Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding. I rise in support of my legislation, H.R. 6893, the Chesapeake Bay Watershed Advancement for Training, Education, Restoration, and Science, the WATERS Act.

The Chesapeake Bay is a natural treasure and a critical resource for the millions of Americans who live within its watershed, including my constituents in Hampton Roads. The Chesapeake Bay's fisheries sustain the region's centuries-old fisheries and seafood industry, which generates about $8 billion in economic activity every year. The bay's unparalleled recreational opportunities not only support tens of thousands of jobs and generate more than $14 billion annually, but are also critical to the well-being and happiness of all that live throughout the watershed.

The Federal Government has helped our efforts to restore and protect the bay by devoting the resources and staff of multiple departments and agencies, including NOAA's Chesapeake Bay Office. This office provides scientific and technical support to government, industry, and nonprofits with the goal of advancing strategies that improve the health of the Chesapeake Bay. This is an effort that has been going on for decades. We are making slow but steady progress.

Among its many responsibilities, NOAA's Chesapeake Bay Office manages the Chesapeake Bay Interpretive Buoy System that provides researchers and watermen with near real-time data on weather and water quality conditions. The Chesapeake Bay Office also oversees the Chesapeake Bay Watershed Education and Training, or B-WET, program. This competitive grant program supports environmental education opportunities throughout the watershed that not only teach students about the bay but also connect them to it through experiential programming.

The Chesapeake Bay Waters Act reauthorizes NOAA's Chesapeake Bay Office. This ensures the agency can continue supporting the goals of the Chesapeake Bay Watershed Agreement and restoring the Chesapeake Bay. My bill also authorizes the Chesapeake B-WET program for the first time in its history, ensuring that future generations can continue to engage with the Chesapeake Bay.

I thank my fellow co-leads, Virginia Representatives Wittman and Kiggans and Maryland Representative Elfreth, for their support of this legislation. I thank Chairman Westerman and Ranking Member Huffman for their leadership in getting this bill to the House floor.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, today, we find ourselves here, again, purportedly to address anti-Semitism in American higher education. While we should be able to agree that there is no place in higher education for anti- Semitism, the fact is my colleagues on the other side have been curiously quiet, or selectively quiet, about addressing anti-Semitism when it actually does occur.

Recall when President Trump declared that there were fine people on both sides when a bunch of White supremacists and their Unite the Right rally marched on the University of Virginia's campus chanting: ``Jews will not replace us.''

My colleagues on the other side were also silent as numerous reports regarding chapters of the College Republicans openly promoted their hated of Jewish people among other groups.

All the while this has been going on, my colleagues have not told the President to stop firing lawyers at the Office for Civil Rights of the Department of Education, the agency responsible for investigating claims of anti-Semitism in education.

My colleagues on the other side of the aisle are certainly mum about how this administration is dismissing Title VI disparate impact analysis, the very tool necessary to address practices and policies that may appear facially neutral but, in fact, discriminate against protected classes under the law.

I have not heard them comment on the whistleblower allegations, and many investigations into anti-Semitism on college campuses, led by the Department of Justice's Anti-Semitism Task Force, were based not on fact patterns or legal analysis but political priorities.

With that said, we have the bill before us, the so-called Protect Economic and Academic Freedom Act, which would amend the Higher Education Act by imposing new conditions on colleges and universities that receive higher education funding. Under the bill, institutions receiving Title IV Federal student aid would be legally required to certify that they are not engaged in a nonexpressive commercial boycott of Israel.

I will begin with an important distinction: there is a difference between actions, or views of students, or even recognized student organizations and the official policy of the colleges and universities they attend.

Students have the right to express their political views, but that does not mean that their university has adopted those views, such as the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions, or BDS, movement. We have yet to see a single college or university in the United States adopt the BDS movement or institutional boycott policies contemplated in the bill.

Simply put, the bill does not address any ongoing or existing higher education policy boycotting Israel. Nonetheless, this would create new Federal requirements intended to prevent institutions from adopting such policies in the future.

Moreover, as we examine the bill, Members should be careful to consider how these Federal requirements would operate in practice, the potential of negative effect on institutions receiving Federal funds, and whether the bill is misusing the power that we have from the Constitution's Spending Clause to illegally sanction First Amendment- protected speech, particularly those of students.

As written, the bill presents serious First Amendment problems and improperly limits academic freedom.

I had hoped these problems could have been resolved before we got to the floor, but they weren't, so I will be opposing the bill. For these reasons, I ask Members to vote ``no,'' and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from Michigan (Ms. Tlaib).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Castro).

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

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a statement from J Street, which says in part: ``This means infringing on constitutionally protected free speech and academic freedom by penalizing institutions (and thereby unrelated research) for participation in certain boycott or divestment efforts targeted at Israel or Israeli settlements. There is a fundamental distinction between the State of Israel and the territory that it occupies over the Green Line, and penalizing universities for expressing their opposition to activities that further annexation sets a dangerous precedent.''

[From J Street, Aug. 31, 2026]

J Street Statement Opposing H.R. 4795

Washington, DC--J Street opposes the Protect Economic and

Academic Freedom Act of 2025 (H.R. 4795), which would

condition federal funding on a university's choices regarding

investments, procurement, partnerships, and other

institutional activities in Israel and the West Bank.

While we oppose the Global BDS Movement and strongly

support academic engagement between American and Israeli

institutions, we believe this legislation takes the wrong

approach to these issues.

Specifically, the legislation would penalize any

institution that chooses to engage in a nonexpressive

commercial boycott against Israel and ``an entity licensed or

regulated by, or organized under the laws of,'' Israel, which

would include Israeli settlements in the West Bank.

This means infringing on constitutionally protected free

speech and academic freedom by penalizing institutions (and

thereby unrelated research) for participation in certain

boycott or divestment efforts targeted at Israel or Israeli

settlements. There is a fundamental distinction between the

State of Israel and the territory that it occupies over the

Green Line, and penalizing universities for expressing their

opposition to activities that further annexation sets a

dangerous precedent.

Furthermore, this bill does not keep American Jewish

students on campus safe, nor does it address the lived

experience of antisemitism that American Jewish students

encounter. Instead, by changing US code to to exceptionalize

the treatment of Israel at American universities, this bill

runs the risk of inflaming antisemitism.

J Street believes the most effective way to counter

antisemitism on college campuses is through open debate,

education, and renewed efforts to achieve a peaceful

resolution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict--not through

punitive legislation aimed to curb the freedom to boycott.

We urge Members of Congress to vote against this bill and

instead cosponsor the Antisemitism Response and Prevention

Act (H.R. 6806). This bill would implement a whole-of-

government approach to fighting antisemitism by funding the

Office for Civil Rights of the Department of Education and

mandating the designation of a Title VI coordinator on every

college campus in order to provide students with additional

resources in hopes of preventing antisemitism and other hate

on campus.

Mr. Speaker, I also include in the Record a statement from the American Federation of Teachers which says in part: ``The AFT has long fought for academic freedom, the safety and dignity of all students and educators, and policies that keep higher education accessible. H.R. 4795 undermines those goals rather than advancing them.''

Mr. Speaker, I will close by returning to the central point: that we must distinguish between student or faculty expression in university policy.

A student organization or individual faculty member supporting BDS is not the same thing as the university administration adopting BDS as policy. A faculty member expressing a political opinion is not the same thing as the institution imposing a boycott.

Importantly, we have yet to see a single American college or university adopting BDS in the way the bill suggests. Furthermore, we know the bill is intended to target the BDS movement. Yet it is not clear whether a school that even joined the BDS movement would be covered by the text of the bill.

The bill implicates ``nonexpressive boycotts'' as the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Castro) just pointed out. If it is expressive, it is protected by the First Amendment. BDS by its very nature is designed to express disapproval of the actions of the State of Israel. If a college or university came out and publicly said it was joining BDS, most people would agree that that announcement and any activity that flowed from it would clearly be expressive, and therefore, out of the scope of the bill.

As an expressive activity, the statement would be protected under the First Amendment, and therefore, the First Amendment would protect the funding from being removed. But, again, no college or university has embraced the BDS movement anyway.

We should combat anti-Semitism wherever it occurs, but we should not do so by punishing protected speech or conflating students' views with university policies.

