Self-Insurance Protection Act

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, Republicans are in charge of the House of Representatives. They control the schedule here. They control when bills get brought up for debate. They make the Calendar. We could be debating a bipartisan bill that actually helps get more people on to healthcare or lowers prescription drug costs and makes coverage more affordable, but instead Republicans are bringing to the floor a bill to chip away at the Affordable Care Act. They are siding with billionaire corporations and insurance companies and actually spending money to kick people off of healthcare.

We could be debating bipartisan legislation that makes it easier for regular middle-class Americans to buy a home, but instead, Republicans are bringing to the floor a bill that literally increases mortgage fees charged to middle-income borrowers.

Time and time again, this majority brings to the floor bills that benefit billionaire corporations, insurance companies, the rich and powerful, Big Oil, Big Pharma, all at the expense of everyday people back home who send us here to fight for them.

We could be debating bipartisan legislation that actually addresses our broken immigration system. Instead, Republicans are bringing to the floor a nonbinding resolution that condemns a nonexistent problem so they can go after immigrants once again.

We had a Member in the Rules Committee last night yelling and screaming and ranting and raving about all he thinks is wrong with our immigration system and the border. It was actually kind of scary.

Listen, I get being passionate about this problem. I am not here to argue that our immigration system doesn't need to be fixed. We all know that it could use a comprehensive overhaul, but we don't need to be screaming at each other about this nonbinding press release of a bill that does literally nothing to help deal with our border. My God.

Republicans want to talk about immigration, so let's talk about immigration.

Let's talk about how the Republican solution to the border is building a stupid wall that even they know won't work.

Let's talk about fentanyl. Let's talk about how most of it is trafficked through legal ports of entry in the United States by U.S. citizens, by the way, and let's talk about how President Joe Biden seizes more fentanyl at the border than Donald Trump did. That is just a fact.

Yet, we had a Member last night have a complete meltdown over this issue. Would Republicans rather the Biden administration not seize fentanyl? I don't get it. Make it make sense.

Let's talk about how, since the end of title 42 on May 11, unlawful entries along the southern border have plummeted. As of June 6, Customs and Border Protection had an average of 3,700

encounters between points of entry or unscheduled encounters per day, a decrease of over 70 percent.

Republicans don't want to talk about any of that. Instead, they are going to try to get people all worked up by scapegoating vulnerable migrants who are fleeing awful circumstances in search of safety.

I can't believe I have to say this, but migrants are not political pawns. They come to our country seeking a better life, often fleeing violence and oppression. They are human beings and deserve to be treated with dignity and respect. Yet, Republican Governors have treated migrants like they are garbage, busing them across the country like luggage, with no advance notice or coordination, dumping them outside after they call the press to show up and make a scene. I find it disgusting. I find it racist. I find it disrespectful to all that this country stands for.

This nonbinding press release that they are bringing to the floor isn't a serious attempt to solve a problem. They are dropping migrants off in New York City and then attacking New York City for trying to come up with solutions to the problem. This is absurd.

Then, Republicans claim gyms can't be used to house migrants because they want to ``protect students.'' Give me a break. Migrants have never been housed in a facility with kids. That is just a fact. In the Rules Committee last night, we asked the person who was bringing the bill before the committee to give us examples. She couldn't.

If we want to talk about protecting students, let us talk about protecting students. A thousand kids have died from gun violence this year. Where will the next school shooting be? Parents are terrified their kid will be next. Teachers are terrified that their class will be next. Students are terrified they will be next. Republicans are here regulating gyms instead of guns. What the hell is wrong with these people?

This majority is obsessed with demonizing, demeaning, and targeting people who are coming to the United States in desperate search of a better life. Stop appealing to the worst instincts in people. Stop peddling hate. Stop fueling racism.

Here is a contrast I want people to know about. President Biden and the Democrats are working to expand the middle class, to build a strong economy from the bottom up and the middle out. Democrats are lowering costs for working families, helping cut inflation by more than half since last summer.

Democrats have taken on Big Pharma to reduce prescription drug costs, and Democrats continue to fight special interests to lower healthcare costs while making childcare and housing more affordable for working families.

Democrats are investing in America and have created more than 13 million jobs since President Biden took office. Democrats are bringing supply chains back home, fixing our roads and bridges, and delivering clean water and high-speed internet to more communities.

Democrats are making our communities safer. We are committed to building on the gun safety legislation we passed last year by strengthening background checks and keeping dangerous weapons of war off our streets to protect America's kids.

Democrats know that we don't have to choose between an immigration system that reflects our interests and our values, and we don't demonize and attack people who want to come to this country in search of a better life.

You are seeing on the floor today exactly what Republicans have to offer: nothing, not a thing, no plans, no ideas. They are just interested in helping the rich and powerful and using immigrants as political pawns to drive a wedge between people. It is a rotten, shameful thing to do.

