H.Res. 1097

Madam Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 1097, I call up the bill (H.R. 5129) to amend the Community Services Block Grant Act to reauthorize and modernize the Act, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 5129, the Community Services Block Grant Modernization Act of 2022.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong support of my bipartisan legislation, H.R. 5129, the Community Services Block Grant Modernization Act of 2022.

In 1964, Congress first established the Community Action Program to support locally driven anti-poverty efforts.

Today, community action agencies, or CAAs, form a network of more than 1,000 organizations with a dedicated mission of assisting people in finding their way out of poverty.

These agencies provide services and programs that meet the unique needs of our local communities by helping individuals and families with low incomes achieve economic stability, secure meaningful employment, and adequate education, gain and improve job-related skills, obtain housing, access childcare, and participate in the community.

During our legislative hearing on updating the community services block grant, Katherine King Galian, the director of Family and Community Resources at Community Action in Washington County, Oregon, told us the story about Patricia.

Patricia lost her job and her home in the fall of 2019. Facing unaffordable rent and a rising risk of homelessness, she turned to Community Action and she got the support she needed.

At Community Action of Washington County, she accessed career coaching, help affording needed materials for her nursing curriculum, and other services that helped Patricia and her family get back on their feet. Patricia's story is just one of many from all across the United States where community action agencies have been helping low- income Americans get back on their feet for decades.

Unfortunately, the community services block grant program, CSBG, has not been reauthorized since 1998, the year Google was founded, and John Glenn flew the Discovery space shuttle mission. We are long overdue for Congress to pass a comprehensive reauthorization of this significant law.

Our bill continues the long tradition of broad bipartisan support for this program and makes important improvements to update CSBG. It will reauthorize CSBG for 10 years--the longest period in its history--which will provide critical stability to our local service providers.

Recognizing that there are many more families like Patricia's who can be served by CSBG, our bill strengthens funding for community action agencies and raises the program's income eligibility threshold to expand access to their important services.

I also highlight a provision championed by my friend and colead, Congressman G.T. Thompson, to create broadband navigator projects so community action agencies can assist their clients in accessing internet services and connected devices that are necessary for learning, finding employment, and other basic activities of everyday life.

Finally, the bill will modernize the statute to strengthen accountability and performance requirements, putting CSBG on solid footing so the program can continue to meet the complex and changing needs of low-income individuals in communities without changing the local control that is such an important part of CSBG's success.

I very much appreciate the productive collaboration with my bipartisan partner from the Education and Labor Committee, Congressman Thompson, and his staff, in leading this legislation.

I also thank our other Education and Labor Committee coleads, Representatives DeSaulnier, Stefanik, and Comer for leading us in this effort. I must also knowledge Congresswoman Betty McCollum, who led early iterations of this proposal in prior Congresses and has joined us this session to build on her foundational work to get this across the finish line.

Additionally, David Bradley, the CEO of National Community Action Foundation has been instrumental in offering his expertise to help us bring this bill to the floor today.

Finally, and importantly, I would thank Chairman Scott and his dedicated staff, particularly, Theresa Thompson, Jessica Schieder, Emily Hopkins, and Carrie Hughes, for working with us to bring this bill. I also thank my staff, Allison Smith, Jack Arriaga, Andrew Dunn, and Rachael Bornstein, who worked diligently on this bill from drafting and introduction through the committee markup.

I urge all of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this important bill to renew our Nation's commitment to reducing poverty through community action.

Additionally, I include in the Record letters by the National Community Action Foundation, National Association of Counties, and National Association for State Community Service Programs in support of passing the Community Services Block Grant Modernization Act of 2022.

National Community

Action Foundation,

May 10, 2022.

Hon. Suzanne Bonamici,

House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Hon. Glenn Thompson,

House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Dear Rep. Bonamici and Rep. Thompson: We are writing to you

today to share our enthusiastic endorsement of your

bipartisan legislation, HR 5129, the Community Services Block

Grant (CSBG) Modernization Act of 2022.

As you know, CSBG touches virtually every community in the

United States. With 90 percent of each state's CSBG

allocation being distributed to local Community Action

Agencies (CAAs), our communities rely upon this unique

flexible funding. CAAs use it to combat poverty and promote

self-sufficiency, respond rapidly to unforeseen crises such

as natural disasters and the COVID-19 pandemic and implement

gap-filling activities that address unmet community needs.

Additionally, CAAs use CSBG to organize and support other

local charities and community-based initiatives, ensuring

services are streamlined and not duplicative. Without CSBG,

every single community in America would be hurt.

Your bill would codify critical updates to the program. It

provides security and reliability to communities across the

country by authorizing CSBG for 10 years and ensuring money

flows in a timely manner. The crucial modernizations included

in HR 5129, such as the new broadband navigator initiative,

will increase CAAs' ability to respond to emerging needs. We

are also pleased to see the emphasis on quality performance

at the federal, state and local level and that the essential

nature of CSBG as a locally-controlled program is retained

and bolstered.

Because of HR 5129's local impact in almost every county in

the country, we join in support of the bill. We hope Congress

passes this essential piece of legislation quickly, thereby

strengthening each community in America.

Sincerely,

David Bradley, CEO, National Community Action Foundation;

Mona Stallins, Financial Specialist, East Missouri Action

Agency, Ironton, Missouri; Jean Ann Miller, Senior Director,

Office for Student Involvement Oakland University, Rochester

Hills, Michigan; Esther Shutters, Family Advocate East,

Missouri Action Agency, Cape Girardeau, Missouri; Lisa

Straske, Manager, Oakland County Michigan Works! Southfield,

Hamtramck, Michigan; Jay Black, Jr., President CEO, Pathway

Inc., Toledo, Ohio; James Fox, President/CEO, Community

Action Wayne/Medina, Wooster, Ohio; Lisa Schmidtfrerick-

Miller, Owner PMT Services, Inc., Jamestown, New York; Myra

Lawson, Processer, East Missouri Action Agency, Park Hills,

Missouri; Denise Schneider, City Manager, City of Guttenberg,

Guttenberg, Iowa; Melissa Skaggs, Receptionist, East Missouri

Action Agency, Inc., Bonne Terre, Missouri; Vanessa Gibson,

Executive Director, Community Action of South Mississippi,

Gautier, Mississippi; Paul Mark, State Representative,

District 2, Commonwealth of Massachusetts; Johana Lovig, Vice

President of Compliance, Full Circle Services, Oelwein, Iowa;

Sandra Twardosz, CAC Board Member, Knoxville-Knox County

Community Action Committee, Knoxville, Tennessee; Michael J

Murphy, Sheriff, Livingston County, Howell, Michigan; Amy

Kruppe, Superintendent, Hazel Park Schools, Hazel Park,

Michigan; Brenda Robbins, Teacher, LCCAA Head Start, Lorain,

Ohio; Dawn Godshall, Executive Director, Community Action

Lehigh Valley, Bethlehem, Pennsylvania.

Keyon S. Payton, Lead Pastor, New Bethel Missionary Baptist

Church, Pontiac, Michigan; Yvonne Cherell, CEO, Ohio Urban

Resources System, Columbus, Ohio; Denise Schneider, City

Manager, City of Guttenberg, Guttenberg, Iowa; Jan Cooley,

Head Start Deputy Director, East Missouri Action Agency,

Bonne Terre, Missouri; Kris Rowe, Executive Director,

Community Action Association of Alabama, Birmingham, Alabama;

Mary B. Killian, East Missouri Action Agency, Cape Girardeau,

Missouri; Nancy Ann Smith, Program Administrative Assistant,

Lorain County Community Action Agency, Lorain, Ohio; Margaret

L. Flood, Executive Director, Oberlin Community Services

Council, Oberlin, Ohio; Daniel Petersen, Member, Dan's Law

Office, PLC, St.

Joseph, Michigan; Sharon Harmon, Apprentice Program Manager,

Lorain County Community Action Agency Head Start, Lorain,

Ohio; Betty Cantley, Parent Advocate, End Childhood Lead

Poisoning, Grafton, Ohio; Teresa Beltran, Assistant Teacher,

Lorain County Community Action, Lorain, Ohio; Sherri

Hallauer, Finance and Administration Assistant, Lorain County

Community Action Agency, Elyria, Ohio; Rena Mellon, Community

Integration Coordinator, Imagine the Possibilities,

Guttenberg, Iowa; Kenyadah Sullivan, Board Member, CAC,

Knoxville, Tennessee; Lynn A. Harden, Executive Director,

Brown County Public Library, Mt. Orab, Ohio; Denise Teasley,

Site Manager, East Missouri Action Agency Head Start, Park

Hills, Missouri; Trisha Wilkins, Executive Director, NEICAC,

Decorah, Iowa; Jolene Leon, Admin, Children's Alliance,

Pleasanton, Texas; Kim L. Smith Oldham, Executive Director,

Southwest Michigan Community Action Agency, Benton Harbor,

Michigan; Patricia Kennedy, Family Self-Sufficiency,

Coordinator, East Missouri Action Agency, St. Genevieve,

Missouri; Deborah L. Rhodes, Board Member, Gallia-Meigs

Community Action Agency, Gallipolis, Ohio; Dennis Phelps,

Executive Director, Trehab, Montrose, Pennsylvania; David

Coulter, County Executive, Oakland County, Michigan; Laura L.

Smith, Owner, Asset4You Professional Services, Lorain, Ohio;

Mike Mellon, Regional Assoc; Exec; Director, Imagine the

Possibilities, Inc.--Northeast Region, Guttenberg, Iowa;

Roger McCann, Executive Director, Community Action Kentucky,

Frankfort, KY, Kentucky.

Jennifer Patrick, Board Member, ABCAP, Mt. Orab, Ohio;

Cheryl Williams, Board Member, Adams Brown Community Action

Program, Georgetown, Ohio; Jan F. Demers, VCAP Coordinator,

Vermont Community Action Partnership, Burlington, Vermont;

Linda Stepp, Board Member, Adams Brown Community Action

Agency, Winchester, Ohio; Suzanne Shears, CEO, Niagara

Community Action Program, Inc, Niagara Falls, New York;

Sharon Daugherty, Staff Accountant, EMAA, Potosi, Missouri;

Daniel Wickerham, Executive Director, Adams Brown Community

Action Partnership, West Union, Ohio; Amber Coleman,

Associate Executive Director, Capital Area Head Start,

Harrisburg, Pennsylvania; Barbara Bilek, Head Start Site

Manager, East Missouri Action Agency, Millersville, Missouri;

Deana Hageman, Director, Northeast Iowa RSVP, Decorah, Iowa;

Desiree Beasley, Board Secretary, Knoxville-Knox County CAC,

Knoxville, Tennessee; Brenda S; Wilmer, Executive Director,

Avoyelles Progress Action, Committee, Inc., Mansura, LA

71351, Louisiana; Darlene Bigler, CEO, Blueprints,

Washington, Pennsylvania; Gale Zalar, Chief Executive

Officer, Central Susquehanna Opportunities, Inc., Shamokin,

Pennsylvania; Shirley Vermace, Supervisor, District 3,

Winneshiek County, Iowa; Lisa Spencer, CEO, SSCAC, Inc.,

Plymouth, Massachusetts; Lenora Leifheit, Coordinator Health

Ministries, Meigs Cooperative Parish, Pomeroy, Ohio; Patricia

A. Keys, Low Income Board Member Ohio, Great Lakes Community

Action Partnership, Port Clinton, Ohio.

