Jan Schakowsky

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Madam Speaker, I rise as the proud grandmother of a trans young man, and I just want to say that any family would be lucky to have the amazing and loving and smart and funny Isaac in their family. And I rise today to say thank you to the generations of people who have been arrested and beaten and excluded and sometimes killed for this fight. Let today be the end. I thank Congressman Cicilline and all of those who have spoken today and are going to vote for freedom. This is a remarkable day, not just for my Isaac, but for all the young people who are frightened today. No more. We are with you.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, I am so proud. Only 2 weeks into the new Presidency, we are now moving ahead, right now, boldly, to answer the cry of the American people and to ultimately pass and implement the American Rescue Plan. If you don't hear the cry of your constituents, then you aren't listening. I want to focus on our communities, our States, our counties, our cities, large and small, that are in a crisis situation right now. They are starving for help to cover the basic costs that they have, and we have an opportunity to give them $350 billion in relief and flexible aid that can be used to make sure that our communities stay strong. It is not just about budgets, and it is not just about employees. It is about our constituents who will find that if we aren't able to fund the essence of what our communities need, then we are going to see firefighters lose their jobs; we are going to see paramedics and police and nurses and teachers and sanitation workers not available for our communities; and we will see towns and counties not able to fund their transportation systems. It is time for us to act. It is past time for us to act. Let's do it.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Madam Speaker, on July 20, 2020 I missed recorded vote No. 142 due to travel delays. Had I been present I would have voted YEA (Passage of H.R. 6395)

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of impeaching the President of the United States of America, Donald, J. Trump for high crimes and misdemeanors. One week ago, in this Capitol Building, there was an armed insurrection orchestrated and incited by the President of the United States himself. Think about that for a moment--led and encouraged by the President of the United States. This threat to our democracy can never be overstated; the trauma experienced, and loss of life, can never be erased from our collective memory or minimized in our history books. Look at this room, look at this building, the scars of bullet holes and mob attack remain. We are working within a crime scene. Many of my friends and colleagues, on both sides of the aisle, were only moments away from being overrun by this mob--that was armed with guns, handcuffs, chemical weapons, and other objects of death and destruction. The mob violently smashed its way into the Capitol. They sought the Speaker of the House to cause her harm. They sought the Vice President of the United States to cause him harm. Their goal was to overturn the most important element of our electoral democracy--a free and fair election. Madam Speaker, President Trump has declared war on democracy. He lied to our country for weeks regarding the results of our Presidential election. He charged up the white supremacist mob that attacked this Congress. He did nothing as police were attacked, and killed, and hundreds of Members and staff hid under tables and behind doors to preserve their lives. He is a clear and present danger to this country and our democracy and he must be removed from office. Were it not for the bravery of law enforcement, I'm afraid of what may have happened one week ago. What we do today will be studied by our children and grandchildren. Nobody is above the law. A President's primary job requirement is to protect and preserve the Constitution of the United States, and the lives of the American people. He has demonstrably failed at both. I implore my colleagues to consider this. If we are not going to use the tool of impeachment provided by the U.S. constitution to hold those accountable for violent sedition against the United States, then what should it be used for? When our time comes to vote in only a matter of moments, I call on all members in this chamber to honor their oaths, an oath we signed only 10 days ago: ``I do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion, and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I'm about to enter. So help me God.'' History demands that we hold Donald Trump accountable for dangerously failing to abide by this sacred oath.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Madam Speaker, last Friday, I sent a letter to my constituents telling the story about the violent attack on our Capitol Building, which is really like the temple of our democracy. I have now taken the oath of office, the same oath of office that the President of the United States has taken, that all of us here have taken, and he has been the orchestrator of this attack. It is time to hold this President accountable. It is time, and history demands that we impeach Donald Trump a second time.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, I am Congresswoman Jan Schakowsky. I represent the Ninth Congressional District of Illinois, and I am here on this auspicious day to stand up for the people of the Ninth Congressional District who are suffering right now under this pandemic. Mr. Speaker, we know that already we have seen the deaths of 286,000 people, rivaling the total number of people who have died in World War II. We are at war with this virus. Fifteen-plus million Americans have contracted this virus. But it is not only the suffering of people and the families of people who have died and the people who have this terrible disease, but it is also an issue for the rest of Americans who are suffering right now. Mr. Speaker, like every other Member of Congress, I am sure that you are getting the calls that I am getting; people--adults--who are weeping into the telephone and telling us about their fears, the suffering that their families are facing, the loss of jobs. A man called crying, saying, ``I can't pay my rent. I have lost my job. I am so afraid that, along with my family, we are going to be out on the street.'' A woman called somewhat embarrassed to tell us that she cannot put food on the table for her children. We directed her to a food bank. Think of that; in the richest country in the world, that she had to rely on a food bank to be able to feed her family. Mr. Speaker, in this country today, 1 out of 4 of our children is considered--what we say--food insecure. What does that mean? It means that they don't know where their next meal is going to come from. This is shameful. People who are facing--the day after Christmas--losing their unemployment benefits. In Illinois, that is half a million people. Around the country, that is 16.4 million people who may be without any source of sustenance. Mr. Speaker, this is America. We need to save our people. So we need to come to an agreement, and we need to come to it soon because people are desperate right now. Mr. Speaker, the things that we need to do: Number one, I believe that we need to send a check to every family. They need money in their pockets. And where is that money going to go? It is going to go right out into the community, helping all the small businesses that we are so concerned about. That $1,200 check that people got earlier in the year was a lifesaver, and we should do something similar right now. Mr. Speaker, we need to extend those unemployment insurance benefits. Our economy actually was somewhat thriving when they were getting $600 a week to keep their families going. I am not necessarily asking for that amount of money, but we should continue the unemployment insurance benefits. Again, that money goes right out into the economy. And then we have to end the idea of some sort of a liability shield. In many ways, it is really a get-out-of-jail-free card for companies that don't have to take care of their employees when they get sick. Mr. Speaker, 48 million workers put their own lives in danger every day and suit up and go out into the world taking care of our elderly, working in hospitals, working in grocery stores, loading our shelves, and taking our money when we leave. These people deserve help, and the employer should not be freed from any kind of liability. Mr. Speaker, we need the State and local money, and we need help for small businesses. We can do that. We must do that.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, I also thank Representative Guthrie, who cosponsored this legislation with me, and also Chairman Pallone and Chairman Bobby Rush for their help in moving this bill forward. This is a bipartisan bill that provides an important fix to an energy conservation rule for ceiling fans that the Department of Energy finalized in January 2017. However, minor technical changes to the rule were needed in order to prevent a major unintended consequence. Without this bill, some of the most energy-efficient, large-diameter ceiling fans would have to be taken off the market in the United States. So we fixed that. The bill will also provide consistent labeling requirements for residential ceiling fans and simplify the ENERGY STAR program. Both of these changes will make it easier for Americans to choose the right products for their homes. Representative Guthrie and I worked together with ceiling fan manufacturers, the energy efficiency community, and other stakeholders to clarify the standard. The Department of Energy was consulted throughout the drafting process. What pleases me really the most about this legislation is that it highlights how we need legislation, big and small, to tackle the climate crisis. This bill also highlights how we can work together across the aisle to enact commonsense policies that directly impact energy usage in homes and save American families money on their energy bill at the same time. Mr. Speaker, I look forward to continuing to work together with my Republican colleagues in the next Congress.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding. I am very proud that the next three bills are bills that have come out of the subcommittee that I chair on Consumer Protection and Commerce. I absolutely want to thank all of the authors of the legislation, Representatives Blunt Rochester and Walberg; and the authors of the legislation that was incorporated into this bill, Representatives Deutch and Lujan, for their work on the Seniors Fraud Prevention Act; Representatives Kelly and Marshall for the Protecting Seniors from Emergency Scams Act; and Representatives Lujan and Gianforte for the Protecting Indian Tribes from Scams Act; and Representatives O'Halleran and Hudson for the FTC Collaboration Act. Some of our most vulnerable fellow Americans have been the targets and the victims of fraud and scams during the COVID-19 pandemic. Scammers especially target seniors. They exploit fear or confusion during crises and emergencies and prey on seniors' trust and assumption that they will be too embarrassed to finally report scams to the relevant authorities. In 2018 alone, seniors lost almost $400 million to fraud. Another often overlooked target of fraud and scams are the Indian Tribes and Tribal members. We urgently need a better understanding of fraud targeting these communities. This legislation tackles these problems. It establishes a new office that focuses on the prevention of fraud that targets seniors, including fraudulent marketing materials, and it does address the problem of the Tribes and Tribal members that need to be protected also from the scams. So I am very proud of this legislation and grateful to the many sponsors.