Mr. Speaker, I urge all my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this rule and the underlying bill, and I urge my colleagues on the Republican side to get serious about bringing legislation to the floor that will actually make a difference, that will actually help fix some of the challenges that we face in this country. This is a joke.

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

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

I appreciate the gentleman's tirade just now, but the bottom line is that nothing in this bill that his party is championing as somehow this important piece of legislation does anything to provide any assistance to any of these communities. Not one penny goes to offset any of the costs that might be incurred--nothing, not a thing.

I just don't get it. People come onto this floor and speak in sound bites and do press releases and then bring legislation to the floor that is nonbinding, that means nothing, that does nothing. This is ridiculous.

We need to fix our immigration system. We tried to do that when we were in charge. We had challenges in the Senate trying to overcome the filibuster, but we were trying to fix the system. That is a contrast to what we are doing here now, which is a nonbinding resolution.

By the way, a nonbinding resolution, to anybody who is watching, means it is just somebody's opinion. It doesn't do anything--no money, no assistance, no help to anybody. It is just like: ``I want to tell you what my opinion is.'' Big deal.

Mr. Speaker, I am going to urge that we defeat the previous question, and if we do, I am going to offer an amendment to the rule to provide for consideration of a resolution which states that it is the House's duty to protect and preserve Social Security and Medicare for future generations and reject any cuts to these essential programs.

We know, because we have heard from my friends, that they have their eyes on these programs. We need to get people on record to make sure that they will not vote for any cuts.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my amendment into the Record, along with any extraneous material, immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Sorensen) to discuss that proposal.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to include in the Record a Washington Post article titled: ``House GOP eyes Social Security, Medicare amid spending battle.''

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

Mr. Speaker, it is simple. To lower the national deficit, House Republicans plan to try to cut Social Security and Medicare. This includes potentially ``raising the Social Security retirement age to 70, targeting younger Americans who have yet to obtain Federal benefits.''

We have a number of Members on the Republican side who talk about privatization all the time. That is their favorite word when it comes to Social Security and Medicare. We want to make sure the American people understand who is on their side and who is trying to undercut things that are very meaningful to them.

Mr. Speaker, I also point out that my Republican colleagues have been in disarray since they took the majority, and they have failed to pass meaningful legislation into law on behalf of the American people. As I said, they control this Chamber, the schedule, the committees, and what they bring to the floor.

At this point in the 117th Congress, that is the previous Congress, Democrats had passed 17 bills into law. At this point in the 116th Congress, under divided government, we passed 21 bills into law.

You want to know how much this majority has passed into law?

Six.

They are failing the American people. They are incapable of bringing legislation to the floor that can garner bipartisan support that has any chance in the Senate.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to include in the Record a comparison of the number of bills passed into law by May 31, which demonstrates how utterly unproductive this Congress has been.

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

Mr. Speaker, I spoke about the unproductiveness of my Republican friends and how they are squandering all opportunities to help the American people since they have been in control but let me just talk to you about some of the stuff that we did when we were in charge of this place.

Let me remind people that because of the Affordable Care Act, which I think almost everybody over there voted ``no'' on, 40 million Americans have health coverage under the ACA. Women have access to preventive health services like breast and cervical cancer screening at no cost to them. Prescription drugs are more affordable for older adults.

Americans with disabilities are protected from discrimination on the basis of medical history or preexisting conditions. Lifetime caps on essential health benefits are gone. They are gone.

Since 2010 when the bill became law, Republicans have been obsessed with tearing it apart. Under Republican majorities, we have voted nearly 70 times to repeal and undermine the law. Nearly 70 times Republicans have tried to dismantle a law that provides healthcare coverage to 20 million people and covers preventive health services.

Today, Republicans are continuing this effort to undermine the ACA. It is maddening where their priorities are. It is maddening. Here is the deal. They know that they can't just repeal it outright because everybody doesn't want them to do that. What they are doing is they are going after it bit by bit by bit, trying to chip away at the edges and trying to kill it through a thousand cuts so that maybe people won't notice, that people won't notice when essential benefits are no longer guaranteed.

Healthcare ought to be a right in this country, and we ought to be building on the ACA, not tearing it apart, not tearing it down, not trying to make it more difficult for people to get the essential services they need, not to try to give people plans that don't provide the coverage for whatever may occur to them and their families.

Mr. Speaker, I think it is important to understand--again, the good news here is that all the bills they are bringing to the floor today have no chance in hell of going anywhere in the Senate because they are just over the top and extreme.

Make no mistake about what is happening here. They have a target on healthcare. They have a target on Social Security. They have a target on Medicare. Rather than trying to fix our immigration laws, what are they doing?