For those reasons I urge a ``no'' vote, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in recognition of Filipino American National Historical Society (FANHS) leaders Dorothy Laigo Cordova, Dr. Allan Bergano, and Edwina Bergano.

Known as the ``Mother'' of the Filipino American National Historical Society and the Filipino American civil rights movement, Dorothy Laigo Cordova co-founded FANHS with her late husband, Fred Cordova, in 1982 as a nonprofit dedicated to preserving and sharing Filipino American history. For seven decades, she has worked to combat racism and ensure that the Filipino American story is recognized as an integral part of the American experience. FANHS was born out of frustration with the lack of accurate representation of Filipino Americans in mainstream history and has since grown to more than 40 chapters across the United States, including one in Hampton Roads. Dorothy's tireless efforts were instrumental in establishing Filipino American History Month, observed every October and recognized by President Obama in 2012.

Dr. Allan Bergano and Edwina Bergano founded the Hampton Roads Chapter of FANHS in 1990. They are taking a much-deserved retirement after nearly 40 years of service and a shared commitment to intergenerational community leadership. The Hampton Roads Chapter is the oldest on the East Coast and focuses on preserving, documenting, and sharing the history and culture of Filipino Americans in the region.

As the only present Member of Congress with Filipino ancestry, I have the privilege of representing this rich and vibrant Filipino American community in Hampton Roads while serving as co-chair of the U.S.- Philippines Friendship Caucus. The region is home to the largest Filipino American population on the East Coast and several U.S. military bases. Many Filipinos immigrated to the area through service in the U.S. Navy or by working in the health professions.

In closing, I thank Dorothy Laigo Cordova, Dr. Allan Bergano, and Edwina Bergano for the sacrifices they have made and the bridges they have built for the Filipino American community.

Mr. Chairman, prices are already too high for groceries, housing, healthcare, childcare, and other everyday expenses. However, instead of focusing on lowering costs for working families, the Trump administration and my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are presenting this resolution which will continue policies which have actually made things worse.

With the passage of their big, ugly bill, they cut healthcare, food assistance, and education funding all while adding $4.7 trillion to the national debt, and now they want to add another $95 billion to the debt to continue waging an endless war.

We have a choice. We can invest in working families and ensure that people have access to food, Medicare, Medicaid, daycare, and education, but my colleagues instead are choosing an endless war. That is the wrong choice.

Mr. Chair, we should, therefore, oppose this resolution.

Madam Speaker, once again, while working families struggle with high costs caused by this administration, Republicans' only focus is on spending more money on their lawless immigration enforcement agenda, even as ICE continues to abuse its authority and without any assurance that they will begin obeying the law by obtaining warrants before they go into people's homes, stop deporting citizens, and stop using excessive force.

While Americans face increased costs, the President seems only interested in building his ballroom, rewarding violent insurrectionists, and putting his face on passports and $250 bills.

This reconciliation bill does nothing to block these initiatives. It also does nothing to reduce gas prices, improve healthcare, preserve the Department of Education, or create jobs.

Let's not forget, this bill also increases the deficit after the first bill last year increased the deficit by trillions of dollars. That is not a surprise because every Democratic administration since Kennedy has left for the Republicans a better deficit than they inherited, and every Republican administration since Nixon has left for the Democrats a worse deficit situation, all without exception.

We need to be focused on a fiscally responsible solution that will actually

do something to bring down costs for American families. This bill doesn't do that.

Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this legislation.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 5408, the Faster Labor Contracts Act, which ensures that workers can quickly and efficiently reach a first contract between a union and their employer.

It is also one of the many important provisions of the Protecting the Right to Organize Act, or the PRO Act, which critically bolsters working people's ability to organize and form a union while holding union-busting employers accountable.

This bill would amend the National Labor Relations Act to require employers to begin negotiations with a newly certified union within 10 days. This bill further provides that if no agreement is reached after 90 days, either party may request mediation from the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service. If mediation fails after 30 days, the dispute will be referred to an arbitration panel selected by the union and employer to secure an initial contract.

For too many workers, the hard work doesn't end when they vote to form a union. It just begins. Reaching a first contract to form a union can take months, even years. In some cases, it never happens at all. It is not unusual for workers to sit through endless delays and other dilatory tactics by employers, including shifting proposals and stalled negotiations. Workers endure all of this while trying to balance their jobs, their families, and their livelihoods.

When workers choose to organize, they are choosing a unified voice to negotiate for their rights with management. Without a first contract, that voice can be effectively silenced. Dragging out negotiations gives corporations a long chance to break up a union.

The Faster Labor Contracts Act brings accountability to this process. It sets up reasonable timelines and ensures that both sides engage in serious, good-faith negotiations. It helps prevent delay tactics and keeps the focus where it belongs--on reaching an agreement that works for everyone.

This bill is about making the right to organize real, not theoretical.

Mr. Speaker, I thank Congressman Norcross for his leadership on this issue, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Norcross), a member of the Committee on Education and Workforce and the sponsor of the bill.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Horsford).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Krishnamoorthi).

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

I include in the Record a letter from the American Federation of Teachers.

The letter says, in part: ``For this reason, we call

on all Members of the House to vote for the bipartisan Faster Labor Contracts Act. It is far from being a complete set of labor reforms, but it is an incredibly important step in the right direction.''

The letter goes on to say: ``Under current law, for far too many workers, including many who seek to join the AFT, organizing a union is marked by employer anti-union campaigns that include pressure tactics and a refusal to negotiate a first contract after workers have voted to unionize.''

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Hoyle).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Menefee).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Casar), the vice ranking member of the Committee on Education and Workforce.

Mr. Speaker, could you advise how much time is remaining on both sides.

Mr. Speaker, could you say that again.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Mrvan).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Green).

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

Mr. Speaker, when workers vote to form a union, they don't want their first contract to come in years after endless stalling by an employer negotiating in bad faith. They want a voice in the workplace.

The Faster Labor Contracts Act helps prevent these delay tactics and smooths the transition to an organized workplace. As the saying goes, forming a union should be a right, not a fight.

This legislation is an important first step toward ensuring that workers can more easily form a union and negotiate for higher wages, better benefits, and safer workplaces. Unions are critical to leveling the playing field and addressing rising economic inequality. This bill will help achieve these goals, but we cannot stop here. We must also pass the Protecting the Right to Organize Act, the PRO Act, to comprehensively advance workers' rights.

For these reasons, Mr. Speaker, I support the bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 7892, the so-called No Aid for Ghost Students Act.

Let me say at the outset that protecting taxpayer dollars and preventing fraud in our student Federal aid program is always a good idea. As stewards of public funds, we should all agree that fraud should be identified, investigated, and stopped, but this bill is not about a thoughtful, evidence-based solution as its supporters claim.

The bill would direct the Department of Education to create an identity fraud detection system within the Free Application for Federal Student Aid process and authorize the Department to open accelerated program reviews against colleges.

Mr. Speaker, I have got to point out that the Department of Education just recently, this past April, launched a new identity fraud detection system as part of the FAFSA process. That system is still being tested, and Congress has not seen any meaningful evidence about its effectiveness or its impact upon students. Yet, this legislation would rush to codify requirements and penalties before we know whether the Department's current efforts are even working.

Federal student aid helps nearly 13 million students every year who are pursuing higher education and economic opportunity. However, the bill's creation of vague enforcement standards and punitive mandates, without clear guidance for students and institutions, risk making it harder for legitimate students to access the aid they need to attend colleges.

For example, we don't have evaluations on the effect this bill may have on legitimate students who are incorrectly flagged as suspicious. The bill prohibits colleges from distributing funds to those students until the suspicion is cleared up. These students could face hardships obtaining housing, transportation, or even buying books for who knows how long.

Mr. Speaker, we should allow the Department's new antifraud system to operate and wait for the Department to evaluate the results. The Department should work with colleges, financial aid administrators, and fraud experts to determine what additional tools and guardrails may be necessary. Codifying this new system without assessing its effectiveness just doesn't make any sense.

Moreover, H.R. 7892 could reasonably be viewed as part of a broader strategy to weaponize student aid. The Trump administration has issued numerous threats and made efforts to withhold title IV funding as a weapon to enforce ideological control over educational institutions.

Already, this administration has rewritten the accreditation handbook, threatened funding to select institutions that violate its legally dubious executive orders, and embedded ideological conditions into annual participation agreements.

