Schools Not Shelters Act

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

Mr. Speaker, with the two bills under consideration in today's rule, we have a striking example of the best and worst that this Chamber can produce.

The first bill reauthorizes the Federal Aviation Administration for another 5 years. That bill is the product of bipartisan negotiations between the members of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee. It was debated and amended in committee with the full participation of all members, Republicans and Democrats, and it passed out of that committee with unanimous support--unanimous support.

So this FAA bill is an example of how the legislative process can and should work when Members of Congress seek results and are willing to work together to address the interests of the American people.

The other bill in today's rule could not be more different. It is an unserious, hyper-partisan proposal from rightwing extremists designed to sow division and fear by pushing false narratives about immigrants and what is happening in our public schools.

In a truly bizarre twist for the party of small government, this bill would have the Federal Government dictating to our local governments and schools what they should do with their buildings.

All of this is done under the guise of solving a fake crisis manufactured by Republicans, both by sending migrants to cities run by Democrats in a failed attempt to score political points and, more importantly, by refusing to come to the table and genuinely address the critical need for substantive reforms to our immigration system.

If everyone would follow the lead of our colleagues on the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, and if our rightwing colleagues could drop the heated rhetoric and partisan nonsense, there are many solutions that Republicans and Democrats could work on together to serve the American people, and we would welcome that opportunity.

I will return to this point, Mr. Speaker, but first let's talk about the two bills.

H.R. 3935, the Securing Growth and Robust Leadership in American Aviation Act, will reauthorize the FAA for 5 years and make a variety of much-needed improvements to the laws governing aviation in the United States.

I am encouraged by many of the policy wins that Democrats achieved in the bill, including policies to increase funding for airport infrastructure, increase the scope of projects eligible for funding, hire more air traffic controllers, and grow the talent pipeline for hiring and training the next generation of pilots, mechanics, and aviation manufacturing workers.

This bill also takes some much-needed steps to improve the passenger experience. The bill requires airlines to reimburse passengers for hotel and meal costs when their flight is canceled or significantly delayed.

It requires airlines to allow families to sit together, and it requires airlines to make accommodations for passengers traveling with wheelchairs or other assistive devices, and to compensate those travelers if their property is damaged.

While this bill is good, it is far from perfect. I recognize that when you negotiate, Mr. Speaker, you don't always get what you want. However, Mr. Speaker, when you negotiate with this House Republican majority, it is not only that you don't get what you want, it is also that you get less than what is needed to actually fix the problem at hand.

Mr. Speaker, anyone who has taken a flight knows the sorry state of our Nation's airports. While our country was once First in Flight, our airports are now collectively second and third rate, and that is a policy choice by Congress.

Over the past 30 years, we have underfunded our airports, forcing them to get by on inadequate budgets and limited revenue streams. The result is crystal clear to anyone who flies: old, crowded airports, large backlogs in runway maintenance, and a passenger experience that is often unpleasant from the moment you try to check in, Mr. Speaker, until you arrive at your destination. We did hear a fair amount of commentary on that from our colleagues in the Rules Committee last night.

The passenger experience at many U.S. airports is eclipsed by virtually every other airport in Europe and Asia, and there is no good excuse for that.

Beyond the benefits of improving the flying experience for American travelers, having first-class airports should be a point of national pride. We are not putting our best foot forward when foreign tourists visit the United States, the richest country on Earth, and the first thing they experience is a crumbling, unattractive, and inefficient airport.

The Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act made a massive investment in our Nation's airports, and dozens of projects have broken ground as a result. However, the IIJA was a onetime investment and gives us about 5 years of boosted airport funding. We need to build on the success of that bill, not rest on our laurels and pretend that this short-term fix was a long-term solution to decades of underinvestment.

In addition, I would have liked to have seen stronger protections for workers and consumers. I strongly oppose the provision in the bill to raise the pilot retirement age to 67, and I would have liked to have seen reforms to organize and form a union and to hold the airlines accountable for junk fees, delays, and cancellations.

However, Mr. Speaker, again, I recognize that any bill of this sort is a compromise, and in a compromise you have to work with others who don't share your beliefs, and you can't always get your own way.

It is important to pass this bill in a timely way so that we are able to maintain and improve our aviation functions without a lapse.

Mr. Speaker, the other bill in today's rule is the so-called Schools Not Shelters Act or, as one of my colleagues called it, the defund our schools act.

This bill is a monumental waste of the House's time and taxpayer dollars.

It is nothing more than an attempt by House Republicans to double down on their demonization of immigrants. The House had this same debate last month when Republicans brought to the floor a poorly drafted and fact-free resolution to the same effect.

Now they have turned that resolution into a bill so they can continue their failed efforts to sow fear of immigrants in order to score political points. This bill does nothing to address the needs of communities facing an influx of migrant families or to solve the problems facing our schools. It is nothing more than another vehicle to create division and stoke culture wars because that is the point.

Starting with the last administration, rightwing Republicans at the State and Federal level have abused migrant families and children fleeing poverty and violence to manufacture a crisis using them as pawns to score points.

For example, if Greg Abbott, the Governor of Texas, was genuinely unable to safely shelter migrants, he could have reached out in good faith to State and local leaders around the country to collaborate on solutions instead of shipping migrant families to those places without any notice or coordination.

He could have reached out to the Biden administration for additional resources, and he could have come to Congress and asked for emergency funding.

Instead, when faced with all those options, Governor Abbott decided to mislead or trick migrants and ship them to other parts of the country with no coordination or communication to the receiving communities.

One of the destinations chosen by Governor Abbott, and Governor DeSantis as well, was Philadelphia. I met some of those migrant families last winter. During the week between Christmas and New Year's when temperatures were at or below freezing, they sent buses of families and children to Philadelphia. These families arrived in T- shirts and sandals. They had no jacket and no gloves, and they were dropped off on the street at 6 a.m. and in the middle of the night.

If not for the mercy and decency of our city officials, charities, churches, and advocates, those poor souls would have been left on the street in the middle of winter.

These are human beings. These are families with children. They are people escaping horrors that apparently our colleagues can't even imagine. I still struggle to process the willingness of those Republican Governors to harm people and the willingness of our colleagues to enable them.