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, here we have another great bipartisan bill that has come out of the committee I am so proud to chair, the Consumer Protection and Commerce Subcommittee of the Energy and Commerce Committee. I thank the authors of the legislation: Representatives Carter, Hudson, Kuster, and Blunt Rochester. The COVID-19 pandemic has been a time of confusion and fear for many Americans, and scammers have noticed. Fraudsters have tried to steal stimulus checks and trick consumers with fake medical treatments and even vaccines. Seniors and those with disabilities are especially vulnerable. This legislation will protect American consumers, especially our most vulnerable, by increasing public awareness of COVID-19 scams. It directs the Federal Trade Commission to develop and disseminate information to the public about scams related to COVID-19. The FTC will also create a comprehensive national database that tracks the COVID-19 scams in consultation with the Attorney General and the HHS Secretary. This database will protect American consumers from malicious scams. Consumers will be armed with information about the pandemic scams and how to avoid those scams. So we must act now to prevent further harm to American consumers.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the authors of this legislation, Representatives Cardenas and Davis. As the COVID-19 pandemic worsens this winter, we must protect Americans who are spending more time in their homes. The pandemic has magnified risks associated with household consumer products. Children are particularly vulnerable, especially as parents are juggling their children while working from home. Unsupervised children face greater risks from bikes, scooters, trampolines, and pools. Calls to the poison control centers for children ingesting hand sanitizer have increased this year as well. This legislation will direct the Consumer Product Safety Commission to study and report on injuries and deaths that are associated with consumer products during the pandemic. It will ensure Americans have up-to-date information about risks to safety as the pandemic continues. We will learn about emergency safety threats more quickly so that action can actually be taken to protect consumers. This legislation also deals with the issues that are being faced right now by the travel industry. This legislation directs the Department of Commerce to study and report to Congress on the impact of the pandemic on travel and tourism. As Americans stay in their homes to protect themselves, travel and tourism have plummeted. The industry is an important part of our national economy, and over 15.7 million Americans work in the travel and tourism industries. These jobs are vital to many local communities. The decline of travel and tourism has devastated many other parts of the economy. Live events, the arts, hotels, and restaurants have all felt the effect. We must understand the full impact of the pandemic on the travel and tourism industry so that we can help the industry recover and come back strong.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H. Res. 1154 and call on all of my colleagues to denounce the dangerous QAnon conspiracy theories. Mr. Speaker, QAnon is a new front in an old war and relies on anti- Semitic tropes in order to spread the message. QAnon followers actually believe that the world is controlled by a secret cabal of child abusers, who will drink the blood of their victims. The FBI has linked the group to domestic terror and considers it a continuing terrorist threat. Mr. Speaker, I thank Tom Malinowski for leading this. The kind of messages that he is getting--very, very frightening. And I also thank Denver Riggleman and all of the bipartisan sponsors of this legislation. Just last week, my subcommittee held a hearing on how social media mainstreams extremism. When we heard from our witnesses, it was really terrifying. QAnon and other extremist groups have thrived for years on the internet, recruiting members, promoting racism, dividing our communities, and plotting actions of violence. As people have suffered, Big Tech has prospered and profited. Algorithms that amplify profits for platforms like Facebook, YouTube, and Twitter also amplify extremism. This week, Facebook announced a ban on ads that support QAnon. Good, but it is far too little and far too late. Facebook users who are in QAnon-associated groups will still be able to see extremist content, just further down in their news feeds. Moreover, Facebook groups promoting anti-Semitism have grown by 27 percent in the past week. Congress needs to denounce right now this kind of hate rhetoric, and Big Tech must be held accountable for profiting on this hate. Before I close, I would like to also state my support for H. Res. 1153 and thank Pramila Jayapal for leading the effort and Speaker Pelosi and Majority Leader Hoyer for their help on this resolution as well.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. In July, I introduced the INFORM Consumers Act with Congresswoman Kathy Castor, which would require platforms such as Amazon to verify third-party sellers. It is my sincere hope that this body can move, first, on the legislation that we are addressing today and, finally, on legislation that would protect consumers in a deeper way. I thank Representative Duncan, my friend and colleague, for introducing this legislation with me, this important consumer safety legislation. I would also like to take a moment to recognize both majority and minority committee staff who worked hard on this and each of the other bills that are before us today that moved through the subcommittee that I have the privilege of chairing: Lisa Goldman, Anna Yu, Daniel Greene, Chloe Rodriguez, Alex Hoehn-Saric, Tim Kurth, and Bijan Koohmaraie. I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Madam Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding to me. I rise in strong support of H.R. 8134, the Consumer Product Safety Inspection Enhancement Act, a bill that I introduced with my friend and colleague, Jeff Duncan. E-commerce spending is surging right now during the COVID-19 pandemic as Americans turn to online shopping for household essentials, personal protective equipment, back-to-school supplies, and more. However, e-commerce shipments entering the United States from overseas face little scrutiny and often contain fake or dangerous products. It is time that we empower the Consumer Product Safety Commission to collect the data it needs to identify and block e- commerce shipments that can harm consumers and that don't offer the protection and safety that they need. This legislation would give the CPSC the data that it needs to protect Americans from the flood of unsafe products that are coming in. This legislation is a critical first step to restoring confidence in e-commerce sites, but this bill is not a silver bullet. Much more needs to happen. Earlier this month, CNN reported that products sold on Amazon had burst into flames, causing significant bodily harm and property damage as well. Madam Speaker, I include in the Record that article. [From CNN, Sept. 10, 2020] Dozens of Amazon's Own Products Have Been Reported as Dangerous-- Melting, Exploding or Even Bursting into Flames. Many are still on the market (By Blake Ellis and Melanie Hicken) (CNN) When firefighters arrived at Austin Parra's home on January 12, 2017, they could see smoke and the charred remnants of an office chair outside. Parra, then 20, had been transported to the hospital. His mother explained to firefighters that her son's chair caught on fire while he was sleeping, and he was burned as he carried the flaming chair outside. Anthony Dignoti, the Wethersfield, Connecticut, fire marshal in charge of investigating the incident, could see that the door and door frame were damaged by the fire as well. He noticed bowls strewn about, which he wrote in his official report had been filled with water in an attempt to extinguish the fire. The fire at Austin Parra's home originated with an AmazonBasics USB cord, Fire Marshal Anthony Dignoti determined. (Courtesy Wethersfield Fire Marshal's Office) But most interesting to Dignoti was a white USB cord, Part of the cord was hanging off the chair and still intact, but the other side was stuck to the seat and had melted into a bare wire, he said in his report and an interview with CNN. Dignoti ultimately concluded that the fire originated with the cord Parra was using to charge his cellphone. His report stated the cord experienced a short circuit, and while it was unclear why this happened, ``the heat produced by the cord ignited the upholstery for the office chair.'' The cord had been branded with the name of the world's largest online retailer: Amazon. It was sold by one of Amazon's popular private label lines, AmazonBasics, which offers budget-friendly products including consumer electronics, household appliances, home goods and office accessories. Launched in 2009, AmazonBasics has grown to offer more than 5,000 products, according to the retailer. Its mission: identifying everyday items that Amazon can create at a similar or higher quality and lower price point when compared to existing name brands--a strategy also employed by companies such as Costco and Target. Key findings Using keywords including ``fire,'' ``dangerous'' and ``burn,'' reporters identified more than 1,500 reviews about AmazonBasics electronics and appliances posted by US customers on Amazon.com from 2016 through early 2020 that described safety-related issues. More than 10 percent of the reviews identified by CNN reported that products had caught fire--in some cases describing how flames shot out of the devices. Nearly 200 included reports of damage to homes or belongings, including charred walls and fried cellphones. A growing number of AmazonBasics products, which the company promotes heavily on its site, have become bestsellers since the line's inception, and many have ratings above four stars, according to Marketplace Pulse research. In recent months, the online retailer's sales have been soaring as millions of Americans have been staying at home--and in many cases working remotely--during the ongoing pandemic. But consumers have raised serious safety concerns about AmazonBasics items in complaints to government regulators and in reviews posted on Amazon's own website. Since 2016, at least 1,500 reviews, covering more than 70 items, have described products exploding, catching on fire, smoking, melting, causing electrical malfunctions or otherwise posing risks, according