Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this rule to advance this cruel, extreme, and unworkable default on America act that will throw us into a recession, that will crash our economy, and that will throw 1.7 million women and children off of nutrition assistance and seniors off of Medicare.

It is hypocrisy for my Republican colleagues to say that they somehow suddenly care about the debt when they passed the 2017 tax scam that increased the deficit by $2 trillion. Nearly half of those tax cuts went to the top 5 percent, but now, all of a sudden, they care about debt and want to cut nutrition assistance to nearly 3 million women, children, and seniors.

Democrats cut child poverty in half, and we taxed the wealthiest billionaires and corporations to pay their fair share. We are building our economy while MAGA Republicans are threatening to throw us into chaos, and that is on the pocketbooks of regular, working Americans, who are going to suffer if we go into default, if we go into recession, and if we lose millions of jobs.

This is a bad bill. Vote ``no.''

Mr. Chairman, I rise in deep opposition to this bill. We should rename it the cancel kids trans hate bill. This bill fuels a virulent hate campaign against kids who just want to play with their friends.

Don't believe for a minute that this is about protecting women and girls because if Republicans cared about that, they would not be voting against equal pay, against paid sick leave, against universal childcare.

The way that this bill targets children in the name of gender equality is insulting. That is why women's organizations around the country, including the Women's Sports Foundation, have denounced this bill.

In reality, it actually endangers all women and girls. Think about it. How do you enforce this ban? How do you verify a girl's ``reproductive anatomy''?

If a young girl--if your daughter doesn't look feminine enough, is she subject to an examination? This is absolutely absurd.

Republicans are cruelly scapegoating children to distract you from the very fact that you don't have actual solutions that answer the American people's problems.

This attack on transgender children, though, also has dire consequences. Over 75 percent of transgender students experience harassment or discrimination at school.

Mr. Chairman, 82 percent of transgender kids have considered suicide, and 40 percent have attempted suicide.

These bills tell some of the most vulnerable children in our country that they do not belong. Shame on you.

To trans people everywhere, I say, I see you, and I will fight for you. That is why last month I introduced the Transgender Bill of Rights with 100 cosponsors to stand up for trans kids so that you can lead your full lives as your authentic selves.

Mr. Chairman, I am the proud mother of a trans daughter, and when she came out to me, I unconditionally embraced her because I unconditionally love her.

If you don't understand what is going on with these kids, that is okay. I have learned so much from my daughter. Let's learn together, but don't, don't use our kids as punching bags and put them in danger.

When the Republican Governor of Utah, Spencer Cox, vetoed a similar sports ban, he said this: ``I always try to err on the side of kindness, mercy, and compassion. . . . I don't understand what they are going through or why they feel the way they do, but I want them to live.''

I want them to live. So to my colleagues, I say, stop targeting our children. Let them play. Let them live. Vote ``no'' on this hateful bill.

Mr. Chair, Congress should be supporting parents, students, and teachers, not advancing this politics over parents act which would punish teachers for giving history lessons, ban books, and sow hate and divisiveness against trans kids.

Parents have the utmost confidence in their kids' teachers. When it comes to writing curricula, 76 percent of parents trust their child's school. But when it comes to writing laws, political gimmicks, like this bill, keep them from saying the same thing about this very body.

Instead of manufacturing outrage over curricula and books, why don't we just listen?

Mr. Chairman, 84 percent of parents would rather Congress give free school meals, and 79 percent want support for mental health services. In a survey of parents' top concerns by The Pew Charitable Trusts, 40 percent said they were extremely or very worried about their children struggling with depression, 35 percent said they were concerned about bullying, and 22 percent were worried about their kids being shot.

Not a single one of those issues on the top list of parental concerns is addressed in this bill. So don't tell me this is a parents' bill of rights. This is not addressing gun violence. It is not addressing mental health. It is not addressing childcare, pre-K, and all of the other things that would be a part of a parents' bill of rights.

Instead, we are spending time on a bill that sows doubt about public education and our teachers and also targets our very vulnerable trans kids who are absolutely no threat to anyone in this body.

Please understand that the provisions in this bill that out trans kids are cruel and dangerous. I say that as a mom of a trans kid. I was very embracing to my daughter when she came out, but not every family is. The reality is that 75 percent of trans kids experience discrimination and harassment.

So why do Republicans want schools to require outing LGBTQ students?

That does not make them better students.

Congress has the constitutional authority to write laws. What a mockery and betrayal of that duty it would be to pass this stunt of a bill that doesn't address a single priority of parents, bans books, undermines teachers, and hurts our kids.