The bill would give the administration another tool to further target colleges by allowing the Department to initiate and conduct program reviews based on little evidence. In fact, during the committee's debate on the bill, the committee Democrats sought to have a clear definition of what ``reasonable suspicion of identity fraud'' actually means in the legislation.

Regrettably, the bill has made its way to the floor without addressing this concern. As a result, the vague language in the bill would enable the Trump administration and future administrations to weaponize fraud investigations to target certain colleges or States.

Fraud prevention and student access to affordable college education are not competing goals. We can achieve both. Unfortunately, this bill does not strike that balance.

For that reason, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no,'' and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Menefee).

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

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a letter in opposition to the bill from the American Federation of Teachers.

It says, in part: ``H.R. 7892, the No Aid for Ghost Students Act, is seemingly about cracking down on the real concern about fraud in the Federal financial aid system. However, according to the Secretary of Education's own recent congressional testimony, that fraud is already being successfully addressed with existing tools at the Department of Education's disposal. The main impact of this bill would be to provide the Secretary with a wide- ranging authority to subject colleges to additional review for failing to meet vague and ill-defined metrics around `suspected fraud.' ''

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a link to another article titled: ``The Hidden Power Grab in `Fraud Prevention'--and the Students Who Will Pay,'' from the Alliance for Higher Education and The Hope Center: https://hope.temple.edu/newsroom/hope-blog/hidden-power-grab- fraud- prevention-students-who-will-pay.

It says, in part, ``The bill's operative trigger . . . `reasonable suspicion of identify fraud,' is a broad legalistic term with little history in Federal financial aid policy. This term has typically been used only when referring potential matters to the Department's inspector general, where facts and evidence could be carefully gathered by career employees with experience in fraud investigations. This bill radically expands the agency's powers to make the Secretary the judge, jury, and executioner.''

It goes on further to say that the reasonable suspicion standard ``should require articulable, credible grounds to believe fraud has occurred, not an unexamined `hunch.' It is also critical that such powers cannot be weaponized against perceived political enemies-- perhaps a State or college that isn't politically aligned with the administration.''

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record another article that is titled: ``Stop Fraud, Not Students: A Balancing Act for Financial Aid Offices and Administrators,'' from the Institute for College Access and Success.

[April 27, 2026]

Stop Fraud, Not Students: A Balancing Act for Financial Aid Offices and

Administrators

(Author: Emmanuel Rodriguez)

AI-driven application fraud is rising fast, but without

adequate staffing and resources,

prevention efforts risk blocking the very students aid is

meant to serve.

Applying for financial aid is one of the most critical

actions a low-income student can take to make their

postsecondary education a reality. Completing the Free

Application for Federal Student Aid (FAFSA) unlocks federal,

state, and institutional resources that can bring the coAts

of college within reach. Each year, the U.S. Department of

Education (the Department) selects millions of student

applications for a taxpayer safeguard and compliance process

known as verification. Financial aid verification is split

into three main categories--V1, V4, and V5--all of which are

used to confirm that the income, household size, and identity

information reported by a student on their FAFSA is accurate.

This process can involve submitting tax records,

identification documents, or other materials to resolve

potential discrepancies. While the goal is to ensure that

limited financial aid resources are distributed

appropriately, verification creates a real tension: trying to

safeguard public taxpayer dollars without introducing delays,

confusion, or additional barriers that disproportionately

impact the students who can least afford them, and

potentially pushing them out of the educational pipeline.

Across the nation, college and financial aid administrators

have warned that the rate of financial aid fraud has

surpassed anything they've seen in the past, with ``ghost

students'' emerging as a major concern. These bad actors are

using stolen or synthetic identities to apply for aid and

enroll in colleges with no intent to attend, instead seeking

to collect financial aid and then disappear. Community

colleges, which often have more open-access admissions and

higher volumes of aid applicants, have been

disproportionately affected by this trend. While this problem

has long existed, the use of advancing technology to scale

fraudulent aid applications has surged as it facilitates mass

enrollment and can even generate coursework that can appear

legitimate.

This is not isolated to one or even a few states. In

Minnesota, colleges flagged more than 7,000 fraudulent or

suspicious applications in a single year. In Nevada, one

college reported over $7 million lost in a single semester

due to fraudulent enrollments. And nationally, federal

investigators have examined more than $350 million in ghost

student fraud cases over the past five years. Unfortunately,

the most staggering numbers are coming out of California,

where colleges have reported roughly 900,000 fraudulent

college applications in 2024 and more than $11 million lost

in aid. While the total money lost remains very small

compared to total aid, the rise in this activity is swamping

limited aid administration capacity and can undermine trust

in the program for key stakeholders, including policymakers

who allocate the funds for aid.

In response, both states and institutions are acting.

Colleges are deploying AI-powered detection tools,

implementing stricter identity verification, or front-loading

identity verification through their application process,

amongst other measures. At the federal level, the Department

is reinstating fraud detection protocols, including identity

screenings and cross-agency data checks. Even Congress has

begun to respond through the recent introduction of the

Student Aid Fraud Oversight and Accountability Act of 2026

(H.R. 7891), the No Aid for Ghost Students Act of 2026 (H.R.

7892), and the FAFSA Verification Efficiency Act (H.R. 7893).

Taken together, these efforts signal a growing recognition

that fraud prevention must be strengthened. But how it's done

matters for students. A lot.

The California Case Study

For the past few years, the California Community Colleges

(CCC) have been fighting an uphill battle against ghost

students who are getting their hands on federal, state, and

even institutional aid by taking advantage of the community

college mission to provide open access to all students no

matter when they start their educational journey.

TICAS has learned from financial aid administrators that

the AI tools they are using to combat this problem are

getting better and increasing detection. Online verification

platforms and methods have replaced paper-based systems,

allowing students to more easily submit required documents

rather than coming in person. And staff at many colleges are

proactive in their student outreach to offer support in

navigating this process, even with limited resources.

Compliance and protective measures taken by California's

colleges, no matter how thoughtfully designed and

implemented, are just one side of this equation. On the other

side, we need to track and center the experiences of students

with the processes--especially as the Department is stepping

in by expanding V4/V5 verification rates. For undocumented

students, students from mixed-status families, formerly

incarcerated students, foster youth, and others who already

navigate institutions with caution, being told ``show me your

ID'' or ``come into the office to prove you're real and that

you are as poor as you reported'' can feel threatening.

Without careful communication, these processes can feel

punitive, invasive, and in today's reality, connected to

immigration enforcement or federal data sharing that students

fear. This fear is not hypothetical, and addressing it will

take time, intentionality, and both fiscal and human

resources.

Yet, across California, financial aid offices are being

asked to do more with less. Adding identity verification on

top of their normal duties of helping students file a FAFSA

or CADAA or navigate processes like Satisfactory Academic

Progress and professional judgement requests are heavy lifts.

The CCC system and its financial aid administrators cannot

sufficiently carry out increased, more complex, and student-

centered verification practices along with their other work

without sufficient resources.

If California wants to protect taxpayer dollars as well as

students' access to an affordable education, the state must

adequately fund financial aid offices to do both well and in

an equitable way. Widely supported budget requests reflect

this reality, such as an existing ask for an additional $10

million ongoing CA Proposition 98 funds to support the

Student Financial Aid Administration (SFAA), which many

advocates support and the Chancellor's Office has uplifted.

Alternatively, California could implement a reoccurring cost-

of-living adjustment to the SFAA base or ensure they earmark

a portion of any Student Support Block Grant investments for

this purpose.

Regardless of the approach, California has the opportunity

to create a national model for balancing program integrity

with student access. To do so, it must begin with a sustained

state investment in financial aid offices to augment

resources that support vital counseling and advising, clear

communication, and secure technology.

Looking Ahead

As policymakers and institutions respond across the

country, it's critical that they all intentionally balance

program integrity with student access. TICAS offers the

following high-level principles to help guide decision-makers

grappling with how to address this issue:

Ensure all verification processes are clear, transparent,

and student-centered, with strong communication to all

affected parties about why verification is happening.

Center the experiences of students--particularly those from

vulnerable populations--who may experience verification as

confusing, intimidating, or even unsafe.