While those Republican Governors thought that everyone shared their contempt and disregard for the humanity of these families, they were dead wrong. All over the country, the cities that have received these migrants did so with open arms and worked in unison with their faith communities, with volunteers, and with advocates to find solutions rather than to inflict further harm.

They refused to play this sick game. They welcomed the migrants with compassion. I continue to be inspired by the fundamental decency and kindness of the Americans who mobilized to help migrants come to our shores yearning to breathe free, as we have throughout our American history.

We are the country we are today because of the innumerable contributions of immigrants from all over the world. So instead of debating rightwing messaging bills to posture for the Republicans' extremist base, we should be using our time to pass a clear, legal, and efficient path to work, residency, and citizenship.

We need to pass the American Dream and Promise Act again to provide Dreamers with a pathway to citizenship. However, our colleagues are not offering solutions to our immigration challenges, they are just offering complaints. They don't have a single, serious proposal for how we can address the needs of our immigration system.

It is particularly galling that they have tried to reframe their active mistreatment of migrant families as a threat to public schoolchildren calling to defund public schools in retaliation against local governments for addressing the mess that Governor Abbott created.

As my colleague, Mr. Neguse, pointed out in the Rules Committee hearing last night, the House majority has made clear its priorities: pushing unserious bills like this anti-immigrant bill while failing to address the actual issues facing our public schools, including teacher pay, student achievement gaps, gun violence, and hunger--daily hunger-- for schoolchildren.

Later this week when Republicans host their press conference to celebrate passage of this bill, all these problems will still exist.

Mr. Speaker, I look forward to passage of the FAA reauthorization later this week, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I am so sorry my colleague across the aisle

misunderstood me. The fake crisis I was referring to was the crisis that this defund our schools bill is seeking to address, which is the use of active public school buildings to house migrants.

That is a fake crisis. It is actually not happening across the country, and it was brought up only after the Texas Governor sent migrant families unannounced to New York State.

Obviously, we have an issue with the amount of migration occurring throughout our hemisphere and the impact on our communities. I would gladly work with anyone to make sure that all of our communities, whether in Texas or New York or Philadelphia or Martha's Vineyard or anywhere across our country have the resources they need to feed and clothe the hungry and unsheltered people in those communities.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Barragan).

Mr. Speaker, as I suggested, this is just about rightwing messaging, pushing a false narrative that anybody is advocating for an open border--they aren't--while still refusing to come to grips with what do we do with the people who come here? What do we do with the people who are here?

If there are solutions, we would love to work together on them. One of them appears to be providing enough resources for our communities to feed and house folks.

Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to provide for consideration of a resolution which unequivocally states that it is the House's duty to keep our sacred promise to American workers and seniors to protect and preserve Social Security and Medicare and reject any cuts to those essential programs.

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 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Escobar) to discuss this proposal.

Mr. Speaker, I find myself in complete agreement that we should be addressing the actual issues, like student achievement, that are impacting our students, but, obviously, this bill does none of that.

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 an additional 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from New Mexico.

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

As I was listening to some of the prior speakers, I started to understand why we have this defund the schools bill before us today. It is based upon a whole bunch of misunderstandings.

The idea that migrants who are in the position where they are potentially being housed in our communities, these folks have, in fact, been vetted by our immigration agencies.

Second of all, no Federal school funding can be used for that purpose. That funding is already restricted, and if it were to be used for the purpose of housing migrants, it could be immediately clawed back.

Again, this is a bill that accomplishes nothing and is based on a series of alternative facts, and I strongly urge that we reject it and the rule.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, we heard the gentleman describing parents of schoolchildren being frightened, upset, and agitated because their school needs, their education needs, their needs for food or remedial education, are not being met.

I remind my colleagues that they hold the majority. They are able to bring forward those bills and have the committee work to address those needs, but, again, the bill before us today does none of that.

We would love to work together in a bipartisan manner, as the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee has done, to present a really good, forward-looking bill to address our Nation's aviation needs. We would just like to extend that ability to work on solutions, as opposed to culture wars, throughout the work before us for the good of the people.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, what we are seeing this week is a tale of two Congresses, one that is capable of working across the aisle to solve real problems but one that is increasingly held hostage by forces more interested in culture wars and punching down on vulnerable people to score political points.

I ask my House colleagues, again, to follow the example set by the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee as well as the House Armed Services Committee. I think this building and our country work a lot better when Members put their heads down and work on solutions to the problems facing the country. I would like to think there are many Members in both parties who would agree with that view. However, we learned a lot last week from Kevin McCarthy and the most extreme members of the Republican Party.

Since the first day of the 118th Congress, particularly on the Rules Committee, we have heard countless lofty speeches from our Republican colleagues about the need for more transparency in our processes, for more amendments to be considered on the floor, for more debate, and for more rank-and-file Members to have their priorities considered by the whole House.

Last week, House Republicans had the chance to stand behind those words and instead blocked over 1,000 amendments submitted to the NDAA.

Today's rule and the amendments allowed on it were negotiated behind closed doors--not between Democrats and Republicans but between Republicans and the most extreme members of that party.

Next week, Kevin McCarthy has already signaled that he is abandoning his commitment to consider appropriations legislation under an open rule.

It has become increasingly clear what the real deal is. It is an open rule for the rightwing Freedom Caucus and a closed rule for everyone else, including many Republicans who do not endorse the chaos and antidemocratic impulses pushed by the far-right members of their party.

Despite the griping about regular order and empowering individual Members, this Congress remains enthralled by a power grab--plain and simple--by the most extreme members of the Republican majority.

We can now expect Speaker McCarthy to fold at the first sight of trouble, meaning that the House is now run by its loudest and most extreme Members.

Beyond being an embarrassing way to run a democratic institution, this arrangement only serves to weaken the House and all but guarantees that the Senate will jam us on big legislation like appropriations, the NDAA, and the FAA reauthorization.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak in strong opposition to the Rule for H.R. 3941, ``Schools Not Shelters Act of 2023''.

This bill is an absurd measure to condemn the use of elementary and secondary school facilities that provide shelter for people caught up in emergencies, just like we do for other disasters.

Using the facilities of a public elementary or secondary school to provides shelter for non-U.S. nationals who are not admitted into the United States should not be politicized, as this is humanitarian issue and failure of our broken immigration system.