to an analysis of AmazonBasics electronics and appliances listed on its website. The reviews identified represent a small fraction of the overall purchases of the products, and fires caused by consumer electronics are not unique to Amazon branded items. User error can also be a factor, as can faulty or aging wiring within a home or a defective device being used in conjunction with the product. But when well-made and used properly by consumers, electronics like those sold under the AmazonBasics name should rarely pose dangers, said electrical engineers interviewed by CNN. Dozens of AmazonBasics product are flagged as dangerous, but many are still being sold. Within the more than 1,500 reviews, many consumers explicitly called out items as potentially dangerous--using terms such as ``hazard'' or ``fire'' or saying the product should be recalled. Around 30 items with three or more reviews like this remain for sale on Amazon.com today. At least 11 other products that fit this criteria were no longer for sale at the time of publication. Some became unavailable after CNN began its reporting, and at least four product pages were removed from the retailer's site entirely--leaving behind dead URLs known by employees as ``dog pages.'' Amazon confirmed that at least eight of these products had been under investigation, but said the company determined they all met its safety standards. Customers have written in their reviews and said in interviews that they trusted that AmazonBasics purchases would be safe and well made since they were branded with Amazon's name and frequently touted as ``Amazon's Choice.'' But even as complaints have mounted, the company has provided little or no information to consumers or the public about how it is handling allegations that some of its merchandise is unsafe. This review was written about an AmazonBasics car charger that has multiple consumer safety complaints. Amazon shoppers have recounted frightening malfunctions and close calls in vivid detail: A surge protector turned into a ``blowtorch,'' one father recalled--saying that flames shot out of the device, which was near his baby's nursery. Phone chargers were said to have burned peoples' hands and legs, and exploding batteries allegedly sprayed chemicals in someone's face. A USB cord burst into flames in a parked car while a toddler was inside, according to one parent. A charger in another car was reported as starting an electrical fire on the freeway, allegedly burning the driver and a jacket. Paper shredders turned on by themselves, according to multiple consumers, and one reportedly blew up in a ``fireball,'' burning someone's arm and singeing the hair off. And a microwave suddenly caught on fire when an 8-year- old went to heat up her macaroni and cheese cup as she had done ``a zillion times,'' a mother claimed, saying she had to take the appliance outside and spray it with a hose. Each of these purchases were ``verified,'' meaning Amazon confirmed that the customer who wrote the review actually purchased the product on the site and didn't receive a ``deep discount,'' according to its website. Several were accompanied by photos of the burned items. More than 150 reviews about the AmazonBasics microwave describe safety concerns including flames and smoke. While the best way to determine why something malfunctioned is to physically test it and take it apart, many customers said they immediately threw out the defective devices or sent them back to Amazon at the company's request. CNN obtained two damaged AmazonBasics products from customers: a microwave that a customer said caught fire and a USB cord a user said overheated and melted. These were tested by researchers at the failure analysis lab at the University of Maryland's Center for Advanced Life Cycle Engineering (CALCE) at CNN's request. The USB cord was too burned for researchers to determine what had gone wrong. The microwave testing found that the design of the panel covering the heating device inside the microwave could result in the machine catching on fire, and determined that the way the panel was secured could allow debris such as food or grease to collect behind it and possibly ignite. As soon as the researchers turned it on, the microwave began sparking and smoking, causing it to react as if its user put foil or other metal inside. The testing was cut short when the lab was closed due to Covid-19. ``There's a risk in using this machine for sure, and it's a safety risk because this clearly heated up to the extent a fire could occur,'' said engineering professor Michael Pecht, who is the founder of CALCE and has previously assisted in government safety investigations. ``This is more than a reliability problem, this is a potential safety problem.'' Amazon did not comment on whether any improvements had been made to the microwave, but said it is confident the microwave is safe to use and that it continues to ``meet or exceed'' all of the applicable certification requirements. The retailer said ``safety is a top priority'' at the company and that it takes a number of steps to ensure all AmazonBasics products are safe and high quality, such as selecting experienced manufacturers, monitoring customer feedback and testing items to ensure they pass safety and compliance standards both before and after they are available. It also said AmazonBasics offers thousands of products which combined have more than 1 million reviews, and that concerns are thoroughly investigated and that the company acts accordingly. ``Not safe,'' one verified purchaser wrote in a review about an AmazonBasics microwave, including a home video that shows the device sparking and making loud popping noises. ``The outcome of the investigation varies on a case by case basis and may include removing the product from the store, adjusting the design of the product, notifying customers to stop using the product, or other appropriate action,'' a company spokesperson said in a statement. ``We want customers to shop with confidence and if ever a customer has a concern, they can contact customer service and we will investigate.'' Amazon said there are a number of reasons an item may no longer be available, but that customers will be notified if a critical safety issue is identified. When asked how frequently the company has done this, Amazon said it had notified customers about an AmazonBasics product less than five times. It did not specify whether it did this for any of the items reviewed by CNN. `It's a red flag' Amazon has already been under intense scrutiny for allowing third party sellers with allegedly dangerous offerings to do business on the site, and multiple court rulings have found that the retailer can be held liable for defective items sold in its third party marketplace. CNN's analysis focused on products sold with Amazon's own name on them--a growing part of the retailer's business. The reviews come from people living all over the United States and span five years, but they often call attention to the very same problems: The same panel within a microwave catching fire, USB cords melting or burning despite no visible wear and tear or overuse, and paint on outdoor patio heaters lighting on fire. Consumers alleged items malfunctioned the first time they plugged them in. Others said electronics were not in use when they began malfunctioning. In general, one or two reports of problems could be more easily chalked up to user error or other external factors, multiple electrical engineers said. But as the number of reports about the same kinds of failures increases about the same item, so does the likelihood that there is a defect in the design or manufacturing. Researchers at the CALCE lab compare a new AmazonBasics microwave to one that had visible burn damage. ``That would certainly lead to more suspicion that the product is at fault,'' said Mark Horenstein, a professor at Boston University's College of Engineering. ``It's a red flag.'' Amazon said customer reviews are only one indication of a potential issue, saying it looks at a number of other factors such as sales history, returns and customer service contacts when assessing potential problems. ``Using customer reviews alone to conclude a product is unsafe or imply there's a widespread issue is misleading,'' the company said in a statement. Former Amazon employees said that even a few reviews mentioning words like ``fire'' and ``hazard'' should automatically prompt the retailer to take action. Amazon said reviews are monitored and can trigger safety investigations, but it declined to provide details about the specific threshold needed for this to happen. The company said products may be temporarily removed during such inquiries and that in order to keep selling something, it must be confirmed to be safe. It also said that if an investigation uncovers a ``potential, non-isolated safety issue,'' it takes appropriate measures to notify the government and ``safely recall the product.'' This AmazonBasics surge protector remains for sale despite reviews about dangers and a report to the CPSC that it ``made a loud popping noise, sparked, and the case was opened by the force of the damage.'' Amazon said the product is safe and that most reports involved customers who plugged in multiple large electronics. Some reviews identified by CNN said nothing was plugged into the device, however. Businesses are required by law to immediately report ``potentially hazardous'' items to the federal Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) so the agency can determine whether an official recall is necessary. Companies can also initiate voluntary recalls in cooperation with the CPSC. Concerns similar to those detailed in Amazon reviews have been relayed to the CPSC in at least 10 reports that specifically mention an AmazonBasics product. The complaints cover at least eight different items and date back to 2012. In the United States, Amazon publicly recalled two AmazonBasics items in 2018 and 2019, after the company received 53 reports in the US about power banks overheating and 25 about versions of a space heater overheating, burning or sparking. It said it proactively notified the CPSC of the results of the company's own investigation and its intent to recall the items. Beyond these two official recalls, the company has never publicly acknowledged that AmazonBasics products have any safety issues. The CPSC said it was prohibited by law from discussing any item that had not been recalled and that in general, the agency determines if a recall is necessary based on a number of factors, including ``the nature of the defect, the level of hazard associated with the issue, and the pattern of similar problems (seen).'' Customers reported being shocked or burned in at least 100 reviews on Amazon's website. Parra from the Connecticut apartment fire said in a lawsuit that he suffered second- degree burns and injuries to his throat from smoke inhalation. Dignoti's report shows Parra spent around a day in the hospital. Parra sued Amazon in 2019, and the case settled. He and his attorney did not respond to interview requests. CNN used the information provided by the fire department to determine that the type of cord Parra purchased had been removed from Amazon's website. While