Prepare multilingual outreach materials for students and

families whom English is a second language to clearly explain

the reasons for verification, next steps, and other supports.

Avoid unnecessarily expanding verification requirements

beyond the student applying for aid--especially towards

dependents or family members.

Protect student privacy and data security, especially as

new technologies like AI are introduced and used to mine or

filter sensitive data.

Provide adequate funding and staffing so financial aid

offices can have training to understand these processes and

implement them effectively.

If colleges choose to build systems that front-load

documentation and identity verification through their

applications, invest in that infrastructure early and test it

thoroughly to ensure it is as simple and easy as possible to

complete.

It says, in part: ``While the goal is to ensure that limited financial aid resources are distributed appropriately, verification creates a real tension: trying to safeguard public taxpayer dollars without introducing delays, confusion, or additional barriers that disproportionately impact the students who can least afford them, and potentially pushing them out of the educational pipeline.''

Mr. Speaker, finally, I include in the Record an article from StateScoop with a letter from Al Sharpton of the National Action Network, outlining many issues involved in identity verification done by artificial intelligence.

[From STATESCOOP, Aug. 1, 2024]

New York lawmaker questions state's use of identity-verification vendor

(By Keely Quinlan)

In a letter to the state chief information officer, New

York state Sen. Jeremy Cooney raises concerns with the

state's use of AI-powered software from the identity-

verification firm Socure. The company says many of the claims

are false.

In a letter penned this month to Dru Rai, New York state's

chief information officer, state Sen. Jeremy Cooney raised

concerns regarding Socure, a fraud prevention and identity

verification firm used by the state, citing the vendor's data

practices and how it uses artificial intelligence.

The letter from Cooney, dated July 10, asks Rai how the

state's Office of Information Technology Services has vetted

Socure, which in addition to more than 20 state government

agencies and multiple federal agencies, provides New York

state with identity verification services. In an interview

with StateScoop, though, Socure executives said many of

Cooney's claims are simply false and that he misunderstands

how the company's technology works.

Socure's technology relies on AI and machine learning to

analyze several thousand data points to predict fraudulent

identity activity. For governments, it predicts fraud for

resident services, such as by scanning benefits applications.

Fraud is a growing concern for state agencies, which since

the COVID-19 pandemic have seen heightened levels of fraud

across many government functions.

Cooney, who also chairs the Senate Procurement and

Contracts Committee, said how Socure obtains and uses those

data points--many of which would be considered personally

identifiable data--is concerning.

Referring to the company as a data broker, Cooney said the

company ``collects, purchases and stores billions of data

points, including sensitive personal identifiable

information, on New Yorkers without their consent to confirm

their identities.'' While noting that identity verification

``is critical for ensuring equitable access to public

services,'' Cooney said that the potential risks associated

with using AI include preventing people from accessing

critical government services.

``Innovation should never come at the cost of good

governance and transparency,'' Cooney wrote in an email to

StateScoop. ``Given the widespread concerns around Socure's

business practices and the growing recognition of AI's risks,

it is important to scrutinize any work they are doing for New

York state agencies. I deeply appreciate the hard work and

ongoing efforts of the State CIO's office to make sure our

state's digital systems grant every New Yorker secure,

equitable access to state services and uphold personal

privacy.''

In the letter, Cooney also asked Rai whether the state

requires that Socure include a human review of algorithmic

output to ensure it's accurate and not discriminatory, and

whether the state has tested Socure's fraud prediction models

for bias.

``Has the state confirmed whether Socure's practices fully

comply with NY state privacy law, specifically related to its

mass collection of sensitive PII, partnership with data

brokers, and use of social media data?'' Cooney asked in the

letter.

`we are not a data broker'

Jordan Burris, vice president of public sector strategy for

Socure and the former chief of staff in the White House's

Office of the Federal CIO, told StateScoop that portions of

the letter fundamentally misunderstand what the company does,

noting that Socure is not a data broker. Additionally, New

York state has yet to pass a comprehensive data privacy law

that would legally define within the state what constitutes a

data broker. Its data privacy act is still in committee for

the second year in a row.

``We do not sell data to third parties, we do not use it

for marketing. We do not use it to run a marketplace,

offering online discounts for e-commerce, like other

companies in the space,'' Burris told StateScoop. ``We are

only focused on verifying identity and rooting out fraud, and

ultimately, under looking at what is exactly New York State

law today, we are not a data broker, and to suggest otherwise

is simply false.''

Cooney's letter follows at least two other instances this

year in which New York state leaders have levied concerns

regarding Socure and its data practices. Rep. Ritchie Torres,

D-N.Y., in February wrote a letter to Socure CEO Johnny Ayers

over concerns that his company's digital identity

verification software might lead to discrimination.

``You claim your product, `fuses personal identifiable

information (PID validated by thousands of data sources' in

order to prevent fraud,'' Torres' letter read. ``Companies'

abuse of private data can also lead to the unwanted tracking

and sale of people's sensitive health data, genetic

information, religious participation, and location. Given the

lack of transparency around your services, constituents in my

district have expressed legitimate privacy concerns and

demand to know how you source their data, how it is used, and

whether it is equitable for all American communities.''

While Cooney's recent letter claims Torres' letter went

unanswered, Socure told StateScoop it met with Torres' office

to review some of its complaints. StateScoop contacted

Torres' office for comment, but did not hear back before

publication.

data sources

In March, Rev. Al Sharpton of the National Action Network,

wrote a letter to New York State Attorney General Letitia

James citing concerns with Socure's lack of transparency

regarding the types of data it uses to perform identity

verification.

``Socure also collects data from thousands of data sources,

including personally identifiable information (PII), without

providing any meaningful transparency regarding how that data

is acquired, stored, and used,'' Sharpton's letter read.

``Socure scrapes social media, utilizes geolocation

technology, and deploys artificial intelligence technology to

conduct its business. They have no help line, and people have

no recourse should their identity be denied mistakenly. These

practices have historically and consistently hurt

marginalized communities.''

When asked how Socure obtains data to perform identity

verification, Burris said the company buys and otherwise

obtains data from a variety of public and private sources to

``bring in house.'' These sources include public records,

mobile network operators--like Verizon and AT&T--and higher

education institutions, Burris said. He added that Socure's

data scientists evaluate the ``authoritativeness of that

data.''

``I'm not looking to buy data for data's sake. I'm looking

at data for the purpose of what we can do with it,'' Burris

said. ``The only purpose for us having it is to help with

identity verification in particular. . . . And then we even

have a proprietary database that we've built of known

fraudulent identity identities that we've identified over our

12-year existence.''

`pressure testing'

As far as concerns of effects on marginalized communities,

Burris said the company is ``pressure testing'' its AI models

by testing for bias across demographics like age, race,

gender and other protected classes.

On the topic of human review in the identity verification

process, Burris said ``humans are involved all throughout the

process.''

``The question of are human reviewers evaluating every

identity decision fundamentally misunderstands the challenges

that exist with verifying identity today,'' Burris said. ``We

are going backwards if we heavily rely on human reviews to

verify identity. The cost is long wait times, backlogs and

good people who ultimately will continue to be underserved.''

In an email, a spokesperson for the New York Office of

Information Technology Services said: ``We take our

responsibility to protect the privacy of every single

resident accessing state programs or services very seriously,

and have implemented the strongest possible security measures

to ensure it.''

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, this debate is not about whether or not fraud should be stopped. Everybody agrees with that, like when Trump University paid $25 million to settle their fraud investigation. We shouldn't be debating whether or not fraud should be stopped. We should be debating the provisions of the bill, not the merits of the title.

The question before us is not whether or not we should try to reduce fraud, but whether or not Congress should codify into law a process that has barely begun to operate and whose effectiveness has not been evaluated, especially as it affects students who are incorrectly flagged under the bill. It doesn't add anything to what is already being done. It only codifies what is being done before the program can be evaluated.

We should not substitute politics for due diligence. We should wait for that evaluation. As I said in committee, I was willing to work in good faith to improve the legislation. Regrettably, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle chose not to consider the fixes needed to support students and colleges while also addressing the responsibility to defer fraud.