They are trying to tear this country apart. They are trying to demonize immigrants. They have no solutions, just a nonbinding resolution that does nothing. It basically addresses a fake problem that was totally ginned up by FOX News. That is where their priorities are. Certainly, we can spend our time doing more productive things.

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

Mr. Speaker, I remind the gentleman that fentanyl is coming across the southern border because U.S. citizens are bringing it

across through ports of entry. Don't trust me on this. You can look to the conservative think tank CATO that will reinforce what I just said.

By the way, this bill that you are bringing here does nothing to solve the problem. It is a waste of time. There are no more resources; nothing to combat it. It is just a press release. What a joke that we are here debating something like this when we could be debating something that might make a real difference.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from New Mexico (Ms. Leger Fernandez), a distinguished member of the Rules Committee.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have to say, what I am a little surprised about today is that nobody has raised the deficit or the debt because the Republicans were obsessed with that when they basically threatened to ruin this economy by not allowing us to move forward to increase the debt ceiling.

We had to have all these cuts from programs that help poor people. Throwing people off of programs like SNAP, the food benefit, that is what they did. I now understand why we are not talking about the deficit or debt today because of the bills that they are bringing to the floor.

One of the bills that we are talking about right now, the CHOICE Arrangement Act, cuts more than $348 million. That is what the CBO says.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to include in the Record the CBO score.

Mr. Speaker, that is just the beginning. House Republicans spent half a billion dollars on their H.R. 1 bill that would gut environmental protections and take tax credits away from people who want to upgrade their homes. Half a billion dollars was added to the deficit.

Mr. Speaker, $6 billion was added to the deficit on their deeply flawed H.R. 2, a bill attacking immigrants and essentially ending asylum as we know it.

Get this, $114 billion--billion with a b--was added through their H.R. 23 to protect the wealthy from paying their fair share of taxes. That was their very first bill on the House floor in this Congress, their top priority adding $114 billion to the deficit.

Over $505 million was added through the Republicans' bill last week to enhance access to firearm stabilizing braces.

Republicans are on a spending spree, all on the backs of real people--not the rich, not billionaire corporations, not by reallocating funding from the bloated Pentagon budget. Maybe some of you saw the ``60 Minutes'' piece a few weeks ago about the cost overruns, where former Pentagon officials said that they are spending hundreds of thousands of dollars on a switch that costs a couple hundred dollars.

We can't find a penny, yet they want to increase the Pentagon budget with no questions asked.

They can't touch any of the tax cuts for any of the billionaires or multimillionaires of big corporations. We can't do that, and we all know why. Google where they all spend their money on political campaigns. However, they spend all this money, and they want to balance the budget on the backs of regular, everyday people, and, in particular, the most vulnerable in our country.

Last night everybody was complaining about the CBO score--the CBO score. I guess I understand why my colleagues across the aisle would not want to support the hardworking, nonpartisan people at CBO. Maybe it is because they keep giving them bad news. Maybe it is because they keep saying to my friends that they are spending and spending and spending and it is adding enormously to our deficit and our debt.

Mr. Speaker, I raise this issue because my Republican friends like to come to the floor and talk about the deficit. Today they are not. I think it is because we had this conversation in the Rules Committee last night. I want people to know that they are driving up the deficit and the debt, and then when they want to talk about fiscal responsibility, where do they go?

They go to the middle class, and they go to the people who are poor. That is where their priorities are. So there is a big difference here.

Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman has no other speakers, I am prepared to close, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am surprised my friend has no further speakers. I thought because these bills were so important and unbelievably essential that there would be lots of speakers on the other side.

Mr. Speaker, we all know how valuable our time is here. We only have 13 scheduled legislative weeks until the end of the year--13 weeks that could be used to improve the lives of everyday Americans.

So how have Republicans in the House decided to use this week?

Are we working to make our communities safer or our educational system better?

No. We are not. Republicans would rather demonize immigrants and peddle hate than regulate guns or invest in schools.

They are in control. They can bring what they want to the floor. Don't take my word for it, Mr. Speaker. Look at what they are bringing to the floor.

Are we here to help regular Americans purchase their first home?

No. We are voting on a bill today that will make it easier for those well-off to get even further ahead while making it more difficult on middle-class home buyers.

Mr. Speaker, you can't make this stuff up, but that is what this bill does.

Are we passing legislation that will continue to expand people's access to affordable healthcare?

No. Republicans want to chip away at popular policy that provides quality coverage to millions.

There are very real issues that regular people in this country face every day, and I wish House Republicans could wise up and address them.

This is such a colossal waste of time. One of the bills is nonbinding, but the other bills aren't going anywhere. This is a waste of time. Rather than working across the aisle trying to find common ground, they continue to bring these messaging bills. These are bills that demonize immigrants and that continue to chip away at the Affordable Care Act. These are bills that continue to screw people in the middle class, and they continue to bring these bills to the floor.