Democrats are the party of parents and families. We reject this bill, and we commit to fighting for childcare, for universal pre-K, for a child tax credit, and for the ability of people to be free for who they are and express themselves.

Mr. Chair, I include in the Record two letters. One is from the National Education Association, and one is from the American Federation of Teachers.

National Education Association,

Washington, DC, March 23, 2023.

U.S. House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Dear Representative: On behalf of the 3 million members of

the National Education Association, dedicated and trusted

professionals who teach and support nearly 50 million

students in public schools across America, we urge you to

vote NO on H.R. 5. Votes related to this bill, including

extreme amendments that would create a national private

school voucher program, may be included in the NEA Report

Card for the 118th Congress.

H.R. 5 is unnecessary and ignores the partnerships that

exist between parents and educators. Parents and guardians

already have the right and the opportunity to partner with

educators to ensure students have the learning opportunities,

resources, and support for success. Across America, parents

are strategizing with educators when children face hurdles

and celebrating with them when students achieve milestones,

volunteering at events, chaperoning field trips, leading

PTAs, mentoring students, and actively engaging in many other

ways with students and educators.

In a recent Gallup poll, 80 percent of parents with

children in public K-12 schools said they were satisfied with

their children's education. Instead of building on what

exists, H.R. 5 would stoke racial and social animosity.

Instead of bringing us together to focus on what will really

help students--an inspiring, inclusive, and age-appropriate

curriculum that prepares them for the future in schools that

are safe from gun violence--H.R. 5 would encourage parents to

view educators as the enemy. This us-versus-them mindset

hurts students, disregards educators' professionalism, and

diverts our attention from a basic American value: All

students--no matter their race, ZIP Code, gender orientation,

sexual identity, or background--deserve the support, tools,

and opportunity to learn and succeed.

H.R. 5 dismisses educators' education, experience, and

dedication.

The legislation tells educators that, despite their

expertise, they cannot be trusted to determine what materials

are appropriate for learning, design curricula that are age-

appropriate and meet students' needs, or ascertain students'

progress. This will only exacerbate an educator shortage

that, from small towns to major cities, is now a five-alarm

fire. In an NEA survey last year, 55 percent of educators

said they are ready to leave the profession they love earlier

than planned. Congress should not pass laws that will

accelerate this trend.

H.R. 5 will exacerbate book banning and censorship.

The legislation's library requirements, including the

mandate that school libraries maintain online catalogs that

are available to parents and students, are redundant; this is

already standard practice. The real aim of the legislation is

to elevate the voices and power of a few who wish to foist

their ideas about what should be read and taught onto other

people's children. This is already leading to shocking

outcomes.

The PEN America Index of School Book Bans lists more than

2,500 instances of book bans across the country from June

2021-June 2022, affecting more than 1,600 titles. Affected

books are most often those that look honestly at history and

the difficult events that have shaped America, or tell

stories of the struggle for self-acceptance in hostile or

oppressive circumstances. The banned or censored books

include:

Maus, by Art Spiegelman, a graphic novel depicting the

experience of the author's father, a Holocaust survivor;

Walk Two Moons, by Sharon Creech, about a girl of Native-

American heritage coping with the disappearance of her

mother;

The Bluest Eye, by Nobel Laureate Toni Morrison, about a

young African American girl's struggle to appreciate her

humanity in a culture that devalues her; and

Separate is Never Equal: Sylvia Mendez and her Family's

Fight for Desegregation, by Duncan Tonatiuh, about a family's

efforts to desegregate California schools.

We cannot prepare young people to succeed in our diverse

Nation and interconnected world by removing books from

library shelves and curricula. We prepare them for the future

by planting the seeds for lifelong curiosity and growth.

H.R. 5 will impose several unfunded mandates on already

overburdened schools and school districts.

Committee-passed amendments to H.R. 5 include one that

would require a ``review period,'' occurring at least every

three weeks for a minimum of three school days at a time,

during which parents could review any materials to be used in

the next three weeks, or that had been used in the past.

Districts would be required to find the money, and the time,

for this mandate within budgets and school days that are

already stretched thin.

H.R. 5 suggests the federal government should be a national

school board.

The bill would undermine local control and educators'

autonomy to do their jobs by inserting the federal government

as a national school board. In fact, the legislation actually

undermines the stated goal of H.R. 5. By utilizing the

federal government to pave the way for influencing what books

should be part of the curriculum and in libraries, H.R. 5

suppresses the voices of many parents and local communities

that want their children to receive an honest and accurate

education.

While we urge a NO vote on H.R. 5, we support any

amendments that highlight the many real needs schools face,

including those that: provide more resources for school

counselors and parent engagement; ensure books remain

available for any student who wants to read them; highlight

H.R. 5's true costs to local schools and ensure those costs

are not passed on to already resource-deprived schools; and

remove extraneous requirements.