As a Member on the Homeland Security committee, and more specifically the Border Security and Enforcement subcommittee, I interact with those at the border and migrants frequently.

I believe that a comprehensive approach is needed to find a lasting solution to the current immigration crisis.

However, I think it is essential that migrants are brought and allowed into the country through legal immigration.

I am a strong proponent of humanitarian aid efforts in the immigration context, from preventing the breakup of individual families because of a wrongful deportation to ensuring that victims of civil wars and national disasters around the globe receive a temporary protected status under the U.S. immigration laws.

We should not condemn the use of public elementary or secondary schools provide shelter for non-U.S. nationals who are not admitted into the United States.

I acknowledge that school are places of learning and development for students, but there are time periods when school campuses are not being used, such as during school breaks.

Because of this, the space could be used for humanitarian aid purposes, such as allowing migrants to stay there while they wait for legal processing and paperwork to conclude.

Other exceptions need to be reviewed, such as whether migrants could stay at schools when school is in-session, but humanitarian aid should not be overlooked in the immigration context.

As a leading country on the global stage, it is our duty and responsibility to assist who we can in a legal manner.

More importantly when it comes to schools in America, we should be addressing critical issues that are truly impacting our educational system--namely, the hostile state takeovers of majority-minority school districts--as is what is happening in my district with the Texas Education Agency takeover of the Houston Independent School District.

State takeovers in other districts have led to school closures, layoffs, and no improvements in test scores.

The vast majority of school districts that have been taken over by state agencies (TEA included) have not improved but declined.

With data ranging back to the late 1980s, researchers found that most state takeovers don't translate to academic improvements.

We have to stop the State from intermeddling and overstepping into our educational systems--causing further harm and damage to our communities,

That is why I have called upon President Biden and the Department of Education to investigate and take immediate I action to address the recent systematic and dangerous efforts underway by state and local officials in Texas seeking to undermine and undo decades of civils rights protections and advancements in educational institutions and student populations.

And so, I am here today to say that these are the issues that the American people truly care about and want us to be fighting for, for the protection and preservation of their educational rights .

Emergency response agencies have always used school facility sheltering to provide emergency services to affected individuals and communities; the use of these facilities as a

temporary shelter for migrants puts no students in danger.

These school facilities have always been used as emergency shelters during disasters such as weather-related events.

No colleges or public K-12 schools should lose federal funding because they provide temporary relief to migrants.

If Republicans are really concerned about measures needed to ensure school safety, they should support all measures that address gun violence prevention and mental health issues.

If my colleagues genuinely want to address students' safety, they should join with us to focus on the real causes of violent deaths in our country--guns.

Gun violence is decimating our families and communities--mass shootings in schools, places of worship, shopping malls, concerts, and urban neighborhoods.

A majority of Americans, including parents, teachers, students, and educational workers support common sense and meaningful actions that address the surging violence in our schools and colleges.

All that this bill does is to punish schools that Republicans think are helping migrants.

By singling out emergency use for migrants, this bill is only about Republicans' continuous opposition to any effort that provides support for the migrant community.

That is why I had offered the following amendments to be considered by the Rules Committee:

Jackson Lee Amendment 13 would simply prevent the enactment of H.R. 3941 until we actually address and enact comprehensive immigration reform in the United States such that the Federal immigration system operates efficiently and offers a fair, humane, and orderly pathway to citizenship.

Jackson Lee Amendment 15 would also prevent enactment of this bill until my bill the ``Grant Relief for American Children's Elevation (GRACE) Act of 2023'' is implemented such that the ``exceptional and extremely unusual hardship'' term as defined in Section 240A(b) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 12229b(b)) is amended, to include hardship resulting from separating a family member who is a United States citizen, a lawful permanent resident or an individual lawfully admitted to the United States and a family member who is subject to deportation or removal from the United States.

A study on Facts and Fictions of Race and Family in U.S. Immigration Policy found that the United States governing framework of family sponsorship is rooted in the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965, also known as the Hart-Celler Act.

The act eliminated the 1924 national origins quotas while maintaining the principle of numerical restriction by specifying annual caps as well as per-country limits on immigration.

Under the act, ``immediate family,'' specifically spouses, minor children, and the parents of U.S. citizens, are admitted without numerical quotas.

After that, there is a system of hierarchical preferences in which the claims of U.S. citizens are placed above those of legal permanent residents.

There is also a ranking of the family relationship that is based on assessments of familial proximity and of age, especially in the case of parents and children.

The dominant political narrative of the 1965 act at the time of its passage was one of national values, family unity, and the American commitment to ending racial discrimination.

However, according to the Washington Post, the Trump administration's immigration policies separated more than 5,400 children from their families, sending families to Mexico to await the chance to make asylum claims and seeking the chance to detain children indefinitely.

My amendment, the ``Grant Relief for American Children's Elevation Act'' or ``GRACE Act,'' would amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to establish certain family separation as an exceptional and extremely unusual hardship.

The American Academy of Pediatrics has noted that ``highly stressful experiences, like family separation, can cause irreparable harm, disrupting a child's brain architecture and affecting his or her short- and long-term health.

This type of prolonged exposure to serious stress--known as toxic stress--can carry lifelong consequences for children.''

Just last year, two pediatricians wrote in the Houston Chronicle that ``this kind of stress makes children susceptible to acute and chronic conditions such as extreme anxiety, depression, posttraumatic stress disorder, hypertension and heart disease.''

As we take into consideration the long term negative psychological effects of family separation as the result of immigration, it becomes abundantly clear that we cannot move forward until this cycle is stopped.

As a Member on the Homeland Security committee, and more specifically the Border Security and Enforcement subcommittee, I interact with those at the border and migrants frequently.

I believe that a comprehensive approach is needed to find a lasting solution to the current immigration crisis.

However, I think it is essential that migrants are brought and allowed into the country through legal immigration.

Under the Jackson Lee Amendment 15, the Immigration and Nationality Act would have no longer subjected human beings to extreme trauma by separating a family member who is a United States citizen, a lawful permanent resident, or an individual lawfully admitted to the United States and a family member who is subject to deportation or removal from the United States.

And the Jackson Lee Amendment 16 strikes one word--``not'' from Sect. 2(a) such that it reads as follows:

In General.--As a condition on receipt of Federal financial assistance under applicable program by a public elementary school, a public secondary school, or an institution of higher education, the facilities of the school or institution may [not] be used to provide shelter or housing for specified aliens.

