Mark Takano

Mr. TAKANO

Mr. TAKANO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commemorate the career of Waudier ``Woodie'' Rucker-Hughes, a tireless worker for civil rights and a pillar of the community in the Inland Empire of California. Woodie was born in Washington, DC, and came to California in 1969 to begin a career in teaching at John W. North High School in Riverside. She later became the Dean of Students, an assistant principal and Manager of Child Welfare and Attendance for the Riverside Unified School District. In those roles, she helped young people to make the most of their education and their lives. Woodie has spent her life building a stronger community through her leadership in the NAACP, and her involvement with non-profit organizations and commissions. The people of Riverside live in a city made better by the work of Woodie Rucker-Hughes. This week, Woodie is retiring from the Riverside Unified School District. She has earned the thanks of a grateful community and the admiration of all that know her.

Mr. TAKANO

Mr. TAKANO. Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a letter from the Consortium for Citizens with Disabilities, which states that this legislation will dramatically cut Medicaid services that are vital to people with disabilities and seniors. Consortium for Citizens with Disabilities, April 28, 2017. Dear Member of Congress: The Consortium for Citizens with Disabilities (CCD) is strongly opposed to the amended American Health Care Act. The amended American Health Care Act retains the original bill's proposals to dramatically but Medicaid services that are vital to people with disabilities and seniors through per capita caps, which CCD has opposed. The new amendments--including permitting states to seek waivers from the protections for people with pre-existing conditions and from the requirement to provide essential health benefits--makes the amended AHCA even more harmful to people with disabilities. We urge you to oppose this legislation. Medicaid provides services and supports that maintain the health, function, independence, and well-being of 10 million enrollees living with disabilities. For many people with disabilities, being able to access timely needed care is a life or death matter. The American Health Care Act changes the way that the Federal Government funds Medicaid--rather than paying states based on the actual costs of healthcare for people in Medicaid, it sets a cap on the amount of federal support, a cap that is totally unrelated to the actual costs of needed care for enrollees. This cap is designed to cut Medicaid, and the bill uses those cuts to pay for unrelated tax cuts. Slashing federal support for Medicaid, which is already a lean program, will force states to cut services and eligibility that put the health and wellbeing of people with disabilities at significant risk. The newest amendments to the American Health Care Act make the bill even more harmful to people with disabilities. The new amendments would allow states to easily obtain waivers, that would allow them to charge higher premiums to people with pre-existing conditions, including people with disabilities. They also would allow states to seek waivers from the Affordable Care Act's requirement to provide essential health benefits, including crucial services for people with disabilities such as mental health and substance use disorder services, prescription drugs, rehabilitative and habilitative services and devices, preventative and wellness services and chronic disease management, and pediatric services. These waivers jeopardize the Affordable Care Act's protections for people with pre-existing conditions, including people with disabilities, and CCD opposes any roll- back of those protections. The ACA helped millions of people with disabilities and others to gain access to affordable and comprehensive health insurance. The amended American Health Care Act is insufficient to help people with disabilities meet their healthcare needs, and we urge you to oppose the bill should it come to a vote. Sincerely, Health Task Force Co-chairs: Bethany Lilly, Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law; Dave Machledt, National Health Law Program; Peter Thomas, Brain Injury Association of America; Julie Ward, The Arc of the United States. Long Term Services and Supports Co-chairs: Alison Barkoff, Center for Public Representation; Nicole Jorwic, The Arc of the United States; Sarah Meek, Lutheran Services in America Disability Network; Laura Weidner, National Multiple Sclerosis Society.

Mr. TAKANO. Mr. Speaker, there are 7 million veterans who are eligible for VA care but not enrolled at the VA. All of them could be denied access to the tax credits in this bill, and each in this Chamber needs to understand how. On page 10, line 6 of manager's amendment No. 4, it states that an individual is not eligible for tax credits if they are eligible for care, as defined by U.S. Code 5000A(f)(1)(A). This code specifically includes VA care. So this means that those 7 million veterans who are eligible for VA care, even if they are not enrolled, would not have access to the tax credits in this law. This is not fear-mongering. This is not hyperbole. This is the text of the bill we are voting on today. This bill jeopardizes health care for up to 7 million veterans, and everyone should oppose it.