We ask you to vote YES on the following amendments:

No. 1 by Rep. Bacon (No. 52 in Rules): Requires Local

Education Agencies to provide parents of a student in

elementary or secondary school with the number of school

counselors in the school);

No. 5 by Rep. Bonamici (No. 40 in Rules): Replaces H.R. 5

with new language regarding: public education and parents'

rights to access to public schools; creation of a parent

coordinator position in public schools; increased funding

authorization for Full-Service Community Schools; increased

funding authorization for Statewide Family Engagement

Centers; and establishing rules that prohibit bans on books

and curricular materials.

No. 8 by Rep. Fitzpatrick (No. 2 in Rules): Requires a GAO

report on the cost of H.R. 5's requirements to State

Education Agencies, Local Education Agencies, and schools.

No. 9 by Reps. Garbarino and D'Esposito (No. 37 in Rules):

Provides that nothing in H.R. 5 or its amendments be

construed as authorizing parents to deny any student who is

not their own child from accessing any books or other reading

materials otherwise available in the school library.

No. 12 by Rep. Jacobs (No. 4 in Rules): Strikes ``at no

cost'' in the bill to ensure that some requirements in H.R. 5

do not fall on overburdened schools that already lack

sufficient resources to meet the needs of students.

No. 13 by Rep. Jacobs (No. 6 in Rules): Strikes the

provisions relating to reviewing professional development

materials in sections 104 and 202.

We oppose amendments that target transgender youth,

eradicate inclusive curricula, potentially open our public

schools to frivolous lawsuits, create a national private

school voucher program, and eliminate the U.S. Department of

Education.

We ask you to vote NO on the following amendments:

No. 2 by Rep. Foxx (No. 45 in Rules): Manager's amendment

to the bill that also directs courts to use the strict

scrutiny test to evaluate laws involving parents' rights.

No. 3 by Rep. Boebert (No. 46 in Rules): Targets already

vulnerable transgender youth by amending Section 104 to

include Parent's Right to Know if their child's school

operates, sponsors, or facilitates athletic programs or

activities to permit a person whose biological sex is male to

participate in an athletic program or activity that is

designated for women or girls.

No. 4 by Rep. Boebert (No. 47 in Rules): Targets already

vulnerable transgender youth by amending Section 104 to

include Parent's Right to Know if their child's school allows

a person whose biological sex is male to use restrooms or

changing rooms designated for women or girls.

No. 6 by Rep. Crane (No. 54 in Rules): Adds a private right

of action for parents beyond current law that may lead to

more frequent lawsuits, costing taxpayers more.

No. 11 by Rep. Hunt (No. 44 in Rules): Adds a provision

that targets diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives in

schools.

No. 15 by Reps. Massie, Boebert, Gaetz, and Self (No. 7 in

Rules): Adds a sense of Congress that the authority of the

Department of Education and the Secretary of Education to

operate or administer any office or program related to

elementary or secondary education should be terminated on or

before December 31, 2023.

No. 19 by Rep. Roy (No. 57 in Rules): Creates a national

private school voucher program, decimating Title I and taking

public funds out of public schools to boost private schools

that are not held to any of the requirements included in the

underlying bill.

No. 20 by Rep Roy (No. 61 in Rules): Makes all funds

available under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of

1965 block grants, which will lead to cuts to key programs

serving students.

Educators are devoted to partnering with parents to

discover students' interests and unlock their potential. We

urge Congress to avoid spending time on divisive issues that

do not contribute to student success. Instead, please focus

on getting students the individualized support they need,

keeping guns out of schools, and addressing educator

shortages. If Congress joins with parents and educators, we

can support learning by ensuring that students across our

great Nation--no matter their race, background, sexual

orientation, or gender identity--have the resources, one-on-

one attention, and well-rounded curricula they need and

deserve. Please vote NO on H.R. 5.

Sincerely,

Marc Egan,

Director of Government Relations,

National Education Association.

Madam Speaker, this is a revenge resolution.

It is a revenge resolution that seeks to remove Representative Ilhan Omar's strong and necessary voice from the Foreign Affairs Committee.

It is an attempt to silence her simply because you do not agree with her views and you cannot begin to understand her lived experience as a war survivor, as a refugee, and as somebody who brings an experience to this body that you are not even trying to understand.

We have previously voted, in a bipartisan manner, to remove individuals from their committee assignments because of their violent actions that endanger the safety of their colleagues.

That is not what today is about. Today is about revenge. It is also about the fact that Republicans want to distract the American people from the fact that they have absolutely no legislation to bring to the floor that is actually about helping the American people with their costs, with dealing with inflation.