This bill circumvents deliberative processes, imposes new punitive requirements before we have the facts, and risks creating new barriers for students seeking an education. We should pursue smart enforcement, be flexible when honest mistakes occur, and be informed by evidence rather than assumptions.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the Hampton Alumnae Chapter of Delta Sigma Theta Sorority, Incorporated, as it celebrates 75 years of service to the Hampton Roads community. Chartered in 1951 and tracing its roots to the Beta Kappa Chapter established in 1937, the Hampton Alumnae Chapter has built a proud legacy of sisterhood, scholarship, service, and social action that continues to strengthen our communities today.

Throughout its history, the chapter has demonstrated an unwavering commitment to improving the lives of others. Its members have supported educational opportunities through scholarships and youth mentoring programs, helped address food insecurity through partnerships with the Virginia Peninsula Foodbank, and invested in communities both

locally and abroad through projects ranging from Habitat for Humanity homes to water wells in Haiti and Kenya. The chapter's work reflects a deep commitment to service and to expanding opportunity for all.

The Hampton Alumnae Chapter has also been a leader in promoting health and wellness, economic empowerment, and civic engagement. Through voter registration efforts, public forums, financial literacy programs, wellness initiatives, and youth leadership development, the chapter has helped residents become more informed, engaged, and empowered members of their communities.

Mr. Speaker, I commend the Hampton Alumnae Chapter of Delta Sigma Theta Sorority, Incorporated, for 75 years of dedicated service and community leadership. I congratulate its members, past and present, on this milestone anniversary and thank them for the lasting impact they have made on Hampton Roads and beyond.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 7726 because we know that childcare is not a luxury. It is a necessity for millions of American families. Yet, many communities struggle with skyrocketing childcare costs if they can find any childcare at all. Our economy already loses an estimated $122 billion every year due to childcare shortages, and that is a policy failure.

The bill before us does nothing to reduce childcare costs, increase supply, or improve conditions for providers, and it doesn't even reduce fraud. Instead, it creates uncertainty and red tape for States and providers. While the supporters will be discussing the title of the bill, they are not going to be discussing the substance.

I support efforts to reduce fraud in government programs, but this bill doesn't do that. States are already required to report error rates and undergo compliance reviews of the Child Care and Development Block Grant every 3 years. This bill would require States to triple their reporting obligations, diverting CCDBG dollars away from families by increasing administrative costs. More reporting does not reduce fraud.

H.R. 7726 is also extremely vague. It would allow the Health and Human Services Secretary to designate States as high risk and subject them to additional monitoring without defining what additional monitoring or high risk means, and it provides no additional funding to support these new responsibilities.

Furthermore, it expands situations where the State may be in noncompliance, opening the door for this legislation to be weaponized to withhold funding from an entire State that the Trump administration wants to punish.

The bill also mandates permanent disbarment of providers found guilty of fraud regardless of mitigating circumstances, and it is unclear who gets debarred. Is it the individual who was involved, or could it be the entire franchise operating in multiple States?

In many communities, permanently removing even one provider could leave families without options for childcare. Furthermore, debarment from the childcare program requires debarment from the Child and Adult Care Food Program, so innocent families could lose access to food as well as childcare.

This legislation fails to stop fraud. Instead, it imposes needless red tape and bureaucracy on communities that are already strapped for resources. For that reason, Mr. Speaker, I oppose the bill and reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a letter from public health and anti-hunger organizations, a couple of dozen of them, that says in part that the provisions of H.R.

7723 which are now in this bill ``would use existing Serious Deficiency process to trigger disbarment, which is problematic because it is a tool that is inconsistently applied and is often triggered by minor errors rather than fraud or misconduct.''

May 18, 2026.

Re H.R. 7723 and Its Impact on CACFP Participation

Dear Members of the House of Representatives: We, the

undersigned organizations, write to oppose H.R. 7723,

Safeguarding Taxpayer Dollars in Child Care Act, which could

bar child care providers from participating in the child and

Adult Care Food Program (CACFP) and the Child Care and

Development Block Grant (CCDBG) for unintentional or

inadvertent errors.

CACFP is a federal program that provides reimbursements for

nutritious meals and snacks to eligible providers in rural,

suburban, and urban areas in communities across the country,

and is proven to improve children's health, family economic

stability, and child care quality. This program ensures that

children in every state have access to healthy meals and

snacks at participating child care centers, family child care

homes, Head Start programs, afterschool programs, and

emergency shelters.

H.R. 7723 seeks to bar providers from receiving federal

funds if they commit fraud, but states are already

administering CACFP with strong oversight systems

specifically designed to detect and prevent integrity

concerns. These systems are built from U.S. Department of

Agriculture (USDA) guidance and technica1 assistance.

H.R. 7723 would use the existing Serious Deficiency (SD)

process to trigger disbarment, which is problematic because

it is a tool that is inconsistently applied and is often

triggered by minor errors rather than fraud or misconduct.

In May 2024, USDA began the rulemaking process to update

and improve the SD process, with hundreds of stakeholders

urging USDA to clearly define fraud and provide more

technical assistance. These identified improvements must be

included in a Final Rule to ensure due process and that

children and families do not lose access to quality and

community-based child care due to minor or inadvertent

errors.

``We are also concerned about the chilling effect this bill

may have on child care providers.'' Fear of losing CCDBG

funding over inadvertent CACFP errors could push providers to

withdraw from CACFP entirely, reducing children's access to

healthy meals at a critical time for their health and

development.

We strongly support holding providers who commit fraud

accountable. However, inaccurate or exaggerated claims about

alleged fraud should not be the basis for jeopardizing

children's access to nutritious food and access to quality

and locally-based child care. We urge you to oppose this

bill.

Thank you for your consideration to ensure access to high

quality and community-based child nutrition and child care.

We welcome the opportunity to discuss these concerns further.

Sincerely,

National Organizations:

American Federation of State, County and Municipal

Employees (AFSCME); CACFP Roundtable; Center for Law and

Social Policy (CLASP); Common Threads; Food Research & Action

Center (FRAC); First Focus Campaign for Children; National

Association for Family Child Care; National CACFP

Association; National CACFP Forum; National Farm to School

Network; ZERO TO THREE.

State and Local Organizations:

Alpha & Omega Nutrition Program, Inc. (Tennessee); Child

Nutrition Services (Nebraska); Children's Hunger Alliance

(Ohio); CocoKids Inc (California); Genesee County Interagency

Council (New York); Giving Youth A Chance (Tennessee); Hawaii

Children's Action Network Speaks!; Indy Hunger Network

(Indiana); Lucia Mar USD (California); Marathon County Child

Development Agency (Wisconsin); Marshmallow Home Daycare LLC

(California); Missouri State Center for Ozarks Poverty

Research; Northwest Harvest (Washington); Oppenheim

Consulting, LLC; San Francisco--Marin Food Bank (California);

Second Harvest Food Bank of Orange County (California); Tiny

Tots and Little Tykes, Inc. (Minnesota).

Mr. Speaker, I also include in the Record a letter from AFSCME, Education Healthcare Public Services, and SEIU that says in part: ``This bill would enable the administration to withdraw Federal childcare funds abruptly without cause, making childcare less affordable and reliable for working families.''

June 2, 2026.

House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Dear Representative: On behalf of the 5 million members of

the American Federation of State, County and Municipal

Employees (AFSCME), American Federation of Teachers (AFT),

and Service Employees International Union (SEIU), we write

collectively in opposition to Stop Child Care Scams Act (H.R.

7726), which purports to address allegations of fraud in

child care programs. ``This bill would enable the

administration to withdraw federal childcare funds abruptly

without cause, making childcare less affordable and reliable

for working families.'' This legislation would also make it

even more difficult for struggling childcare providers to

keep their doors open. We urge you to vote no on H.R. 7726.

Our unions represent family childcare providers, childcare

centers, programs and services, and preschool employees. Some

of these programs span traditional working hours and others

operate well beyond the traditional work day to accommodate

parents who are healthcare workers on 12-hour shifts, service

members working on bases that operate 24/7, construction

workers who are onsite by 7:00 a.m., and other working

parents who work outside the once traditional 9 to 5. Many

providers already operate on razor-thin margins, working long

hours, overseeing staff and making personal financial

sacrifices, like delaying their own pay, to keep their doors

open and meet payroll. Constant funding disruptions to

childcare will force many providers to reduce services or

close altogether. They deserve better and more timely pay

rather than additional delays and uncertainty. This vital

component of our workforce needs certainty and steady funding

to provide the care needed for America's working families.