Brenda Fry, Executive, Director, South Central Iowa

Community Action Program, Inc., Chariton, Iowa; Cynthia

Zwick, Executive Director, Wildfire: Igniting Community

Action to End Poverty in Arizona, Phoenix, Arizona; Debbie

Myers, Executive Secretary/Administration, Manager, East

Missouri Action Agency, Park Hills, Missouri; Florence

Greiman; County Supervisor, Hancock County Iowa, Garner,

Iowa; Terry L. Barley, Board Member, Emeritus Tri-County

Community Action, Mechanicsburg, Pennsylvania; Rhonda

Williamson, Executive Director, Safer Path Family Violence

Shelter, Inc., Pleasanton, Texas; Eugene M. Brady, Executive

Director, Commission on Economic Opportunity, Wilkes Barre,

Pennsylvania; Kenneth Loy, Veterans Resources Coordinator,

Community Council of South-Central Texas, Jourdanton, Texas;

Jennifer Wintermyer, Chief Executive Officer, Community

Action Commission, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania; Megan Shreve,

CEO, South Central Community Action Programs, Inc.,

Gettysburg, Pennsylvania Ewing M. Johnson, Board Member;

Knoxville-Knox County Community Action, Committee, Knoxville,

Tennessee; Janine Robinson, Finance Director/Co-Director,

Frontier Community Action Agency, Winnemucca, Nevada; Scott

Zahorik, Executive Director, Arrowhead Economic Opportunity

Agency, Inc., Virginia, Minnesota; Karen Snair, Executive

Director, Allegheny Valley Association of Churches, Natrona

Heights, Pennsylvania; Renee Hungerford, Executive Director,

Community Action of Orleans and Genesee, Albion, New York;

Katherine Riley Harrington, Executive Director, Iowa

Community Action Association, Des Moines, Iowa; Joseph

Barden, Executive Director, Margert Community Corporation,

Far Rockaway, New York.

Tom Heidenwirth, Board Member, North Iowa Community Action

Organization, Greene, Iowa; W. Anthony West, COO, Virginia

CARES Inc., Roanoke, Virginia; Georjean W. Trinkle, Executive

Consultant, Community Action Partnership NJ, Inc., Clinton,

New Jersey; Bailey Maulding, President, Casey Chamber of

Commerce, Casey, Illinois; Jeriemy Jones, CSR, East Missouri

Action Agency, Park Hills, Missouri; Mary Jane, Ostrander,

Human Services Division Manager, Carson City Health and Human

Services, Carson City, Nevada; Andrea Olson, Executive

Director, Community Action Partnership of North Dakota, West

Fargo, North Dakota; Jim Schuyler, President & CEO, Virginia

Community Action Partnership, Richmond, Virginia; Michele

Bautista, Board Member, Chautauqua Opportunities Inc.,

Dunkirk, New York; Carol L. Kern, Local Income Rep., GLCAP,

Tiffin, Ohio; Harold Monroe, CEO, Pennyrile Allied Community

Services, Hopkinsville, Kentucky; Melinda Gault, Chief

Executive Officer, Community Action Planning Council of

Jefferson, County, Inc., Watertown, New York; Amber Freeman,

Associate Director, INCA Community Services, Inc., Ardmore,

Oklahoma; Patricia McFarland, Executive Director, North

Central West Virginia Community Action, Association, Inc.,

Fairmont, West Virginia; Roger Tjarks, Board Member, District

5, Titonka, Iowa; Brian Mullins, CEO, Kentucky River

Foothills Development Council, Inc., Richmond, Kentucky; Joe

Pisney, County Supervisor, District 2, Howard County, Iowa;

Nicole Laurin, CEO, Joint Council for Economic Opportunity of

Clinton and Franklin Counties, Plattsburgh, New York; Yasmin

Abdul Ghafu, Outreach Aide, East Missouri Action Agency, Cape

Girardeau, Missouri; Marcia Erickson, CEO, GROW South Dakota,

Sisseton, South Dakota; Erik Schoen, Executive Director,

Community Chest, Inc., Virginia City, Nevada; Megan Sowers,

Executive Director, Jackson-Vinton Community Action,

Wellston, Ohio; Sharon Price, Executive Director, Community

Action Council for Lexington-Fayette, Bourbon, Harrison and

Nicholas Counties, Inc. Lexington, Kentucky; Chong-Anna

Canfora, Executive Director, Michigan Community Action

Association, Okemos, Michigan; Rene Ewing, Board Member,

Multi Service Center, Federal Way, Washington; Debbie K.

Herndon, Case Manager, Community Action of Laramie County,

Inc., Cheyenne, Wyoming.

Brenda L. Fox, Executive Director, Tri-County Community

Action Agency, LaGrange, Kentucky; Tom Baker, Executive

Director North Hills Community Outreach, Pittsburgh,

Pennsylvania; Katie Ecker, Board Member, CAO, Kendall, New

York; Gina Ward, Associate Director, Southern Tier

Environments for Living Inc., Jamestown, New York; Craig A.

Reiter, Board Chair, Menominee-Delta-Schoolcraft Community

Action, Gulliver, Michigan; David Knight, Executive Director,

California Community Action Partnership Association,

Sacramento, California; Josephine M. Howard, Ed. S., Board

Member, The Agricultural and Labor Program, Inc, Haines City,

Florida; Daniel Brown, Executive Director, Community Action

Team, Inc., St. Helens, Oregon; Heather Cole, Director of

Advocacy and Public Innovation, United Way of Southwest

Michigan, Saint Joseph, Michigan; Duane Yoder, President,

Garrett County Community Action Committee, Inc., Swanton,

Maryland; David Coplan, Executive Director, Human Services

Center Corporation, Turtle Creek, Pennsylvania; Robin

Whitaker, Executive Director, Daniel Boone CAA, Inc.,

Manchester, Kentucky; Robert S. Jones, CEO, Audubon Area

Community Services, Inc, Owensboro, Kentucky; Brittany Tonet,

Director of Finance & Administration/CFO, North Hills

Community Outreach, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania; Joe Diamond,

Executive Director, Massachusetts Association for Community

Action, (MASSCAP), Boston, Massachusetts; Pearl L. Barth,

Housing Specialist II, East Missouri Action Agency, Park

Hills, Missouri; Julie Pearson, Community Service

Representative, East Missouri Action Agency, Bismarck,

Missouri; Amy Lynn Roark, Vice Chair, Community Action

Advisory Board in Clark County, Vancouver, Washington;

Heather Wallace, Board Member, Community Action of Skagit

County Burlington, Washington; Kimberly Ashley-Pauley,

Governing Board Chairwoman, Community Action Program of

Central Arkansas, (CAPCA), Conway, Arkansas; Cindy Davis,

Executive Director, North Iowa Community Action Organization,

Mason City, Iowa; Angela Martin, CEO, Maryland Community

Action Partnership, Annapolis, Maryland; Jill Sutton,

Executive Director Mid-Michigan Community Action, Farwell,

Michigan; Lyndsey Schoelzel, Executive Director, Nevada

Community Action Association, Reno, Nevada; Susan L. Carr,

Executive Director, Community Services Network of Wyoming,

Sheridan, Wyoming; Tara Glover, Executive Director,

Lowcountry Community Action Agency, Inc, Walterboro, South

Carolina.

Phil Verges, Board President, WestCAP, Spring Valley,

Wisconsin; Alex Fortune, City Councilperson, City of Cresco,

Iowa; Philip E. Cole, Executive Director, Ohio Association of

Community Action Agencies, Columbus, Ohio; James Fails, Board

Member, Great Lakes Community Action Partnership, Fremont,

Ohio; Carmen A. Ortega, Board Member, Great Lakes Community

Action Partnership (GLCAP), Bowling Green, Ohio;

Ruthann House, President/CEO, Great Lakes Community Action

Partnership, Fremont, Ohio; Keri McCrorey, Executive

Director, East Missouri Action Agency, Inc., Farmington,

Missouri; Michael Crouse, Executive Director, STEP Inc.,

Rocky Mount, Virginia; Tina Tate, Commissioner, Hospital

District 304, Skagit County, Washington; Reshella Hawkins,

Executive Director, Emergency Shelter Services INC, Benton

Harbor, Michigan; Roseann Marchetti, Commissioner, District

4, Cass County, Michigan; Alyssa Jarrett, Community Services

Representative, East Missouri Action Agency, Farmington,

Missouri; Myron Gray, Owner

of Service Enterprises LLC, St. Louis, Missouri; Charles

Hargitt, Maintenance Supervisor E.M.A.A., Fredericktown,

Missouri; Nancy Jones, Board Member and Secretary, Mid-

Michigan Community Action Agency, Farwell, Michigan; Patti

Hall, Financial Specialist EMAA, Park Hills, Missouri; Amanda

Garner, Board Member GLCAP, Fremont, Ohio; Ruth Johnson,

Board of Directors, Gladwin County, Gladwin, Michigan;

Jacqueline Orr, CEO, New York State Community Action

Association, Guilderland, New York; Donna Dodgen, Mayor, City

of Seguin, Texas; Karen McCandless, Chief Executive Officer,

Community Action Services and Food Bank, Provo, Utah; Maria

M. Tracy, Board Member, Multi-Service Center, Federal Way,

Washington; C. Shawn Yardley, CEO Community Concepts, Inc.,

Lewiston, Maine; George T. Simon Jr., Executive Director,

TriCounty Community Action, Inc., San Augustine, Texas;

Thomas Mainella, Mayor, City of Fairmont, West Virginia; Bill

Grant, Executive Director, Minnesota Community Action

Partnership (MinnCAP), St. Paul, Minnesota; Elizabeth

Jennings, Director of Community Engagement, Community Action

of Skagit County, Bellingham, Washington; Roger Pavey, Sr.,

Chief Executive Officer, Community Action of Eastern Iowa,

Davenport, Iowa.

Steven Zittergruen, City Councilperson, Ward 5, City of

Decorah, Iowa; Shanna Yount, Community Services Rep, East

Missouri Action Agency Inc, Potosi, Missouri; Anita Leiws,

Section 8 Area Coordinator, East MO Action Agency,

Caruthersville, Missouri; Don Munson, Board Chairperson,

District 5, Douglas County, Illinois; Clint Cottam, Executive

Director, Community Action Partnership of Utah, Layton, Utah;

Susan Cooper, Executive Director, Community Action

Partnership of Sonoma County, Santa Rosa, California; Daneen

Adams, Assistant Executive Director, Open Doors, Clearfield,

Utah; Teleda S. Holmes, Board Member, Multi-Service Center,

Federal Way, Washington; Michelle Faught, Executive Director

ICCAP, Indiana, Pennsylvania; James Hemm, Consultant, New

Jersey Association on Correction, Trenton, New Jersey;

Deborah Leonczyk, Executive Director, Berkshire Community

Action Council, Inc., Pittsfield, Massachusetts; Barbara

Kelly, Executive Director, Knoxville Knox County CAC,

Knoxville, Tennessee; Kathy DiNolfi, Chief Program Officer, A

New Leaf, Mesa, Arizona; Kim Embrey Hill, Executive Director,

Multi-Purpose Community Action Agency, Inc., Louisville,

Kentucky; Kimberly Skaggs, Housing Administrative Secretary,

EMAA, Park Hills, Missouri; Erica Pogue, Associate Director,

INCA Community Services, Inc., Atoka, Oklahoma; Patricia F.