You don't have any solutions, so you are trying to distract with these inane, insulting, absurd--absolutely absurd--resolutions.

Vote ``no.''

Mr. Speaker, after a week of chaos, we now have a rules package for MAGA extremists, attacking our freedoms and every major responsibility of this body--from paying America's bills to funding our government.

This package criminalizes abortion by advancing bills that attack access and healthcare without a single hearing or markup, undermining women's economic freedom and bodily autonomy.

Mr. Speaker, as one of the one-in-four women across this country who have had an abortion, I join those in both parties--and the majority of this country--who are saying: Not on our watch.

This package also reinstates a CutGo policy that gives wealthy corporations more tax cuts and strips the right for congressional workers to unionize. It eliminates our wins to strengthen witness disclosure requirements for conflicts of interest and exempt climate change and pandemic relief from senseless paygo rules.

Democrats delivered for the people. Republicans now want a package that works for the wealthiest few. Vote ``no.''

Mr. Speaker, I thank Congresswoman Lofgren for her tremendous leadership, not only on this bill, but also on the Immigration and Citizenship Subcommittee as our chairwoman.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the EAGLE Act.

I believe I may be the only one, or one of very few, Members of Congress who has actually been on an H-1B visa back when processing times to transition to a green card weren't nearly as bad as they are today. It still took me 17 years and a multitude of visas to become a U.S. citizen.

Today, an estimated 1.6 million people in the family backlog and 200,000 in the employment backlog will die, in some cases, before they receive green cards because of an arcane system that puts a 7 percent per-country limit on employment and family-sponsored green cards.

Many of the people who are stuck in this backlog are Asian immigrants, people who were denied the right to become U.S. citizens for most of U.S. history, from 1790 to 1952, through the Chinese Exclusion Act and the Supreme Court's 1923 decision barring Indians from becoming naturalized U.S. citizens. Anti-Asian policies have informed these future anti-immigrant efforts.

As the first South Asian American woman elected to the House, I am very aware that Congress did not repeal that Supreme Court decision until 1946.

The employment and family immigration process established in 1965 provided the first meaningful ways for Asian immigrants to come to the United States, and it remains the main method of entry for Asian immigrants because many Asian immigrants cannot access other pathways, such as asylum or refugee status or diversity visas.

However, because of the per-country caps, there are lengthy backlogs to secure permanent status. Those backlogs can last for decades or even lifetimes.

Someone from India or Mexico currently experiences a 200-year wait to secure a green card, while nationals of other countries wait as little as 2 years or less.

The EAGLE Act would simply ensure fairness by moving to a first come, first served system that would no longer discriminate by country of birth. Moreover, thanks to the bill's 9-year transition period beginning in October 2024, it would not harm anyone that is currently in the backlog.

The truth, Mr. Speaker, is that our immigration system is deeply broken, and it needs reform on every level. This is something that I dedicated two decades of my life to before coming to Congress. Whether you are from Africa, Latin America, Asia, or the Caribbean, we do not have a functioning immigration system that allows people to come to America and do the work that we need, or escape from war-torn or economically devastated countries, or join family members.

Congress has punted on comprehensive, humane immigration reform for too long, so we are forced to pursue piecemeal efforts for principled compromise to address the many broken parts of the immigration system while ensuring that no community suffers harm as another benefits. That is the nature of principled compromise.

This is one of those bills that certainly does not accomplish fixing the broken immigration system. It does not do that, but it does do something very important, which is to fix one piece of an immigration system that has been put together by these individual pieces that affect different parts of the population.

It does so, Mr. Speaker, without harming any other community.

To those of you who have waited too long for a green card as you have put down roots here and raised families and helped communities thrive across the country, I am here to say: We see you.

A previous iteration of this bill passed the Chamber with 365 bipartisan votes. I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the EAGLE Act.

Madam Speaker, I rise in strong and joyful support of the Respect for Marriage Act.

As the mother of an incredible trans daughter, I am here to fight for her rights and those of all LGBTQ+ people, who for too long have been denied the dignity and the respect that they deserve. And as someone who is myself in an interracial marriage, it is far past time that we codify those rights.

An extremist Supreme Court and hateful State legislators want to roll back the hard-won progress that we have made. But we are here to say in a bipartisan way, we will not tolerate this, we will codify these rights once and for all.

This is the beginning. I also call on the Senate to pass the Equality Act to ensure that LGBTQ+ people can enjoy the same rights as everyone else in the country.