I don't know who their base is, but apparently it is popular amongst their base.

This is not about legislating. It is not about making law, and it is not about improving the lives of anybody in this country.

So, Mr. Speaker, I urge a strong ``no'' vote on the underlying legislation and a ``no'' vote on this rule, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 524 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), 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

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks.

Mr. Speaker, last night the Rules Committee met and reported a rule, House Resolution 524, providing for consideration of three measures: H. Res. 461, H.R. 3799, and H.R. 3564.

The rule provides for consideration of H.R. 3564 under a structured rule with 1 hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Financial Services or their designee.

The rule makes in order four amendments and provides one motion to recommit. The rule additionally provides for consideration of H.R. 3799 under a structured rule with 80 minutes of general debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committees on Education and the Workforce or their respective designees and Ways and Means or their respective designees. The rule makes in order three amendments and provides one motion to recommit.

Finally, the rule provides for consideration of H. Res. 461 under a closed rule with 1 hour of debate equally divided and controlled and by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Education and the Workforce or their respective designees.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the rule and in support of the underlying bills.

Today, the Republican majority continues its long process of reversing and repairing the damages inflicted on the American people by the Biden administration and the previous Democrat majority.

Mr. Speaker, included in the rule is H.R. 3799, the Custom Health Option and Individual Care Expense Arrangement Act, or the CHOICE Arrangement Act, introduced by my friend from Oklahoma, Kevin Hern.

This legislation includes commonsense changes to help lower health insurance costs, increase competition in the healthcare market, and ensure access to high-quality, low-cost plans for Americans and small business owners and their employees.

In 2021, almost 55 percent of Americans were covered by employer- based health coverage. Employer-based health coverage is easily the most popular option for Americans to receive health insurance coverage. According to the National Federation of Independent Business, of small employers

that did not offer health insurance coverage to their employees, two- thirds reported that the reason they do not offer the health insurance is because it is simply too expensive.

In 2019, President Trump and his administration published regulations allowing employers to provide their employees with a fixed amount of money each year in tax-preferred individual health coverage reimbursement accounts that an employee could use to buy coverage in the individual market.

Current regulations allow employers to establish individual coverage health reimbursement accounts which employees can use to purchase individual market coverage and pay for their out-of-pocket medical expenses.

The CHOICE Arrangement Act seeks to codify these regulations to provide tax-advantaged funds for employees to buy portable health insurance plans and requires notification to employers of the availability of these tax-advantaged health insurance benefits.

The CHOICE Arrangement Act also includes provisions codifying the right of small businesses to band together and form association health plans to offer pooled health insurance coverage to their employees.

This legislation will give employers maximum flexibility in how they provide coverage options for their employees by providing CHOICE arrangements while also providing expected benefits like dental plans, vision plans, accident, disability benefits, and more.

This legislation will also ensure that stop-loss coverage is not subject to Federal regulation under the Employee Retirement Income and Security Act. These commonsense changes will stop the Biden administration from administratively making healthcare more expensive by regulating stop-loss coverage and ensuring that small businesses can, in fact, remain competitive.

Mr. Speaker, also included in this rule is H. Res. 461. This condemns the practice of retrofitting our children's schools to house illegal immigrants. President Biden and the Democrats' failures at the southern border are so comprehensive, so overwhelming that municipalities are now co-opting the schools where we educate our children because President Biden refuses to secure the southern border.

Because President Biden cannot or will not secure our southern border, Mr. Speaker, our local communities and municipalities are now casualties of President Biden's border crisis.

The American people rightfully demand that President Biden and Democrats in Congress acknowledge this crisis. They demand that they not only acknowledge the crisis, Mr. Speaker, they demand that their Federal Government solve this self-inflicted crisis that is pushing our communities well past the breaking point.

New York City and its mayor, Eric Adams, are the first to cry uncle. Mr. Speaker, 2 months is how long Mayor Adams and New York City lasted, suffering under conditions of a size and scale not even comparable to the conditions that Texans have been enduring these past 2\1/2\ years under an administration that has only now started to pay attention to this humanitarian crisis when it started to affect their constituents.

Over and over again, we have pleaded with the Biden administration to take this crisis seriously, only to be rebuffed time and again. This humanitarian catastrophe can be laid squarely at the feet of the Secretary of Department of Homeland Security, Secretary Mayorkas, and, of course, President Biden who have chosen to do nothing rather than be labeled xenophobes by their progressive colleagues for actually enforcing existing immigration law and securing our southern border.

Mr. Speaker, the temptation for the Biden administration has been to bury their heads in the sand and hope that these waves of illegal immigrants coming across our border will, in fact, magically disappear. They will not, Mr. Speaker, not until President Biden finally gets serious about the border crisis by demanding that the Secretary of Homeland Security do his job and secure our southern border, or maybe find someone else who can do that job.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, the rule provides for consideration of H.R. 3564, the Middle Class Borrower Protection Act of 2023. This bill would repeal the Federal Housing Finance Agency's recalibrated single-family pricing framework to guarantee mortgages which would charge borrowers with higher credit scores larger fees to subsidize borrowers with lower credit scores.