Thus, my amendment strikes the very language preventing the use of school facilities for the purpose of providing shelter or housing to individuals as defined by section 101(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)) who has not been admitted (as so defined).

I am a strong proponent of humanitarian aid efforts in the immigration context, from preventing the breakup of individual families because of a wrongful deportation to ensuring that victims of civil wars and national disasters around the globe receive a temporary protected status under the U.S. immigration laws.

We should not condemn the use of public elementary or secondary schools to provide shelter for non-U.S. nationals who are not admitted into the United States.

Whenever appropriate, space in our schools should be made available for humanitarian aid purposes, such as allowing migrants to stay there while they wait for processing and paperwork to conclude their legal residency status.

Other exceptions need to be reviewed, such as whether migrants could stay at schools when school is in session, but humanitarian aid should not be overlooked in the immigration context.

As a leading country on the global stage, it is our duty and responsibility to assist who we can in a legal manner.

More importantly, when it comes to schools in America, we should be addressing critical issues that are truly impacting our educational system--namely, the hostile state takeovers of majority-minority school districts--as is what is happening in my district with the Texas Education Agency takeover of the Houston Independent School District.

State takeovers in other districts have led to school closures, layoffs, and no improvements in test scores.

The vast majority of school districts that have been taken over by state agencies (TEA included) have not improved but declined.

With data ranging back to the late 1980s, researchers found that most state takeovers don't translate to academic improvements.

Republicans provide no evidence that the academic progress of students is negatively impacted simply by attending a school which houses migrants.

H.R. 3941 is distractive, it is uninformed, it is pointless, provocative, inflammatory, and at best, an absolute waste of time.

Using the facilities of a public elementary or secondary school to provide shelter for non-U.S. nationals who are not admitted into the United States should not be politicized, as this is a humanitarian issue and failure of our broken immigration system.

Instead of denying innocent people temporary humanitarian relief we should focus on stopping the State from meddling in and overstepping the boundaries of our educational systems--causing further harm and damage to our communities.

Lastly, the Jackson Lee Amendment 19 was offered to add the word ``freeze'' to be included in the definition of ``specified disaster''.

This definition is particularly important to signify the dangers of deadly and disastrous weather conditions without snow.

In February 2012, my home state of Texas experienced an unprecedented deep freeze that crippled our state as temperatures dropped to as low as six degrees.

The freeze triggered the worst energy infrastructure failure in Texas state history, leading to shortages of water, food, and heat.

More than 4.5 million homes and businesses were left without power, some for several days and at least 246 people were killed directly or indirectly, with some estimates as high as 702 killed during the crisis.

These Jackson Lee Amendments 13, 15, 16, and 19 would have ensured that unaccompanied minors and migrants in need of temporary relief may be provided emergency shelter or housing using institutional facilities where appropriate.

It is a shame that we not made in order, and that we here with such an offensive and counterproductive bill, and that we are spending time on ineffective efforts instead of focusing on real immigration reform and resolutions for our nation's broken pathways for citizenship.

The text of the material previously referred to by Ms. Scanlon is as follows:

An Amendment to H. Res. 597 Offered by Ms. Scanlon of Pennsylvania

At the end of the resolution, add the following:

Sec. 6. Immediately upon adoption of this resolution, the

House shall proceed to the consideration in the House of the

resolution (H. Res. 178) affirming the House of

Representatives' commitment to protect and strengthen Social

Security and Medicare. The resolution shall be considered as

read. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on

the resolution and preamble to adoption without intervening

motion or demand for division of the question except one hour

of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and

ranking minority member of the Committee on Ways and Means or

their respective designees.

Sec. 7. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the consideration of

H. Res. 178.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak in strong opposition to H.R. 3941, ``Schools Not Shelters Act of 2023''.

This bill is an absurd measure to condemn the use of elementary and secondary school facilities that provide shelter for people caught up in emergencies, just like we do for other disasters.

Using the facilities of a public elementary or secondary school to provides shelter for non-U.S. nationals who are not admitted into the United States should not be politicized, as this is humanitarian issue and failure of our broken immigration system.

As a Member on the Homeland Security committee, and more specifically the Border Security and Enforcement subcommittee, I interact with those at the border and migrants frequently.

I believe that a comprehensive approach is needed to find a lasting solution to the current immigration crisis.

However, I think it is essential that migrants are brought and allowed into the country through legal immigration.

I am a strong proponent of humanitarian aid efforts in the immigration context, from preventing the breakup of individual families because of a wrongful deportation to ensuring that victims of civil wars and national disasters around the globe receive a temporary protected status under the U.S. immigration laws.

We should not condemn the use of public elementary or secondary schools provide shelter for non-U.S. nationals who are not admitted into the United States.

I acknowledge that school are places of learning and development for students, but there are time periods when school campuses are not being used, such as during school breaks.

Because of this, the space could be used for humanitarian aid purposes, such as allowing migrants to stay there while they wait for legal processing and paperwork to conclude.

Other exceptions need to be reviewed, such as whether migrants could stay at schools when school is in-session, but humanitarian aid should not be overlooked in the immigration context.

As a leading country on the global stage, it is our duty and responsibility to assist who we can in a legal manner.

More importantly when it comes to schools in America, we should be addressing critical issues that are truly impacting our educational system--namely, the hostile state takeovers of majority-minority school district--as is what is happening in my district with the Texas Education Agency takeover of the Houston Independent School District.

State takeovers in other districts have led to school closures, layoffs, and no improvements in test scores.

The vast majority of school districts that have been taken over by state agencies (TEA included) have not improved but declined.

With data ranging back to the late 1980s, researchers found that most state takeovers don't translate to academic improvements.

We have to stop the State from intermeddling and overstepping into our educational systems--causing further harm and damage to our communities.

That is why I have called upon President Biden and the Department of Education to investigate and take immediate action to address the recent systematic and dangerous efforts underway by state and local officials in Texas seeking to undermine and undo decades of civil rights protections and advancements in educational institutions and student populations.

And so, I am here today to say that these are the issues that the American people truly care about and want us to be fighting for, for the protection and preservation of their educational rights.