But today, Madam Speaker, let's get this bill done. Vote ``yes'' on codifying the right to marry the one you love. Vote ``yes'' on the Respect for Marriage Act.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the Veteran Service Recognition Act to stop the deportation of immigrant veterans.

I thank my colleague, Representative Mark Takano, for bringing this important bill forward and our Immigration and Citizenship Subcommittee chair, Zoe Lofgren, for her tremendous leadership on this issue.

Mr. Speaker, immigrants have defended the United States in every major conflict since the Revolutionary War. One of the first casualties in the Iraq war was Lance Corporal Jose Antonio Gutierrez, who was not an American citizen when he died fighting for us. He signed up for the Marines, wanting to give back to the country that gave him everything.

Today, there are 45,000 immigrants serving in the United States armed services. Yet, hundreds of immigrant veterans are estimated to have been deported.

Mr. Speaker, this is unacceptable. Immigration and Customs Enforcement is supposed to consider veteran service to the country when making removal decisions.

A 2019 GAO study found that ICE attorneys ``. . . did not consistently follow its policies involving veterans who were placed in removal proceedings . . .'' in part because ICE officials were ``. . . unaware of the policies. . . .''

Mr. Speaker, we can't leave this to chance. Even one deported veteran is one too many. Yet, hundreds of immigrant veterans are estimated to have been deported.

When people sign up to defend this country, we should be helping them to become U.S. citizens as quickly as possible, and that is exactly what this bill does.

Mr. Speaker, that is why I am so proud to support the Veteran Service Recognition Act to take crucial steps to stop the deportation of veterans and provide relief to veterans who have already been deported. No one who has put their life on the line for the United States should be deported. It is that simple, Mr. Speaker.

Vote ``yes'' to support veterans.

Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of this bipartisan, bicameral Speak Out Act. I thank Representative Lois Frankel and the chairman for their leadership.

This bill bans forced nondisclosure agreements in assault and harassment disputes and preserves the right of survivors to use their voices.

Women across this country have been told for a long time what constitutes appropriate behavior, what constitutes sexual harassment, and what doesn't. Well, let me tell you, it is time to let them speak up and shine a light on exactly what is happening.

The reality is that estimates are that a third of employees in the United States are covered by these NDAs.

Last year, we heard stories of exactly this situation in the Judiciary Committee. Last year, Tatiana Spottiswoode bravely testified under the protection of a friendly subpoena about the harassment and abuse that she endured from her boss and former CEO, Zia Chishti. Previously, Tatiana had been bound by a gag order that silenced her and prevented accountability for her abuser.

Madam Speaker, after her moving testimony, after bringing light and being able to talk about the horror that she experienced, Chishti was finally fired. He was finally held accountable. In fact, the former British Prime Minister resigned from the company's advisory board after that happened.

Why should she have been silenced in the first place? Why should she have been raped or any other woman been raped and bound to silence because of a nondisclosure agreement that was forced, in many cases, in order for these women to be able to actually have employment? That is absolutely wrong.

Why should women be forced to feel alone, feel like somehow this is their fault, that they are crazy? They should be able to talk about what has happened and bring light to the situation.

The reality is, Madam Speaker, this is about power. This is about who holds the power and how it is held.

That is why we need the Speak Out Act to be passed. It is the only way to make sure that we bring transparency and light to this.

Madam Speaker, for millions of survivors across the country who deserve to have their voices heard, vote ``yes'' on S. 4524. I thank those people on the other side of the aisle who agree with us and know that this is the right thing to do.

Mr. Speaker, today, Democrats will take unprecedented and urgent action when we pass the Inflation Reduction Act.

Today, we make good on our promise to take on climate change and climate justice with historic investments in green technologies that will cut carbon emissions by 40 percent by 2030, create over 9 million good jobs, put $60 billion into environmental justice, and cut energy costs for the average American family by almost $1,000 a year.

Also, for the first time, we take on Big Pharma's price gouging, finally allowing Medicare to negotiate lower prescription drug prices, capping the cost of insulin, and continuing to make healthcare more affordable. All of it is paid for with taxes on the largest corporations and the wealthiest.

We have more to do to complete the rest of the President's agenda on childcare, senior care, expanding Medicare, and investing in housing. With a few more Democrats in the Senate, we will get that done, too.

Today, let's celebrate this massive investment for the people. People over politics. Let's pass this bill.

Madam Speaker, I thank Chairman Pallone for all the work he has done. I know he has a big API community in his district, so we appreciate his attention to these issues.

I am very proud to rise in support of my bipartisan bill, the South Asian Heart Health Awareness and Research Act, and I thank my colleague from the other side of the aisle, Representative Joe Wilson, as well as several other Republicans who have cosponsored this bill and for leading on this issue with me.

