Fighting Homelessness Through Services and Housing 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. President, I rise today to share news with the Senate. Dennis Gray Maxwell--Gray to all of us--my floor director and most senior legislative adviser since I arrived in the Senate almost 17 years ago, is retiring at the end of December. For many of us, Senators and staff alike, this is heartbreaking news, as we will miss Gray's good counsel, impeccable speechwriting skills, remarkable knowledge of Senate history, and award-winning home brew. He always has a relevant story, whatever the circumstance. And, of course, Gray was the one who got us to finally put the Senate Democratic Conference rules in writing, so it is no wonder that he knows them inside and out better than any Senator or parliamentarian.

Gray loves the Senate. He loves it for all it was meant to be, as drafted by the Founding Fathers, and all that it should be in modern times--a respected

entity dedicated to upholding the values and ideals that drive this great Nation forward. Year after year, Gray has dedicated himself to finding ways to preserve the Senate's role as the world's greatest deliberative body, which has not always been easy. It pains him to see the rules abused or when 10 years of work to pass a significant law, like the Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative, is undone in 10 minutes. But he does cherish the days when we finally clear a record vote-a-rama or come together in a landmark bipartisan vote.

Gray has worked for so many Senators over the years that his love of this institution should not surprise anyone. Daniel Patrick Moynihan, John Heinz, Jim Jeffords, Bill Cohen, Moynihan again, Dianne Feinstein, Carl Levin, Frank Lautenberg and, since 2007, he has been part of Team Cardin. This impressive list, nearly 40 years in the making, is why I jumped at the opportunity to hire Gray.

A registered Independent his whole life, Gray lives the words of John F. Kennedy: ``Men of goodwill and generosity should be able to unite regardless of party or politics.''

I hired Gray because, on January 3, 2007, despite being a State delegate, including speaker, for a total of 20 years, and a Member of the House of Representatives for 20 years, I had zero direct experience in the U.S. Senate. Gray Maxwell had more than two decades of legislative service in the Senate with some of the most consequential Senators to walk these halls. I wanted to learn from him. I had brought over some core staff from my House office, but I knew that if I had Gray on my team, he would help me quickly translate my previous legislative experience into this new arena. Today, I love being a Senator, and I credit Gray for sharing his fever for the institution and showing me what great things we could accomplish.

Gray's path to public service perhaps was unexpected. The summer after he graduated Stanford University, he came to Washington, DC, to work at a branch of his father's law firm before starting law school. His life would change though, when his roommate, who worked for Senator Moynihan, told Gray there was an opening as a legislative correspondent, or LC. Gray loved everything about the job and the position. He was promoted quickly within the office and even met his future wife, Eileen, during this time. Eileen, a fifth-generation Washingtonian, came from a long line of public servants and had joined the Foreign Service. Some may not know this, but Gray passed both the written and oral Foreign Service exams in an effort to join his wife for her new posting in Bolivia. In the end, they decided to stay in Washington, and Gray's long career in the Senate would take off.

I have been told that there were quite a few conversations with Gray's dad to explain that he would not be returning home to Connecticut or going to New York to become a lawyer. But life would be okay. His dad came around eventually. He would become one of Gray's greatest cheerleaders and immensely proud of everything his son would accomplish--despite not being a lawyer.

During the late 80s, Gray worked for Senator John Heinz and served as legislative director of the Northeast-Midwest Institute, of which Heinz was a cofounder. Gray was serving as the Senator's legislative director at the time of his tragic plane crash in 1991. He went on to work for Senator Jim Jeffords as his legislative director and then worked for another Republican who made a career working across the aisle, Senator Bill Cohen. He later would rejoin Senator Moynihan's staff as legislative director.

Gray and Senator Moynihan had a close, almost father-son relationship. This is obvious to anyone who has heard Gray tell a story from his Moynihan days. Every tale, even something that might seem embarrassing, like slipping on the floor while walking with the Senator through the Senate, is coated with a sense of care and respect for the man and lawmaker. I know it was a difficult task for Gray when he had to call the then-recently retired Senator on September 11, 2001, to tell him that New York and our Nation was being attacked.