Earlier this year, the Trump administration, abruptly and

without justification, illegally withheld funding for more

than 300,000 children in more than 44,000 childcare programs

in five states funded by the Child Care and Development Block

Grant (CCDBG). Another 200,000 children who do not receive

childcare assistance but rely on programs that do, may have

also been affected. Unions and other allies swiftly

challenged these actions in court. Multiple courts ordered

the administration to reverse course. Now, H.R. 7726 would

amend current law to allow these politically motivated,

baseless and deeply harmful funding freezes to resume.

CCDBG is a critically important program for infants and

toddlers, preschoolers, school-aged children, and a crucial

workforce support. Reliable, consistent childcare funding

from the federal government is essential to ensure that

parents can work while their children are wellcared for and

gain critical skills for continued education and success.

CCDBG also supports school-aged children in before and after

care. Further, childcare programs, both centers and family

childcare, need the assurance of stable, consistent funding

so that their work can continue.

CCDBG has enjoyed bipartisan support with champions from

both parties because the investments pay off and the program

is run well. CCDBG is one of the most closely monitored human

services programs with states required to submit detailed

plans to the federal government, track eligibility, conduct

regular provider inspections and report spending to the

federal government. The most recent report from the

Administration for Children and Families' Office of Child

Care's National Center on Subsidy Innovation and

Accountability showed that CCDBG had lower rates of improper

payments than other programs. As a reminder, improper

payments include errors that cannot be solely classified as

fraud, such as inadvertent error.

H.R. 7726 further empowers the administration in its

attempts to weaponize the distribution of congressionally

appropriated funds. Instead, Congress should ensure that

enacted funding is distributed lawfully and without delays

due to political motivations. We urge you to oppose H.R. 7726

and focus on ways to make childcare more affordable for

millions of working families.

Sincerely,

Elizabeth S. Watson,

American Federation of State, County and Municipal

Employees (AFSCME).

Kristor Cowan,

American Federation of Teachers (AFT).

John Gray,

Service Employees International Union (SEIU).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Georgia (Mrs. McBath.)

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Chu).

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a letter from the Child Care for Every Family Network.

The Child Care for Every Family,

June 1, 2026.

Dear Members of Congress: We, the undersigned

organizations, led by the Child Care for Every Family Network

with the support of the National Association for the

Education of Young Children, National Women's Law Center, the

Center for Law and Social Policy, and the National

Association of Family Child Care, strongly urge you to reject

a package of child care bills--or the ``Stop Child Care Scams

Act of 2026''--amending the Child Care and Development Block

Grant Act (CCDBG) and the Child and Adult Care Food Program

(CACFP).

These bills give the U.S. Department of Health and Human

Services unprecedented authority to withhold all Child Care

and Development Fund (CCDF) funding from states without cause

or due process, bar child care providers for non-fraudulent

activity, and burden states with costly activities that don't

improve program integrity. There is no evidence of

significant or widespread fraud in the federal child care

program. These bills will be detrimental to child care access

as they will result in fewer families receiving child care

assistance from CCDF, fewer child care providers willing to

serve families with child care subsidies, and further

destabilize America's child care sector, which is already

stretched too thin. The latest annual survey report from the

National Association for Family Child Care reveals an

unsustainable situation: 35 percent reported earning less

than $10 an hour despite 71 percent working 50 or more hours

per week, and 48 percent reported working 60 or more hours

per week. A recent survey of providers by the National

Association for the Education of Young Children makes clear

that insufficient public investment threatens parents'

ability to afford and access child care.

In short, these bills deny support to children and families

while doing absolutely nothing to strengthen our child care

system or help the millions of families that are struggling

to find and afford the child care they need. Lawmakers must

reject this effort that will destabilize our child care

system and harm the families that rely on it.

The House of Representatives will soon consider legislation

that ignores the real child care crisis and create a

constellation of policies that exacerbate this crisis,

undermining and weakening our current system and doing

nothing to help the millions of families that urgently need

help affording child care. We urge lawmakers to reject the

``Stop Child Care Scams Act of 2026,'' which includes the

following bills:

H.R. 7720 Child Care Payment Integrity and Fraud

Accountability Act: This bill treats all states as high-risk

by annual error rate reviews instead of every three years,

despite no evidence of significant or widespread fraud in the

CCDF program. These time-consuming, burdensome, and costly

reviews will mean states have less funding for child care

assistance, while doing nothing to reduce fraud.

H.R. 7721 Combating Regulatory Abuse, Closing Known

Deficiencies, and Overseeing Waste Nationwide Act (CRACKDOWN

Act): This bill would give the U.S. Department of Health and

Human Services (HHS) new power to freeze 100 percent of a

state's child care funds for state administrative errors.

Uses an arbitrary, low-risk threshold standard that isn't

about fraud and eliminates state due process. This doesn't

reduce fraud and would needlessly punish thousands of

families who rely on federal child care assistance and

destabilize a state's child care sector.

H.R. 7723 Safeguarding Taxpayer Dollars in Child Care Act:

This bill requires HHS and USDA to penalize providers

unfairly, including permanently barring child care providers

from receiving federal child care funds and participation in

the Child and Adult Care Food Program (CACFP). This puts

providers who haven't committed fraud at risk of losing their

business and could make them less willing to serve families

with CCDF subsidies. This could have a chilling effect on

providers serving families with subsidies, making it harder

for these families to find the care they need. It also means

that more child care programs could close altogether and more

families--including those who don't use subsidies--will have

a harder time finding and affording child care.

Regarding CACFP, the bill would further undermine the

existing and deeply flawed Serious Deficiency (SD) process to

trigger disbarment from the entire program. CACFP ensures

that the participating child care centers, family child care

homes, Head Start programs, afterschool programs, and

emergency shelters serve healthy meals and snacks. States

currently administer CACFP with strong oversight systems

created by USDA, designed to detect and prevent integrity

concerns. SD is inconsistently applied and often triggered by

minor errors--not fraud or misconduct--and should not result

in termination from either CACFP or CCDF.

H.R. 7726 No Funds for Repeat Child Care Violations Act:

This bill would require HHS to permanently bar child care

providers from receiving federal funds for non-fraudulent

actions, such as incomplete paperwork, like missing

signatures. This puts providers who haven't committed fraud

at risk of losing their business if they serve families

paying with CCDF subsidies. It could have a chilling effect

on providers serving families with subsidies, making it

harder for those families to find the care they need. It also

means that more child care programs could close altogether,

and more families including those who don't pay with

subsidies--will have a harder time finding and affording

child care.

H.R. 7724 No Waivers for Fraud Act: This bill would

eliminate HHS's ability to waive a sanction it has placed on

a state. This flexibility is rarely, if ever, used but would

be important to preserve for instances of capricious

sanctioning of states without proof of fraud and more

generally for unforeseen situations in which the Secretary

and state agree that withdrawing a sanction is appropriate.

We urge lawmakers to vote NO on any package that includes

these bills and instead focus on the real child care crisis

facing our country.

Signed,

National Organizations

Child Care for Every Family Network

Center for Law and Social Policy

National Association for Family Child Care

National Women's Law Center

MomsRising

National Association for the Education of Young Children

(NAEYC)

All Our Kin

American Federation of State, County and Municipal

Employees (AFSCME)

Americans for Democratic Action (ADA)

The letter says in part: ``These bills give the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services unprecedented authority to withhold all Child Care and Development Fund (CCDF) funding from States without cause or due process, bar child care providers for non-fraudulent activity, and burden States with costly activities that don't improve program integrity.''

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a link to an article printed in the MinnPost, the headline of which says: ``Here's what's really happening with childcare fraud in Minnesota. Evidence is nowhere near the epidemic levels a viral YouTube video would suggest--but it hasn't stopped a crackdown on child care funding. Here's the fact check.'' https://www.minnpost.com/state-government/ 2026/01/heres-whats-really-happening-with-child-care-fraud-in- minnesota-explained/?gad_source=1&gad _campaignid=9109082086.

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

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a letter from

Child Care Aware of America that says, in part, ``several provisions in the bill would duplicate existing requirements, create unclear mandates, and ultimately undermine families' access to childcare'' and that the bill ``would impose new sanctions, restrict flexibility, and potentially reduce childcare funding to States.''