it is unclear when the cord was pulled, a version of the page captured by the Wayback Machine, an internet archive, shows the product had an average rating of 4.1 out of 5 stars. It shows the cord was still available for purchase until at least June 2017, and that there were warnings from other customers at least a year before Parra's January 2017 fire. The link for the phone cord used by Parra now leads to nothing but a dead URL known internally at Amazon as a dog page. ``End of the cable melted and started smoking. Glad we caught it before a fire,'' one verified purchaser wrote in June 2016. ``DO NOT BUY! FIRE HAZARD!'' another customer with a verified purchase of the cord wrote in May 2016, attaching 10 photos of the melted and warped cord--saying it ruined an expensive iPhone and that he considered himself lucky that a fire hadn't ignited. ``These should be taken off the market immediately!!!'' While fires caused by USB cords are uncommon, they are possible, according to electrical engineers who said a range of factors could be at play in situations like this--from problems with whatever device the cord is plugged into to defects within the cord itself. The AmazonBasics lightning charger that this review was written about became unavailable after CNN began its reporting. An industry non-profit, the USB Implementers Forum Inc, said it docs not believe user error is a significant cause of overheating USB cables. A cable that is substandard, whether because of a design or manufacturing defect, can be dangerous and lead to electric shock, overheating, sparks or fire, it said. The group has certified a number of AmazonBasics cables as meeting their standards, though it focuses on the functionality of the cables and making sure their specifications are in compliance--emphasizing that it is ``not a replacement for industry best practices or any applicable local, state or government statutes, rules or regulations pertaining to safety.'' The group also said it conducted an internal review of several cables CNN brought to its attention and found them to be compliant. It does not certify proprietary lightning USB cords used for Apple devices, however, such as Parra's cord. Apple said it allows manufacturers to use its lightning connectors in their products if those items are tested and confirmed to meet high quality standards, and that the company expects manufacturers to meet any applicable safety standards. Have you purchased an AmazonBasics product? Amazon meanwhile said it investigated the safety claims about the kind of cord used by Parra and determined it met the company's standards. ``If we determine that a product is unsafe, we remove it from our stores and take all necessary actions, which may include contacting regulators and customers,'' it said, specifically in response to questions about the cord used by Parra, which was removed from the site. The retailer did introduce a new version of the product, however, saying it made updates to improve the customer experience. Losing trust Matt Citro purchased his AmazonBasics surge protector to protect his family from a fire. Instead, he said that in January 2018, the surge protector itself caught fire. A single phone charger was plugged into the device, but was not being used at the time. Sitting on the couch as his 9-month-old son slept in his nursery nearby, Citro said he noticed flames coming out of the surge protector--turning it into what resembled a ``blowtorch.'' He told CNN that he quickly pulled the flaming device from the wall. He wasn't injured but said he was left with more than $1,000 of damage after the surge protector burned a hole in the wall outlet and seared part of his wall. Matt Citro says that he sent back his charred surge protector so that it could be investigated by Amazon. He never heard anything back, but did receive a payment to cover damage to his home. (Courtesy Matt Citro) He had never experienced any electrical issues in his home before this, he said, and was convinced the AmazonBasics surge protector was to blame. ``DO NOT BUY THIS PRODUCT!!! . . . If I wasn't home my entire house would have burnt down from this cheap product,'' Citro wrote in a review. ``I'm extremely disappointed in Amazon. We put a lot of faith in their products and to have (one) almost burn down my home does not make me trust them. This product has amazons name on it!'' Citro said he immediately contacted Amazon and told the company what happened. At first, he said he was offered a replacement or a refund. Not satisfied, he continued to call customer service. He said he finally got through to someone who connected him with an insurance company, and he was ultimately paid $1,469, according to a settlement document reviewed by CNN in which Amazon denies any liability. Amazon continued to sell the surge protector for nearly two years after Citro posted his review, during which time more reviews about similar situations and other concerns piled up. More than 40 customers reported that the product was a fire hazard, had caused damage to their home or belongings or described other dangers. These reviews represented around 1.7% of the roughly 2,600 US reviews posted about the $10.99 device as of late last year, before Amazon removed it from the site. Several included claims of flames and fires like Citro's. As a comparison, a similar product made by a major consumer electronics company and also sold on Amazon's site had six reviews about possible safety concerns earlier this year, representing .07% of its more than 8,000 reviews. And none of the six mentioned actual fires. Amazon said its own analysis, which added global reviews about the AmazonBasics surge protector, found 1.1 % involved claims of overheating, fire and other dangers. One former AmazonBasics product manager, who asked to remain anonymous because she still works in the industry, said she was surprised to hear that such a high percentage of reviews raised safety issues about an AmazonBasics item. ``Once you get 40, oh my gosh, no, that would not be acceptable in any shape, way or form,'' she said of the reviews found by CNN, adding that a ratio of around .05% would have been seen as more acceptable when she worked there. But she defended her former employer, saying this was just one product and that during her time with the company, she believed the retailer was even more vigilant than competitors in trying to react to safety concerns. More than 40 customers reported dangers involving the same surge protector that Citro said burst into flames. Weeks after CNN began reporting on the surge protector-- reaching out to customers and employees and ordering the same item as part of the investigation--Amazon pulled it from its site in December despite its high average rating of 4.4 stars as of a month earlier. The company did not appear to provide any notification to customers, including to the reporters who purchased it. And it did not post any message on its site about why it was taken down. Amazon declined to comment on individual customers, and would not say why the page was removed or whether Citro's surge protector was tested. It did say an updated version of the product had been released, but when asked for the link to the updated version, the company said ``this product is currently unavailable.'' Citro, who said he still shops at Amazon frequently, said he sent his burned surge protector back for testing as the company requested, but never heard anything about what its investigation found. ``I do wish this particular product was tested more thoroughly,'' he said. ``A lot was on the line with my son's bedroom in the next room.'' Just like Parra's phone cord, this specific kind of surge protector has not been officially recalled. Behind the scenes Three former Amazon employees said the vast majority of AmazonBasics electronics are made in Asia. The company's list of suppliers used for its various private label lines-- including AmazonBasics--shows that only around 10% are in the United States and nearly half are located in China. The retailer typically brings AmazonBasics items to market in two ways, explained the former product manager. It either goes straight to manufacturers that are able to meet its standards and works closely with them to create items for the AmazonBasics line. Or Amazon finds an existing product and works with a third-party company, which may use an outside manufacturer of its own, to brand the item with the AmazonBasics name. The reviews More than 90% of the reviews CNN analyzed were about ``verified purchases.'' Some 400 reviews posted on the site included photos or videos as visual evidence of their claims. Reviews came from around 70 product pages, which sometimes included multiple variations of an item (such as USB cords in different lengths or colors), which may have separate identification numbers. Reviews were excluded if a product had clearly been used incorrectly--for example, those saying non-rechargeable batteries were placed in a charger. Most reviews did not include people's full names, but CNN did reach more than 30 customers, and many provided information such as evidence of their purchases, photos, additional details and correspondence with Amazon. She said both methods have been implemented for electronics, but that in this second scenario, Amazon typically has less insight into the manufacturing process and is less involved in quality and safety testing. Amazon disputed this, saying it verifies that products meet the same safety standards regardless of the business model. The company also said it most frequently works directly with manufacturers. Related: Fake and dangerous kids products are turning up for sale on Amazon Another former employee who was involved with AmazonBasics in its earlier years and asked to remain anonymous because of a confidentiality agreement, said employees on the AmazonBasics team would randomly order items to inspect and stay on top of reviews to make sure red flags were being caught. ``We didn't have a lot of problems in my time but were much smaller than they are now so it was easy to keep things under control,'' the former employee said. Former Amazon manager Rachel Greer, who left the company in 2015, said that when she worked in compliance at the company, she believed AmazonBasics products were closely monitored from conception to the years following their launch, saying there was extensive testing done. She said safety issues were rare, but when they occurred, they were caught quickly and addressed as soon as possible. ``If someone complained on a review, we took it very seriously,'' she said. This required staying on top of manufacturers and making sure corners weren't cut, she and the AmazonBasics product manager both said. In the case of USB cords, for example, Greer described how she made sure there was frequent testing of the cords to ensure that manufacturers hadn't begun to swap in thinner wiring which could be more likely to cause cords to overheat. A customer said this AmazonBasics retractable USB cord began melting only a few months after he purchased it. ``Had my wife not heard it crackling it could have started a fire,'' he wrote in a review. ``When you're in charge of compliance for something that has the Amazon