Gray has been a witness to history during his nearly 40 years in the Senate, and he has done his part to make history, as well. As a lifelong public servant, Gray has become one of the most vociferous champions for public service unions and Federal workers, generally. He meticulously combs through data annually from the Office of Personnel Management and other official sources to create the most accurate snapshots of Federal workers in every State and the District of Columbia. Among other uses, these charts have been invaluable each time one of my colleagues dares to attack Federal workers or attempts to use veterans and civil servants as pawns in yet another partisan game or government shutdown. Gray relishes every opportunity to lift up stories about Federal workers, serves as a watchdog for attacks on well-earned benefits, and consistently advocates for the rights of all Federal employees and retirees.

During the Trump years, Gray led the charge to pass S. 24, the Government Employee Fair Treatment Act, which guarantees back pay to Federal workers furloughed during a government shutdown. Thanks to Gray's doggedness, if and when we have another shutdown of the Federal Government, no longer will hundreds of thousands of Federal workers have to wait and see if Congress will provide relief to those workers caught in the crossfire.

Another project Gray helped carry over the finish line was the National Memorial to Fallen Journalists. Based on his work and coordination with stakeholders, days before the 1-year anniversary of the fatal ``Capital Gazette'' shooting in Annapolis--the most deadly newsroom shooting in American history--Gray helped finalize legislation I introduced with Senator Rob Portman. Our bill authorized a privately funded memorial within the District of Columbia to honor journalists, photographers, broadcasters, and media workers killed in the line of duty. In later stages, he would identify the ultimate location of the memorial, across the street from the Voice of America and, coincidently, across the street from the National Museum of the American Indian, where Gray's wife Eileen would work until her retirement in December 2022.

Far too many pieces of legislation that have become law have Gray Maxwell's fingerprints on them for me to name every one. But let me talk briefly about one recent bill that goes to the heart of Gray's integrity and strong belief that Congress should be a leader in protecting civil rights and values. Back in 2020, Senator Chris Van Hollen and I introduced legislation in the Senate that would remove from the U.S. Capitol a statue of fellow Marylander and Supreme Court Chief Justice Roger Brooke Taney. Taney was the author of the infamous Dred Scott decision that ruled that African-Americans were not U.S. citizens and that Congress could not prohibit slavery. In addition to removing the Taney bust, our bill authorized the placement of a new bust of Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall, the first African- American to serve on the Nation's highest Court, and also a Marylander. The bill was reintroduced this Congress and approved unanimously by the Senate in 2022. Following House passage, President Joe Biden signed the measure into law, and the massive Taney bust was removed in February of this year. If not for Gray's legislative acumen and pure persistence, the bust of a man who actively helped prolong slavery would still greet visitors to the Old Supreme Court Chamber.

I am thankful that Gray shared his knowledge of the Senate with me. I also am grateful that he shares this bounty with every new staffer and intern that walks into our office. Capitol Hill can be a magnet, attracting young people. If we want them to stay, we need more people like Gray to share their experiences and adventures. He is teaching the next generation about how they fit into the history, and the future, of our legislative branch of government. He also is constantly learning, with an understanding that these young people bring with them new perspectives and different ways of solving age-old problems.

I would ask unanimous consent that, after my remarks, the full text of Robert F. Kennedy's ``Ripple of Hope'' address, which was delivered June 6, 1966, at the University of Capetown, South Africa, be entered into the record. Gray

gives a copy of this speech to every new intern in our office and takes time from his hectic schedule to discuss it with each group. Anecdotes and surveys from interns year after year mention this discussion and how it stays with them long after their semester is complete. RFK's words echo throughout our work.

He said: ``It is from numberless diverse acts of courage and belief that human history is shaped. Each time a man stands up for an ideal, or acts to improve the lot of others, or strikes out against injustice, he sends forth a tiny ripple of hope, and crossing each other from a million different centers of energy and daring those ripples build a current which can sweep down the mightiest walls of oppression and resistance.''