ChildCare Aware of America,

June 2, 2026.

Dear Representative: We write to share concerns about the

Stop Child Care Scams Act of 2026 (H.R. 7726) that previously

advanced out of the House Education and Workforce Committee

as a package of eight bills. Child Care Aware of America

(CCAoA) supports swift and thorough action when credible

allegations of fraud arise. But any effort to strengthen

current safeguards should do so without causing economic harm

to families, communitIes, or the child care system.

Unfortunately, several provisions in the bill would duplicate

existing requirements, create unclear mandates, and

ultimately undermine families' access to child care. At a

time when child care prices remain extremely high for

families, additional administration burden and cost may cause

providers to reduce enrollment, withdraw from subsidy

programs, or close altogether, further straining access for

families who need care. We urge you to vote no on the Stop

Child Care Scams Act of 2026 (H.R. 7726).

There are already robust program integrity processes in

place within the Child Care and Development Block Grant

(CCDBG), with dearly defined roles for both federal and state

agencies. Federal law and regulation require states to

conduct eligibility verification, establish monitoring and

enforcement procedures, review payments, investigate

suspected fraud, and implement corrective action plans where

needed. States must submit detailed plans outlining program

integrity strategies, and they are subject to federal

oversight. In addition, states already report extensive data

on payment accuracy and program integrity. Under federal

regulation, states must report the error rate, the percentage

of cases with an improper payment, the percentage of improper

payments, the average amount of improper payment, and the

estimated annual amount of improper payments (45 CFR

98.100(b)). States are also required to outline procedures to

investigate and recover fraudulent payments, which are

different than improper payments or errors, and to impose

sanctions on clients or providers in response to fraud. The

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services has clear

oversight authority, including reviewing state compliance,

requiring corrective actions, and imposing penalties when

necessary.

The Stop Child Care Scams Act of 2026 (H.R. 7726) would

impose new sanctions, restrict flexibility, and potentially

reduce child care funding to states. While accountability is

important, reducing funding limits states' ability to operate

the child care subsidy systems that millions of families rely

on. These resources support access to child care, workforce

stability, and the state administrative capacity needed to

maintain strong program oversight. Excessive sanctions and

rigid penalties may discourage child care providers from

participating in the subsidy system, or related programs such

as the Child and Adult Care Food Program (CACFP). The result

could be a smaller supply of child care for families.

The bill's administrative requirements would also be costly

to implement. Expanded reporting, monitoring, technology

upgrades, and compliance obligations require significant

staff time and system changes. Because these expenses are

typically covered by Child Care and Development Fund (CCDF)

dollars, increased administrative costs leave fewer resources

available for direct services. As a result, states may need

to serve fewer children, adjust reimbursement rates for child

care providers, or scale back quality initiatives. Increased

compliance risk and reduced flexibility may further

accelerate program closures, making it harder for families to

access care.

Our concerns apply to several of the sections of the Stop

Child Care Scams Act of 2026. Section 5, Improper Payment

Rate Requiring Corrective Action Plan; Conditional

Ineligibility, and Section 10, Fraudulent Payments, focus on

reducing improper payments without making a necessary

distinction between administrative errors and intentional

fraud. That conflation requires states to adopt overly

restrictive payment practices that destabilize child care

provider operations, particularly for small businesses

operating on thin margins. Section IO, Fraudulent Payments,

would add new reporting and compliance requirements that

increase administrative costs and divert funds from direct

services for families and children. Section 6, Cyclical

Monitoring of State Performance, duplicates existing federal

monitoring and review requirements. Section 2, Strengthening

the Authority to Withhold Funds for Fraud, imposes funding

penalties that ultimately reduce resources available to serve

families. Similarly, Section 4, Preventing Fraud in the Child

Care and Development Block Grant Program, would limit

flexibility that states currently use to manage complex

program operations, potentially reducing child care supply.

CCAoA supports thoughtful, targeted efforts to strengthen

program integrity and prevent fraud. However, these efforts

should build on existing systems, preserve clarity in federal

and state roles, distinguish administrative errors and

improper payments from fraud, and most importantly not punish

children and families by destabilizing or defunding the child

care system. As a result, we urge the Representative to

oppose the Stop Child Care Scams Act of 2026 (H.R. 7726). We

welcome the opportunity to work with you on balanced

solutions that ensure families maintain access to safe,

affordable child care.

Sincerely,

Susan Gale Perry,

Chief Executive Officer,

Child Care Aware of America.

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, millions of families rely on safe, stable childcare in their communities. Unfortunately, the cost of childcare often rivals the cost of housing. Many communities lack adequate childcare altogether.

H.R. 7726 fails to meaningfully improve America's broken childcare system, but it does add unnecessary bureaucratic burdens to States and providers, many of whom are already struggling.

Fraud must be addressed, but in substance, not by discussing the merits of the title of the bill. Smart accountability means strong enforcement paired with practical flexibility. Requiring extra reports and punishing States and providers for minor, inadvertent mistakes does not protect children and doesn't even reduce fraud. It does put programs that families depend on at risk and allows the Trump administration to weaponize this legislation by withholding funding from States that didn't vote for him.

I oppose H.R. 7726, which fails to reduce fraud and prioritizes inflexible mandates over the real-world needs of working families.

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 2616, the so-called Stopping Indoctrination and Protecting Kids Act, because the name bears little resemblance to what the bill actually does.

What it does is require schools to obtain parental consent before changing a student's gender markers, pronouns, or preferred name on any school form or changing a student's sex-based accommodations, including locker rooms or bathrooms, and that is for all students in middle school or elementary school.

This bill would prohibit the use of Federal funds to teach so-called gender ideology, whatever that is. Specifically, it bars any discussion of transgender people or topics in the classroom, banning books with transgender characters or that even discuss the existence of transgender people.

It is well established in statute that the States and districts determine their curriculum without interference from the Federal Government. This bill takes away State and local control of curriculum in education, the very thing that the current administration claims they are giving back to States by illegally dismantling the Department of Education.

Parental involvement is important, and I support that. It works in virtually all cases, but this bill is not about involvement. It is about Federal coercion forcing schools into situations where they may have to disclose sensitive information about a student, even when they know it could put that child's safety at risk.

It goes beyond theory. It creates absurd situations. For example, my name is Robert. I go by Bobby. Under this bill, my middle school coach would need parental permission before listing me as Bobby on the sports roster. What if they write ``Rob'' instead? Would they have to go back and get parental consent?

This bill fails to clarify key questions, such as whether both parents must be notified and give permission.

Who will oversee these requirements if this administration continues illegally dismantling the Department of Education?

What it does make clear is that if the school gets it wrong, then they risk losing Federal funding. That is not protecting kids. It won't make trans students disappear. It is just micromanaging schools and wasting everybody's time.

This bill does nothing to improve literacy, improve teacher shortages, promote safe learning environments, support student mental health, or otherwise improve education. The bill is unnecessary, overbroad, and potentially harmful.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Takano).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Arizona (Mrs. Grijalva).

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from Arizona.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Vermont (Ms. Balint).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Frost).

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a letter opposing the bill from PFLAG. They say that this harmful bill would strip schools of Federal funds for even acknowledging the existence of transgender people and would make schools less safe for all students by putting barriers between vulnerable students, their teachers, counselors, and other trusted adults.

PFLAG National,

Washington, DC, May 20, 2026.

House Democratic Members

C/O: House Democratic Legislative Directors and Education

Staff

RE Vote NO on H.R. 2616.

To whom it may concern: PFLAG National, the nation's

largest organization dedicated to supporting, educating, and

advocating for LGBTQ+ people and those who love them, urges

all Representatives to vote NO on H.R. 2616.

This harmful bill would strip schools of federal funds for

even acknowledging the existence of transgender people and

would make school less safe for all students by putting

barriers between vulnerable students, their teachers,

counselors and other trusted adults.

America is a country of freedom of speech and freedom of

ideas. Those freedoms end when politicians start banning

books and censoring curriculum simply because some people

find them uncomfortable. Children deserve an honest and

accurate education that enables them to learn about diverse

identities and experiences to help create a better future.