Mr. TAKANO

Mr. TAKANO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to H.R. 1180 for a simple reason: the Working Families Flexibility Act does not give working families more flexibility. In fact, it gives them nothing. The bill contains no meaningful rights for workers that they don't already have. Instead, it is employers who get the flexibility and the power to withhold overtime pay in exchange for a false promise of comp time in the future. This bill takes the simple idea that workers should be paid when they work overtime and creates a more complicated system in which employers can pressure their workers to accept comp time instead of cash and then refuse to give them that comp time until it is convenient. Even the American Sustainable Business Council opposes the bill, and I include their letter in the Record. American Sustainable Business Council, April 24, 2017. Hon. Virginia Foxx, Chairman, Committee on Education and the Workforce, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Hon. Bradley Byrne, Chairman, Subcommittee on Workforce Protections, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Hon. Robert ``Bobby'' Scott, Ranking Member, Committee on Education and the Workforce, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Hon. Mark Takano, Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Workforce Protections, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Chairpersons Foxx and Byrne, and Ranking Members Scott and Takano: On behalf of our members and supporter organizations, the American Sustainable Business Council (ASBC) is writing to express our opposition to the Working Families Flexibility Act (H.R. 1180/S. 801) of 2017. The misleadingly named bill, as introduced by Representative Martha Roby, is the wrong way to encourage employers to offer work-life benefits to their employees. This bill would create a major liability on the balance sheet of small businesses whose employees have ``banked'' away their overtime comp hours. This liability then becomes a scheduling and accounting challenge when employees decide to trade in banked hours, requiring business owners to make unexpected shifts in personnel assignments and paychecks. Obviously, small businesses with fewer resources and employees would be even harder hit by these onerous logistical challenges than larger corporations. It is important that more supporting measures are taken to ensure the success of small business. In the spirit of pursuing pro-business legislation, the Working Families Flexibility Act proves itself to be anything but flexible for employees and even more burdensome for employers. The sheer volume of tracking requirements has the potential to result in improper penalties being assessed by various government agencies. The bill will stymie, not foster, economic activity in the private sector. In addition, this bill would create headaches for any employer who must track banked hours across multiple employees and make the required organizational rearrangements. These factors could put business owners in the position of making uncomfortable decisions regarding their employees which could, in turn, lower the morale of their workforce. Current law does not deny employers and employees the ability to develop mutually beneficial flexible scheduling if they so choose, which makes this an unnecessary new law. If Representatives Roby is truly concerned about creating flexibility for working families, there are other, less onerous options. The Healthy Families Act, for instance, would provide workers the right to earn up to seven earned paid sick days each year to recover from illness, to care for a family member, to seek routine medical care, or to manage other unpredictable necessities of day-to-day life. Employers who provide this type of leave already would not have to provide additional sick time. This method is a more predictable and easier approach to implement for employers. ASBC is a growing national coalition of businesses and business organizations committed to advancing policies that support a vibrant and sustainable economy. ASBC represents over 250,000 businesses and more than 300,000 business professionals, including industry trade associations, local and state chambers of commerce, microenterprise, social enterprise, green and sustainable business, local and community-rooted business, women and minority business leaders, and investors. The Working Families Flexibility Act is a poorly designed bill for both employers and employees. In the interest of working families who need true flexibility, and the businesses who rely on those family members, we urge you to vote against it. Sincerely, Richard Eidlin, Co-Founder & Vice President of Public Policy.

Mr. TAKANO. Mr. Speaker, this is a terrible deal for working families. This bill should be called the betrayal of working families act. Mr. Speaker, I do not believe my colleagues in the majority are intentionally eroding the rights of working families. I do not believe they lack respect or compassion for the millions of hardworking Americans who feel stuck and powerless in this economy. But I do believe that, when faced with a choice between protecting workers and rewarding corporations, they routinely fall on the side of corporate interests. The evidence is in this bill. The evidence is in their vote to roll back workplace safety reporting standards. The evidence is in their vote to block the fiduciary rule, and the evidence is in the majority's continued resistance to restoring overtime protections for millions of middle class workers. President Trump promised to give power back to the people. This legislation betrays that promise, and it betrays the people who desperately need a voice in Washington. I call on my colleagues to oppose H.R. 1180.