Gray is proof positive that one person can make a difference.

Finally, I would like to thank Gray for being there for me and for the Senate even when everyone else was home or working elsewhere. Maybe they were asleep because the Senate was voting at 2 a.m. Maybe they were teleworking because of the pandemic. Yes, as media reports have recounted, Gray was one of the few people who worked in his Senate office throughout the COVID-19 pandemic. He actually insisted that he come in so that his wife could be comfortable teleworking from their apartment. Truth be told, traffic was easier, and there were very few people around at that time, so it was seemingly a safe thing to do. We still took precautions. Even if he and I were in the office at the same time, he stayed in his office, and I stayed in mine, and we talked by phone. We wore facemasks and used antibacterial wipes on every door or item we touched.

In another extreme case, Gray was one of only two staffers who were in our Hart office on January 6, 2021. He and our chief of staff, Chris Lynch, sheltered in place together all day while the Capitol was being overrun. Gray charged through the Trump years and the pandemic, but the days and months after January 6 definitely took their toll. I can understand why he and Eileen began to spend more and more time out in rural Rappahannock County, Virginia, where they rented a cottage during the pandemic. They now have a beautiful home on 6 acres of land and are surrounded by wheat and cornfields and dairy farms. I would try to entice them to Maryland, but they have been visiting this area for 40 years, ever since Gray bought Eileen her very first riding lesson as a birthday gift. Even from Virginia, he will forever be a part of Team Maryland and the Cardin family.

I wish Gray all the best in his retirement. He is a good man with a good heart, who has done phenomenal things for the Senate and our Nation. He will be missed, especially by this Senator.

Madam President, I rise to speak in support of the Community Wildfire Protection Act, bipartisan legislation that Senator Daines and I are reintroducing today.

This bill would ensure that those communities that are deemed to be under the greatest threat from wildfire are eligible to receive existing Federal wildfire grants. This sounds obvious but unfortunately is not the case under current law.

The current definition of an ``at-risk community'' was codified in the 2003 Healthy Forest Restoration Act. That law requires that, in addition to experiencing significant wildfire risk, an eligible community must either be adjacent to Federal land or included on a list generated in 2001 consisting of voluntary input from States and Tribes.

Unfortunately, this 2001 list is far from objective or comprehensive. Communities on the list were not added based on an objective evaluation of their wildfire risk or threat to life and property, only whether an individual Governor or Tribal leader decided to add them. To make matters worse, there are obvious omissions from the list that show its inadequacy, and in fact, 19 States and territories never submitted a single community.

For example, large California cities such as Fresno, Fairfield, and Napa are not encompassed by this definition, all of which have experienced recent major wildfires. The list also omits Grizzly Flats, CA, which was devastated by the 2021 Caldor Fire, despite its proximity to Federal lands, as well as countless other small towns at great risk of wildfire.

These small, rural towns are frequently at the highest risk of wildfire and lack the resources to undertake wildfire resiliency projects on their own. Obviously, these are some of the towns that would most benefit from addition Federal help but because of the outdated definition, may not be eligible.

Aligning the definition in law for at-risk communities to today's environmental realities is more important than ever given the increased spread, frequency, and destructiveness of wildfires, especially in the West.

Our bill would simply end the practice of making Federal grants contingent on this outdated, incomplete list or proximity to Federal lands. Instead, our legislation would allow communities to be eligible based on the most up-to-date quantitative wildfire risk data for the entire United States--data already maintained by the U.S. Forest Service.

The 2021 Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act provided $1 billion for community wildfire resilience grants, and last year's Inflation Reduction Act included an historic $1.8 billion for wildfire resilience on federal forestlands. Congress has done the work of providing funding for wildfire resilience. Now it must ensure that these projects can be targeted where they are most necessary and completed with the swiftness that the wildfire crisis demands.

I am pleased to work with Senator Daines on this commonsense bill that will save lives, save communities, and ensure that Federal dollars are spent as effectively as possible. This change would help more communities in our home States of California and Montana and others throughout the West access Federal grants to reduce hazardous fuels around their communities and utilize authorities to complete them in a timely fashion, thereby reducing the threat posed by wildfire.