Every 38 seconds, a person in the United States dies from cardiovascular disease. It is the leading cause of death, regardless of gender, for most racial and ethnic groups in America. But within those groups, South Asian Americans have the highest death rate from heart disease nationwide.

Now, one of the things I love about Congress is that when we have representation of various diverse communities, we are able to bring up issues that our constituents raise to us or that we feel very viscerally. I first introduced this bill in 2017 after the mother of Ven Neralla, my then-legislative director and who is still a staff member here in Congress, tragically died suddenly of heart disease. As we started researching the issue what we learned is that South Asian Americans are four times more likely to develop heart disease than the general population.

As the first South Asian-American woman in the House of Representatives, I am aware of the barriers that our communities experience to address this epidemic. Much of our knowledge about the risks within this community is actually thanks to relatively new research and personal experience. We just don't exhibit the typical risk factors for heart disease, which hinders early diagnosis and prevention measures, not only within our own community but within the broader group of people who have heart disease.

So while my bill does focus on the South Asian community, it benefits all Americans, and it is careful in the bill--in working through language with Republicans last year and in this Congress--to make sure that we have that multipronged approach. It is even more important as we continue to grapple with the lasting impacts of COVID-19. The American Heart Association says that heart disease will likely continue to kill more Americans than any other cause as `` . . . the influence of COVID-19 will directly and indirectly impact rates of cardiovascular disease prevalence and deaths for years to come. . . .''

Ven's mom would have turned 80 this year. His family is just one of millions who have lost a loved one because of heart disease. But her death will not be in vain. This bill will help prevent other families from undergoing this same tragedy. By passing this bill, not only will we prevent deaths within the South Asian community, but we will also increase awareness and understanding of cardiovascular disease that

will benefit the health and well-being of every American.

Again, I am grateful to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle who understand the importance of this bill and have really stepped up to help me pass this legislation on the floor today.

Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on passing this bill and saving lives.

Madam Speaker, I rise in support of Representatives Sherrill's amendment to study the relationship between COVID-19 and rates of morbidity and mortality due to heart disease.

And while it is true the gentleman is correct, that there is research out there, the reality is also that there needs to be more, and that the studies that are out there right now prove some elements, but not the entire causal relationship.

In a large study of COVID-19 survivors conducted by the VA, researchers found increased frequency of abnormal heart rhythms, heart muscle inflammation, blood clots, strokes, heart attacks, and heart failure in patients who had COVID-19. The cardiac effects of COVID-19, however, are extremely widespread, and not broadly understood.

I am just going to say, I also have personal experience with this. After my husband contracted COVID-19 from me, after I got it when some colleagues on the other side of the aisle did not want to wear masks on January 6 in the safe room, he, unfortunately had a series of heart attacks and had to have a series of heart operations last year.

Every single doctor said to us, we need more research on exactly what the causal relationship is. And this is the reality of where we are today; and I think that this amendment by Representative Sherrill is a very good addition to the bill.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, my amendment would eliminate the statutory requirement for the Defense Department to provide Congress with an unfunded priorities list. This is a wish list of items that DOD would like to have but are not necessary to carry out its duties.

This practice doesn't meaningfully strengthen our national security. Instead, it worsens waste, fraud, and abuse in military spending. These wish lists are packed with billions of dollars of superfluous line items, this year totaling $24 billion on top of the $773 billion requested by the White House.

Don't just take my word for it. Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin said last year that the President's budget request for fiscal year 2022 met DOD's requirements, yet DOD was required by law to submit these wish lists, which have not been approved by any top leadership at the Defense Department as actual priorities.

Top DOD officials have, in fact, expressed strong skepticism about the practice. In a June 2021 hearing before the House Armed Services Committee, General Milley said of unfunded priorities: ``If they were critical, then they need to be higher on the priority list and in the base budget.''

In April, Under Secretary McCord said that the unfunded priorities lists

``should not be confused with saying that the budget is not adequate.'' In fact, he went on to describe to me the problem that happens when different people within the Defense Department who are overseeing their own units submit something and just say it is a priority when overall Defense leadership has not had the opportunity to prioritize, actually, and to even look into whether those things are priorities or not.

Former Defense Secretary Robert Gates all but banned the list, strongly discouraging his generals from submitting these lists to Congress during his tenure.

Despite the skepticism of top DOD officials, the Pentagon is required by law to submit these wish lists to Congress. It wasn't always that way. Though the practice has been around for a couple of decades, unfunded priority lists weren't statutorily required until 2017.

All my amendment does to make this process optional again.

