it is going to give us the energy efficiency that we paid for and that, if it doesn't, we do have a remedy. Those remedies tend to make the manufacturers even more honest. I hope we will get some support. I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire how much time I have remaining.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding and for her leadership to protect consumers. H.R. 1210 would allow the largest banks in the country to deal in the types of predatory and risky loans which brought down Washington Mutual, Wachovia, Countrywide, Lehman, Bear Stearns and, eventually, the entire economy. It undermines one of the most important titles of the Dodd-Frank Act and one of the most significant consumer protection rules implemented by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. Furthermore, this bill contains a provision which explicitly allows mortgage brokers to steer borrowers to riskier, more expensive loans, regardless of what they qualify for. Some supporters of this bill think that, if banks hold these loans and, therefore, their risks in their own portfolios, they will be careful not to originate bad loans, but this isn't true. It is not true. Several portfolio lenders went under during the crisis due to a failure to underwrite loans because they were focused on short-term benefits of up-front fees rather than the long-term performance of the mortgages that they originated. Investment banks also chased these short-term profits and bought up risky derivatives based on loans that were poorly underwritten without due diligence. More importantly, this bill does not change what types of loans a bank is allowed to make. It just removes consumer protections from the riskiest subprime loans. The CFPB's ability to repay rule is the only line of defense against predatory mortgage practices that brought down the economy and destroyed billions in homeowners' wealth, and it is working. Under the new mortgage rules, defaults are down and lending to minorities is up. Last quarter had the most loan originations since the third quarter of 2007. The rules are protecting consumers while also fostering competition among banks and growing the economy. We should not change a rule that is working. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. I thank the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott) for yielding and for his leadership in support of working men and women. Mr. Speaker, like my colleagues, I am a strong supporter of tribal sovereignty and believe that we must recognize the rights of tribal governments. But I am also a strong supporter of labor rights, the ability of hardworking men and women to join together in collective bargaining to improve their workplace and the lives of their families. Union membership has many advantages: higher wages, better benefits, and safer working conditions. It is no coincidence that we have seen the middle class shrink dramatically at the same time that union membership has declined. That is why we need to act to expand labor rights and why we should be concerned about the bill before us. I believe that the 2004 National Labor Relations Board decision in San Manuel Indian Bingo & Casino struck the appropriate balance between respecting tribal sovereignty and upholding labor rights. In its decision, the NLRB stated the National Labor Relations Act does not apply if it would undermine the ``exclusive rights of self-governance in purely intramural matters'' or ``abrogate Indian treaty rights.'' However, the NLRB clarified that labor law would apply if an entity is a purely commercial enterprise and employs or caters to individuals who are not tribal members. That is an appropriate test, whether we are talking about casinos or construction companies, hotels and resorts, or mines or power plants. H.R. 511 would overturn the NLRB's carefully crafted decision and could take away existing bargaining rights from hundreds of thousands of workers. We know that workers at tribally owned casinos have benefited from union membership. A UNITE HERE! union study of tribal casino workers in California documented higher wages, lower healthcare costs, and less worker reliance on public benefits like Medicaid to meet the needs of their families. Employers, too, gain when workers are more productive and turnover is reduced. We have real-world examples of how unions have helped workers. Gary Navarro, a Pomo Nation member employed at Graton Casino & Resort, testified before the Education and the Workforce Committee that ``I became active in my union because of unjust treatment of casino workers by the managers and how nothing could be done about even sexual harassment because of sovereignty. Exercising our right to organize turned out to be the only way to protect ourselves and our coworkers.'' Madeline, a worker at Foxwoods, was suspended because she was forced to clock out when she went to see a nurse for a work-related injury, which put her over the casino's attendance points system. Her union won her reinstatement and backpay. And the company provided a mandatory OSHA training program for management. Jenny Langlois, at Foxwoods, benefited from a union contract that gave her the time she needed to receive treatment for breast cancer. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 511 would result in the loss of those gains, and, by eliminating NLRA rights, could deny them to many more workers in the future. By doing so, it would leave those workers without any avenue to bargain collectively, ensure fair compensation, or seek redress for workplace injuries. Three out of four of the 600,000 workers employed in tribal casinos are not tribal members. They do not have full access to internal, tribal mechanisms for filing grievances or petitioning for changes in policy. And while some tribal governments have labor laws that apply to commercial operations, many don't, and there is no guarantee that those who have them will not change or eliminate them in the future. By eliminating NLRA rights, workers could have no place to turn to push for labor rights, to appeal unfair firings or disciplinary action, or to take action against sexual harassment. H.R. 511 would affect more than the gaming industry, including construction workers, miners, and hotel workers. That is why the International Labour Organization has stated that it ``would appear likely that an exclusion of certain workers from the NLRA and its mechanisms would give rise to a failure to ensure to these workers their fundamental freedom of association rights absent any assurances that there were tribal labor laws that provide the same rights to all workers.'' But there is no such requirement in H.R. 511. It would preempt NLRA coverage. But there are other Federal laws that apply to tribes, including the Occupational Safety and Health Act, title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Family and Medical Leave Act, and the Employee Retirement Income Security Act. Why should we single out the NLRA, the law that gives workers bargaining rights? Or will we be asked to eliminate those other important protections in the