If not for our Republican majority, Mr. Speaker, one out of every two borrowers with higher credit scores would be assessed higher mortgage fees in President Biden's radical equity agenda.

President Biden is telling the American people that if you work hard, if you are responsible with your finances, if you pay your bills on time, you are going to get to subsidize the mortgages of those who did not make the same sacrifices that you did in order to attain a higher credit score. This sends a terrible message to the American people.

Mr. Speaker, I thank Mr. Davidson for bringing us this final piece of legislation that underscores that the Republican majority stands with those middle-class families who have done the right thing and should not be pushed by a radical administration that is obsessed with radical wealth distribution schemes.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Langworthy), a valuable new member of the Rules Committee.

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

Mr. Speaker, the only entity cutting Social Security or Medicare right now is the White House, the Biden administration. Over the last 2\1/2\ years, cuts to Medicare have totaled probably $40 billion in the part B drugs administered in physician's offices and $300 billion in Medicare Advantage, all done through the Inflation Reduction Act last year. The only people talking about cutting Medicare right now is the administration, and that is really what ought to be stopped.

Right now, that is not the business at hand. What we are discussing today are three important bills that are going to be considered on the floor. I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of the rule and in favor of the underlying bills.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, there are hearings going on right now in the Energy and Commerce Committee for the reauthorization of the SUPPORT Act.

The SUPPORT Act passed in 2017-2018 in that Congress. It was a broadly bipartisan bill. It was geared toward dealing with the problems that were occurring in this country because of an opiate crisis.

Largely, the source of these opiates were prescription drugs that were diverted to other uses, and the consequence was people taking a good overdose and in fact dying from prescription drugs that were actually diverted from their intended use.

Five years later, we are in the process of reauthorizing the SUPPORT Act. The SUPPORT Act actually functioned as intended, it did reduce some of those overdose deaths downward until we were hit with the pandemic, and obviously that changed a lot of things.

In that 5-year interval, this disease has changed. It is no longer prescription opiates that are diverted, it is fentanyl. It is fentanyl that is poisoning our young people. It is fentanyl that is pouring in from the southern border.

Look, I get it. You want to say it is only coming in at the ports of entry--that is what you catch. Our Customs and Border Protection are so overwhelmed with the numbers of people who are coming in at the invitation of the President and the Vice President, people are pouring across our border.

Customs and Border Protection cannot do their normal job. They are doing housekeeping chores, taking care of people who are ill, children who are arriving at their doorstep, and they have no choice but to take care of them.

In the meantime, all other areas of the surveillance are non vis because Customs and Border Protection are tied up with this vast increase of humanity that is coming in. The bottom line is as we reauthorize the SUPPORT Act now, we are actually dealing with a different disease because fentanyl poisoning has replaced opiate overdose.

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

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to the time remaining.

Mr. Speaker, I have no other speakers, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, isn't it interesting that thanks to House Republicans and their investigative efforts there was a settlement yesterday where a member of the President's family has agreed to pay his taxes that he hasn't been paying.

So that is a good thing that delivers money to the Treasury.

Oh, yes, about those background checks, it turns out a member of the President's family wasn't adhering to the background checks and the proper handling of a firearm.

So maybe we all learned something in that exchange over the last 24 hours.

I also want to correct a few things on the underlying bills. Association health plans, like all large employer plans, are required to cover preventative healthcare. This requirement includes covering women's preventative health services without cost sharing. In addition, all AHPs are required to cover pregnancy-related conditions and coverage of a minimal hospital stay after childbirth as mandated by the Affordable Care Act.

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act requires the plans to cover pregnancy, childbirth, and related conditions in the same manner as they cover other medical conditions under the association health plan.

The Newborns' and Mothers' Health Protection Act of 1996--that was about 10 years before the ACA--the Health Protection Act of 1996 requires large group association health plans to cover a hospital stay of at least 48 hours for a childbirth and at least 96 hours for a birth by caesarean delivery.

These are all requirements placed on large group employer-sponsored health plans. Expanding AHPs does not change these requirements. What it changes is making that valuable insurance available to more employees.

The CBO score that the gentleman referenced also had within it the notation that 200,000 people would be covered if this bill, the CHOICE Act, is enacted because insurance would not be as expensive for employers to provide and would give them more possibilities.

Here is probably the crux of that matter: 40,000 of these people have no insurance currently. So there will be 40,000 people moved from uninsured to insured by passing the CHOICE Act. I would say that is a good thing, and I think people would be supportive of that.