White, Board Member Community Action Council-Lexington,

Lexington, Kentucky; Eva Felix, Director, A New Leaf,

MesaCAN, Mesa, Arizona; Robin Corak, CEO, Multi-Service

Center, Federal Way, Washington; Kati Ortiz, Board Member,

Community Action of Skagit County, Sedro Woolley, Washington;

Kenneth Walters, Executive Director, Licking Valley Community

Action Program, Flemingsburg, Kentucky; David A. Rumsey, DSS

Commissioner CAOG Board, Member, BOD Community Action of

Orleans and Geneseee, Batavia, New York; Carol A. Mack,

Teacher, East Missouri Action Agency Cape, Girardeau,

Missouri; John W. Edwards, Jr., Interim Executive Director,

Texas Association of Community Action Agencies, Austin,

Texas; Chris Berry, Board Member--Treasurer, Multi Service

Center, Milton, Washington; Lynne M. Johnson, Board Member,

Community Action of Orleans and Genesee Counties,

Lyndonville, New York.

Sandra Slade, Coordinator, East Missouri Action Agency,

Belgrade, Missouri; Mary L. Chipps, Executive Director, West

Virginia Community Action Partnerships, Inc., Charleston,

West Virginia; Megan Adkins, Home Care Coordinator, Gallia

County Council on Aging, Gallipolis, Ohio; Jennifer

Trowbridge, President/CEO, Northwest Indiana Community

Action, Crown Point, Indiana; Lisha Whitt, CEO, Pride

Community Services, Inc., LOGAN, West Virginia; Hal B. Goode,

Executive Director, Central Kentucky Community Action

Council, Lebanon, Kentucky; Charlene Engle, CEO, Gateway

Community Action, West Liberty, Kentucky; Kristin L.

Peterson, Council Member At Large, City of Oberlin, Ohio;

Janet Merrell, Executive Director, Community Action

Partnership of Oregon, Portland, Oregon; Richard Brocksmith,

City Councilperson, District 1, Mount Vernon, Washington;

Jimmy Jones, Executive Director, Mid-Willamette Valley

Community Action Agency, Salem, Oregon; Rebecca Missey, Cook

Aide, EMAA, Bonne Terre, Missouri; Michael Lincoln, White

County Judge, White County, Arkansas; Jada Shirriel, CEO,

Healthy Start, Inc., Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.

Amanda Ewing, Executive Director, Oklahoma Association of

Community Action Agencies, Edmond, Oklahoma; Rebecca N.

Brumagin, Town Supervisor, Town of Mina, New York; Dreama

Padgett, CEO, Mountain Heart Community Services, Inc.,

Oceana, West Virginia; Barbara Shine, CA Board of Directors

Chair, Community Action of Orleans Genesee, Batavia, New

York; William Reder, Chairman Board of Directors, Mid-

Michigan Community Action Agency, Auburn, Michigan; Janet

Keefe, Board Member, Chautauqua Opportunities Inc., Fredonia,

New York; Steve Luse, City Councilperson, City of Decorah,

Iowa; John L. Hasten, Mayor, City of Marshall, Illinois; Dean

King, Board Member, GLCAP, Perrysburg, Ohio; Dean Bellack,

Executive Director, United Way of Orleans County, Medina NY,

New York; Susan Harding, CEO, OLHSA, Pontiac, Michigan; Paula

A. Brown, Head Start Collaboration Director, Oklahoma Head

Start Collaboration Office, Stillwater, Oklahoma; Tamara

Turner, Board Member, Seneca County, Fostoria, Ohio; Daniel

Byrnes, County Supervisor, Allamakee County, Iowa; Randy

Weldon, CEO, Southwest Georgia Community Action Council,

Inc., Moultrie, Georgia.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott), who is the chairman of the Education and Labor Committee.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New Mexico (Ms. Leger Fernandez), who is a member of Education and Labor Committee.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Thompson), who is a member of the Education and Labor Committee and a lead cosponsor of the legislation.

Madam Speaker, how much time is remaining?

Madam Speaker, I yield myself 3 minutes.

Madam Speaker, we all agree that the inclusion of faith-based organizations and faith leaders is important for the community action network. In fact, they have a long history of being involved with community action since the very beginning of the war on poverty in the 1960s, and I have no doubt that they will continue to do their important work.

In recent years, the Supreme Court has made clear that religious entities cannot be excluded from participation in publicly funded programs because of their religious status. This legislation, despite what the ranking member and others claim, would not change that.

We are here today to reauthorize and modernize the community services block grant program, which is almost 20 years past its authorization expiration.

I also note that the bipartisan bill introduced in the previous Congress, the 116th, also removed the charitable choice provision with broad bipartisan support, and H.R. 5129 reflects the same sensible compromise on this issue.

In fact, some Members would have liked the legislation to go further to expressly address other nondiscrimination issues, but I did not take that approach as we crafted the bill because I wanted to maintain the bipartisan agreement we reached to make real progress toward the much- needed reauthorization of CSBG.

Twenty years is too long for this program, our community action agencies, and the communities they serve. It is too long for them to wait for us to reach an agreement, and we have reached an agreement.

Additionally, Madam Speaker, for 60 years, community action agencies have had relationships with faith-based organizations. The involvement of faith-based organizations in community action programs long predates the charitable choice provision, and their involvement will continue without this controversial provision.

We also know that HHS regulations have existed for nearly 20 years incorporating many of the same principles. Eliminating the duplicative charitable choice provision in CSBG allows us to move forward with a reauthorization that is vital to so many of our agencies

and allows HHS to apply a single set of rules across programs.

This is a distraction that should not prevent us from moving forward with this reauthorization and maintaining the bipartisan consensus we have achieved.

Madam Speaker, I include in the Record a letter from the Coalition Against Religious Discrimination, a broad and diverse group of leading religious, civil rights, labor, and health organizations supporting the removal of the charitable choice provision from the community services block grant program.

The Coalition Against

Religious Discrimination,

May 11, 2022.

Dear Representative: As members and allies of the Coalition

Against Religious Discrimination (CARD), we write to support

the changes in H.R. 5129, the Community Services Block Grant

(CSBG) Modernization Act of 2022, that would remove

charitable choice, a highly controversial policy.

CARD is a broad and diverse group of leading religious,

civil rights, labor, and health organizations that formed in

the 1990s to oppose adding charitable choice to social

service program authorizations. Since then, CARD has

continued to advocate for strengthening the constitutional

and legal safeguards that apply to such partnerships in this

and other social service programs. We appreciate the

important role that religiously affiliated organizations

historically have played in addressing many of our nation's

most pressing social needs, including in some cases, with the

use of government funds; indeed, many members of CARD know

this firsthand. We also recognize that the separation of

church and state is the cornerstone of religious freedom.

Contrary to claims of its supporters, charitable choice

provisions did not remove any ``barriers'' to participation

for faith-based providers. Faith-based organizations

partnered with the government to provide services long before

the addition of charitable choice to the Community Services

Block Grant programs. Charitable choice instead changed the

rules. But faith-based organizations should follow the same

rules as all other providers, and effective government

collaboration with faith-based entities does not require

government-supported discrimination.

Charitable choice removed traditional church-state

safeguards that applied to social service providers that

accept taxpayer funds. It allows taxpayer-funded faith-based

organizations to discriminate in hiring, including by

undermining state and local nondiscrimination protections,

and threatens the rights of beneficiaries when delivering

services.

People in need should never be faced with the stark choice

between accessing the services they need or retaining their

religious freedom protections. And no one should be forced to

choose between conforming to a religious litmus test or

losing a government-funded job.

Charitable choice does not protect religious freedom,

rather it uses the guise of religious freedom to justify

discrimination against employees and put people who need

government services at risk of harm. Thus, we support the

removal of the charitable choice provisions from the CSBG

authorization.

Sincerely,

ADL (Anti-Defamation League), African American Ministers in

Action, American Atheists, American Civil Liberties Union,

American Federation of Teachers, American Humanist

Association, Americans United for Separation of Church and

State, B'nai B'rith International, Baptist Joint Committee

for Religious Liberty (BJC), Bend the Arc: Jewish Action,

Catholics for Choice, Center for Inquiry and the Richard

Dawkins Foundation for Reason & Science, Central Conference

of American Rabbis, Disciples Center for Public Witness,

Disciples Justice Action Network.

Equal Partners in Faith, Family Equality, Freedom From

Religion Foundation, GLSEN, Hindu American Foundation, Human

Rights Campaign, Interfaith Alliance, Jewish Women

International, Lambda Legal, The Leadership Conference on

Civil and Human Rights, MAZON: A Jewish Response to Hunger,

Metropolitan Community Churches, Global Justice Institute,

NAACP, NARAL Pro-Choice America.

National Center for Transgender Equality, National Council

of Jewish Women, National LGBTQ Task Force, National Women's

Law Center, People For the American Way, PFLAG National,

Presbyterian Church (USA), Secular Coalition for America,

Secular Policy Institute, SPLC Action Fund, Union for Reform

Judaism, United Church of Christ, Justice and Local Church

Ministries, The United Methodist Church--General Board of

Church and Society.

Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott), the chairman of the Education and Labor Committee.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I include in the Record a Statement of Administration Policy from the Executive Office of the President supporting H.R. 5129 and praising the legislation's commitment to ensuring that communities have the tools they need to address poverty and achieve economic mobility.

Statement of Administration Policy

H.R. 5129--Community Services Block Grant Modernization Act of 2022--

Rep. Bonamici, D-OR, and 126 cosponsors

The Administration supports the poverty-fighting goals of

H.R. 5129, the Community Services Block Grant Modernization

Act of 2022, to provide states, territories, and Tribes with

resources for critical community services. This legislation

will reauthorize the Community Services Block Grant (CSBG)

for a decade and help ensure that communities have the tools

they need to fight poverty and build economic mobility.

The CSBG has been supporting tribal and local governments

and community organizations across the country for over 50

years with funding to help them serve low-income individuals

and families. Local administration of some of the most

essential community programs--such as job training and

placement, food and nutrition assistance, Head Start, housing

and homelessness assistance, and the Low Income Home Energy

Assistance Program--is supported by CSBG funds. While these

services and strategies have always been key to helping

Americans get ahead and stay ahead, the COVID-19 pandemic

underscored just how vital it is to invest in the

organizations that deliver them. Faced with unprecedented

demand and the operational challenges of the pandemic, the

more than 1,000 organizations supported by CSBG continued

working to help low-income communities address housing and

food insecurity, provide high-quality early childhood

education, and support individuals re-entering the workforce.

Now, as this Administration works to build a strong and

equitable recovery, it is more important than ever to invest

in locally based solutions to the causes and conditions of

poverty in communities.

The CSBG update proposed by this Act would result in

greater equity for Tribes, expanded income eligibility data

modernization, strengthened performance management, and

support for community-based services and strategies. In

addition, this Act would support new broadband navigator

efforts and continues critical support for community economic

development and rural development activities. And

reauthorizing CSBG for the first time since 1998 would

provide organizations and the millions of families they serve

with the confidence and stability to make the long-term

investments communities need.

The Administration looks forward to working with Congress

to ensure that this bipartisan legislation achieves its

purposes, continues expanding opportunity for all Americans,

and ultimately is enacted.

Madam Speaker, I thank Representative McCollum for supporting H.R. 5129. I am thankful for her leadership in the 116th Congress' legislation to reauthorize CSBG and her continued strong support for this program.

Madam Speaker, I also include in the Record letters from various organizations, individuals, and localities supporting this bipartisan legislation to reauthorize this community services block grant.

Madam Speaker, millions of families and individuals across our country benefit from the locally driven antipoverty programs and services backed by the community services block grant program. We are here today to make sure it continues to meet their needs and the unique needs of our communities.

I am pleased that the House is taking up this long-overdue update to the community services block grant program with strong bipartisan support.