brand on it, I didn't think it should be something we're messing around with,'' Greer said. ``When you're outsourcing production there's a lot of things that can go wrong.'' When she left Amazon, she said she was growing concerned that a drive to increase sales would overshadow a focus on safety as the number of AmazonBasics offerings continued to rise. Prior to her departure, she would increasingly disagree with product managers, who she said pushed to get items into the pipeline faster and more cheaply. Performance evaluations reviewed by reporters backed up the idea that Greer had clashed with colleagues but also described her as ``an evangelist for product safety,'' saying ``she is passionate about keeping customers safe.'' Greer now works as a consultant to third-party sellers, and said she wasn't surprised to hear that customers were complaining of alleged dangers. She said that when she worked for Amazon, she was never aware of anything close to the number or level of seriousness of the reviews identified by CNN, and questioned whether testing was still as rigorous as it had been in the past. ``If this had happened on a seller product, the second complaint of fire it would have been taken down,'' she said, while scanning through some of the more than 150 reviews about serious problems with a voice-activated AmazonBasics microwave--the same product tested by CALCE. Greer said that if she was still at the company and had seen so many reports of fire about a single item, she likely would have reported the microwave to the CPSC and worked with the business teams to enact a voluntary recall by the company. Since the microwave's release in the fall of 2018, its product page has been flooded with reports from consumers about problems including flames, smoke and sparks. These kinds of reviews made up roughly 5% of the AmazonBasics microwave's more than 3,000 reviews as of February, when CNN's final analysis was conducted. Another roughly 1,000 reviews have been posted since then, with fires being reported as recently as September. A microwave that has been reviewed less frequently but is the same size and wattage had only 10 reviews describing similar safety issues--amounting to around .7% of its roughly 1,350 reviews on Amazon. Research scientists use x-ray CT scanning to test AmazonBasics retractable charging cords and microwave parts. While the retailer did not provide unit sales, Amazon said that as the best-selling microwave on the site, it may have a higher number of sales and reviews, which could result in more mentioning possible concerns. The company disputed Greer's comments, saying safety testing had not become any less rigorous and that it was not aware of any manufacturers using thinner cables ``than they were directed to use.'' It said safety testing is handled by reputable third-party labs with global facilities, including in China and that her statements about the microwave were speculative since she was not part of the team that worked on this item and was not involved in the testing of the device. Amazon also said it proactively sends safety-related customer reports to the CPSC and noted the agency has not issued any consumer warnings about the AmazonBasics microwave. Still for sale Amazon declined to provide details about why certain products were investigated and removed from its site, while others with repeated complaints about the same hazards are still available to purchase today. Leeona Smail said her AmazonBasics battery charger began to melt and smoke. New mom Leeona Smail posted her review about an AmazonBasics battery charger late last year. When CNN reached her, she recounted how she and her husband were forced to evacuate their home in the middle of the night when they detected the unmistakable smell of something burning. They gathered their dogs, cats and 4-month-old baby by their front porch, called 911 and waited for help to arrive. It wasn't until after the firefighters left that the Smails said they found what they believed was the culprit: an AmazonBasics battery charger. They had used the device for several years to charge batteries. But this time, Smail said, after unplugging it from the wall and placing it in a box on their coffee table, it began to melt and smoke. When the fire chief returned the next day to check on them, she said, he was amazed to see the source of the smell. A Vandergrift, Pennsylvania fire chief confirmed that his team was dispatched to investigate ``a smoke odor and light haze'' at the Smail home. He said they ultimately learned that a battery charger ``overheated and melted,'' and said it was unclear whether it would have caused the house to catch fire if it hadn't been found. Other reviews about the same battery charger have described similar concerns. It is still available for sale. Smail posted a photo of the burned device along with her review before throwing it away. Amazon eventually gave her a refund--though she said she only received a partial one because the warranty window had passed. Credits At least 21 other reviews about the same battery charger, which had around 2,000 total reviews at the time of CNN's analysis, also said the device had overheated, melted or burned. Three described the same situation that Smail reported: the charger had not even been plugged in and had no batteries in it at the time. The item was still for sale on Amazon at the time of publication. The company said an investigation confirmed the product was safe, and that there were no broader design or safety concerns. But when asked whether it tested any of the actual chargers customers had flagged, and if so, what those tests had found, Amazon said it did not have ``information to share.''

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Madam Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding. Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 1754, the Horseracing Integrity Act, and the really amazing, relentless work that my colleagues, Paul Tonko and Mr. Barr, have exerted all session this year, last year, the year before, to make this a reality. Madam Speaker, compromise is often hard to find. And the number of stakeholders that have been involved has made it even more complicated but, finally, successful. This legislation is the result of that compromise. The amendment includes such important improvements in establishing safety, not only for the equine athletes, our horses, but also for the jockeys. Madam Speaker, you have heard a lot from both of the chief sponsors on this legislation, but I want to say that this bill will help achieve our overarching goal to protect the health and welfare of our racehorses and jockeys while strengthening the integrity of the sport itself, which is so important. Madam Speaker, I want to emphasize something that Mr. Tonko was talking about, because let's not forget why we are here. Racehorses in the United States are injured at a much higher rate than the rest of the horse-racing world, resulting in nearly 500 horses dying every year. One of the keys to stopping injuries and deaths is establishing strong drug policies, training, and racing protocols and racetrack standards. Standards like pre-race detection and appropriate treatment for injuries. The stress and pressure generated by an 1,100-pound animal sprinting down the track at, sometimes a rate of up to 40 miles an hour, can cause minor injuries to become fatal breaks. Madam Speaker, as a former horse owner myself, and my horse came from a track not among the names that Mr. Barr listed--actually, he was probably thrown off the track, he wasn't very good--and came to the barn that I would go to. And I had the pleasure of having some years of the rest of his life for him to be my horse--BJ Sullivan. He would take me down the paths in the forest preserve and he also helped me learn how to jump over fences, not too high, but pretty well. And I think sometimes, until this piece of legislation, maybe he was kind of lucky not to be one of the winners, and not to be one of the ones who would be drugged and not protected. And as the stand-in jockey, I was pretty safe on the back of BJ Sullivan, who was very honest when it came to jumping over fences. Madam Speaker, I am very, very proud today. Rather than treating the underlying conditions, some racehorses are given pain medications to ease their pain, and the pain medications mask the relatively minor injuries that could actually become much more serious. This legislation, as you heard in detail, I think is the kind of legislation that is really going to enhance the industry and enhance the safety of riders, of jockeys, as well as our horses. Madam Speaker, I am so proud to be a cosponsor of the bill, and I thank our lead sponsors.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Madam Speaker, I also would like to thank the authors of this legislation, Representatives McNerney, Burgess, Soto, Matsui, and Davidson. This legislation would direct the Consumer Product Safety Commission to establish a pilot program that uses artificial intelligence technology to protect consumers from unsafe products. CPSC would have to use AI technology to track trends related to injuries from consumer products, monitor the sale of recalled products, or identify products prohibited from being imported into the United States. In carrying out the pilot program, the agency would have to consult with AI experts, manufacturers, and consumer product safety organizations. CPSC would have to report to Congress on the extent to which AI technologies improved the agency's work after the pilot program has ended. This is exactly the right approach and a good complement to all the consumer protection bills that we are moving today. The measure would also direct the Commerce Department to conduct, in consultation with the Federal Trade Commission, FTC, and other relevant agencies a study on the commercialization and use of blockchain technology that was added to this bill. It would direct the FTC to report on deceptive practices related to digital tokens and provide recommendations to Congress on improving Federal protection of consumers from blockchain-related fraud. Again, I want to thank Chairman Pallone and the sponsors of this legislation.