Mr. TAKANO

Mr. TAKANO. Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member, the gentleman from Minnesota, for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of S. 544. This legislation ensures that the approximately $1 billion left in Choice funding is spent on the critical mission of providing veterans timely access to care. It would be an abdication of our responsibility to veterans if we allowed this money to go back to the Treasury instead of going to those who need and deserve our support. I appreciate the efforts from my colleagues on both sides of the aisle for advancing this legislation. The Choice Act was designed as a rapid response to the veteran wait time crisis, but its framework and implementation has been deeply flawed. Objective analyses found that it is not meaningfully reducing veterans' wait times, and its arbitrary standards have added a layer of confusion for both patients and providers. There is bipartisan consensus that these concerns must be addressed when the Choice Act sunsets and the funding expires. We can and must do a better job of prioritizing and streamlining veterans' access to care in the community. We can and must do better than the existing Choice Act. Now, the Choice Act was a temporary emergency measure to address an unacceptable crisis. Unfortunately, it contained language that undermined protections against workplace discrimination for Federal contractors. The next iteration of this law cannot subvert the rights of those who treat and serve our veterans. The Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs continues to be a vital tool for ensuring fairness and equality in the workplace. It should apply to everyone that does business with the Federal Government because the Federal Government cannot endorse discrimination of any kind. I will fight to ensure that this committee and this Congress restores their commitment to equality and fairness as we develop a more streamlined and thoughtful method for connecting veterans with community care. Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a letter echoing these concerns from the Human Rights Campaign, the National Women's Law Center, The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, and the National Partnership for Women & Families. April 5, 2017. Dear Representative: We write to express our serious concerns about H.R. 369/S. 544, which would eliminate the sunset of the Veterans Choice Program. The Veterans Choice Program currently includes a provision exempting it from oversight by the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP). This has diminished civil rights protections when the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) enters into federal contracts for veterans' health care services. The Veterans Choice Program was always intended to be a temporary solution to ease the health care access crisis faced by the veterans receiving care through the VA. We fear that removing the sunset will open the door to extension of the program, including extending the provision that strips critical equal employment opportunity protections from the men and women serving our nation's veterans. OFCCP must have full jurisdiction to protect against employment discrimination and promote equal employment opportunities. The antidiscrimination rules enforced by OFCCP ensure that federal contract dollars further equal employment opportunity and are not used to subsidize unlawful discrimination. OFCCP plays a unique and vital role in combating unlawful employment discrimination by federal contractors on the basis of sex, race, national origin, religion, color, sexual orientation, gender identity, and disability. It also enforces the Vietnam Era Veterans Readjustment Assistance Act, or VEVRAA, which requires nondiscrimination and affirmative action for special and disabled veterans of any war, campaign, or expedition in which a campaign badge has been authorized. In addition, OFCCP guides contractors and subcontractors on affirmatively promoting equal opportunity in the workplace and promotes fair and nondiscriminatory federal contractor workplaces. Many of its regulations require contractors to take affirmative steps to expand the pool of individuals from which it recruits, and evaluate their own practices to identify and address conduct that limits equal employment opportunities for protected classes of workers. By conducting compliance audits and systemic investigations, through its data collection and investigative authority, OFCCP can aid contractors in identifying and resolving practices that limit equal employment opportunities, without relying solely on individuals who are willing to risk retaliation to challenge unfair employment practices. OFCCP's historic and current role in ensuring artificial barriers do not restrict employment based on sex, race, color, national origin, religion, sexual orientation, gender identity, disability, or veteran status has improved opportunities for a wide range of workers across the country and has ensured that federal tax dollars do not subsidize discrimination. Carving out the VA provider agreements from these antidiscrimination protections, affirmative action rules, and data reporting requirements has the effect of narrowing employment opportunities for women, people of color, people with disabilities, veterans, and LGBT individuals and removes critical tools for ending employment discrimination and harassment. Extending the provision that weakens these protections ultimately threatens harm not only to workers, but to those who depend on them for care. There is no appreciable administrative burden that justifies continuing to suspend these protections and requirements. Federal contractors and subcontractors with less than 50 employees and $50,000 in contracts or subcontracts are not covered by OFCCP's affirmative action requirements. More than 94 percent of health care and social assistance firms had fewer than 50 employees in 2009. The larger providers, those with 50 or more employees and $50,000 or more in federal contracts, should be well-equipped to meet the minimal administrative obligations associated with maintaining an affirmative action plan. The carve-out of VA contractors from the employment discrimination rules applicable to federal contractors not only has a detrimental impact on the workforces affected, but sends a disturbing message that ensuring fair treatment for women, people of color, LGBT people, veterans, and people with disabilities is unnecessary and inconsequential. It sets a precedent for future carve-outs and represents a step backward from equal opportunity. Any continuation of the Veterans Choice Program must ensure OFCCP jurisdiction to enforce the antidiscrimination rules and other equal employment opportunity protections for these providers. For further information, please contact the Human Rights Campaign, the National Women's Law Center, the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, or the National Partnership for Women and Families. Sincerely, National Women's Law Center. Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights. National Partnership for Women & Families. Human Rights Campaign.