I do want to stress that it is important to support the rule and the underlying measures. I thank my colleagues for their diligence and hard work in bringing these important pieces of legislation to the floor today. The Republican majority has demonstrated, yet again, that we are putting forward a legislative agenda that works for all Americans and not just the well-connected few.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.J. Res. 45, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, 43 million Americans are eligible for President Biden's student loan relief. That is about 100,000 people, on average, in each of our districts.

Nearly 26 million borrowers in congressional districts all over the country have already applied for relief, including 16 million who had already been approved for relief prior to litigation stopping the process. H.J. Res. 45 seeks to deny these borrowers the relief that they were promised.

To be clear, the people who would be impacted are not the wealthy and well-connected. Mr. Speaker, 90 percent of the relief would go to borrowers earning less than $75,000 a year, and you are not even eligible if you are making more than $125,000. That is in stark contrast to the Trump tax scam where 80 percent of the benefits went to the

top 1 percent and corporations. For the top 1 percent, that is about half a million dollars.

Moreover, my Republican colleagues refuse to acknowledge the serious questions that have been raised about how the resolution would actually be implemented, because under a Congressional Review Act resolution, you don't pick and choose which parts of the rule you are overturning, you have to overturn the whole rule, including the pause in student payments and the deferral of interest.

Now, how do you unpause a payment that you were supposed to make many months ago? What is going to happen to all those interest payments that now have to be added back to those loans?

What happens to the credits that participants in the Public Service Loan Forgiveness program were promised during those months?

Are the firefighters and teachers and police officers and other public servants who may have already had their loans forgiven based on those credits, now back on the hook for additional payments?

The reality is that H.J. Res. 45 would trigger a wave of delinquencies and defaults for most of our vulnerable borrowers. Intentionally or not, this resolution would create chaos for borrowers and their families, as well as loan servicers. The Congressional Research Service has confirmed that this chaos would be triggered by the retroactive application of this rule.

Mr. Speaker, anyone in this country who wants to take advantage of the benefits of a college education should be able to do so, not just the wealthy few. That is the way it used to be.

Just several decades ago, the Pell grant covered 80 percent of the cost of attending a State college. Now it is less than 30 percent, and States are paying a much lower portion of the costs of State colleges than they used to.

This proposal does nothing to help students, so I strongly urge my colleagues to oppose the resolution.

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

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a letter from approximately 200 different organizations in opposition to this resolution.

May 8, 2023.

Hon. Chuck Schumer,

Majority Leader, U.S. Senate,

Washington, DC.

Hon. Kevin McCarthy,

Speaker, House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Hon. Mitch McConnell,

Minority Leader, U.S. Senate,

Washington, DC.

Hon. Hakeem Jeffries,

Democratic Leader, U.S. House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Leader Schumer, Minority Leader McConnell, Speaker

McCarthy, and Minority Leader Jeffries: The undersigned 261

organizations representing millions of students, workers,

people of color, veterans, people with disabilities,

consumers, and people of faith write in strong opposition to

bicameral efforts to use the Congressional Review Act (CRA)

to overturn President Biden's actions to pause student loan

payments and provide student debt relief for low-income and

working-class Americans continuing to recover from the deadly

COVID-19 pandemic and its devastating economic fallout.

In March, policymakers in the House and Senate unveiled a

CRA resolution to retroactively overturn the pause of federal

student loan payments and interest accrual, and President

Biden's debt relief plan. If successful, these CRA efforts

would immediately force tens of millions of borrowers into

abrupt and unplanned repayment with devastating effects,

including adding thousands of dollars of payments and

interest onto their loan balances. It will also force the

Department of Education to unwind loans forgiven under Public

Service Loan Forgiveness for first responders, nurses,

educators, servicemembers, and hundreds of thousands of other

public service workers across the country. These actions are

a clear attack on millions of the most vulnerable workers and

families who are still reeling from the devastating impact of

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Wilson), the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Higher Education and Workforce Development.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).

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

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

First, I include in the Record letters from the American Federation of Teachers, another letter from multiple unions including the National Education Association, the AFL-CIO and AFSCME, a letter from Minority Vets, a letter from UnidosUS and the National Urban League, a letter from Third Way, a letter from the National Council of Nonprofits, and a letter from 23 various medical organizations, all in opposition to the legislation.

American Federation of Teachers,

May 22, 2023.

House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Dear Representative: On behalf of the 1.7 million members

of the American Federation of Teachers, I strongly urge you

to reject H.J. Res. 45/S.J. Res. 22, a joint resolution

providing for congressional disapproval of the Biden

administration actions to support student loan borrowers that

were announced in August of last year.