Emergency response agencies have always used school facility sheltering to provide emergency services to affected individuals and communities; the use of these facilities as a temporary shelter for migrants puts no students in danger.

These school facilities have always been used as emergency shelters during disasters such as weather-related events.

No colleges or public K-12 schools should lose federal funding because they provide temporary relief to migrants.

If Republicans are really concerned about measure needed to ensure school safety, they should support all measures that address gun violence prevention and mental health issues.

If my colleagues genuinely want to address students' safety, they should join with us to focus on the real causes of violent deaths in our country--guns.

Gun violence is decimating our families and communities--mass shootings in schools, places of worship, shopping malls, concerts, and urban neighborhoods.

A majority of Americans, including parents, teachers, students, and educational workers support common sense and meaningful actions that address the surging violence in our schools and I colleges.

All that this bill does is to punish schools that Republicans think are helping migrants.

By singling out emergency use for migrants, this bill is only about Republicans' continuous opposition to any effort that provides support for the migrant community.

That is why I had offered the following amendments to be considered by the Rules Committee:

Jackson Lee Amendment 13 would simply prevent the enactment of H.R. 3941 until we actually address and enact comprehensive immigration reform in the United States such that the Federal immigration system operates efficiently and offers a fair, humane, and orderly pathway to citizenship.

Jackson Lee Amendment 15 would also prevent enactment of this bill until, my bill the ``Grant Relief for American Children's Elevation (GRACE) Act of 2023'' is implemented such that the ``exceptional and extremely unusual hardship'' term as defined in Section 240A(b) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 12229b(b)) is amended, to include hardship resulting from separating a family member who is a United States citizen, a lawful permanent resident or an individual lawfully admitted to the United States and a family member who is subject to deportation or removal from the United States.

A study on Facts and Fictions of Race and Family in U.S. Immigration Policy found that the United States governing framework of family sponsorship is rooted in the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965, also known as the Hart-Celler Act.

The act eliminated the 1924 national origins quotas while maintaining the principle of numerical restriction by specifying annual caps as well as per-country limits on immigration.

Under the act, ``immediate family,'' specifically spouses, minor children, and the parents of U.S. citizens, are admitted without numerical quotas.

After that, there is a system of hierarchical preferences in which the claims of U.S. citizens are placed above those of legal permanent residents.

There is also a ranking of the family relationship that is based on l assessments of familial proximity and of age, especially in the caseof parents and children.

The dominant political narrative of the 1965 act at the time of its passage was one of national values, family unity, and the American commitment to ending racial discrimination.

However, according to the Washington Post, the Trump administration's immigration policies separated more than 5,400 children from their families, sending families to Mexico to await the chance to make asylum claims and seeking the chance to detain children indefinitely.

My amendment, the ``Grant Relief for American Children's Elevation Act'' or ``GRACE Act,'' would amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to establish certain family separation as an exceptional and extremely unusual hardship.

The American Academy of Pediatrics has noted that ``highly stressful experiences, like family separation, can cause irreparable harm, disrupting a child's brain architecture and affecting his or her short- and long-term health.

This type of prolonged exposure to serious stress--known as toxic stress--can carry lifelong consequences for children.''

Just last year, two pediatricians wrote in the Houston Chronicle that ``this kind of stress makes children susceptible to acute and chronic conditions such as extreme anxiety, depression, post-traumatic stress disorder, hypertension and heart disease.''

As we take into consideration the long term negative psychological effects of family separation as the result of immigration, it becomes abundantly clear that we cannot move forward until this cycle is stopped.

As a Member on the Homeland Security committee, and more specifically the Border Security and Enforcement subcommittee, I interact with those at the border and migrants frequently.

I believe that a comprehensive approach is needed to find a lasting solution to the current immigration crisis.

However, I think it is essential that migrants are brought and allowed into the country through legal immigration.

Under the Jackson Lee Amendment, 15, the Immigration and Nationality Act would have no longer subjected human beings to extreme trauma by separating a family member who is a United States citizen, a lawful permanent resident, or an individual lawfully admitted to the United States and a family member who is subject to deportation or removal from the United States.

And the Jackson Lee Amendment 16 strikes one word--``not'' from Sect. 2(a) such that it reads as follows:

In General:--As a condition on receipt of Federal financial assistance under applicable program by a public elementary school, a public secondary school, or an institution of higher education, the facilities of the school or institution may be used to provide shelter or housing for specified aliens.

Thus, my amendment strikes the very language preventing the use of school facilities for the purpose of providing shelter or housing to individuals as defined by section 101(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)) who has not been admitted (as so defined).

I am a strong proponent of humanitarian aid efforts in the immigration context, from preventing the breakup of individual families because of a wrongful deportation to ensuring that victims of civil wars and national disasters around the globe receive a temporary protected status under the U.S. immigration laws.

We should not condemn the use of public elementary or secondary schools provide shelter for non-U.S. nationals who are not admitted into the United States.

Whenever appropriate, space in our schools should be made available for humanitarian aid purposes, such as allowing migrants to stay there while they wait for processing and paperwork to conclude their legal residency status.

Other exceptions need to be reviewed, such as whether migrants could stay at schools when school is in session, but humanitarian aid should not be overlooked in the immigration context.

As a leading country on the global stage, it is our duty and responsibility to assist who we can in a legal manner.

More importantly, when it comes to schools in America, we should be addressing critical issues that are truly impacting our educational system--namely, the hostile state takeovers of majority-minority school districts--as is what is happening in my district with the Texas Education Agency takeover of the Houston Independent School District.

State takeovers in other districts have led to school closures, layoffs, and no improvements in test scores.

The vast majority of school districts that have been taken over by state agencies (TEA included) have not improved but declined.

With data ranging back to the late 1980s, researchers found that most state takeovers don't translate to academic improvements.

Republicans provide no evidence that the academic progress of students are negatively

impacted simply by attending a school which houses migrants.

H.R. 3941 is distractive, it is uninformed, it is pointless, provocative, inflammatory, and at best, an absolute waste of time.

Using the facilities of a public elementary or secondary school to provides shelter for non-U.S. nationals who are not admitted into the United States should not be politicized, as this is humanitarian issue and failure of our broken immigration system.