Mr TAKANO

Mr TAKANO. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``nay'' on rollcall No. 218.

Mr. TAKANO

Mr. TAKANO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commemorate 20 years of the Gluck Fellows Program of the Arts at the University of California, Riverside. Since 1996, the Max H. Gluck Foundation has supported undergraduate and graduate students as they bring innovative arts programming to schools, libraries, and community centers in my district. The Gluck Fellows Program of the Arts has provided students, families, and other community members with the opportunity to experience art, music, dance, theater, and art history through workshops and performances. Over the past 20 years, more than 300,000 Inland Empire residents have benefited from this program. I congratulate UCR's Chancellor Kim Wilcox; Dean of Humanities, Arts and Social Sciences Milagros Pena; Gluck Fellows Director Erika Suderburg; and especially the Max H. Gluck Foundation and its chair, Dr. Jon Kaswick. I wish continued success to the Gluck Fellows Program of the Arts at the University of California, Riverside.

Mr. TAKANO

Mr. TAKANO. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. TAKANO. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman, Sergeant Major Walz from the State of Minnesota, for yielding me time. I also would like to say to the chairman, we had a wonderful time traveling to Afghanistan to pay respect to our troops during Thanksgiving. I don't have to travel across the country with him, but I did travel halfway around the world with him. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to H.R. 1259. Every Member of Congress supports accountability for employees at the Department of Veterans Affairs--everybody. Building a culture of excellence at the VA is critical to providing veterans the care and support they deserve. However, H.R. 1259 does not further this goal, or improve outcomes at the VA. We are not going to be able to fire our way to better outcomes at the VA. The question posed by the VA Accountability First Act is whether accountability or workers' rights are mutually exclusive. I, along with many of my colleagues, believe we can respect VA employees--a third of whom are veterans themselves--while also ensuring that poor-performing employees are held accountable. This legislation violates workers' rights in two very specific ways: First, it would erode due process protections by giving employees too little time--just 10 days--to prepare for a disciplinary hearing, and then just 7 days to file an appeal with the Merit Systems Protection Board. Second, it goes much further than past accountability bills by eliminating the use of collectively bargained grievance procedures for frontline VA employees. Not only do collectively bargained procedures often lead to quicker and simpler solutions, but they also give added protection to potential whistleblowers by acting as a check against managers who may retaliate against an employee who raises an issue. Mr. Chairman, there is no question that we have workforce challenges at the VA, but this bill does not solve them. Instead, it eschews the Senate's bipartisan accountability legislation in favor of a much more one-sided bill. To my colleagues who voted on VA accountability legislation in the past: This is not the same bill. It goes much further. And I ask you to join me in opposing it. This is the first time the majority has targeted collective bargaining at the VA in this way. Your vote against this bill today will show that you oppose this very tactic. If we are serious about providing veterans the best care possible, we should focus on removing the Federal hiring freeze, advancing the appeals modernization bill, and other bipartisan efforts that will immediately improve veterans' access to high-quality care and support. Mr. Chairman, I include in the Record a letter from the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees in opposition to this bill, a letter from the American Federation of Government Employees, as well as a letter from the American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations.