CSBG enables community action agencies to be innovative, leverage public and private resources for their communities, and cost- efficiently administer many programs, including Head Start, LIHEAP, nutrition assistance, weatherization, job training, housing, and assistance for those experiencing homelessness.

This bipartisan legislation will strengthen funding for community action agencies, raise the CSBG program's income eligibility threshold to expand its important services; promote innovation in the CAA network through a federally administered community action innovations program; and, importantly, modernizes accountability, which is an important part of the bill, and performance standards.

The bottom line is that this legislation will better help low-income individuals and families achieve economic stability and access housing, childcare, utility assistance, employment, and other services.

I, once again, urge my colleagues to support this important bipartisan bill to renew our Nation's commitment to reducing poverty through community action, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, pursuant to section 11 of House Resolution 1097, I rise to offer amendments en bloc No. 1.

Madam Speaker, these amendments en bloc containing additional Democratic amendments from my colleagues continue to improve the implementation of the community services block grant program and strengthens partnerships with communities served by this program.

Ms. Escobar's amendment adds entities who support innovative community-based approaches and research-driven responses as partners for community action agencies in their work to broaden the resources directed to eliminating poverty.

Ms. Adams' amendment clarifies that institutions of higher education, including HBCUs, TCUs, and MSIs, can be considered as partners for CSBG projects.

Mrs. Hayes' amendment ensures that States provide notice on their website that CSBG services are offered at no cost and information about fraudulent activity related to CSBG.

Mr. Horsford's amendment adds language regarding Federal activities on place-based poverty alleviating strategies, clarifying that they can address health inequities.

Ms. Houlahan's amendment updates the use of funds to include behavioral health needs that an eligible entity may use CSBG funds for.

Ms. Jackson Lee's amendment requires the Comptroller General to conduct a study to identify the uses, programs, and activities that have the greatest impact and uses of funds under the program.

Ms. Moore's amendment authorizes States to use their statewide funds to ensure that eligible entities have the necessary supports to address food insecurity needs of low-income individuals, families, and communities.

Mr. Payne's and Ms. Tlaib's amendments ensure that CSBG funds can be used for home repairs for health and safety, energy, and water for low- income individuals.

Mr. Payne's amendment clarifies that CSBG funds can be used to address emergency needs, including emergency needs due to a national or public health emergency.

Ms. Pressley's amendment ensures that eligible entities take into account trauma prevention and mitigation when establishing partnerships to promote healthy communities.

Ms. Tlaib's, Mr. Payne's, Ms. Newman's, Ms. Barragan's, and Mr. Torres of New York's amendments add a requirement for the State to describe how the State and eligible entities will coordinate programs related to utility and water assistance services.

Mr. Torres of New York's amendment revises the reporting requirements of the Community Action Innovations Program to include an analysis of best practices for reducing poverty.

And Ms. Wild's amendment requires that eligible entities post their strategic plan, community needs assessment, and community action plan on their website.

These amendments en bloc contain commonsense proposals that strengthen the underlying bill. I thank my colleagues for their contributions. I strongly urge support of the amendments en bloc and the underlying bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Horsford).

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Houlahan).

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Hayes), a member of the Committee on Education and Labor.

Madam Speaker, may I inquire how much time I have remaining?

Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).

Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time to close.

Madam Speaker, once again, I reiterate that these amendments en bloc contain commonsense proposals that strengthen the underlying bill. I appreciate my colleagues for their contributions and their strong support of improving access to services, combating poverty, and uplifting low-income people in our communities.

I strongly urge support of the amendments en bloc and the underlying bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, pursuant to section 11 of House Resolution 1097, I rise to offer amendments en bloc No. 2.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to these amendments en bloc. The amendments contained in this en bloc are either a distraction from the bipartisan work we are doing today or fundamentally undermine the improvements we are putting forth in this legislation. Notably, this en bloc includes yet another Republican attack on women's rights and liberty.

Instead of focusing on what we have accomplished together to strengthen this program in a bipartisan way, some of my colleagues across the aisle are trying to further divide us. Madam Speaker, it has been 24 years since the last reauthorization of the community services block grant program in 1998.

Our communities need a comprehensive reauthorization, not a partisan controversy that will delay the urgent need to renew this program.

From the beginning of the program, community action agencies have addressed the health needs of low-income individuals in their communities, particularly important to rural communities. The 1964 Economic Opportunity Act, which first authorized the community action program, the predecessor to CSBG, specifies that such program shall be conducted in those fields with the purposes of this part, including employment, job training and counseling, and health, indicating that health has always been and continues to be a core part of addressing poverty conditions that is the central mission of these agencies.

Additionally, this en bloc would seek to strip out language from H.R. 5129 allowing CAAs, community action agencies, to serve individuals up to 200 percent of the Federal poverty line.

Congress supported, in a bipartisan manner, allowing community action agencies to serve individuals up to 200 percent of the poverty line to provide flexibility during the COVID-19 pandemic. The CARES Act, for example, the FY 2022 Labor/HHS appropriations bill, and the recently passed omnibus all included an allowance for CAAs to serve individuals up to 200 percent of the poverty line.

The CSBG statute, which we know now is more than 20 years out of date, sets the income eligibility for CSBG services at 100 percent of the official poverty line or 125 percent if the State chooses. Currently, the very low-income eligibility criteria--this is equivalent to about $27,180 for a single person in 2022--for CSBG creates a cliff. Individuals will be cut off from public assistance and services as soon as they make a dime over the income threshold.

We must remember that community action agencies are unique, as they do not operate a single program. Rather, CAAs operate and often coordinate an array of Federal, State, and local programs, all with varying eligibility requirements. For example, more than half of community action agencies operate the Weatherization Assistance Program. That uses 200 percent of the poverty income guidance as the eligibility criteria.

I will share a story of Daniel from North Dakota. When the pandemic struck, Daniel was working in a fast-food restaurant, and his hours were reduced. With his employment income, he is above the statutory 125 percent, but below the 200 percent flexibility Congress has provided with bipartisan support. Unfortunately, Daniel's housing was unstable, and he was couch surfing. He received case management to assist with his housing search. Through CSBG funds provided under the CARES Act, he received assistance with a security deposit in February of 2021. With this assistance, Daniel has maintained stable housing for over a year.

Madam Speaker, Daniel's story is just one example of why raising the Federal poverty level eligibility to 200 percent is so critical to this legislation. Unlike the underlying legislation, these amendments en bloc would weaken CSBG, or it offers solutions in search of problems.

One of the needless proposals in this en bloc actually duplicates the current funding restriction in the bill and statute for voter registration activities which, of course, are nonpartisan activities.

Madam Speaker, we are here today to support a bipartisan CSBG reauthorization and the important work of community action agencies in our communities. These amendments en bloc would move us backward. I strongly urge my colleagues to reject these amendments in this en bloc and support the underlying bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I have a lot to say in response to the gentleman, but I am going to take a deep breath and say, this is a bill about helping to lift low-income Americans out of poverty. It is a bipartisan bill we have been working on for many years. It is time to update the community services block grant program and help lift low- income Americans in Oregon and across the country out of poverty.

I oppose these amendments en bloc, and I encourage my colleagues to oppose them. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I am prepared to close, and I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, again, I reiterate my strong opposition to this en bloc amendment and support for the underlying bill.

This bipartisan bill is about improving services for our communities through community action, and these efforts are long overdue.

Unlike the underlying bill that enjoys broad bipartisan support and reflects the input of stakeholders who represent these agencies and their vital work in our communities, this en bloc amendment ignores what we have accomplished together to strengthen this program and seeks to further divide us.

Rather than addressing the real needs of low-income individuals, this en bloc amendment attacks women's reproductive rights at a time when they are under attack nationally.

The sponsors of this en bloc amendment have injected controversy into a policy on voter registration, which is nonpartisan. Head Start has had a nearly identical policy for the last 40 years with little evidence of a problem.

Together, these amendments all failed in our bipartisan committee markup, and they should again.

Madam Speaker, I strongly urge my colleagues to reject this en bloc amendment and support the underlying bill. I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I thank the manager of the legislation and chairman of the committee for this important legislation.

The Community Services Block Grant Modernization Act is extremely important. As we all know, this bipartisan bill will bring about an enhanced ability to serve the community.

The CSBG moneys are particularly important not only to rural areas but to urban areas. They are important as they relate to many issues, such as in my community dealing with overcoming disasters. Those dollars are utilized to ensure housing.

I include in the Record an article entitled, ``Black communities are last in line for disaster planning in Texas'' and an article entitled, ``5 years after Hurricane Harvey, many in Houston are still waiting for help.''

[From the Washington Post, May 12, 2022]

Black Communities Are Last in Line for Disaster Planning in Texas

Houston.--Lawrence Hester worries every time it rains.

During heavy storms, water overflows the dirt drainage

ditch fronting his yard and the bayou at the end of his

block--flooding the street, creeping up his front steps,

pooling beneath the house, and trapping his family inside.

``We are always underwater here,'' said Hester, 61.

And yet, the state of Texas allocated none of the $1

billion in federal funds it received to protect communities

from future disasters to neighborhoods in Houston that flood

regularly, according to an investigation by the U.S.

Department of Housing and Urban Development.

HUD has now found the exclusion of those majority Black and

Hispanic urban communities to be discriminatory. The state

``shifted money away from the areas and people that needed it

the most,'' disproportionately benefiting White residents

living in smaller towns, the agency concluded.

Houston has faced seven federally declared disasters in the

last seven years and suffered an estimated $2 billion in

damage from Hurricane Harvey in 2017. That storm devastated

Kashmere Gardens, where Hester has lived his entire life. The

floodwaters from Harvey deposited black mold throughout

Hester's home and left his daughter chronically short of

breath.

The state, which is appealing HUD's findings, denied

discriminating, saying the Texas General Land Office

administered the federal grant program based on HUD approval.

The situation in Texas illustrates the challenge facing the

Biden administration, which has pledged to focus on racial

equity but is struggling to protect low-income communities of

color from the growing threat of climate change. Even after

HUD's finding of discrimination, the agency said it does not

have the power at this time to suspend the rest of the $4.3

billion in disaster mitigation money awarded to the state

under criteria approved by the Trump administration.

``What is happening here with these federal dollars going

through the state and not one dime coming to the City of

Houston post-Hurricane Harvey is absolutely crazy, and it

cannot be justified,'' said Houston Mayor Sylvester Turner.

``What do I say to the people in Kashmere Gardens when these

storms keep coming, and we are not putting in the

infrastructure that they desperately need to mitigate the

risk of future flooding?''

Black and Hispanic communities in northeast Houston,

including Kashmere Gardens, are especially vulnerable to the

more frequent storms and catastrophic flooding expected due

to climate change, according to the Federal Emergency

Management Agency. Many of the residential streets lack curbs

and gutters--common storm drainage infrastructure in

predominantly White neighborhoods in Houston--and rely

instead on open ditches dating back to the 1930s.

``Sometimes we can't get out because the water is so

high,'' said Jackie Spradley, Hester's wife. ``You're

literally trapped until the water starts to subside.'' She

can't get to work. Their 12-year-old daughter can't get to

school.

The whoosh of traffic and trains permeates the triangular

neighborhood of modest single-family homes penned between two

highways and two sets of railroad tracks. During large

storms, runoff from impervious highway surfaces flows onto

residential streets.

Piles of trash--old tires, mattresses, furniture, home

insulation--accumulate for weeks in the drainage ditches

along many streets, blocking water from flowing through the

ditches to the bayou. Silt and other debris clog many of the

culverts beneath narrow driveways and footpaths spanning the

ditches. In the summers, standing water breeds mosquitoes.