Instead of denying innocent people temporary humanitarian relief we should focus on stopping the State from meddling in and overstepping the boundaries our educational systems--causing further harm and damage to our communities.

Lastly, the Jackson Lee Amendment 19 was offered to add the word ``freeze'' to be included in the definition of ``specified disaster''.

This definition is particularly important to signify the dangers of deadly and disastrous weather conditions without snow.

In February 2012, my home state of Texas experienced an unprecedented deep freeze that crippled our state as temperatures dropped to as low as six degrees.

The freeze triggered the worst energy infrastructure failure in Texas state history, leading to shortages of water, food, and heat.

More than 4.5 million homes and businesses were left without power, some for several days and at least 246 people were killed directly or indirectly, with some estimates as high as 702 killed during the crisis.

These Jackson Lee Amendments 13, 15, 16, and 19 would have ensured that unaccompanied minors and migrants in need of temporary relief may be provided emergency shelter or housing using institutional facilities where appropriate.

It is a shame that we not made in order, and that we here with such an offensive and counterproductive bill, and that we are spending time on ineffective efforts instead of focusing on real immigration reform and resolutions for our nation's broken pathways for citizenship.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H. Res. 597, the rule providing for consideration of the reauthorization bill for the Federal Aviation Administration, H.R. 3935.

The rule blocks a large number of amendments that would make important reforms, including two germane amendments I offered that are critical to ensuring the Transportation Security Administration can continue to carry out its mission to secure aviation.

The first amendment would add the text of my legislation, the ``Fund the TSA Act'' (H.R. 3394).

TSA is facing major budget challenges as it works to implement essential reforms to pay and labor rights for its workforce.

That amendment would provide TSA with the funding it needs by making a modest increase to passenger security fees and ending the diversion of fee collections from TSA's coffers.

The other amendment would add the text of my ``Rights for the TSA Workforce Act'' from the 117th Congress.

For too long, TSA workers have labored under unfair working conditions and on little pay, leading to low morale and high attrition.

Though the Biden-Harris Administration has thankfully taken action to address those disparities, the ongoing changes must be codified to ensure their permanence.

My amendment would do so by putting that workforce under the same personnel management system used by most Federal agencies.

TSA's security efforts underlie the entire aviation system, so as we work to reauthorize the FAA and modernize that aviation system, it is a shame that Republicans' Leadership refuses to allow this body to consider desperately needed changes to support the TSA.

Additionally, I am concerned that the rule precludes consideration of a bipartisan amendment submitted by the gentleman from Michigan, Congressman Bergman, to keep the retirement age of pilots at 65.

The current retirement age conforms with international standards, and Congress should maintain it to ensure the continued safety of aviation passengers.

Finally, I have strong concerns with section 813 of the underlying bill, and this rule does nothing to address those concerns.

Section 813 would severely weaken the existing regime for applying temporary flight restrictions to protect major sports events across the country.

Since the FAA established flight restrictions over open-air stadiums after the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, they have helped protect millions upon millions of Americans attending large-scale events, with minimal disruptions to general aviation.

Section 813 risks undermining this long-successful security program by introducing a broad, complex, and unnecessary waiver program for aircraft, including drones, to fly near, over, and above crowded stadiums.

To the extent some may have concerns regarding scheduling conflicts between sporting events and airshows, a much more tailored solution could be developed.

As it stands, section 813 degrades homeland security, and I oppose its inclusion in the bill.

I include in the Record a letter from the National Football League, Major League Baseball, the National Association for Stock Car Auto Racing, and the National Collegiate Athletic Association expressing opposition to section 813.

I also include a Statement of Administration Policy from the Biden- Harris Administration, which states the following: ``While the Administration supports the goal of providing accessibility to and public use of the national airspace, it is concerned that provisions proposed in the bill could introduce unnecessary risks to those attending major sporting events if the effectiveness of safety and security buffers currently provided by temporary flight restrictions were to be decreased. To the extent that the proposed provisions are intended to accommodate airshows, the Administration urges the Congress to consider alternative methods to deconflict airshows and major sports events rather than potentially put aviation operations in close proximity to events attended by millions of Americans each year.''

With that, I urge my colleagues to oppose H. Res. 597.

July 18, 2023.

Dear Members of Congress:

We write to urge you to oppose the weakening of a law that

protects the millions of sports fans and spectators who

attend professional and collegiate sporting events each year.

The current statutory ban on aircraft--including unmanned

aircraft systems (``UAS'') or drones--flying over large

stadium sporting events throughout the country provides

necessary safety and security protections against real and

potential threats.

We are deeply concerned about section 813 of the House

version of the Federal Aviation Administration (``FAA'')

Reauthorization Act. If adopted, the language would establish

a broad and complex waiver program that would permit

countless aircraft to fly near and over stadiums during

games, putting millions of fans at risk, and unnecessarily

so. Congress wisely eliminated a similar waiver program back

in 2003, after discovering troubling and persistent failures,

gaps, and vulnerabilities in the process for conducting

background checks and issuing waivers.

The FAA first established flight restrictions over large

stadium sporting events immediately following the terrorist

attacks of September 11, 2001, in response to concerns about

terrorists using aircraft as weapons. Congress subsequently

twice codified and strengthened these restrictions, providing

specific criteria for aircraft operations permitted within

the flight restricted area. Section 813 would effectively

eliminate the specific criteria and replace it with an open-

ended waiver program.

The long-standing, congressionally mandated flight

restriction enhances the safety and security of large stadium

events, while minimizing the disruption to the National

Airspace System (``NAS''). Specifically, airspace over large

stadiums--with a seating capacity of 30,000 people or more

and where a NFL, MLB, and NCAA Division 1 football games or

major motor speedway events, such as NASCAR and INDYCAR

races, are taking place--is closed to all aircraft from one

hour before until one hour after a major sporting event. The

flight restrictions extend to three nautical miles from the

center of the stadium and from the surface to 3,000 feet

above the stadium. The flight restrictions do not apply to

authorized aircraft, such as Department of Defense, law

enforcement or air ambulance flight operations, or those in

contact with air traffic control for take offs and landings

at nearby airports, among others.