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Madam Speaker, I thank Chairman Pallone and Ranking Member Walden for your leadership, and of course, to the leadership of my ranking member on the Subcommittee of Consumer Protection and Commerce, Representative Rodgers, for her innovative work on the American COMPETE Act. I am so proud to support that, and I urge all of my colleagues, along with Representative Rodgers and, from the Democratic side, Mr. Rush, as a cosponsor of that legislation. Madam Speaker, I think all of us would agree with the importance, and I love the phrase about winning the future. I think this legislation does lay a kind of blueprint of the direction that we can go in and the kinds of technologies that are really at hand if we put our energy and our minds to making it happen. I thank you very much. Madam Speaker, I also just want to take this opportunity to say a special thank you at this moment and recognize the service of the ranking member of the full committee, Mr. Walden. There are so many things that you can now attribute your service to, the legislation that has passed, but I think even more than that, I just wanted to thank you for the kind of tone that you have set, both as the chairman and as the ranking member of the committee. I think we can be so proud of the Energy and Commerce Committee. We have passed so many bills. We really are a legislative powerhouse. But we have also done it with the kind of integrity that I think shines so well on the Congress of the United States. I just want to acknowledge what a great colleague he has been. I consider him a friend, and I wish him absolutely the best of luck. He will definitely be missed. I thank him so much. Madam Speaker, I would also like to recognize Consumer Protection and Commerce Subcommittee Ranking Member Rodgers for the part that she has played and the partnership that I believe we have had. Of course, we have sometimes wanted to move at a different pace or had different ideas, but again, I just want to thank the gentlewoman for the tone that she helped set at our hearings and in our efforts to pass legislation. Madam Speaker, I congratulate Ranking Member Rodgers on her hard work to move this bill, and I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Madam Speaker, although I was unable to join in person tonight, I want to lend my voice to the chorus of colleagues assembling to honor John Shimkus' service in Congress. I thank John for his friendship, and commitment to public service. I wish him nothing but health and happiness for himself and his family during his upcoming retirement from Congress. John came to Washington one term before I did. We had offices next to each other on the fifth floor of the Cannon Building. As most members and staff know, most of the elevators in Cannon do not go to the fifth floor, making those offices not the most desirable real estate. But John and I not only stayed there as Freshman members, but we stayed a few terms, enjoying the larger offices and the somewhat quieter halls. John and I, as well as our staff, got along well, especially Cathy Hurwit, my long time Chief of Staff and Craig Roberts, John's then and current Chief. Though there were issues on which John and I disagreed, we had the opportunity to work closely together on issues affecting our state. The Illinois Delegation had a tradition of monthly bipartisan lunches. The agendas focused on issues specific to Illinois. Often we would agree to support legislation, funding or projects that could help all our constituents and benefit our state. Illinois was one of the few delegations that was able to work so smoothly together, and John was a leader in that effort. John and I both earned positions on the prestigious Energy and Commerce Committee. I saw up close how passionately John fought for his beliefs and constituents. His tone was always positive, even as he disagreed with other members. I have enjoyed serving with him on the Committee all these years. John Shimkus is well liked on both sides of the aisle. Why? Because John Shimkus is a kind man, a smart man, and a gentleman. We have been able to debate without spite, collaborate, and sometimes find common ground. This is how collegiality and compromise work, and I wish we could bottle it and send it around the halls of Congress. John will be missed here. I hope he enjoys every extra moment he's earned with Karen, David, Joshua, and Daniel.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Madam Speaker, one of the greatest honors of my life has been to serve alongside John Lewis in this House of Representatives. John was my friend, and I know that thousands of people say the same thing, and guess what? They are all right. John was my leader. I sat down in the well of this House with him in the morning, and we didn't get up again until the next morning because we were fighting, with him in the lead, to end gun violence. I got arrested with John Lewis, he probably for the 60-something time and me for the first, because we were fighting for immigration reform. My husband and I had the honor of walking behind John to cross the Edmund Pettus Bridge three different times at a place where the State troopers in Alabama nearly took his life. Over the years in our Democratic Caucus meetings, there was a tone that would get gloomy sometimes, and those were John Lewis moments. John would stand up and, in no uncertain terms, he would remind us of our mission. What people really wanted to hear from us, he told us, was hope, and no one could deliver hope like John Lewis. I give you his words, words we needed to hear: Do not get lost in despair. Be hopeful. Be optimistic. Our struggle is not a struggle of a day, of a week, of a month, or of a year. It is the struggle of a lifetime.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the en bloc amendment. I also rise to thank Chairman DeFazio for including the Hot Cars Act in the base bill. There are far too many ways that parents can lose their children that we can't control. There are diseases that take the lives of our kids that we are just not equipped today to stop. But we have a duty to do everything that we can to ensure that parents don't lose a child when we can prevent it. Fifty-three children died of heatstroke in cars last year. In most cases, parents--good parents--accidentally leave their children in cars. In other cases, kids crawl into an empty car and then somehow can't get out again. Education alone cannot solve the problem. Even the most attentive parents can become distracted and inadvertently leave a child in the car. I have talked to those parents. It is a crushing experience, as you can imagine, one you never get over. A simple sensor, an alert system, that would notify parents that they have left a child in their car can save lives. It is really past time for us to enact this crucial legislation. The heat of the summer is really just beginning. Let's get to it. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank Mr. DeFazio again for including this bill.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, the Moving Forward Act marks a transformational investment in America's infrastructure that will create millions of jobs and take bold action on the climate crisis. In case anybody forgot, 2020 began with one of the worst wildfires in the history of the world, devastating 45 million acres in Australia. And now fires are raging in Siberia, and the temperature in the Arctic Circle actually hit a record 100 degrees Fahrenheit. So it is past time for Congress to act. This is such a comprehensive bill. I want to thank Chairman DeFazio for also including the Motor Vehicle Safety Title, and I include in the Record a report from Consumer Reports on the lifesaving impact the Motor Vehicle Safety Title will have. [From Consumer Reports, June 29, 2020] Safety First--Car Crashes, Innovation, and Why Federal Policy Should Prioritize Adoption of Existing Technologies to Save Lives Executive Summary To provide a guide for policymakers and the auto industry on how best to substantially and expeditiously reduce road crashes, deaths, and injuries, this study analyzed the safety benefits of currently available crash avoidance systems and other existing motor vehicle safety technologies, including a review of the safety research that has been conducted on the topic. The focus of this analysis was the publicly available fatality reduction benefits of safety technologies extrapolated to the entire U.S. light vehicle fleet--with systems evaluated that exist today, as opposed to creating estimates of effectiveness based on simulated or idealized technology. The analysis found that currently available automatic emergency braking (AEB), lane departure warning (LDW), blind spot warning (BSW), and pedestrian detection technologies would be expected to combine for fatality reductions of 11,800 lives per year once fully adopted fleetwide. Two safety applications of V2V communications technolog--intersection movement assist (IMA) and left turn assist (LTA)--would be estimated to save more than 1,300 lives per year with full fleet adoption. One existing drunk driving prevention technology, the Driver Alcohol Detection System for Safety (DADSS), would be estimated to save 3,700- 7,400 lives under the scenarios assessed. Summed together, existing motor vehicle safety technology would save 16,800- 20,500 lives per year if equipped across the full U.S. light vehicle fleet. This totals approximately one-half of the 36,560 lives lost on U.S. roads in 2018. Therefore, to cut roadway fatalities in half, policymakers should prioritize requiring and setting strong performance standards for existing vehicle safety technologies, and automakers should equip effective systems standard across all trim lines of their models as soon as possible. Introduction The United States faces a road safety crisis. In recent years, motor vehicle crashes in the U.S. have accounted for at least 36,000 deaths and 2.5 million injuries per year: These crashes are the leading cause of death in the first three decades of Americans' lives, and they cost the nation an estimated $800 billion in direct and indirect expenses per year. Substantial reductions in motor vehicle deaths, injuries, and crashes will be required for the U.S. to achieve a transportation system in which people can readily get around without fear that they or their loved ones will not make it to their destination. As part of the pursuit of safer roads, a suite of technologies has developed through auto industry innovation that, over time, will revolutionize the experience--and the safety--of driving a car. Various existing crash avoidance systems are capable of automatically applying the brakes to avoid a crash, warning drivers of a vehicle in their blind spot, or detecting a pedestrian crossing the street. These technologies are all on cars today, providing major proven safety benefits to consumers. To provide a guide for policymakers and the auto industry on how best to substantially and expeditiously reduce road crashes, deaths, and injuries, this study analyzed the fatality reduction benefits of currently available crash avoidance systems and other existing motor vehicle safety technologies, including a review of the safety research that has been conducted on the topic. The estimated lives saved on U.S. roads depends greatly on the choices made by policymakers; specifically, whether they choose to prioritize mandating existing crash avoidance systems or expediting the future deployment of automated vehicles (AVs) as envisioned under previous legislation. Background For vehicle safety technologies to deliver in full on their lifesaving potential, they must--by definition--be standard equipment on all vehicles on our roads. It is also critical for there to be strong performance requirements for these technologies, so that safety innovation leads to systems that consumers can trust to function when they need them. Today, the U.S. still is far from these goals with respect to crash avoidance technologies. Automatic emergency braking (AEB), a version of which major automakers voluntarily committed to equip standard on virtually all passenger vehicles by 2022, now comes standard on just 67% of 2020 vehicle