The city of Houston had hoped to use $95 million in federal

grants to upgrade Kashmere Gardens' storm drainage

infrastructure. The proposed improvements, including

converting some of the ditches to a curb and gutter system,

would have removed the flood risk to nearly 1,400 properties.

But without the money, the city shelved those plans.

Hester's daughter Ashlei was 7 years old in 2017 when

Harvey floodwaters breached their family room, lapping at the

legs of the card table on which the family played dominoes.

Her cough worsened, and doctors prescribed four different

medications for asthma. She was hospitalized in 2018 for

more than a week. But doctors still did not know what was

causing her illness.

It wasn't until December 2019, more than two years after

Harvey, when Hester and his wife discovered the black mold

that was making their daughter so sick. A city inspector

recommended that the house be condemned.

``I was so ashamed,'' Hester said. ``We didn't have nowhere

else to go.''

His mother had purchased the home in 1960, paying the

mortgage with wages from her job flipping burgers 16 hours a

day. Hester was born in the house months later.

He had stayed in the house after Hurricane Alicia flooded

the home in 1983. And after Ike in 2008. Even after Harvey,

Hester stayed, hoping to someday pass the three-bedroom

ranch-style home onto his daughter.

But Hester, who is on disability for herniated disks in his

back and neck from his years as a long-haul truck driver, and

his wife, who sells insurance, never had the money to

adequately repair the storm-ravaged roof and mold-covered

walls.

Hester said the city informed him after Harvey that he was

ineligible for funding to fix the home because of unpaid

property taxes.

``It's not just about the storm drainage,'' Hester said.

``It's about everything.''

Hester said that the rainbow-hued oily waters he had

splashed in while playing in the drainage ditches as a child

had been polluted with cancer-causing creosote used to treat

wooden railroad ties and utility poles. A 2019 state health

department investigation confirmed elevated cancer rates

among residents in the southern end of Kashmere Gardens,

located near two Superfund sites. Residents fear that

flooding will carry toxic deposits into their yards.

Hester's mother had died of cancer. So had his father. And

one of his brothers. ``Cancer is killing the whole

neighborhood,'' said Hester, who is too afraid to visit the

doctor about his own health problems.

Federal disaster mitigation grants are supposed to improve

the inferior flood infrastructure in lower income

communities. But the HUD investigation found that competition

rules set by the Texas General Land Office unfairly favored

smaller towns with less urgent needs and where residents are

more likely to be White and less likely to be lower income.

The state knowingly adopted scoring criteria that

prioritized lower-density areas and excluded communities that

HUD designated as the most impacted by disasters from half

the grants, HUD said.

``Because the criteria had these unjustified discriminatory

effects, their use failed to comply with HUD's regulations,''

the agency found.

No other state adopted Texas' method of distributing the

funds, according to HUD's Office of Fair Housing and Equal

Opportunity. The agency concluded that without Texas's

discriminatory criteria, nearly four times as many Black

residents and more than twice as many Hispanic residents

would have benefited from the grants.

The General Land Office said in its April 1 appeal that the

state ``does not discriminate, and the projects it has funded

help minority beneficiaries across Texas.'' The state said

more than two-thirds of residents in communities that

received awards are Black, Hispanic or Asian. The state

pointed out that its plan was approved two years ago and

characterized HUD's new objections as ``politically

motivated.''

In addition to Houston and surrounding Harris County, the

General Land Office denied grants to the predominantly Black

and Hispanic cities of Port Arthur, Beaumont and Corpus

Christi as well as Jefferson and Nueces counties--all of

which experienced significant flooding from Harvey, according

to the civil rights complaint. Texas Housers, a nonprofit

focused on housing in low-income communities, and Northeast

Action Collective, a grassroots advocacy group of Houston

residents, filed the complaint with HUD last year.

Instead, funds were steered toward inland, Whiter

communities that were far less severely impacted by

hurricanes and used to fund routine infrastructure, the

complaint said. That includes $17.5 million for a new

community center in Caldwell County that is supposed to

double as an evacuation center; $10.8 million to install a

sewage system in the 379-person town of Iola; $6 million for

a new sheriff's department radio tower and radios for

Gonzales County; and $4.2 million for a 2,000-foot-long road

in Bastrop County to connect a Walmart parking lot and a Home

Depot, justified as an alternate path for emergency vehicles

in case the adjacent freeway is clogged with hurricane

evacuees from the Gulf Coast 161 miles away.

``These mitigation funds are a strategy to undo the

systemic racism of the past, but that's not what we're seeing

Texas interested in at all,'' said John Henneberger, co-

director of Texas Housers. ``This is a test of how serious

HUD and the Biden administration are in enforcing civil

rights.''

HUD's Office of Community Planning and Development, which

oversees disaster mitigation aid, wrote to the Texas General

Land Office in March expressing ``grave concerns'' over the

distribution of the first round of

grants. ``The State has not identified a plan to protect

communities while guarding against competition criteria that

could disadvantage minority residents,'' HUD wrote. If a

voluntary resolution cannot be reached, HUD said it could

refer the matter to the Department of Justice for

enforcement.

But advocates worry that could come too late for

communities like Kashmere Gardens.

While HUD said it cannot stop the state from awarding the

rest of the grants ``due to prior decisions,'' it would begin

monitoring how the money is distributed and warned it could

claw back the funds if necessary.

``Texas has a history of sending money to those who are

politically connected,'' said Shannon Van And, a professor of

urban planning at Texas A.M. University whose research

focuses on hazard reduction and housing. She noted that

racial disparities occurred with the distribution of disaster

funds after Hurricane Ike in 2008.

Civil rights advocates say HUD has the authority to suspend

Texas's ability to spend federal grant money; it has done so

under previous administrations. But Sara Pratt, former deputy

assistant secretary in HUD's fair housing office who is now

representing Texas Housers as an attorney, said there is

longstanding division among HUD staff over enforcing civil

rights violations when making funding decisions.

``There is deep disagreement internally,'' Pratt said.

``The secretary's job is to resolve disputes like this.''

HUD Secretary Marcia L. Fudge declined to comment because

the Texas investigation remains open, HUD spokesman Michael

Burns said.

``Her commitment to civil rights and fair housing is well

documented and unwavering, and she is committed to ensuring

that all HUD funds are used in compliance with all relevant

laws and program requirements,'' Burns said.

In response to widespread criticism over how the first $1

billion in Harvey disaster grants was distributed, Texas now

plans to allocate $750 million to Harris County. Houston is

due to receive an additional $9 million out of $488 million

that the state plans to send to the Houston-Galveston region.

City officials point out that the $9 million amounts to

less than one tenth of the cost of its proposed improvements

to Kashmere Gardens.

In Kashmere Gardens on a recent morning after a

thunderstorm inundated streetside drainage ditches,

bulldozers and dump trucks worked to widen and deepen Hunting

Bayou to absorb runoff from future storms.

The work is a small portion of a $2.5 billion flood

protection bond that Harris County passed in 2018. The bulk

of the bond money was directed to wealthier neighborhoods

because the county expected to receive federal disaster funds

for poorer ones, according to county commissioner Rodney

Ellis.

But without money to upgrade the ditch system to drain

storm water from neighborhood streets, it's unclear if the

bayou expansion will be effective.

``This is the Texas two-step in Houston. You have to get

the water from the neighborhoods to the bayous. And then you

have to get the water from the bayous to the Gulf of

Mexico,'' said Ellis, who represents the area.

Residents, too, remain skeptical.

``It's a wait and see situation,'' said Dorothy Wanza,

another Kashmere Gardens resident whose street turned into a

river during Harvey and flooded her home with more than a

foot of water. The experience left the 80-year-old so

traumatized that ``every time it rains, I get the hell out of

dodge.''

She spent the previous night fully dressed, prepared to

evacuate to one of her children's homes. ``The ditches

overflow, and once they are full, the water comes back on

you,'' Wanza said.

On the other side of the bayou, Hester said the city had

recently cleaned out part of a ditch lining his street for

the first time he could recall in more than a decade. Dirt

and bricks still block some of the culverts.

``Right up under there, look,'' he said, pointing beneath

the concrete walkway leading from the street to his front

yard. ``It's stopped up on both sides.''

He nodded farther down the street to another culvert:

``That whole drain hole was flooded.'' He and his next door

neighbor had removed as many bricks as they could to move the

water through. ``If we don't do things around here, ain't

nothing going to get done. I have to go around here and try

to help, and I'm in bad shape myself.''

Hester limped around the perimeter of his home and pointed

two feet up the siding where Harvey floodwaters had reached--

a reminder of the catastrophe he says he failed to protect

his daughter from.

A nonprofit had removed the mold inside when it fixed up

the house in 2020, installing new cabinets, a new roof and

laminate flooring.

But the entryway still slopes. The floor joists need to be

repaired. The porch is lopsided, its wood rotted.

Hester is stooped from years of pain. Yet he remains intent

on doing what he can to make things right.

``It's not my life I'm worried about. It's my daughter's,''

Hester said. ``I'm half dead.''

Madam Speaker, my amendment is extremely important. Very quickly, it deals with accountability and performance improvement. These are the objectives of my amendment.

My amendment also deals with making sure, through a GAO study, that CSBG has performed well; which programmatic activities, services, and other uses of funds were the most effective and had the greatest positive impact; which administrative, organizational, structural, and operational strategies and tactics that were deployed were most successful; how much of the CSBG funds were allocated to States for distribution to and use by community action agencies; and whether these grants retained by each State exceeded the percentage of such funds that were allowed to be retained.

In effect, the GAO would be conducting a performance audit of this program to position it for a fresh start by determining the extent to which these funds reached their intended beneficiaries. Many times, minorities, though it was directed for them, are disadvantaged because of the agency.

Finally, the net result will be transparency and improvement so that others will be served and helped. I thank you for including it in the amendments en bloc.

Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 5129, the ``Community Service Block Grant Modernization Act of 2022.'' I applaud Leadership for bringing H.R. 5129--which has strong bipartisan support--to the Floor for consideration and votes.

For decades, the Community Service Block Grant (CSBG) has fueled a wide range of anti-poverty programs, activities, and services across the country. It has been profoundly beneficial, improving countless lives by helping Americans who are most in need of an assist, enabling them to rise up and access the path to a better quality-of-life.

H.R. 5129 not only provides a long-overdue reauthorization of the program; it also improves the CSBG in many ways, including by adding systems that will enhance the program's transparency, accountability, and evaluations in the future.

Accountability and performance improvement are also the objectives of the Jackson Lee amendment, through additional mechanisms. My amendment would direct the Comptroller General of the GAO to study how the CSBG has performed over the past ten years, focusing on:

which programmatic activities, services, and other uses of funds were the most effective and had the greatest positive impact on individuals and communities that the CSBG was designed to serve;

which administrative, organizational, structural, and operational strategies and tactics that were deployed by states were the most productive, efficient, and successful, such that they should be considered as ``best practices'' for replication by other states going forward;

how much of CSBG funds that were allocated to states for distribution to, and use by, Community Action Agencies and other eligible entities were not fully disbursed by states to those intended recipients; and

whether CSBG funds retained by each state exceeded the percentage of such funds that were allowed to be retained by the state for

administrative and other permissible purposes, the amount that was retained in excess of what was allowed, and to what other uses those funds were applied or to what other account were they transmitted.

In effect, the GAO would be conducting a ``performance audit'' of the CSBG program to position it for a fresh start, citing its strengths and shortcomings, and making recommendations that will help states optimize their efforts in the years ahead.

By determining the extent to which CSBG funds reached their intended beneficiaries and fulfilled their intended purpose, we will see which states have been conscientiously administering the program, which could help calibrate future strategies to structure and monitor the program.