Having devoted substantial resources to secure our stadiums

on the ground, we regard the stadium flight restriction as

essential to safeguarding the airspace overhead. Moreover,

given the proliferation of UAS in our NAS, as well as the

continuing need to remain vigilant to other current and

emerging risks, the stadium flight restriction is as vital

now as ever to our national security and public safety. We

believe section 813 complicates the airspace over stadiums,

compromises public safety and security, and courts potential

disaster.

We, therefore, urge you to uphold current law and maintain

existing flight restrictions that protect the safety and

security of millions of fans who attend large stadium

sporting events every year.

Sincerely,

Cathy Lanier,

Chief Security Officer, National Football League.

David Thomas,

Vice President, Security and Ballpark Operations, Major

League Baseball.

Bill Rhodes,

Managing Director, Security, National Association for Stock

Car Auto Racing.

Dan Gavitt,

Senior Vice President, National Collegiate Athletic

Association.

Statement of Administration Policy

H.R. 3935--Securing Growth and Robust Leadership in American Aviation

Act

The Administration supports enactment of a Federal Aviation

Administration (FAA) reauthorization bill and applauds the

bipartisan work of the House Transportation and

Infrastructure Committee. The Administration is focused on

ensuring that the aviation sector works well for the American

people, and reauthorizing the FAA in a timely manner will

help achieve that goal. H.R. 3935, the Securing Growth and

Robust Leadership in American Aviation Act, would enhance

aviation safety; invest in, and improve on-the-job safety

for, our aviation workforce; integrate into the national

airspace system new entrants such as Advanced Air Mobility

and Commercial Space operators; strengthen passenger rights;

and improve our aviation infrastructure.

The Administration looks forward to working with the

Congress to address the Administration's concerns with this

legislation, a number of which are outlined below.

Protection of Aviation Consumer Rights and Promotion of

Competition. The Administration is strongly committed to

protecting the rights of aviation consumers and promoting

competition in the aviation industry. The Administration

opposes provisions in the bill that would reverse important

gains made by this Administration to combat junk fees in the

airline industry and would eliminate longstanding consumer

protections. The Administration believes that the disclosure

requirements currently in place for passenger tickets are

necessary to help consumers comparison shop for a ticket. The

Administration encourages the Congress to include the

Administration's proposals to expand consumer protections by

banning family seating junk fees, requiring up-front

disclosure of add-on fees, and requiring automatic refunds

and additional compensation for controllable flight

cancellations and delays. The Administration further supports

opening up airport gate access and preventing anticompetitive

practices that block new entrants.

International Commitments. While the Administration

appreciates the language aimed at ensuring continued U.S.

implementation of Open Skies agreements while promoting labor

standards for U.S.-based aviation sector workers, the

Administration also urges the Congress to add provisions to

implement U.S. international commitments and ensure our

aviation partners follow suit. The bill should be amended to

include provisions for U.S. implementation of global market-

based measures of the International Civil Aviation

Organization, and to establish U.S. leadership relating to

the understanding and mitigation of the non-Greenhouse Gas

climate impacts of aviation.

Agency Restructuring. While the Administration supports the

goal of improving the efficiency of the organizational

structure of the FAA, it does not support the proposed

changes in FAA rulemaking review and the weakening of the

Administrator's ability and authority to determine the

appropriate size and allocation of the air traffic controller

workforce. The Administration also has concerns with

provisions that would make fundamental changes to the

agency's structure, eroding the discretion of the

Administrator to manage the agency in the most efficient

manner.

Implementation Timelines and Program Changes. The

legislation includes multiple rulemakings, reviews, reports,

and other requirements with aggressive timelines, along with

the creation of numerous programs that are not conditioned on

the availability of appropriations. The Administration is

also concerned that proposed major structural changes to

airport infrastructure programs are untested, and may be

difficult to implement depending on the level of resources

made available. The bill would also reduce the amount of

competitive airport grant funding, which would reduce the

FAA's ability to address important safety and capacity

issues.

Standards for Airport Service Workers. The Administration

urges the Congress to include provisions that will improve

job quality for, and therefore aid in the recruitment and

retention of, those who clean planes, handle baggage, assist

passengers who use wheelchairs, and provide other services

critical to safe, stable, and timely operations for aviation

customers.

Age Standards for Pilots. The bill includes a provision

that would raise the retirement age for pilots in commercial

operations. Making this change without doing research and

establishing any necessary policies would be outside the

international standard.

Maintaining Safe and Secure Airspace During Major Sports

Events. While the Administration supports the goal of

providing accessibility to and public use of the national

airspace, it is concerned that provisions proposed in the

bill could introduce unnecessary risks to those attending

major sporting events if the effectiveness of safety and

security buffers currently provided by temporary flight

restrictions were to be decreased. To the extent that the

proposed provisions are intended to accommodate airshows, the

Administration urges the Congress to consider alternative

methods to deconflict airshows and major sports events rather

than potentially put aviation operations in close proximity

to events attended by millions of Americans each year.

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

Mr. Speaker, I speak in opposition to H.R. 3941, the scapegoating not solutions act. It is frustrating that we are taking up another proposal that, among other things, purports to improve school safety, yet does nothing to address school safety, does nothing to address learning loss, does nothing to address gun violence in the schools or improve students' mental health.

Regrettably, so far this Congress, House Republicans' priorities for K-12 education focused entirely on culture wars.

First, they passed legislation that would facilitate the banning of books. Then the House advanced a bill to seek to bar trans students from participating in sports activities.

House Republicans are currently working on a budget that makes devastating cuts to Federal support of education.

Now the House is considering yet another proposal to threaten to strip away funding from schools and institutions of higher learning if they use any of their facilities to temporarily house asylum seekers or undocumented immigrants in an emergency other than those caused by a disaster.

The message is clear: If you do not support this extreme agenda, congressional Republicans will pull your support for education.

Republicans have also falsely implied that temporarily using school facilities to provide shelter diverts educational resources from students already impacted by learning loss, and yet, they present no evidence to support this claim.

We can't meaningfully address learning loss or meet students' mental health needs if we are talking about taking away Federal funds from schools and institutions of higher learning that are not aligned with the Republicans' extreme agenda.

Republicans also claim that this bill is about school safety. Let's remember that this bill prohibits emergency sheltering of undocumented immigrants except due to disasters.

If it is not a disaster, and it is an emergency, you can't house the immigrants. If it is not an emergency, there is no prohibition. You can house the undocumented immigrants all year just so long as it is not an emergency. If it is a disaster, there is no prohibition.