I am proud that our bill has received the support of the National Association of Counties, Rural County Representatives of California, the National Association of State Foresters, the Pacific Forest Trust, and the California Fire Safe Council.

Our bill is simple, but it would correct a glaring oversight in current law and ensure that billions of dollars in wildfire resiliency funding are applied where they are most needed. I urge my colleagues to cosponsor this legislation.

Madam President, I rise today to introduce the West Coast Ocean Protection Act, legislation that would prohibit new oil or natural gas leases in federal waters off the coast of California, Oregon, and Washington.

I am pleased to be joined today by Senators Padilla, Wyden, Merkley, Murray, Cantwell, Menendez, Booker, Markey, and Sanders in introducing this bill, which is critically important to protecting the west coast from additional oil spills.

Californians know all too well the devastating effects of oil spills. In 1969, a well blowout on an offshore rig spilled an estimated 3 million gallons of crude oil into the Pacific Ocean off the coast of Santa Barbara. At the time, it was the worst oil spill in U.S. history and was catastrophic to the local environment and marine life, closing beaches, harming the economy, and killing thousands of birds, fish, and marine mammals.

After the Santa Barbara disaster, California had enough. The State blocked all new offshore drilling in state waters and in 1994 enacted a permanent offshore drilling ban. Through local ordinances, congressional opposition, and Presidential moratoria, no new drilling in Federal waters off California has been allowed since 1984.

Unfortunately, Californians are still confronting the impacts from ongoing offshore drilling operations. In October 2021, a ruptured pipeline spilled more than 25,000 gallons of crude oil into the Pacific Ocean and onto the beaches of Orange County. Despite numerous alarms, operators allowed oil to flow from the leak for over 14 hours. It was absolutely devastating.

The spill covered more than 8,000 acres of the ocean's surface and required more than a week of cleanup. In that time, local businesses suffered, fisheries shuttered, and crews worked to remove harmful oil and tar balls from sensitive wildlife habitat.

Despite the harm caused to individuals and businesses in the community, the operator has been given permission to repair the pipeline and begin drilling again, exposing the California coastline to the risk of yet another accident.

California's coastal and ocean economies are engines of growth that support millions of jobs and generate significant economic activity for the State and Nation. Because of the unique nature of the west coast ocean shelf, any new potential drilling would occur near the coastline and directly threaten the environment and robust economy.

Beyond that, we are currently in the midst of a historic offshore energy transition. This past December, a successful auction was held for five offshore wind energy areas off the California coast, paving the way for a new floating wind industry. At the same time, the Federal Government has begun a programmatic review of decommissioning oil and gas platforms in the Pacific to prepare for their eventual removal. The era of offshore oil and gas production in the Pacific is coming to a close, and it is long overdue.

It is time to respect the view of California and our fellow west coast States by passing the West Coast Ocean Protection Act permanently ban offshore drilling and protect the Pacific coast for generations to come.

Madam President, I rise today to introduce the Fighting Homelessness Through Services and Housing Act, which would establish a new Federal grant program to increase capacity for comprehensive supportive services paired with housing as a way to address our country's homelessness crisis.

As we have seen with the growing diversity of our homeless populations--individuals with mental health conditions or those struggling with addiction, people who simply could not keep up with increases in rent, families with children, and veterans--our Nation's homelessness crisis is not going away on its own without coordinated efforts at every level of government.

According to the data released in December from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, there are approximately 582,500 homeless individuals, including families with small children, in the United States. Nearly 30 percent of this population is in California, with approximately 172,000 homeless people sleeping on the streets on any given night.

In a nation as prosperous and wealthy as ours, we can and we must do better to address the issue of homelessness.

That is why I am introducing the Fighting Homelessness Through Services and Housing Act, which would authorize a new Federal funding stream of $1 billion per year, subject to annual appropriations. Grantees must serve individuals or families who are homeless or at risk of becoming homeless by providing housing paired with a comprehensive set of services and must

provide a 25-percent match for any Federal funds received.