future? Mr. Speaker, proponents of the bill argue that it is designed to provide equal treatment for tribal nations with State and local governments, but there are key distinctions. First, we are talking here not about people who work directly for tribal governments but for workers in commercial enterprises. Most States and localities don't operate huge commercial entities that hire the majority of workers from outside of their jurisdictions. Second, if State or local workers want to push for laws to obtain or protect collective bargaining rights, they have the ability to participate in the political process and vote in elections. That is one reason that the vast majority of State and local public employees have those rights. Non-tribal workers at tribal-operated commercial enterprises lack that ability. They don't vote in tribal elections, and they have no direct ability to affect labor policies for tribal governments. Mr. Speaker, we should fight for workplace rights and support the balanced approach taken by the NLRB. I ask my colleagues to join in opposing this bill.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, this evening, I was unavoidably detained and unable to cast votes on the House floor. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye'' on H.R. 1338 and H.R. 1384. I would have voted ``nay'' on H.R. 308. personal explanation

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Madam Chair, I claim the time in opposition.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Madam Chair, while I am not going to oppose the amendment, I do have some questions about it. For this reason, it seems to me that this amendment is not likely to be all that effective in getting defective parts off the market: It only requires parts suppliers and automakers to supply information when a recall is first ordered by the Secretary of Transportation. It does not apply in the most common recall scenario when a manufacturer provides notice of a recall. So NHTSA is going to be asked to expend valuable resources to set up a new system for auto part information, and that system, it seems to me, should at least be effective in getting defective parts off the market and off the roads in all circumstances of recalls. Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Madam Chair, in the wake of the GM and Takata recalls, it became apparent that major changes were needed to improve information sharing, enhance safety, and strengthen accountability measures. This amendment addresses some of those issues, and I urge my colleagues to support it. Before I explain the contents of this amendment, it is important to explain what is not in the amendment. There are no new civil penalties for companies that fail to adequately protect drivers and the public. There is no ``imminent hazard authority'' to enable NHTSA to get the most dangerous cars off the road as soon as possible. While I believe those changes are sorely needed, I knew that the Republican majority would oppose them. What is left are some of the more obvious reforms for auto safety, and there is no reasonable excuse to oppose the amendment. This amendment would improve the functionality of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's Web site to enable better and more detailed searches, to standardize terms so that consistent problems can be identified faster, and to improve the early warning database so that consumers can determine whether a vehicle they drive or plan to drive has a history of dangerous incidents. My amendment would also increase the amount of information provided to consumers who are purchasing or leasing used vehicles, including specific vehicle damage history and recall repair history. It would include that information in the Used Car Buyers Guide, which already must be posted on each used vehicle that is offered for sale; and it would inform consumers about the Web site, which is where they can find more information about their specific vehicle history. The investigations into the GM and Takata failures were made more difficult by the fact that comprehensive safety records were not maintained by many manufacturers. This amendment would fix that by ensuring that those records are preserved for 20 years. Auto manufacturers are not currently required to remedy recalled vehicles if those cars were sold more than 10 years before the recall. That makes no sense, especially when the average car on the road is more than 11 years old. This amendment would require all defects to be remedied at no cost to the car owner no matter how long the car has been owned. With more than 30,000 deaths a year, we have a long way to go in reducing deaths and serious injuries on our roads. There are things we can and should do to enhance auto safety, and Congress has a long track record of doing just that. For example, a bill I sponsored, which was signed into law by President Bush, established a rulemaking to require technologies that would enable drivers to see behind their vehicles. By 2018, rear cameras will be standard for all cars. That rule will prevent more than 100 deaths and many more injuries each year. This amendment would require NHTSA to continue that progress by requiring research into technologies and then developing standards that could reduce injuries and deaths for rear seat passengers and pedestrians. Finally, this amendment eliminates the flawed system of regional recalls. Regional recalls limit remedies to specific States. This prevents vehicles which have traveled across the country from being recalled. Takata issued regional recalls for its airbags, but with high humidity being a factor in airbag explosions, it makes no sense that its regional recall missed, for example, Washington, D.C.--a swamp, with all due respect. While most of Takata's regional recalls were expanded nationally, not all of them were, and some drivers can't legally get their vehicles remedied free of charge. We can't allow this regional recall system to continue. Again, these are commonsense, safety-focused provisions that would enhance consumer information, vehicle safety, and accountability. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Madam Chair, I would say to my colleague, as the chairman of the subcommittee I serve on and that deals with auto safety, I know, for a very long time, he has certainly seen the legislation that I have offered in the past, and this is the first time that I have heard that argument. The idea of this legislation was to pair down the bill that I had introduced into the kinds of safety enhancements that the gentleman and many of the Republicans on the committee also had in their legislation. The goal is one thing: to make sure that we provide more safety, strengthen accountability, and that we share more information with consumers. The amendment addresses those issues. It has avoided, studiously, the more controversial parts of auto safety bills that maybe, someday, we can come back to, but the goal was to get a good start. I am disappointed that there is opposition to this amendment, but I still urge my colleagues to support it. I yield back the balance of my time.