The net result is that the GAO study and report provided by the Jackson Lee amendment will provide transparency and accountability to the program's recent past performance. The findings will enable the program, and the states that administer it, to learn from the past, adjust their programs to maximize results, and revitalize their efforts for each state's next chapter of CSBG performance.

Thank you, Madam Speaker, for bringing this very important bipartisan legislation to the Floor today.

I urge all my colleagues to support the bill, including the Jackson Lee amendment and the entire en bloc amendment.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 1097, I call up the bill (H.R. 903) to enhance the security operations of the Transportation Security Administration and stability of the transportation security workforce by applying the personnel system under title 5, United States Code, to employees of the Transportation Security Administration who provide screening of all passengers and property, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous material on this measure.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of my bill, H.R. 903, the Rights for the Transportation Security Administration Workforce Act.

This critical legislation will bring equity and improve working conditions to the Transportation Security Administration by providing better pay, expanded collective bargaining rights, and basic civil service protection to the agency's workforce.

The essential employees of the TSA have continued to work throughout the pandemic, never relenting in their mission to secure air travel despite the risks to their health. They did so before the pandemic and continue to do so now despite enduring two decades of low pay and a lack of basic workplace rights enjoyed by most other Federal employees.

These shortcomings have led to low morale and high turnover impacting TSA's ability to cultivate a mature workforce that can skillfully combat the constantly evolving threats to our Nation's transportation systems. In 2020, TSA ranked dead last on pay satisfaction as part of the annual Best Places to Work in the Federal Government survey.

In addition, the most recent analysis done on employee turnover at TSA shows that over a 2-year span, one in three transportation security officers, or TSOs, quit. That analysis also revealed that in a single year, TSA spent approximately $16 million to hire and onboard nearly 2,000 people who left just months after they got the job. This revolving door of recruiting, training, and then losing TSOs is unsustainable and underscores the need to find a permanent solution that will ensure TSA lives up to its critical national security mission. H.R. 903 would permanently move TSA under title 5 of U.S. Code and eliminate the existing personnel management system that is the source of many of the problems I have enumerated.

This bill will result in better pay and regular salary increases for workers who too often live paycheck to paycheck and experience long paths to career advancement despite years on the job. Employees will benefit from the same collective bargaining rights under H.R. 903 that other Federal employees have, empowering them to collaborate with TSA management to improve working conditions at the agency.

Employees who believe they have experienced wrongful discipline could appeal their case to a neutral party to be heard, just as other Federal employees are able to do. It would eliminate TSA leadership's ability to abuse special personnel authorities in ways that have historically benefited those at the top. In other words, Mr. Speaker, people at the top get big raises but people at the bottom get the short end of the stick.

TSA management would still be able to remove employees from duties if they could compromise the mission of the agency. Furthermore, just like any other unionized Federal agency, TSA's security procedures would not be subject to collective bargaining with the workforce.

We are fortunate to have an administration in the White House that understands the importance of making these changes. This week, the Biden administration issued a Statement of Administration Policy voicing strong support for the bill and noting it is in line with the President's budget request for 2023.

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record the Statement of Administration Policy.

Statement of Administration Policy

h.r. 903--rights for the tsa workforce act of 2022--rep. thompson, d-

ms, and 231 cosponsors

The Administration strongly supports passage of H.R. 903,

the Rights for the Transportation Security Administration

(TSA) Workforce Act of 2022. This legislation is an important

step in ensuring equitable pay for the TSA workforce and is

aligned with the 2023 President's Budget request to improve

pay for TSA employees. The Administration looks forward to

working with the Congress to enact and fund this important

legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I also applaud the Biden administration for the steps it has taken on its own over the last year to expand employees' access to the Merit Systems Protection Board and explore expanded collective bargaining and increased pay for the workforce. About a year ago, the Secretary of Homeland Security released a memo that instructed the TSA Administrator to make progress on improving pay, collective bargaining, and third-party appeals rights.

Laudably, the President's budget for fiscal year 2023 includes a historic proposal to invest in the TSA workforce in these ways. But critically, crucially, these changes would only apply to the coming fiscal year. That is why it is so essential to pass H.R. 903 so that future administrations cannot turn back the clock on these frontline aviation security workers.

We all know that the nature of an investment is that you have to put some money in upfront and see the returns later. Unlike a typical investment, however, we already have a snapshot into the financial benefit this legislation would yield to workers.

Earlier this year, TSA shared with us that the passage of H.R. 903 would result in a 30 percent salary increase for the entire TSO workforce and a 21 percent increase for Federal air marshals and other law enforcement officers within the agency, bringing them in line with their peers doing similar work at other agencies.

That is astounding, Mr. Speaker, on its face, and it is the least we can do for the men and women who see us each week as we pass through our home airports on the way to Washington, D.C.

Most Members, Republicans and Democrats, thank them for the job that they are doing and say if there is

anything they can do to help, just let them know. Well, Mr. Speaker, passing this bill would do exactly that.

H.R. 903 has 231 bipartisan cosponsors and is strongly supported by the American Federation of Government Employees, the Air Marshals Association, the Association of Flight Attendants, the Transport Workers Union of America, the Transportation Trades Department, the AFL-CIO, and the National Urban League.

I include in the Record letters of support from these organizations.

American Federation of

Government Employees, AFL-CIO,

Washington, DC, May 6, 2022.

House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Dear Representative: On behalf of the American Federation

of Government Employees, AFL-CIO (AFGE), which represents

more than 700,000 federal and District of Columbia employees

in 70 agencies, including approximately 45,000 Transportation

Security Officers (TSOs) who protect the flying public, I

write to urge you to vote in support of H.R. 903, the

``Rights for the Transportation Security Administration

Workforce Act of 2021'' when it is considered on the House

floor next week.

Passage of H.R. 903 would finally provide due process and

fair pay to TSOs by requiring full collective bargaining

rights and the GS-pay scale as is enjoyed by most federal

government workers. When the Transportation Security

Administration (TSA) was established, its administrator was

given uniquely broad authority over the workforce to set pay

and working conditions. As a result, TSOs do not benefit from

the Fair Labor Standards Act or the General Schedule pay

scale and do not have representational rights accorded by

Congress to most of the federal workforce under the Civil

Service Reform Act of 1978. Under current law, TSOs cannot

appeal adverse personnel decisions to a neutral third party,

rights that are held by the non-TSO workforce at TSA as well

as most law enforcement officers who serve elsewhere within

the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). Other DHS

employees, clearly vital to our national security, can and do

appeal adverse actions not only to the Merit Systems

Protection Board (MSPB) but also to the U.S. Court of

Appeals.

When the bill was considered in the House Homeland Security

Committee, I testified in support of the legislation and

shared stories of the struggles TSOs have suffered under

TSA's separate and unequal personnel management system. They

are stories of harassment, intimidation, humiliation,

discrimination and most of all, stories of the despair TSOs

face with no neutral party to turn to. This separate system

is a failure that has fostered a toxic culture that will not

change without legislative action.

On June 3, 2021 Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro

Mayorkas directed TSA Administrator David Pekoske to issue a

new determination and bargain a new contract with the union

to ``more closely mirror the rights and benefits that are

provided to bargaining unit employees under Chapter 71 of

Title 5 of the United States Code.'' In issuing this

directive, Secretary Mayorkas acknowledged that statutorily,

the provisions under title 5 cannot be directly granted and

the TSO workforce does not have the direct right to appeal

adverse actions to MSPB. This can only be corrected in law.

In the nearly 21-year history of TSA, the Secretary's

action was both unprecedented and highly welcomed. However,

his directive makes clear this is a temporary step to provide

relief until these rights can be secured in statute. The time

is now to step up and recognize the rushed decision almost 21

years ago to allow at separate personnel system no longer

serves the employees of TSA appropriately, and thereby

extends a disservice to the American public and to aviation

security.

H.R. 903 honors TSOs' dedication to America's aviation

security by:

Statutorily repealing the TSA Administrator's authority to

maintain a separate and unequal personnel system that applies

only to the TSO workforce;

Statutorily ending the TSA personnel directives that have

allowed TSA to be the judge and jury, with no neutral third-

party review, in workforce disciplinary matters and providing

statutory access to MSPB;

Requiring TSA to follow the labor-management employee

relations statutes that provide workplace rights and

protections to most federal government employees under Title

5 of the U.S. Code; and

Putting TSOs on the General Schedule pay scale with regular

step increases, under which most federal employees' pay is

determined. While it takes 18 years to advance to the top

step in the GS system, it takes 30 years to advance through a

TSA pay band. AFGE notes that President Biden included

sufficient funds in his Fiscal Year 2023 Budget to all for

the migration to the GS system and the necessary bargaining

and MSPB rights.

I ask you to vote in support of H.R. 903 and oppose any

amendments that weaken its intent to achieve fair pay, a fair

opportunity and put an end to this failed, toxic system.

AFGE appreciates your support of our nation's TSOs and we

look forward to working with you to improve the agency and

the rights of its dedicated workforce that keeps the flying

public safe.

Sincerely,

Everett B. Kelley,

National President.

Mr. Speaker, the momentum we need to vote this legislation over the finish line is there, and I hope my colleagues on both sides of the aisle will honor the work of our brave TSOs and the commitment they have made to them by voting for this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Payne).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I am glad to see my colleague, the ranking member. But let me just correct him on his correction of the gentleman from New Jersey. A person that works in the Department of Homeland Security is not a labor representative. The labor representative that Mr. Payne referenced is an organized labor representative with the AFL-CIO.

The other thing my ranking member can do, he will have a chance to vote on the President's budget. The raise for the employees is in the budget. I look forward to that opportunity presenting itself. Our TSOs need a raise. If we don't, the gymnastics here on the floor doesn't pay rent, doesn't pay mortgage, doesn't pay tuition, doesn't even buy groceries.

So at the end of the day, let's give these good folks who do a good job an honest day's pay for an honest day's work. That is the spirit in which this legislation is put forward.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee), a senior member of the Homeland Security Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Texas.

Mr. Speaker, for the Record, title 5 will prevent the misconduct we have seen at TSA, such as senior managers awarding each other over $90,000 in bonuses.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, for the Record, title 5 is not a union. It is a personnel system. It means that if you have rights as an employee of the Federal Government, you know what those rights are. That is not a union.

Now, for TSOs who voted to have a bargaining unit, and they chose the American Federation of Government Employees to be their bargaining unit, that is all. In America, people have choices. Our TSOs decided that they wanted to have union representation, which in America, in a democracy, is their right. I respect that right, and they have done it.

Now we have to treat them like all other Federal employees. That is just what this bill does. There is nothing else here. It just puts them under title 5 just like every other national security-related law enforcement agency, and we are in good shape, so they can pay their mortgages, they can pay their rent, they can do for their children like other Federal employees, plain and simple. Not a big deal.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Correa), a subcommittee chairman of the Committee on Homeland Security.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time to close.

Mr. Speaker, the policies with reference to flying on planes have remained consistent under successive administrations of both parties, including the Trump administration. These passengers have their identities verified through CBP and ICE and received enhanced screening. If the individuals are on the terrorist watch list and they are not U.S. citizens, they are transferred to ICE for title 8 processing and detention.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the robust debate we have had today for this legislation and amendments my colleagues will be offering that seek to improve the bill. But you can't spend thanks. If I told a TSO, ``Thank you for your service,'' almost to the person, they would say, ``Then give me a raise. Treat me like all other Federal employees.''

As our country emerges from what we hope is the worst of the COVID-19 pandemic, we cannot forget about the TSOs, air marshals, and others within TSA who never paused their work in service of our national security.