This resolution would immediately force tens of millions of

borrowers into abrupt and unplanned repayment with

devastating effects, including adding thousands of dollars of

interest onto their loan balances. Proponents of the

resolution want you to believe that it is simply a method to

stop President Joe Biden's student debt cancellation of up to

$20,000 that would benefit 43 million borrowers, but the

implications are more severe. Passage of this resolution

would be particularly destructive for teachers, nurses,

servicemembers and firefighters eligible for Public Service

Loan Forgiveness.

This resolution would force the U.S. Department of

Education to unwind loans forgiven under Public Service Loan

Forgiveness for nurses, educators, servicemembers and

hundreds of thousands of other public service workers across

the country. Retroactively repealing months of the payment

pause initially authorized by the Trump administration would

have far greater implications than thwarting Biden's

cancellation plan. It would force teachers, veterans and

nurses who finally received Public Service Loan Forgiveness

to write a check back to the Department of Education. This

resolution would reinstate the debt of more than 150,000

public service workers. On the heels of the pandemic, forcing

a nurse to pay back debt that was legally forgiven under a

bipartisan law is cruel.

And the harm wouldn't stop there: More than 400,000

borrowers have received PSLF-qualifying payments under the

last payment pause of 2022, but this resolution would claw

back those benefits, setting back firefighters and educators'

eligibility for PSLF for many months.

The COVID-19 pandemic had a devastating impact on American

workers, many of whom were already struggling to make ends

meet.

Those workers' precarity and risk of delinquency on their

debt has severely worsened during the pandemic. Given the

long-term economic impacts of the pandemic, which continue to

drive workers out of public service, a permanent solution,

rather than a temporary deferment, is necessary.

And the law is clear: Student debt cancellation falls

squarely within the statutory authority Congress granted the

secretaIy in the HEROES Act. Cancellation will help ensure

that millions of people are not left in a ``worse position''

as to their loan payments due to the devastating COVID-19

pandemic.

Tens of millions of families are struggling under the yoke

of $1.7 trillion in student debt. They eagerly await the

breathing room that student debt relief would bring, and

those struggling to get by will benefit the most. The extra

consideration in debt cancellation for Pell recipients

focuses like a laser on people in need. Taking away relief

that has already been granted to borrowers--the moratorium on

payments and interest--while the legal challenge wends its

way through the courts, and retroactively making them pay

what they cannot afford, is cruel. These borrowers are

teachers, firefighters, nurses and so many other dedicated

workers. Their current student debt is a far greater burden

than the debt carried by those of us who went to college long

ago. This means they have little or no wealth to start a

family, buy a car or a house, or make other major life

decisions, and it undermines plans they responsibly made

based on the situation at the time.

Congress should be building on the Biden administration

actions, not undermining those actions. Throwing tens of

millions of student loan borrowers into chaos by

retroactively adding interest and missed payments to their

loan balances, while extending their student debt sentence,

would upend lives. That's the wrong decision. Congress must

oppose H.J. Res. 45/S.J. Res. 22.

Sincerely,

Randi Weingarten,

President, American Federation of Teachers.

Mr. Speaker, there are many challenges we have in higher education that demand our attention: the rising cost of college, student debt crisis, the eroded value of the Pell grant, student mental health issues, and the list goes on.

Instead, we are addressing this resolution which will hurt millions of student borrowers and their families; an average of about 100,000 in each of our districts.

Many of our colleagues on the other side have justified the resolution by arguing that we cannot afford the plan, yet ignoring that we were willing to charge taxpayers $1.9 trillion for a tax package a few years ago that overwhelmingly benefited the top 1 percent and corporations. Now they are unwilling to spend much less than that to help students pay for their education.

We should be passing proposals that meaningfully support borrowers and make college more affordable for current and future students. The bottom line is that we have a responsibility to strengthen support for those seeking college degrees. Those who want a degree should be able to access that opportunity.

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

Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott), the ranking member of the Committee on Education and the Workforce, pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume.

General Leave

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the veto message of H.J. Res. 45.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of overriding President Biden's veto of H.J. Res. 45, a Congressional Review Act resolution nullifying the Biden administration's attempt to circumvent the will of the Congress and the role of the Congress of the United States.

Mr. Speaker, President Biden's radical plan to cancel up to $20,000 in student debt via executive fiat is utter hogwash. The American people are not fooled by the deceptive, doctored-up talking points on student loans that the left has attempted to force-feed them over the past 2 years.

Appealing words like ``forgiveness'' have been cast around innumerable times as if to imply that a massive student loan bailout is the equivalent of a sweepstakes giveaway.

Here is a reality check for our colleagues across the aisle: There is no such thing as forgiveness.

This entire scheme is nothing more than a transfer of wealth from those who willingly took on debt to those who did not or had the grit to pay off their loans.

Two-thirds of this debt transfer plan would go to the top half of earners. It takes from those in the lower half of earners and gives to the upper half. It redistributes wealth, but from the bottom of our socioeconomic ladder to the top. The 87 percent of Americans who owe no Federal student debt are paying for the 13 percent who do.