Because each individual and every community is unique, the grant program would be flexible in order to work in any region or for any homeless population.

This bill is based on a model that has proven to be effective and supports the great work already being done across the country, allowing local governmental entities and nonprofit organizations to expand their capacity and ensure a greater reach by putting Federal dollars where they will be most effective.

I am proud that this legislation is supported by a wide coalition of local governments, housing, health, and child welfare organizations, including the mayors and CEOs for U.S. Housing Investment, National League of Cities, National Alliance to End Homelessness, National Association of Counties, National Low Income Housing Coalition, and the National Housing Conference.

Supportive services such as mental and physical health care, substance abuse treatment, education and job training, and life skills such as financial literacy are critical components. Paired with intensive case management, supportive housing models make a difference.

We have seen the success of such partnerships in San Francisco, where the GLIDE Foundation provides critical services that meet an individual's basic needs, including meals, crisis intervention and prevention, childcare and educational programming, legal advice, and housing.

This would not be possible without the organization's partnerships with the city of San Francisco, particularly the San Francisco Department of Public Health, and other critical stakeholders. I highly encourage my colleagues to examine this exemplary homeless services model to see firsthand how effective partnerships can help to combat homelessness.

It is imperative that we support these types of partnerships, as well as nonprofit service providers, as they work to get people into housing to both mitigate the spread of the coronavirus and address their long- term needs.

I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting the bill and moving it through the Senate, especially as we continue to contend with the increase in homelessness.

Madam President, I rise today to introduce the Fighting Homelessness Through Services and Housing Act, which would establish a new Federal grant program to increase capacity for comprehensive supportive services paired with housing as a way to address our country's homelessness crisis.

As we have seen with the growing diversity of our homeless populations--individuals with mental health conditions or those struggling with addiction, people who simply could not keep up with increases in rent, families with children, and veterans--our Nation's homelessness crisis is not going away on its own without coordinated efforts at every level of government.

According to the data released in December from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, there are approximately 582,500 homeless individuals, including families with small children, in the United States. Nearly 30 percent of this population is in California, with approximately 172,000 homeless people sleeping on the streets on any given night.

In a nation as prosperous and wealthy as ours, we can and we must do better to address the issue of homelessness.

That is why I am introducing the Fighting Homelessness Through Services and Housing Act, which would authorize a new Federal funding stream of $1 billion per year, subject to annual appropriations. Grantees must serve individuals or families who are homeless or at risk of becoming homeless by providing housing paired with a comprehensive set of services and must

provide a 25-percent match for any Federal funds received.

Because each individual and every community is unique, the grant program would be flexible in order to work in any region or for any homeless population.

This bill is based on a model that has proven to be effective and supports the great work already being done across the country, allowing local governmental entities and nonprofit organizations to expand their capacity and ensure a greater reach by putting Federal dollars where they will be most effective.

I am proud that this legislation is supported by a wide coalition of local governments, housing, health, and child welfare organizations, including the mayors and CEOs for U.S. Housing Investment, National League of Cities, National Alliance to End Homelessness, National Association of Counties, National Low Income Housing Coalition, and the National Housing Conference.

Supportive services such as mental and physical health care, substance abuse treatment, education and job training, and life skills such as financial literacy are critical components. Paired with intensive case management, supportive housing models make a difference.

We have seen the success of such partnerships in San Francisco, where the GLIDE Foundation provides critical services that meet an individual's basic needs, including meals, crisis intervention and prevention, childcare and educational programming, legal advice, and housing.

This would not be possible without the organization's partnerships with the city of San Francisco, particularly the San Francisco Department of Public Health, and other critical stakeholders. I highly encourage my colleagues to examine this exemplary homeless services model to see firsthand how effective partnerships can help to combat homelessness.

It is imperative that we support these types of partnerships, as well as nonprofit service providers, as they work to get people into housing to both mitigate the spread of the coronavirus and address their long- term needs.

I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting the bill and moving it through the Senate, especially as we continue to contend with the increase in homelessness.