You can also house other people. If it is school safety, how about housing defendants awaiting trial in pretrial detention or those on work release? How about housing them? No prohibition against that.

This isn't about school safety. We can't talk about protecting school safety without addressing gun violence. The reality is that Republicans have done nothing about gun violence in schools, which we know causes the greatest threat to our children's safety.

We have repeatedly said that any conversation about school safety that doesn't meaningfully address gun violence is not a serious conversation.

H.R. 3941 does not address the real issues confronting our students today, and that is ending gun violence and helping students address learning loss and threatens to take funds away from

schools and institutions of higher learning.

I, therefore, urge my colleagues to oppose the bill and reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Bonamici).

Mr. Speaker, prior to yielding to the gentleman from New York, I yield myself 1 minute to remind the gentleman about what his bill actually does. It does not prohibit the sheltering of anyone other than undocumented immigrants in an emergency short term. I mean, long term and not in an emergency, that is okay. Other people, that is okay.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Goldman).

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentleman from New York.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Vasquez).

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

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a statement from Third Way urging Members to stand up for students across the country and vote ``no'' on this bill.

[From Third Way, July 18, 2023]

Third Way Statement on the Schools Not Shelters Act

(By Lanae Erickson)

Washington.--Third Way released the following statement

from Lanae Erickson, Senior Vice President for Social Policy,

Education, & Politics:

``House Republicans have found another target for their

'defund' campaign: schools. The Schools Not Shelters Act

would pull federal funding from any school that provides

undocumented immigrants with shelter, even temporarily. By

bringing this bill to the House floor, majority is yet again

signaling that their priority is to put politics over the

welfare of our country's students.

``During a time when teachers and students are working

tirelessly to overcome learning loss from the pandemic,

Republicans are threatening to defund schools to protest

something that has nothing to do with students' quality of

education. What's worse, schools in the poorest communities

across the country are the targets of this political stunt.

If Republicans really cared about students, they'd work with

Democrats to invest in our nation's schools and improve

educational outcomes. Instead, they're focusing on banning

books, banning history, and banning migrants. Teachers and

students have much bigger things to worry about.

``Republicans have backed out of every major bipartisan

immigration reform deal this century, leaving the system

outdated and overwhelmed. And now they're punishing American

students for the consequences of their inaction.

``We urge all Members to stand up for students across this

country and vote `no' on this bill.''

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record another letter from Council of the Great City Schools pointing out that the bill does nothing to help urban school districts and communities provide the needed educational and transitional services for newly arriving students and families.

Council of the Great City Schools,

June 12, 2023.

Hon. Virginia Foxx,

Chairwoman, Committee on Education and Workforce, House of

Representatives, Washington, DC.

Hon. Bobby Scott,

Ranking Member, Committee on Education and Workforce, House

of Representatives, Washington, DC.

Dear Chairwoman Foxx and Ranking Member Scott: For more

than a century, urban schools have taken in children and

families from other countries who came to the United States

seeking a better life and who eventually served as the

backbone of the country. The nation's Great City Schools seek

to not only meet our legal obligations to provide educational

services to whomever comes through our doors but to do

everything we can in partnership with our local communities

to make sure that newly arriving students and families are

welcomed and prepared to give back to the country.

In recent years, the nation's urban public schools have

opened their doors to families from Afghanistan, Ukraine,

Cuba, Haiti, Guatemala, Vietnam, Sudan, and many other

countries as they were seeking refuge, freedom, and a better

tomorrow. In addition to providing newcomer aid, instruction,

and social services to students, the Great City Schools are

helping families find housing, coordinating community

services, and providing much of their initial social

contacts, translations, and food services. They have also

provided cultural orientations, language lessons, and other

assistance for refugee families upon their arrival. The

Council has examples from school districts across the

country--including Anchorage, Sacramento, Indianapolis, St.

Louis, Tulsa, Charlotte, and countless other cities--that are

working with their local agencies, faith-based leaders,

charities, and financial institutions to welcome new

arrivals, align and coordinate services, and create a

seamless transition into the public schools and the

community.

Unfortunately, the Schools Not Shelters Act (H.R. 3941)

before the committee does nothing to help urban school

districts and communities provide the needed educational and

transitional services for newly arriving students and

families. After decades of inaction, we urge Congress to

focus on bipartisan and comprehensive solutions to address

immigration reform rather than threatening federal funding or

intervening in local decision-making regarding housing for

those who need it.

Sincerely,

Raymond Hart,

Executive Director.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate that my Republican colleagues are forcing through another proposal that contradicts our responsibility to help students succeed.

This bill threatens to take funding away from schools if they are used for emergency shelter to shelter undocumented immigrants, except specifically exempting cases of disaster. It allows anyone else to be sheltered, just not undocumented immigrants in an emergency.

We should be focusing on helping students make up for learning loss. They were out of school for a long time. Last Congress, congressional Democrats took critical steps to actually address learning loss by passing the American Rescue Plan Act, investing in students' abilities to offer after-school and summer mentorship and tutorial programs, yet not a single congressional Republican voted to pass the American Rescue Plan Act.

Now, they are seeking to pass a bill that takes funding away from public schools while also considering a budget that makes dangerous cuts to Federal educational funding.

If my colleagues want to address learning loss, we should be talking about evidence-based strategies that actually meet the needs of students.

If my colleagues want to keep students safe, we should be confronting what is actually killing them. Parents, teachers, and students are demanding that we take meaningful action on gun violence. Yet, my Republican colleagues refuse to budge on that issue.

Instead of coming up with meaningful solutions, Republicans are continuing to push their extreme agenda that does nothing to address learning loss or improve school safety.

We should all agree that our students, parents, and schools deserve better.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is hard to respond to the amendment because the underlying bill makes little sense. I am not sure what the amendment does because if the amendment is passed, undocumented immigrants would be properly sheltered in the schools because there is an exemption for disasters. After 72 hours, 3 days if the disaster is still going on, I guess you would have to kick them out to avoid liability, unless the emergency is over. If there is no longer an emergency and they are not being housed under an emergency, they can't be housed because only emergency sheltering is allowed.

I don't know if this is good or bad, but I just oppose it, and I yield back the balance of my time