Our colleagues on the other side of the aisle also claim that this transfer of wealth is about fairness. No, it is about sticking hardworking taxpayers with the tab and those who owe it walking away from it scot-free.

Mr. Speaker, if this is not the textbook definition of limousine liberalism, I don't know what it is.

What is more, according to the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, inflation could rise by as much as 27 basis points if mass student debt cancellation is implemented. That means we could see an additional two rate hikes by the Federal Reserve because of this inflationary policy alone.

To halt the biggest transfer of wealth from blue-collar workers to white-collar professionals in our Nation's history and to prevent any further extension of the student loan repayment pause, the House and Senate both passed H.J. Res. 45.

Following the President's predictable veto, this resolution comes before the House again. We must continue to take a stand and defend the interests of hardworking citizens. As the institution that holds the power of the purse, it is our responsibility to do so.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to cut through the political noise that the left continues to gin up about so-called student loan forgiveness and vote in favor of overriding the President's veto on H.J. Res. 45.

Fiscal responsibility must be given the due deference it deserves.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Good).

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

My colleagues have said that this is overdrawn in terms of the way the CRA was written, the Congressional Review Act was written, and that it does too much. It gets into too many other things other than simply turning back the President's proposal. It deals with the debt and repayment of debt and those kinds of things.

However, this CRA does not in any way tie the hands of Congress. It is up to us to pass the laws.

What it does do is stop unelected bureaucrats from writing laws in the form of rules to implement laws passed by Congress.

We didn't authorize the Department to do many of the things that it is doing. Congress did not do that, but it is doing many things.

The CRA will stop the President's actions and some of these other things that are happening. We have the authority to write legislation, to do whatever we want to. If we want to write legislation to take care of debt and to take care of interest rates, we can do that.

Forgive me, Mr. Speaker, for not crying crocodile tears along with my colleagues on the accessibility to college in this country. College in this country is accessible to anyone who has the capable skills to attend, or taxpayers covering the costs of college for many who can pay for themselves and many who simply take advantage of generous taxpayers by skipping out on their loans.

That is not what the help from taxpayers is supposed to do. It is supposed to help people gain a college education and go out there and be productive citizens, not renege on paying back their loans.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, the Biden administration is destroying the Federal student aid system that has balanced providing millions of students access to opportunities for post-secondary education while respecting the interest of taxpayers who fund these opportunities.

Democrats know their radical free college agenda won't make it through Congress, so instead they are forcing it down Americans' throats by executive fiat through the student loan program. Obfuscation about the details has allowed the department to tout alleged benefits without facing any scrutiny over the implications of these radical changes; however, the facts, which this administration has tried to push under the rug, prove its agenda is nothing more than an attempt to skirt the law and enact policies that would never pass Congress.

These actions will leave colleges free to continue increasing costs that greatly impact all American taxpayers. These policies deny any accountability to borrowers and evade any responsibility to help those students turn their degrees into a job.

Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``yes'' vote on the override of the President's veto, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I am appreciative of the courtesies of the chairwoman and the courtesies of the ranking member because I am a recipient of student loans.

As we proceed, the minimal amount that each person would get, in many instances, will be life-starting and life-igniting.

This is not about deadbeat persons. This is about the excessive overburdening of our students in the 21st century who have been enrolled in schools with excessive fees and tuition.

This was not bureaucrats making decisions. This was an analytic assessment of how heavy a burden it is on working persons with student debt. They were not able to make ends meet. Some were not able to purchase first homes. Some were not able to make payments on other necessities or raise their families.

I am disappointed that we are at this point of trying to undo the President's thoughtful effort at giving Americans, all Americans across this country, an opportunity to continue their economic growth, to use their education in the service of others. Many of these persons are teachers. Many of these persons are from middle-class working families who are simply trying not to be in debt, and to be responsible for the obligation that they had to make in order to be, in instances, the first person that ever went to college in their family.

Mr. Speaker, let me ask my colleagues to allow--in spite of court decisions, and this particular underlying motion--allow these people to begin their life and to contribute, contribute to the economic engine of this Nation.

These student loans were well invested because they are now, many of them, in the workforce.

I want to add another component. Sometimes in life there are hills and valleys. Many of these individuals may have had some difficulty, may have been unemployed for a period of time. If you talk to these young people, or individuals that have had this student debt who are not young people anymore, some crisis in their life prevented them from making these payments. Mr. Speaker, it topples them. It just doesn't give them a moment to breathe. It is not that they are trying to default on the United States of America or be a deadbeat. We will be better off to give them another lifeline so they can contribute to this society.

That is all this effort was. It was not frivolous. It was not selecting people who didn't want to pay. There was an application process, and it is a legitimate way of responding to the outcries of Americans and young people. Let us not approve this disapproval.