With estimates that the number of passengers who travel through airports in fiscal year 2023 will exceed prepandemic figures by 4.5 percent, we are again asking them to do more than ever and not pay them any additional money. Treat them like everybody else. Passage of this legislation will send a clear signal that we acknowledge their commitment and agree they deserve the compensation and workplace protection that reflects that.

In this country, you pay for what you get. Pay our TSOs what they deserve and treat them like all other Federal employees. A 30 percent increase is what this bill would do for our TSOs, and they deserve it. They have earned it. I thank my colleagues for their support and urge passage of H.R. 903.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to section 3 of House Resolution 1097, I offer amendments en bloc.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of these amendments which seek to improve the work experiences of TSA employees, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Michigan (Ms. Tlaib).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Virginia (Ms. Wexton).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I support these amendments en bloc consisting of amendments from my colleagues from Michigan, Virginia, Indiana, New Jersey, and New York.

These amendments, like the entire bill, requires TSA to engage its workforce, hear employee concerns, and make improvements in the service of our homeland security.

As we have heard today, morale and retention at TSA are alarmingly low. This is even more alarming when considering the fact that TSA is a majority-minority workforce, with more than half its workers identifying as people of color. It is important that TSA employees have a safe workplace, free of harassment, and that agency leadership reflects the diversity of its workforce as well.

These amendments offer solutions to real problems faced by TSA employees, such as commuting challenges at airports, as they go about their critical mission to keep air travel secure for the American people.

I thank my colleagues for offering these amendments, and I urge the House to join me in supporting them.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 903. When Congress created the Transportation Security Administration more than 20 years ago in the wake of the attacks on 9/11, this body provided the TSA Administrator with unique authorities in the management of its personnel.

H.R. 903 would eliminate this vital flexibility and infringe upon TSA's ability to immediately respond to evolving threats and to protect the traveling public.

This bill goes against Congress' intent by moving an entire agency into

an antiquated 1940s system of title 5 of the U.S. Code. TSA will not be able to take emerging intelligence and quickly change security screening procedures at airports without unnecessary and dangerous delays due to the collective bargaining requirements of this bill.

Since 9/11, TSA has kept our Nation's transportation system secure. Airport screeners and Federal air marshals have responded time and time again to emerging threats.

For example, checkpoint screenings procedures were changed almost overnight in response to the liquid explosive plot in 2006 and the personal electronic device threat in 2017. Such immediate and agile responses will be severely hindered under H.R. 903. Security policies should not be subject to union bargaining.

In addition, TSA will no longer be able to easily remove employees who have committed serious misconduct. If a TSA screener is caught smuggling drugs or weapons, it will be nearly impossible for TSA to immediately terminate them due to the layers of bureaucracy in the title 5 system.

According to TSA, this bill will cost an astronomical amount of almost $8 billion over a 5-year period, and much of that money won't go to the frontline personnel. The amount of overhead costs associated with moving an entire agency to title 5 means that billions of dollars will be spent on the transition and will require the hiring of hundreds of new employees, not frontline workers who would be protecting the traveling public but, instead, bureaucrats who will facilitate this massive labor relations effort.

If we actually want to address the needs of frontline workers, we would focus on securing more funding for their pay. Instead, H.R. 903 will waste billions in taxpayer dollars to create more bureaucracy and provide even more money to headquarters and those who work there who already have a much higher salary than the dedicated frontline personnel.

I am extremely concerned that passing this bill would create a massive unfunded mandate that will ultimately divert critical funding from other important DHS priorities like border security, cybersecurity, and emergency response.

If my friends in the majority were truly focused on prioritizing and improving the pay of TSA frontline workers, rather than prioritizing and empowering the unions, they would support frontline pay raises without the expense and the unnecessary bureaucracy of title 5.

Unfortunately, the majority rejected an amendment by Ranking Member Katko at the markup that would have done just that--improve the pay of frontline screeners and air marshals, not the high-paid bureaucrats at headquarters, without all the waste that title 5 would provide.

I and many of my colleagues stand ready to raise pay for frontline workers, but I cannot in good conscience support a bill that is fiscally irresponsible, undermines our national security, hinders the agency's missions and flexibility, and prioritizes the interests of the unions over the interests of the dedicated frontline workforce and the traveling public.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose H.R. 903, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Katko).

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gooden).

Mr. GOODEN OF Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Texas for stating so eloquently what I and I believe everyone in this Chamber agrees with, and that is that the TSA agents, the men and women who work for the American people at the airport, are protecting our Nation.

They are on the front lines, which is why I am rising today to urge my colleagues to do something very simple, and that is to protect Americans from terrorists and dangerous criminals when they fly and to assist the TSA by taking away a very dangerous policy that they have enacted from the top that they are encouraging and forcing these agents on the front lines to deal with. That policy is one of allowing illegal aliens onto commercial aircraft without proper identification.

It was confirmed to me from the TSA administrator that migrants are allowed to use arrest warrants and warrants for deportation to board flights alongside everyday travelers. This was confirmed to me before Christmas last year. Despite my demands and those of many of my colleagues, the Biden administration has done nothing to stop this. Anyone in this country illegally, or with a warrant for arrest, should be detained and brought before a judge, not permitted to travel to the city of their choice.

This should be a commonsense request. I will remind my colleagues that the TSA was created in response to the September 11 attacks, but it seems as if we have forgotten that. The lax policies by the TSA that allow unvetted aliens to board flights without identification presents a serious national security threat each and every day and jeopardizes the lives of the American people.

My constituents, and I would venture to argue those of my colleagues, perhaps some of my open border friends across the aisle, would agree that our constituents deserve to fly in a safe aircraft.

My constituents have to pull out an ID to board a flight, but this TSA has said that if you have an arrest warrant, that is good enough to get through security. I think that is crazy, and I think the American people do as well. I introduced this motion to recommit to protect our skies, verify the identity of travelers, and notify law enforcement if someone is in our country illegally.

There is zero excuse to delay when the ongoing border crisis is putting every single community in our Nation at risk. In just 10 months, the Biden administration allowed over 45,000 noncitizens to fly without an ID, nearly 160 passengers each and every day. We also know this administration is allowing people on the terrorist watch list into our country, and we have no clue who is boarding these flights.

I urge my colleagues to protect our airways and prevent another tragedy like 9/11 from occurring by adopting this motion.

Mr. Speaker, if we adopt the motion to recommit, we will instruct the Committee on Homeland Security to consider my amendment to H.R. 903 to prohibit the TSA from accepting documents such as an arrest warrant or notice to appear as a valid form of identification. I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the amendment in the Record immediately prior to the vote on the motion to recommit.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I think it is clear that all Republicans support increasing the pay of our TSA frontline workers. We know that they are crucial to the security of our traveling public.

But this bill that we are here debating is not a bill that deals specifically with that. If that were the case, in markup Ranking Member Katko's amendment, an amendment that would have provided a $3,000 immediate salary increase to all frontline workers, 5 percent raise on top of that, year one; year 2, a 3 percent raise; year 3, a 3 percent raise; year 4, a 4 percent raise.

This bill that we are talking about today is a bill that is not just to increase pay, which we all agree on, but this is, instead, a labor bill. This is, instead, an attempt to unionize an entire Federal agency.

Mr. Payne spoke about that a little bit when he got up a few moments ago when he talked about the blue-ribbon committee that was established and said that there was not one labor leader on that committee. We shouldn't be putting labor leaders in the position of putting them on committees where we are talking about protecting the traveling public. That committee that he referred to, in 2019 TSA received a report from that bipartisan committee--and I stress that it was a bipartisan committee, the Blue Ribbon Panel Reviewing TSA Human Capital Service Delivery. The panel was composed of former officials from both Democratic and Republican administrations and included the chief human capital officer for DHS under former President Obama.

It says that they strongly--not just recommended, but they strongly recommended against moving TSA personnel under title 5, and then this is a quote directly from that report, and it says here, ``One recommendation the panel heard repeatedly from employees was moving TSA into the General Schedule (GS). The Panel does not agree. The General Schedule is a 70-year-old classification and compensation system from the last century and is the subject of countless studies and recommendations from good government organizations who consistently find it is too inflexible to meet the needs of the 21st century workforce. A better course of action is to use existing ATSA flexibility to improve the TSA pay system so that it operates at a level superior to the GS system.''

Those are not my words. Those are not the words of Republicans. Those are the words of a blue-ribbon committee which was established to study this very thing. Here we see that Congress is going to completely ignore the findings of that committee. We are going to ignore a committee made up of TSA workers, employees, personnel, and supervisors who served on a committee that was established to look at this very point, and we are going to completely ignore that.

We are going to now do exactly what this committee recommended against. And we are doing that not because we want to increase the pay of the frontline workers, which again we all agree on and we all support. We would support a bill today that would do that without putting everyone under title 5. But what this bill is, this is an attempt to unionize an entire Federal agency and a bill which would make the traveling public less safe.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time to close.

Mr. Speaker, I close by thanking the men and women of TSA, especially the screeners, air marshals, and other frontline workers.

The debate we are having today does not impact the sincere appreciation we have for the tremendous job they do each and every day to secure the transportation system.

While we disagree on the best way forward, we all share the same goal of improving the pay and morale for TSA frontline workforce. It is important not only for the success of the agency but for the security of our Nation. Unfortunately, this bill is not the answer, and, therefore, I cannot support it.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose H.R. 903, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the amendment. While I appreciate some of the issues my majority colleagues seek to address in this en bloc amendment, the bottom line is, there is nothing that will improve the bill or address the multiple concerns I have in it.

Nothing in this en bloc amendment will preserve TSA's flexible authority to implement immediate security procedures in the face of national security threats. Nothing in this en bloc will ensure that screeners who commit gross misconduct are immediately relieved of their duties. Nothing in this en bloc will protect the rest of the Department of Homeland Security from having its key mission areas--like border security, cybersecurity, and counterterrorism vetting--from being raided to pay for this massive unfunded mandate.

Therefore, I urge my colleagues to oppose this en bloc amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendments en bloc, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, again, these arguments go to further what we talked about earlier. This bill is not about a pay increase for our frontline workers. This isn't a bill about protecting the traveling public. This is a bill about unionizing an entire Federal agency.

My friends across the aisle say that TSA already has the authority to do what Representative Cammack's

amendment sets forth. What is the harm in putting that in the body of the legislation itself?

Should it not be clear to everyone who reads the legislation that collective bargaining should not hold up improvement to security? Should that not be made clear?

Should we not set forth that they already have that? What harm does it do in setting that forth again?

Again, we all want to see that our TSA frontline workers get the pay raise that they need and deserve. What we oppose on the Republican side is the complete unionization of this Federal agency.

I will tell you that this is a critical amendment to our national security. Historically, we look back, and when Congress stood up TSA in the wake of 9/11, they deliberately provided flexibility to the agency to deal with the evolving threats to our transportation system. It is imperative that the TSA Administrator maintain that authority to make immediate changes to screening procedures when addressing national security threats.

The amendment of my good friend from Florida simply preserves that authority and makes it clear that the Administrator has that authority and exempts security procedures from the collective bargaining process.

Without this critical amendment, security changes like those made in response to the 2006 liquid explosives or the 2017 personal electronic device plot could be significantly hampered or delayed if subject to collective bargaining. We simply cannot afford to put our national security on the bargaining table.

I thank the gentlewoman from Florida for leading this important issue, and I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. Speaker, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

My amendment would sunset the requirements of H.R. 903 at the end of fiscal year 2022 if Congress does not appropriate sufficient funds to carry out the bill.