The mandate only exists to serve the interests of defense contractors eager to grow their profits by selling flashy equipment. In 2021, the defense industry spent more than $118 million lobbying Congress to sell their products. Meanwhile, we cannot even verify that the money we authorized to DOD is spent responsibly because, as my colleague Ms. Lee said, it has never passed a budget audit.

The most recent audit found a Navy warehouse full of $126 million of aircraft parts that were not listed anywhere in the records. We don't need to encourage this irresponsible spending by requiring DOD to give us a wish list, but most importantly, we should actually pay attention to the priorities of the top leadership of the Defense Department, which the unfunded priorities list does not do.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Garamendi).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Smith), the distinguished chairman, and I thank him for his service on this committee.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, my amendment would direct the President to establish an office of climate resilience within the White House to coordinate climate resilience activities across all government agencies.

As the climate crisis worsens, American communities are in desperate need of an office to increase the resilience of our communities.

As my colleagues well know, climate disasters are increasing in frequency and severity at an alarming rate. Just last week, a few of my colleagues and I visited Yosemite National Park, where climate change continues to fuel larger, longer, and more severe fires.

In the last 14 months alone, 20 percent of giant sequoias in Sierra Nevada were killed in wildfires. Not more than 48 hours after we left, a wildfire started that is still burning across 2,000 acres and endangering the park and the surrounding communities.

Last month, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration reported that there were nine individual billion-dollar weather and climate events across the country during the first 6 months of the year alone, including severe drought, two tornado outbreaks, and dangerous hailstorms.

Last year, damages from these severe weather events totaled approximately $145 billion. These costs are felt by families across the country. These families lose their houses, all of their belongings, their livelihoods, and sometimes their loved ones in these disasters.

As the climate crisis worsens, this harm will be exacerbated by the lack of climate resilience planning.

There is immense work needed to make our communities resilient and safe from climate disasters. Thankfully, much work is underway. Over 20 Federal agencies have separate climate resilience action plans, but the United States lacks a robust, unified, national climate resilience action plan, and there is no overarching coordination between Federal agencies on this very important security issue. As such, these disjointed efforts are likely performing duplicative work without maximizing the potential benefit.

My amendment would establish an office of climate resilience to coordinate the various efforts currently going on across the Federal Government. The office of climate resilience in the White House would leverage the expertise available from all sectors involved in climate resiliency, including the knowledge and lived experiences of frontline communities.

The office would improve current climate resilience efforts throughout various Federal agencies and ensure that they are rooted in environmental justice as they protect and develop the climate resilience workforce.

The amendment will enable the United States to better prepare for and prevent future climate disasters and protect American families and our Nation's security while mitigating the destruction that natural disasters wreak on our communities.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support my amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I don't understand why the other side is so distraught about an Office of Climate Resilience, and I would love to hear my colleagues on the other side go and tell the people who have lost their homes in wildfires, who are flooded underneath enormous amounts of water that somehow that is not an interest of the Federal Government or even of our military to help protect.

By the way, the military does go into many of these communities when we have these big natural disasters. So it is absolutely about protecting the security of our country, and the reality is it is the duty of the Federal Government to protect these people.

Now, you can make up all kinds of things about why this climate change is not real, but let me tell you, experts around the world believe this is a national security issue. They believe it is real, and they believe we need to address it.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Garamendi), my friend.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor my constituent, Scott Brown from Seattle, Washington who is retiring from Roosevelt High School as the director of bands after 38 years of dedicated service.

Over his distinguished career, Mr. Brown has inspired and empowered thousands of students in Washington's 7th Congressional District. Mr. Brown was committed to ensuring his students had the resources they needed to succeed and had an expectation of excellence, holding his students to the highest standards. His dedication helped lead the Roosevelt High School Jazz Band to four first place wins at the Essentially Ellington Festival and between 1999 and 2022, the band made it to the finals of the competition an unprecedented 22 times. Mr. Brown's efforts and passion for teaching have not gone unrecognized. In 2004, Mr. Brown was named Jazz Educator of the Year by DownBeat magazine and both the Washington Music Educators Association and Seattle's Earshot Jazz have inducted him into their halls of fame.

Now, as he enters retirement, I ask my colleagues to join me in celebrating Mr. Brown's accomplishments and service to his students. Through his students, Mr. Brown's legacy will continue to grow and touch the lives of those in the Seattle metropolitan area and beyond.

Madam Speaker, I rise today on the passage of H.R. 7667 the ``Food and Drug Amendments of 2022.'' Though I am grateful for many of the provisions in this bipartisan legislation, I have strong concerns that this bill does not go far enough to protect the American people--both patients and their doctors. This reauthorization, only occurring every five years, is one of our greatest opportunities to hold the pharmaceutical industry accountable and to the highest standards possible to ensure access and protection for patients across the country.