Mr. TAKANO. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. TAKANO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, my amendment in the nature of a substitute would strike the text of H.R. 1259 and insert a new provision allowing the Secretary to suspend, without pay, any VA employee whose performance or misconduct threatens public health or safety, including the health and safety of veterans. It would give the Secretary the authority to remove a suspended employee after an investigation and review if the Secretary determines removal is in the interests of public health and safety. Both parties share the desire to protect veterans from mistreatment or harm, especially when they are seeking medical care at a VA facility, but the language in my amendment would be more likely to achieve the majority's stated outcome of removing VA employees whose misconduct harms veterans. We have voted on similar accountability bills before, but I want to point out that this bill goes much further in the wrong direction. While in the past we have had disagreements on procedure and the amount of time an employee is given to file an appeal, for the very first time, this version of the accountability bill is attempting to undermine VA employees' collective bargaining rights. Buried in this bill is a new provision that would take away the rights of frontline VA employees to use collectively bargained agreements for settling grievances. This has not been a part of past negotiations, and the vote that Members take on the underlying bill should not be based solely on their votes on previous accountability bills. Collectively bargained grievance settlement procedures often lead to quicker and simpler solutions, and they give added protection to potential whistleblowers. When these basic protections are undermined, we give too much power to managers whose goal may be to retaliate against someone who called out a mistake. The bill, as it is currently being offered, does not provide enough time for an employee to get their case together to file an appeal. It undermines collective bargaining agreements negotiated in good faith between management and employees. It doesn't do enough to protect whistleblowers. My amendment addresses our shared goal to create accountability at the VA. It would ensure that the Secretary has the authority to immediately suspend any VA employee whose behavior threatens the health and safety of veterans, and that the suspended employee does not accrue pay while the investigation is being carried out. I hope that Members will join me and vote in favor of my amendment. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. TAKANO. Mr. Chair, I continue to oppose the underlying bill and support my amendment. I would assert that my amendment would apply to many of the employees in the scandals who were cited by our esteemed chairman. I want to remind the body that several Republican speakers this afternoon repeated a phrase that the vast majority of employees at the VA are doing a good job. My amendment really does address those few employees who really do pose a threat to veterans' safety or health. I would also say that I want to remind also the chairman and inform the body that we heard testimony from the bipartisan Commission on Care established through the Choice Act. They were charged with the responsibility of reviewing VA health care. One of the co-chairs was appointed by a Republican--I believe the Senate majority leader--and the other by the White House. They both reported back that we cannot create excellence at the VA through enhancing the firing process. They were astounded that more effort and resources have not been invested in the personnel function of the VA to better train our managers in progressive discipline and to do the kind of documentation that really will bring about effective accountability. By the way, both of these co-chairs led, and do still, large, private sector healthcare organizations. They pushed back on a suggestion that we needed to enhance our dismissal process, our accountability process. I do agree with the chairman and the ranking member that we have an opportunity to work together as Democrats and Republicans. We are not far apart on the bipartisan agreement that came out of the Senate. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. TAKANO. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. TAKANO

Mr. TAKANO. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida for yielding me time. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule. In its current form, H.R. 1181 would endanger veterans in crisis and serve as another obstacle to addressing the crisis of veteran suicide. We had hoped to introduce amendments which would protect veterans' rights while ensuring their safety. By bringing this bill to the floor under a closed rule, the majority has prevented us from doing so, from considering other possibilities to come together in a bipartisan fashion. There are changes that could be made to this legislation to ensure that it is good public policy. For instance, we could consider a streamlined appeals process that would allow veterans erroneously flagged by the background check system to have their status changed. I do acknowledge the concern of the gentleman from Florida that people with PTSD on this list may have been inappropriately flagged to be on this list, and we could have discussed a streamlined process. We could conduct a study of the VA's existing practices for submitting records of veterans to the background check system. But rather than subject that whole list to being dismantled and freeing people that should not be free to have weapons--crazy people from having weapons--at the very least, we should understand the impact this change would have on veteran suicide, as Ms. Esty suggested when she tried to offer an amendment to the Rules Committee last night to require a study into the number of veterans who have committed suicide by firearm, who should have been prevented from accessing a firearm under current policies. I do wish, Mr. Speaker, to dispute the gentleman from Colorado's contention that this is only about going forward, that it affects going forward. I maintain there is considerable concern that this will affect those that exist on the list currently. These are sensible ideas that I offered, that we could have considered instead of being forced to vote on the legislation we have now. We could come together under unanimity to solve this issue. But under this rule, we are forced to vote only on legislation that would make veterans and their communities less safe. Accordingly, I call on my colleagues to oppose this rule.