models more than four years after the commitment was made. Pedestrian detection, an enhancement of AEB, comes standard on 61% of 2020 models, while lane departure warning (LDW) and blind spot warning (BSW) lag behind at only 49% and 29%, respectively. Furthermore, there are no current laws or regulations in the U.S. requiring automakers to equip their vehicles with lifesaving crash avoidance systems, nor are there any requirements specifying how well the systems must perform. Several members of Congress have sought to use federal policy to accelerate auto industry safety innovation and ensure consumers continuously gain greater access to the benefits of crash avoidance systems. For example, a bill recently introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives, the 21st Century Smart Cars Act, would require systems including AEB with pedestrian detection, LDW, and BSW to come standard on all new cars and to meet mandatory performance standards. Another new bill, the Five Stars for Safe Cars Act, would require upgrades to the government's New Car Assessment Program (NCAP) so that it accounts for these and other auto safety systems, including through the development of new National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) test procedures, devices, fixtures, and performance metrics. There also has been significant manufacturer, investor, media, and government attention in recent years devoted to the role of vehicles with enhanced driving automation systems, the most advanced of which are known colloquially as A Vs or self-driving cars. AVs offer enormous potential to improve safety and mobility by substantially reducing the road crashes attributable to driver error. Similar to what is needed for existing crash avoidance technologies, rigorous performance requirements are essential for driving automation systems to reach their full potential. Currently, the real safety benefits A Vs will deliver for consumers are largely unknown. These systems generally are not yet commercially available, and public trust in A Vs is low, with Americans somewhat optimistic about the future of the vehicles while wary of the technology today. In addition, there have been fatal crashes involving driving automation systems, with the National Transportation Safety Board publishing detailed crash investigation reports that found insufficient safety protocols in place. In 2017 and 2018, federal legislation was considered in each chamber of Congress that would have expedited the deployment of AVs on U.S. roads for commercial use--without requiring completion of any mandatory standards or performance requirements regulating the safety of these vehicles. The legislation's approach to vehicle safety was the target of significant criticism, including by CR, and the bills were not approved before the end of the 115th Congress. Instead of establishing meaningful requirements for AVs to provide greater occupant protection and crash avoidance capabilities, the 2017-2018 legislation would have required only that AVs provide a level of safety the same as the average car on the road. For example, the House's SELF DRIVE Act would have permitted AVs in commerce that could be exempt from one or more federal motor vehicle safety standards if they had ``an overall safety level at least equal to the overall safety level of nonexempt vehicles.'' Nonexempt vehicles--in other words, vehicles on the road today-- currently have the safety performance of more than 36,000 deaths, 2.5 million injuries, and 6 million crashes per year. Methodology Fatality reduction benefits were examined for four existing crash avoidance technologies: automatic emergency braking (AEB), lane departure warning (LOW), blind spot warning (BSW), and pedestrian detection. Additionally, the fatality reduction benefits of two safety applications for vehicle-to- vehicle (V2V) communications technologies, as well as one drunk driving prevention technology, were investigated. The focus of this analysis was limited to the publicly available fatality reduction benefits of safety technologies extrapolated to the entire U.S. light-duty motor vehicle fleet of about 250 million vehicles--with systems evaluated that exist today, as opposed to creating estimates of effectiveness based on simulated or idealized technology. Recently, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) conducted a comprehensive meta- analysis on three of these technologies: AEB, LOW, and BSW. NHTSA's analysis expanded on the work done by Leslie et al. (2019), which estimated the effectiveness of crash avoidance systems currently equipped on General Motors vehicles. In order to translate these effectiveness rates into fatality reductions, the agency expanded on the work done by Wang et al. (2019), adding consideration for already expected fatality reduction from existing technologies such as electronic stability control (ESC). Absent from the agency's meta-analysis are the estimated safety benefits of pedestrian detection. However, in 2017 NHTSA published a report detailing the expected fatality reduction from full fleet adoption of this technology. This research was performed with then-available pedestrian detection technology, and the effectiveness estimate was derived from test-track evaluations of the systems combined with contemporary observed crash scenarios and injury risk curves. Further, this report focused only on two prominent vehicle-pedestrian crash scenarios, which accounted for 60% of all fatal pedestrian crashes. Since the publication of this report, pedestrian detection technologies have improved; however, in order to stay consistent with the selected analysis inclusion criteria and more conservative estimates, researchers chose to use the figures from 2017. In addition to the four crash avoidance technologies AEB, LDW, BSW, and pedestrian detection, researchers examined the expected fatality reduction benefits of two safety applications of vehicle-to-vehicle (V2V) communications technology, as well as one drunk driving prevention technology, if fully adopted throughout the U.S. light vehicle fleet. While these two technologies are not currently widespread on roads, they are the subject of years of extensive testing and they offer a clear path to saving lives. To stay consistent with the selected approach to estimate only the more conservative potential of these safety technologies, just two V2V safety applications were used. These two applications--intersection movement assist (IMA) and left turn assist (LTA)--are those that NHTSA used in its expected benefit analysis for its notice of proposed rulemaking to require V2V-capable systems on all new cars, which was finalized in late 2016 and formally published in early 2017.i While additional V2V safety applications have since been analyzed, this report only includes the aforementioned two applications in the benefits analysis for V2V because these two applications address hazards that would not be addressed by other existing crash avoidance technologies. Additionally, researchers examined potential reduction in road deaths through the use of drunk driving prevention technology. An analysis of NHTSA's Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS) was used to estimate the lives that could be saved if one technology, the Driver Alcohol Detection System for Safety (DADSS), prevented drivers from operating the vehicle if they had a Blood Alcohol Concentration (BAC) of 0.08 or higher. Two estimates were produced: an upper estimate based on the FARS analysis, and a lower estimate that was established by reducing that value by half. Researchers evaluated the fatality reduction benefits of DADSS because the technology has been the subject of the most extensive testing and published research among drunk driving prevention technologies. Alternative approaches, such as those based on the use of systems that monitor a driver's performance, may also prove effective at detecting impairment and preventing or limiting vehicle operation by drunk drivers. The target crash populations that would be addressed by DADSS are separate from the target crash populations that would benefit from AEB, LDW, BSW, pedestrian detection, or V2V (e.g., in the fatality reduction benefits analyses for these five technologies, all impaired driving crashes were excluded). Therefore, the two technology effectiveness estimates for DADSS (i.e., the upper estimate and lower estimate) were added to the estimates of the other technologies in order to determine an overall number of expected lives saved if the technologies were fully adopted throughout the U.S. light vehicle fleet. These estimates can be summed because their crash populations are exclusive, with no fatal crashes potentially double-counted by the individual technology effectiveness analyses. A review of the papers on A Vs found no on-road research establishing that vehicles driving themselves freely on fully public roads provide a safety benefit compared to vehicles operated traditionally by a human driver under the same circumstances. While some AV developers report that they have driven their vehicles many miles without crashes, their detailed safety data is rarely, if ever, made public. The specific conditions under which these vehicles are tested are also not public, and potentially are unrepresentative of the conditions these vehicles would encounter if deployed nationally. Results The analysis found that currently available AEB, LDW, and BSW technologies would be expected to combine for fatality reductions of approximately 11,000 lives per year once fully adopted throughout the U.S. light-duty motor vehicle fleet. Currently available pedestrian detection technologies would be expected to prevent at least an additional 800 fatalities per year once equipped on every light vehicle, as well. Additional research outside of this analysis has found that with reasonable system improvements, more than 3,500 lives could be saved annually by pedestrian detection; however, this number was not used in the analysis as the authors of this additional research assumed idealized systems. Two safety applications of V2V communications technology-- intersection movement assist (IMA) and left turn assist (LTA)--would be estimated to save more than 1,300 lives per year with full fleet adoption. One existing drunk driving prevention technology, the Driver Alcohol Detection System for Safety (DADSS), would be estimated to save 3,700-7,400 lives under the scenarios assessed. Summed together, these figures led researchers to conclude that existing motor vehicle safety technology would save 16,800-20,500 lives per year if equipped across the full U.S. light-duty motor vehicle fleet. This totals approximately one-half of the 36,560 lives lost on U.S. roads in 2018. Conclusion This analysis makes clear that the path to substantially and expeditiously reducing the enormous toll of U.S. road crashes runs squarely through the full, fleetwide adoption of currently available crash avoidance technologies and other existing motor vehicle safety technologies. An alternative approach--prioritizing the expedited deployment of AVs that meet the minimum level of safety envisioned by Congress-- cannot be analytically supported given the lack of available evidence establishing on-road safety benefits to vehicles that drive themselves compared to traditionally-driven vehicles. Policymakers in Congress and at NHTSA should prioritize requiring and setting strong performance standards for these existing, lifesaving vehicle safety technologies to accelerate auto industry safety innovation and ensure consumers continuously gain greater access to the benefits of the technologies. Automakers should prioritize equipping effective versions of these features standard across all trim lines of their models as soon as possible and continuing to improve these technologies' safety benefits over time. Delay by either the government or manufacturers would unduly leave people at risk and effectively let essential auto industry innovations go to waste.