With H.R. 903 having an estimated cost to taxpayers of nearly $2 billion, or $8 billion if you use TSA's own estimates, it is critical that the bill does not simply become an astronomical unfunded mandate.

This amendment will remove this bill's requirement to move TSA to title 5 if sufficient funding is not appropriated specifically for those requirements. This will protect other critical homeland security missions, like cybersecurity and border security, from being raided to pay for this legislation.

In TSA's feedback on H.R. 903, they explicitly stated this: Implementation of H.R. 903 ``without additional, adequate appropriations would have dire impacts upon the TSA mission and negatively impact national and economic security.''

Let me read that again. It said that without proper appropriations, it would have a dire impact ``upon the TSA mission and negatively impact national and economic security.'' That is from TSA itself.

Those are the words of the agency that we are looking at changing, and they are warning us. They are warning Congress that if we do this, and then we don't follow through with the funding, we are putting the traveling public at risk. If this is not clear enough, I don't know what is.

I urge all Members to support this fiscally responsible amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I have no more speakers so I am prepared to close when the majority is prepared.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. In closing, I refer back to the words of TSA. These are not my words. These are not the words of the Republican caucus. These are the words of TSA, which was tasked with a critical mission, and the words of TSA are words that we should take into account when we are debating this amendment and debating this bill.

The words of TSA: Implementation of H.R. 903 ``without additional, adequate appropriations would have dire impacts upon the TSA mission and negatively impact national and economic security.''

This amendment is simple. If we are not going to fund this, we cannot put our national and economic security at risk, and this should be sunsetted.

I ask my colleagues to support this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 1097 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Madam Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Minnesota (Mrs. Fischbach), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

General Leave

Madam Speaker, I ask for unanimous consent that all Members be given 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks.

Madam Speaker, today the Rules Committee met and reported a rule, House Resolution 1097, providing for consideration H.R. 903, the Rights for the TSA Workforce Act under a structured rule. It provides 1 hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Homeland Security. It self-executes a manager's amendment from Chairman Thompson, makes in order eight amendments, and provides for one motion to recommit.

The rule also provides for consideration of H.R. 2499 and H.R. 5129 under structured rules. It provides 1 hour of debate for each equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Education and Labor. It self-executes manager amendments from Chairman Scott to both bills. It makes in order 8 amendments and 17 amendments respectively, and it provides for one motion to recommit for both bills.

The rule provides en bloc authority to Chairmen Thompson and Scott.

Further, the rule provides for consideration of H.R. 7691, the Additional Ukraine Supplemental Appropriations Act, under a closed rule. The rule provides 1 hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations. The rule self-executes a manager's amendment from Chairwoman DeLauro and provides one motion to recommit.

The rule also deems passage of H. Res. 1096, a resolution, Recognizing Congressional Workers' Right to Organize.

The rule also provides recess instructions, suspension authority, and same-day authority through June 10.

Finally, the rule postpones requested roll call votes on suspension bills considered on May 10 and May 11 through May 18.

Madam Speaker, the rule contains five essential points of action.

H.R. 903, the Rights for the TSA Workforce Act of 2021: This legislation seeks to afford TSA employees similar rights, protections, and benefits afforded to most other Federal workers across the country in order to improve the agency's operations, workforce retention, and morale.

H.R. 2499 is the bipartisan Federal Firefighters Fairness Act of 2022. This legislation establishes a science-based list of diseases for which an automatic presumption of work-related illness would apply for Federal firefighters who get sick, provided that they are employed in fire protection activities for at least 5 years. It also establishes a process for adding other diseases based on scientific data and analysis going forward.

H.R. 5129 is the bipartisan Community Services Block Grant Modernization Act of 2022. It reauthorizes and improves the popular and effective community services block grant program to help reach even more Americans, provide more community development across the country, and further reduce poverty.

The rule also contains a resolution recognizing the right of congressional staff to unionize.

Finally, it includes H.R. 7691, the Additional Ukraine Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2022. Madam Speaker, generations to come will look back at this moment to ask: What did our generation do when Vladimir Putin and his army invaded the sovereign nation of Ukraine and tried not only to crush its democracy and violate the spirit of its people but vaporize and annex the entire nation?

Well, today, let future generations observe the Biden administration and a bipartisan Congress has not only already provided more than $4 billion in security assistance to Ukraine, almost all of it coming after the February 24 invasion, but today, we are voting to provide nearly $40 billion to address the immediate and near-term security, economic, and humanitarian needs of the Ukrainian people that are urgent and desperate.

We will provide $6 billion for training, equipment, weapons, logistics support, supplies, salaries and stipends, and intelligence support; $4.35 billion in emergency food assistance, medical equipment, and other humanitarian aid; and billions more for humanitarian relief for the millions of refugees displaced by Putin's violence and bombardment of communities in Ukraine.

The aid that we vote on today will come with the fervent solidarity, admiration, and love of the American people. We are in awe of President Zelenskyy, the Ukrainian people, and their army. They have been hanging tough against terrible odds and terrible violence in a splendid display of democratic patriotism for their country. Their resolve is heroic, and it is breathtaking to behold.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Virginia (Ms. Spanberger).

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, the gentleman asks us to justify the use of American resources in supporting our democratic allies in Ukraine.

How would we justify the use of these resources?

Well, let's start with this. The Ukrainian people and President Zelenskyy have asked for our help. They have asked for these resources, and they need these resources in order to beat back a brutal, bloody, and illegal innovation by Vladimir Putin, who is violating the laws of war on a daily basis.

They have killed thousands of civilians, they have killed more than 150 children, murdering them, and his Army is raping and killing women, leaving their corpses in the street.

So we have a democracy trying to defend its sovereign borders against an autocrat who wants to rebuild the Russian empire, Vladimir Putin, the former chief of the KGB, who said that the greatest catastrophe of the 20th century was the collapse of the Soviet Union.

We were hoping that we would have a unanimous, bipartisan statement today in favor of aid to the besieged people of Ukraine. Instead, we get more voices of defeatism, pessimism, and gloom.

We have heard it before. We heard Representative Cawthorn who said: Remember that Zelenskyy is a thug, remember that the Ukrainian Government is incredibly corrupt, and is incredibly evil and has been pushing woke ideologies.

We heard from Steve Bannon who said: No Republican should vote for any money for Ukraine, zero dollars for Ukraine.

We are hearing it from other candidates around the country, J.D. Vance, who says: I have got to be honest with you; I don't really care what happens to Ukraine one way or the other.

Madam Speaker, the democratic world is under siege by Vladimir Putin and his filthy army, which is murdering children, raping women, killing civilians. Which side are we on?

The Biden administration is rallying the democratic world, rallying the NATO countries. We should be standing on a unanimous, bipartisan basis with the people of Ukraine.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin).

Madam Speaker, here is a formula for the destruction of democracy: Repeating Putin's propaganda and disinformation and appeasing imperialist assaults on sovereign nations.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. Jayapal).

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Green).

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett).

Madam Speaker, the very distinguished gentlewoman from Colorado called the President of the United States, or likened him to, I think she said, a lying, dog-faced pony soldier.

We obviously could have taken those words down, but we have serious business to do here, and unlike some of our colleagues on the other side, we are not interested in censoring other people's speech. We want the whole world to see how the gentlewoman from Colorado speaks in public as a Member of Congress. We want everyone to look at that.

Meantime, we have come here tonight, Madam Speaker, to fight for the rights of the TSA workforce. More than 50,000 workers. We are giving them the same rights that other Federal workers have. We came here to fight for the rights of Federal firefighters, tens of thousands of them, who will be able to benefit from this legislation if and when they get sick from illnesses caused by their work as firefighters.

We came here to expand and improve the Community Services Block Grant Modernization Act of 2022, a bipartisan piece of legislation. Despite what was said about it on the other side, I believe there were eight Members of the minority who voted for it in the House Education and Labor Committee.

We are here to recognize the right of congressional staff to unionize, and we are here most significantly, Madam Speaker, on the Additional Ukraine Supplemental Appropriations Act.

It is for that act that the antics and the diatribes of our colleagues are so profoundly disappointing to those of us who have come here to support President Zelenskyy and the heroic people of Ukraine who are resisting a brutal, illegal aggression by Vladimir Putin and his army.

And we were hoping that we would have a bipartisan, unanimous support for this legislation to render the military and strategic economic and humanitarian aid that our democratic allies need, and they are asking for and deserve, to fight off this illegal criminal aggression by Vladimir Putin, who is not a genius but a war criminal and a mass murderer. That is what he is.

We are very proud of the work that President Biden has been doing in unifying the democratic world against the autocrat Vladimir Putin and his naked, bloody aggression against the people of Ukraine, which has cost the lives of thousands of civilians already. We have seen the war crime of rape spread at the hands of Russian's filthy soldiers, and we have seen them kill children, blow up schools and hospitals.

We don't see anything remotely like the seriousness and the solemnity that we would expect of Members of the United States Congress. Instead, they put up profanity, they mock the President of the United States, they make a disgrace of their own party by the way they behave on the floor of the House of Representatives.

Madam Speaker, Vladimir Putin and his cheerleaders all over the world thought they would make quick work of the people of Ukraine and President Zelenskyy. They only had supplies for less than a week. Everybody thought it was just going to be game over, as some of our colleagues have said; that Vladimir Putin would just cut right through them.

But you know what they weren't counting on, Madam Speaker? They weren't counting on the spirit of a democratic people, the noble people of Ukraine who have heroically resisted every criminal aggressive act by Vladimir Putin and his autocratic cheerleaders around the world.

So today, 2\1/2\ months later, President Biden, having rallied the democratic world, having unified NATO, comes back to us and asks for nearly $40 billion in aid to support the strategic needs, the security needs, the economic needs, the humanitarian needs of a population that is reeling from the war.

Madam Speaker, we say the American people are here to support the Ukrainian people. That is what we are doing here tonight.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Our colleagues don't seem to want to talk about the chaos and the violence and the bloodshed that has been unleashed on the people of Ukraine. I am really shocked that they don't want to talk about it, but they want to talk about free speech.

Great. Let's talk about free speech in Russia.

More than 15,000 people arrested and detained as they crush the antiwar movement in Russia, as he jails political opponents in Russia. And they haven't said a word about that.

Have they said anything about the opponents of the war in Russia who have been thrown into jail? No.

They are talking about a board in America that I wasn't even aware existed--I am not sure it does--that has never thrown anybody in a jail.

How do they feel about Russian critics of the war being thrown into jail? How do they feel about more than 8 million Ukrainians who have been displaced by the war, who are living in the homes of the Polish people who have heroically opened their doors to them? They say nothing about that.

Do they think that Vladimir Putin is the leader of a democracy?

Is there any one of them who will stand up and say that Vladimir Putin is an autocrat, an authoritarian, a would-be totalitarian?

Do any of them remember that Vladimir Putin was the head of the KGB?

Is that their ideal model for civil liberties? Vladimir Putin, who said that the collapse of the Soviet Union is the greatest catastrophe of the 20th century?

Is this Abraham Lincoln's party we are hearing today? Or is it a cult of Donald Trump?

Madam Speaker, we have to decide which side America is going to be on. The democratic world has risen as one to support the people of Ukraine, and yet, our friends don't seem to want to talk about that. They don't want to seem to support this effort, which is extraordinary to me, as the people of Ukraine are doing whatever they can to fight this naked, illegal aggression, this unilateral war of aggression; unprovoked, unjustified, a violation of international law in every way.

Madam Speaker, it is incumbent upon us as the leader of the democratic world, if that is still what we want to be, to support democracies under attack by authoritarian regimes.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.