Mr. TAKANO

Mr. TAKANO. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 1181. The epidemic--actually, rather the tragedy--of veterans' suicide has affected families across the country, including my own. I recall walking home after school at the age of 10 or 11 in the month of November--as you know, Veterans Day is in the month of November--and hearing the news that my uncle, who lived across the street from us, had taken his own life with a firearm. He was a Vietnam veteran, and his memory serves as a personal reminder about the tragedy of veterans' suicide. To this day, it continues to plague our communities with our recent conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan. Of the 20 veterans who die from suicide every day, two-thirds of those occur by firearm. Part of stopping this crisis is keeping guns out of the hands of our most vulnerable veterans. Removing all individuals determined by the VA to be mentally incompetent from the National Instant Criminal Background Check System will make it easier for a veteran in crisis to obtain a firearm. To be clear, there are veterans currently flagged in the background check system who should not be there, and we need to create a fair and streamlined process for veterans to appeal their status. But there is a balance between protecting veterans' Second Amendment rights and protecting veterans who are a danger to themselves or others. Immediately removing restrictions on every individual does not strike the right balance. Instead, it rolls back the bipartisan work we have done through the 21st Century Cures Act, and it endangers the lives of veterans who need our help the most. I urge my colleagues to oppose this bill.

Mr. TAKANO

Mr. TAKANO. Mr. Speaker, I rise this morning to share with my constituents what we know about the Republican healthcare plan and, more importantly, what we don't know. We know that the Republican proposal to replace the Affordable Care Act will cut taxes for the wealthiest people in America. We know that it will eventually eliminate the Medicaid expansion, which is responsible for ensuring millions of Americans, including nearly 80,000 people in my district alone. We know that the GOP replacement plan shifts costs to seniors and low-income families while restricting women's access to reproductive health. We know that it is a windfall for the healthy and wealthy and a disaster for nearly everyone else. Now, this is what we know about the GOP healthcare plan, but perhaps more alarming is what we don't know. My Republican colleagues cannot answer the two most important questions about their proposal: How much will it cost and how many people will it cover? Mr. Speaker, Congress should not take any further action on this bill without knowing its impact on the budget and its consequences for the American people. I am stunned--stunned--that my Republican colleagues are planning to move forward on a plan that is, quite literally, a matter of life and death for millions of American families without knowing exactly what they are moving forward with. Mr. Speaker, in 2009 and 2010 when Democrats held a televised healthcare summit with Republican leaders, when the Senate HELP Committee marked up the Affordable Care Act over a full month and accepted 160 Republican amendments, and when the Senate Finance Committee held 31 meetings over 60 hours, even after that process, Republicans said that Democrats rammed the healthcare bill through Congress without reading it. Now the Republican majority is moving forward with their replacement plan without knowing what it costs and what it will mean for American families. This level of hypocrisy and recklessness is insulting to the American people, and it is dangerous for the future of our healthcare system. There is already plenty to dislike about what we know is in this bill. Who knows what we will find out when we uncover the rest.

Mr. TAKANO

Mr. TAKANO. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. TAKANO. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

Mr. TAKANO

Mr. TAKANO. Mr. Speaker, can the Chair tell me when the Congressional Budget Office will score the Republican ACA replacement bill?

Mr. TAKANO. Mr. Speaker, I apologize for that.

Mr. TAKANO. Mr. Speaker, parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. TAKANO

Mr. TAKANO. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to rolling back workplace safety protections for American workers. This use of the Congressional Review Act would endanger employees and throw away four decades of precedent for the sole purpose of protecting companies that repeatedly violate safety standards. The Occupational Safety and Health Administration, commonly known as OSHA, is among the best tools we have to ensure that companies adhere to basic safety standards. Because the agency's budget is so small compared to its critical task, OSHA relies on accurate data to focus on the companies that pose the greatest danger to employees. The previous administration sought to clarify and codify the responsibility companies have to maintain an honest record of their employees' injuries and illnesses. This resolution would undermine OSHA's ability to target serial offenders by removing companies' obligation to keep reliable data about safety issues in the workplace. If passed into law, the resolution would essentially grant amnesty to companies with years of workplace safety violations, while sending a clear message to employers that the Federal Government is no longer committed to worker safety. Mr. Speaker, I have asked the question many times since the President took office, and I will ask it again today: How does this give power back to the people? How does undermining workplace safety regulations support middle class Americans? How does protecting companies that repeatedly violate safety standards improve the life of workers? The answer is that it doesn't. I call on my colleagues to stand with working Americans who deserve a safe workplace and vote ``no'' on this resolution. Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a letter from the UAW opposing the repeal of this rule and also a letter from National Nurses United in opposition to H.J. Res. 83.