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Madam Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding to me. I would think that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, the Republicans, would get tired of trying to take healthcare away from Americans, particularly right now. The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Enhancement Act would actually make such incredible improvements and make healthcare more affordable, but, no. The bill includes the No More Narrow Networks Act that I actually introduced that would ensure that consumers can access more comprehensive, equitable, and timely healthcare within their own insurance network now. It also includes the Protecting Consumers from Unreasonable Rates Act and allows the Federal Government to help lower prices when those rates, those premiums are too high. This is a great bill. You should be for this.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Madam Speaker, I rise today to join my LGBTQ+ family, friends, colleagues, and constituents in celebrating the many hard- earned gains that have been made for equality in our nation and around the globe. We have come a long way in the last several years: from the passage of the Equality Act in the House last year, to same-sex marriage being legalized in twenty-nine countries, and now the Supreme Court holding that the Civil Rights Act, which prohibits sex discrimination, applies to discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity. This Pride Month, as our nation reckons with its long history of racism and police violence, we must remember that the fight for LGBTQ+ rights goes hand-in-hand with the fight for racial equality. On June 28, 1969 at the Stonewall Inn in New York City, the police rounded up and arrested LGBTQ patrons and forced them into police cars. Fed up with police harassing and brutalizing the gay community, other Stonewall Inn patrons started an uprising outside the bar. Among them were Marsha P. Johnson, a black drag queen and Sylvia Rivera, a Latinx drag queen, both pioneering activists who were key figures in resisting police violence that night, alongside other transgender and queer activists. The LGBTQ+ rights movement as we know it today was born out of these brave people resisting police mistreatment. This year would have marked the 50th anniversary of the Chicago Pride parade, and 51 years since the Stonewall riots. While we cannot march and gather this year because of the COVID-19 pandemic, we can continue to celebrate our progress and our shared history in the LGBTQ+ community. I'm particularly proud of the role my district has in the LGBTQ+ community, with the Pride Parade stepping off just blocks from my Chicago District office, to the historic Andersonville neighborhood, and to being the home of so many historical institutions like the Gerber/Hart Library and Archives, the Baton Show Lounge, the Test Positive Aware Network, and the Leather Archives and Museum. Despite our many advances, LGBTQ+ people, and disproportionately Black trans women, still face hatred, discrimination, violence, and police harassment and brutality around the country and globe. Over one- third of Black trans women who interact with law enforcement in the U.S. are assumed by police to be sex workers, leading to harassment, abuse, and mistreatment. Since 2013, about 111 out of at least 157 transgender and gender non-conforming victims of hate killings have been Black trans women. And just last week, we lost two Black trans women, Riah Milton and Dominique ``Rem'Mie'' Fells, who were brutally murdered. They were the 13th and 14th trans women in the U.S. to be killed this year alone. And the violence extends to the transgender community overall, including right here in Chicago. Last month, Selena Reyes-Hernandez was killed by an 18-year old man who shot her in her home on the south side of Chicago. We will not forget them, and we will continue to seek justice, equality, and liberty on their behalf. This Pride Month we must also remember and celebrate Aimee Stephens and Don Zarda who passed away before seeing the outcome of their nearly decade long case that made it all the way to Supreme Court. Aimee, who was fired for being transgender, and Don, who was fired for being gay, fought relentlessly to ensure that LGBTQ+ people can go to work as themselves without fear of retaliation. This week, in perhaps the biggest LGBTQ+ case in U.S. history, the Supreme Court sided with Aimee and Don and held that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 protects LGBTQ+ workers from discrimination. Let this victory renew our hope and our drive to continue fighting for a world where everyone can live freely and authentically. My hope for our country this Pride Month is that we can reflect on the decades' long fight for LGBTQ+ equality, learn from our mistakes, and look forward to righting the wrongs of our past. As a proud grandmother of a young trans man, and as a Representative in the U.S. House, I will continue fighting to ensure my grandson and all LGBTQ+ people inherit a world that embraces everyone regardless of sexuality, gender identity, race, or class. Love is love.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Madam Speaker, I rise today to celebrate and thank Judy Gearhart for her leadership at the International Labor Rights Forum. Judy, the executive director of ILRF since March 2011, will retire in June. While she will leave that position, I know that she will never leave the fight to protect the rights of workers around the world. In 2013, 1,134 garment workers were killed and 2,500 injured as the 9-story Rana Plaza factory collapsed--the deadliest garment factory disaster in history. The vast majority of those killed and injured as a result of corporate neglect were women. Like the 1911 Triangle Shirtwaist Factory fire in the United States, the disaster spurred activists to push for reforms. Judy Gearhart helped lead the fight and won agreements with the garment industry to make improvements--although much progress remains to be made. I had the privilege to work with Judy in the aftermath of Rana Plaza and have continued to support her and ILRF on international labor rights campaigns since then. Like so many others, I have relied on her expertise, her experience and her passion for improving the lives of working women, men and children around the world. Judy has made it her practice not to promote herself, but she focused on lifting up the Labor Rights Defenders who are organizing and mobilizing every day, often at great risk to themselves. She has brought workers' leaders to meet with members of Congress, the Administration, the media and the public--making sure that they have the opportunity to tell their own stories in their own words. She has spotlighted those who face violent attacks, jail and worse for their courage in speaking out, heroes like Tola Moeun in Cambodia, Mahmud Rajab in Uzbekistan and Gaspar Matalaev in Turkmenistan. Because of Judy and ILRF, there are networks of organizers and advocates around the world who are able to provide needed assistance to those fighting for labor rights. Judy's work exemplifies the concept of intersectionality. She has seen that there are many different forces used to oppress the rights of workers, and she has worked to bring together those fighting them. Laborers in the fields don't just face poor working conditions but live in societies rife with poverty and racism. Children in the tobacco fields are not just being exploited for their labor but are subjected to environmental and chemical hazards. Women in sweatshops are not just subjected to poverty-level wages, they are often the target of gender- based violence and harassment. As a result of Judy's leadership, last year, the International Labour Organization adopted a convention and recommendations on violence and harassment in the world of work. Judy Gearhart has done the work, at UNICEF's monitoring and evaluation office, working on women's rights and democratization efforts in Mexico, with the ILO's International Program on the Elimination of Child Labor in Honduras, on developing research and training programs for workers at Social Accountability International, and, of course, at ILRF. Not only does she put her knowledge to work, she shares that knowledge through her teaching. She has served as a tutor for many of us, not just on labor policies but, more importantly, about the facts on the ground. And, more formally, Judy is a long-time adjunct professor at Columbia University's School for International Affairs, where she teaches students about international human rights and development policy. Judy Gearhart and ILRF have stood with cocoa workers in Cote D'Ivoire and Ghana, cotton workers in Uzbekistan, garment workers in Bangladesh and fruit workers in Honduras. Judy has provided guidance and inspiration to those struggling for fair pay and just treatment for their labors. For all she has done, and for all she will do in the future, I want to express my deep appreciation and gratitude

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, at least 84,000 people have died in the United States from COVID-19, and almost 40 percent of those deaths are nursing home residents and the valiant workers in those nursing homes. We can and we must do better. The HEROES Act includes $150 million for strike teams in nursing homes struggling with outbreaks, requires public reporting of cases and deaths and PPE availability and testing in nursing homes, prioritizes testing for older Americans. I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes.''

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of this resolution. It is sad to say, but this coronavirus pandemic has caused some of the greatest suffering in our time for individuals and for our country at large. And yet there are those few who would see this as an opportunity to benefit for themselves and their companies by price gouging or, one might say, pandemic profiteering. We have good reason to be skeptical about many of these companies, including the pharmaceutical industry. For example, even during this crisis, we saw Gilead seek and receive from the FDA 7 years of orphan drug exclusivity for a possible treatment for the virus. Only after organizations stepped in and protested did Gilead go back to the FDA to withdraw their request. Do we really need an oversight committee? Look what has happened already.