Typically, this routine reauthorization of user fees is coupled with incentives directed toward the pharmaceutical and medical device industry. With each reauthorization to date, we have seen the increased adoption of expedited review pathways leaving patients and their doctors more uncertain that FDA approved treatments are truly effective or safe. Often, these new pathways that hasten FDA's regulatory review are coupled with financial incentives including exclusivity periods that prolong high monopoly prices such that the American public is paying more for less. Last year's controversial approval of the Alzheimer's disease drug, aducanumab (Aduhelm) laid bare this reality when the FDA approved this drug under the accelerated approval pathway despite harms including brain bleeding and swelling as well as uncertain clinical benefit. This shifted the focus of this year's user fee reauthorization efforts away from shortening FDA review times for new health technologies to reforms to reinstate public trust into FDA 's approval process.

FDA's accelerated approval pathway can be an important way for promising drugs to reach patients. But pharmaceutical corporations have largely failed to uphold their end of the bargain of completing critical studies to confirm that these drugs are truly beneficial. Instead, accelerated approval is being used by Big Pharma to drive further profits at the expense of patient safety and Medicare spending. Although H.R. 7667 would allow for greater FDA oversight of the accelerated approval pathway, this bill should have included much stronger reforms for accelerated-approval drugs.

This bill should have made sure that FDA publicly engages with their advisory committees instead of industry sponsors behind closed doors. Recent studies have found that FDA has convened these independent experts less frequently--between 2010 and 2021, FDA went from hearing these groups for 55 percent of approved drugs to just 6 percent. Transparency is paramount to ensuring trust in our government institutions. We should codify that meetings are made public and nothing should obscure a patient's ability to see how and why a therapeutic approval was granted.

Moreover, the bill should ensure that lower standards of evidence cannot be accepted to approve a drug. Clarification is needed to ensure that Real World Evidence (RWE) is appropriately used to augment the post-approval studies that prove therapies approved are truly effective and research has shown that RWE has demonstrated promise for complementing clinical trials but not replacing them. When it comes to the safety of our constituents, we must ensure that speedy access does not eclipse safety.

A recent study published in JAMA Health Forum explored how much Medicare and Medicaid spend on drugs granted accelerated approval by the FDA both before and after the drug's clinical benefit is confirmed. The study found that for the 38 drugs granted accelerated approval by the FDA between 2012 and 2017:

CMS spent almost $70 billion through 2020 on these drugs;

just over $50 billion (75 percent) was spent after the accelerated approval drugs were converted to standard approval following completion of their required confirmatory trials; but

almost 60 percent ($40 billion) of this spending was for drugs with confirmatory trials evaluating surrogate endpoints instead of assessing meaningful clinical endpoints demonstrating the effect of these drugs on how patients feel, function, or survive.

In addition, this bill should squarely place patient safety at its core and mandate the automatic withdrawal of drugs, preliminarily approved under accelerated approval, that fail to prove efficacy. Not explicitly mandating that approval should expire one year after any target date of study completion, and in no case later than five years after the product is approved unless certain criteria relative to post approval studies are achieved, is a significant concession to the pharmaceutical industry that puts patients and payers at risk of prolonged medical and financial harms. There should be no barriers to removing a drug that at best is ineffective and at worst dangerous.

Another troubling inclusion in the approved measure are additional provisions that would empower a sponsor company to request a meeting with the FDA Commissioner, a public comment period followed by responses by the agency, and a convening of the advisory committee to review the agency's request for withdrawal, wasting precious time. Rather, the

Secretary should have the power to convene and consult an advisory committee if the review is needed, not if it is mandated by the sponsor company. Given current FDA resources and staffing constraints, providing due notice with an explanation for the proposed withdrawal is sufficient. There should be no delay in protecting the health and safety of patients.

We must ensure that the expedited therapeutic review process is transparent and fair--not a revolving door between the agency and industry. As of 2020, we have spent over $40 billion in taxpayer dollars for drugs that never demonstrated benefit, all to line the pockets of pharmaceutical corporations. This is another example of why further reforms are needed to ensure we are protecting our constituents across the country and being thoughtful arbiters of this reauthorization, which will define patient access and safety for the next five years.

I am glad to see the bipartisan efforts achieved in the passage of H.R. 7667, but I do not believe this should be the last word on accelerated approval. I want to officially submit my concern that this bill does not go far enough to protect patients from unnecessary risk of exposure to unproven, ineffective, and potentially dangerous therapies. I hope to continue working with my colleagues to ensure the correct balance is struck between timely and safe access to therapies needed in the final passage of a bi-cameral reauthorization.