Mr. TAKANO

Mr. TAKANO. Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor and congratulate Mark Hawkins, who will retire tomorrow after 29 years as chief executive officer of Altura Credit Union in Riverside, California. After nearly three decades, Mark's greatest contribution is likely not to the credit union, which grew significantly under his leadership, but to the members of our community who have benefited so much from his commitment to supporting the Inland Empire. Whether it is academia, athletics, the arts, or charitable organizations, Mark has been a fixture in promoting the institutions that define and enrich our community. His work with organizations, including the United Way, the Kiwanis Club, and the University of California-Riverside, has strengthened our community and expanded opportunities to thousands of Inland Empire residents. I know he will continue that work for many years to come. Once again, I congratulate Mark on his well-earned retirement, and I thank him for his continued service to our community.

Mr. TAKANO

Mr. TAKANO. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Virginia for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to overturning the Fair Pay and Safe Workplaces rule under the Congressional Review Act. Undoing this rule would once again allow unethical Federal contractors to collect billions of dollars from taxpayers while stealing from, endangering, and discriminating against their employees. Right outside this building, on January 20, President Trump promised to give power back to the people and empower everyday Americans. I do not understand how allowing Federal contractors to hide records of wage theft, safety violations, and discrimination keeps that promise. I am particularly concerned with what repealing this rule will mean for our Nation's veterans. Because Federal contractors are encouraged to employ the men and women who have served, they will be greatly affected if we let companies off the hook for repeatedly violating workplace laws. In addition, President Obama's executive order helps to guarantee that Federal contractors comply with longstanding law that protects veterans and people with disabilities from discrimination in the workplace. It also encourages contractors to recruit, hire, promote, and retain these individuals. This is why the Paralyzed Veterans of America wrote a letter to the Speaker and minority leader asking that they oppose this resolution to ensure fair and safe working conditions for our veterans. PVA was also joined in a separate letter by Vietnam Veterans of America and disability advocates, including Easterseals, the American Association of People with Disabilities, and dozens more opposing the resolution we are debating today. Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record both letters. Paralyzed Veterans of America, Washington, DC, January 30, 2017. Hon. Paul Ryan, Speaker of the House of Representatives, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Hon. Nancy Pelosi, Democratic Leader, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Speaker Ryan and Democratic Leader Pelosi: Paralyzed Veterans of America urges you to reject a Congressional Review Act (CRA) disapproval resolution of the 2016 Federal Acquisition Regulation rule designed to reduce employment discrimination against people with disabilities and veterans, including those with service-connected disabilities. PVA is the nation's only Congressionally-chartered veterans' service organization solely dedicated to representing veterans with spinal cord injuries and/or diseases. Disapproving this rule will weaken important nondiscrimination and affirmative hiring provisions intended for people with disabilities and veterans. For more than four decades, individuals with disabilities and veterans have been protected by federal laws against discrimination in employment with employers that do business with the federal government. In addition, these landmark laws (Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and Vietnam Era Veterans' Readjustment Assistance Act of 1974) have required large federal contractors to take affirmative action to recruit, hire, promote, and retain these individuals, who traditionally face higher unemployment rates than their peers. The Federal Acquisition Regulation (81 Fed. Reg. 58562)--that is being targeted by this CRA resolution of disapproval--simply ensures that companies that want to do business with the federal government disclose whether they have been in violation of these longstanding requirements. Please ensure that veterans and other individuals with disabilities are not denied fair and equal employment opportunities by voting against the CRA resolution of disapproval of the Federal Acquisition Regulation published at 81 Fed. Reg. 58562. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Carl Blake, Associate Executive Director.