A public-school education helps students prepare for their

future by encouraging curiosity and critical thinking through

math and science, art and music, history and literature. But

H.R. 2616 would force schools to purge books from their

libraries that merely acknowledge that transgender people

exist. It sets a dangerous precedent when politicians simply

start censoring school content and books they don't like.

The politicians and groups behind these bills want to use

our laws to control what students can and cannot read, what

they can and cannot learn, and--most troublingly--who they

can and cannot be. Our schools should protect all students--

including LGBTQ students--so they can learn and thrive in a

safe environment where they can see themselves reflected in

the books they read.

H.R. 2616 also forces school counselors, teachers, and

other staff to out transgender children to their parents,

regardless of the child's wishes and well-being. What this

bill does is tell every student, LGBTQ+ or not, that they

cannot trust the adults at school.

Kids who have one trusted adult in their life are more

likely to reach out for help

when they need it and less likely to engage in harmful or

self-harming behaviors. For LGBTQ+ youth, the process of

coming out is deeply personal and involves risk--because 4 in

5 LGBTQ+ youth face stigma, discrimination and harm at school

and 2 in 5 youth who are homeless are LGBTQ+ kids whose

parents rejected them. Having a trained, trusted adult who

can help a student navigate the coming out process safely,

including helping them develop a safety plan to bring in

their parents, is vital to an LGBTQ+ youth's safety. H.R.

2616 yanks their safety net away.

Please OPPOSE H.R. 2616 and get back to work ensuring ALL

students can get a quality public education.

Sincerely,

Brian K. Bond,

CEO, PFLAG National.

Mr. Speaker, I also include in the Record a letter from Advocates for Trans Equality, which says, in part, the bill would harm transgender and nonbinary students in kindergarten through 8th grade by erecting barriers to best-practice student supports, such as recognizing a student's name, pronouns, and providing access to appropriate sex-based facilities. The bill would also impose broad unconstitutional limits on the speech and academic freedom of students and educators alike, while prohibiting any discussion of ``gender ideology,'' a term coined by anti-trans activists to dehumanize trans people.

Advocates for Trans Equality,

May 20, 2026.

Dear Members of Congress: On behalf of your transgender

constituents and their allies, Advocates for Trans Equality

urges Members of Congress to vote NO on H.R. 2616. This bill

would harm transgender and nonbinary students in grades

Kindergarten through 8th grade by erecting barriers to best-

practice student supports, such as recognizing a student's

name and pronouns and providing access to appropriate sex-

based facilities. The bill would also impose broad

unconstitutional limits on the speech and academic freedom of

students and educators alike by prohibiting any discussion of

``gender ideology,'' a term coined by anti-trans activists to

dehumanize trans people.

Trans students are being driven out of traditional school

settings by pervasive harassment and discrimination. Survey

data has found that 71 percent of trans and nonbinary

students have felt unsafe at school due to their LGBTQI+

identity and that 7 percent of LGBTQI+ students have changed

schools due to concerns about safety and comfort. This bill

will make it harder for educators to provide trans students

support in the form of respecting a student's pronouns and

name, which data shows produces better mental health outcomes

for trans youth. Moreover, the bill could force schools to

prohibit trans students who cannot obtain parental consent

from using the appropriate facilities, exposing transgender

students to higher risk of sexual assault. This, in turn,

results in a less safe educational environment for all. Trans

students must have access to the support and protection

necessary for them to enjoy a quality public education.

The bill goes further by censoring any discussion of

transgender identity at any K-12 school--an unprecedented

attack on the free speech and academic freedom of students

and educators. No school curriculum can be complete without

some acknowledgement of transgender people, who have always

been a part of North American history, predating the arrival

of European colonists. Transgender children will exist

regardless of whether their schools acknowledge them. This

bill would further stigmatize and isolate them by all but

erasing them from their very own classrooms. This is a

patently unconstitutional, un-American restriction of free

speech that will profoundly harm vulnerable children if

passed.

Advocates for Trans Equality urges every Member of Congress

to defend civil liberties and the right of every student to a

safe learning environment and a quality education by voting

NO on H.R. 2616.

Sincerely,

Advocates for Trans Equality.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, at the end of the day, we should be asking who this bill actually helps. It is not needed for most situations where you can involve parents in constructive dialogue about a student, but it does not help students who confide in a trusted teacher because they feel unsafe at home. It does not help educators trying to create a supportive learning environment. It does not help students already stretched thin and trying to meet students' real needs.

What it does is impose a rigid Federal mandate that ignores context, disregards student safety, and prioritizes politics over people.

We can support parents without putting children at risk. We can respect local control without Federal overreach. We should be focused on legislation that improves students' lives, not bills that create new problems.

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

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to my Chief of Staff, David Dailey, who has dedicated his career to serving the people of the Commonwealth of Virginia and this institution with distinction.

David is a native of Norfolk, Virginia, and first came to my office as an intern in 2004 while pursuing his bachelor's degree at American University. After quickly proving himself through the quality of his work and his commitment to public service, we asked him to stay on as a Legislative Correspondent. From there, he steadily rose through the ranks, serving as a Legislative Assistant, Senior Legislative Assistant, Legislative Director, and ultimately Chief of Staff, a position he has held since 2017. At one point, I even had him pulling double duty as my Press Secretary.

During his tenure as Chief of Staff, David helped lead my office through the unprecedented challenges of the COVID-19 pandemic and provided invaluable counsel during my service as both Chairman and Ranking Member of the Committee on Education and Labor. His energy, attention to detail, and deep understanding of policy were instrumental during some of the most consequential debates before Congress.

I have known David through many chapters of his life and career, and I can say with certainty that he is a person of passion, conviction, and integrity. He approaches public service thoughtfully and seriously, with a genuine interest in the law and the policy challenges facing our Nation. On the most complicated issues before this body, I consistently relied on his counsel and expertise.

While serving as full time staff in Congress, David also earned his law degree from The Catholic University Columbus School of Law, an accomplishment that reflects both his discipline and determination. Although that legal training proved invaluable in his legislative work, he will now have the opportunity to put it to use in a new chapter of his career as he begins practicing law in the private sector.

I know I speak for both past and present members of Team Scott when I say that David will be deeply missed. Our office will not be the same without him.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank David for his 22 years of dedicated service to the House of Representatives, the Commonwealth of Virginia, and the Nation. I wish him, his wife, Mary, and their children, Eleanor and Charlie, all the best in this next chapter.

Mr. Speaker, we are talking about the budget. For years, my Republican colleagues have sanctimoniously spoken about the need to reduce the deficit but continuously vote for spending bills that add trillions of dollars to the Federal deficit.

The CBO estimates that last year's big, ugly bill will add $3.4 trillion to the deficit by 2034. This bill is not even serious. They didn't even bring it to committee. They just brought it to the floor. It continues the pattern of Presidential administrations, every Republican administration since Nixon has left for the Democrats a worse deficit than they inherited. By the way, every Democratic administration since Kennedy has left for the Republicans a better deficit than they inherited, all without exceptions.

Now they are back here with misguided budget priorities. This does nothing to lower costs and make life better for the American people. It does give $70 billion to ICE after they violated the Constitution, killed Americans, and refused to agree to Democratic demands that they conform to the same standards as other law enforcement officers, like get a warrant before you go into somebody's house, don't use unconstitutional excessive force, don't deport citizens. We should be investing in education, healthcare, childcare, and job creation. This bill doesn't do it, and that is why we ought to vote ``no.''

Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition.

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

Mr. Chairman, while I appreciate my colleague's interest in ensuring children in childcare have access to healthy and fresh foods whenever possible, this amendment, unfortunately, as written, could wind up doing more harm than good.

Childcare has been underfunded for decades, leading to an inadequate supply of programs, high costs to families, and low wages for providers.

According to the Department of Health and Human Services Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation, only 15 percent of federally eligible children currently receive subsidies under the childcare and development fund, and many more don't even qualify for the fund who actually need the assistance.

That is why I introduced, with the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Lee) the Childcare for Working Families Act which would make historic investments in childcare to raise the pay and improve access to families.

This amendment submitted by the gentlewoman from Washington requires the Secretaries of Health and Human Services and Agriculture to ``update relevant nutrition and food safety and preparation regulations and guidelines'' that are related to nutrition and food safety preparation in childcare facilities.

This amendment provides broad discretion for the Secretaries to usurp State and local food safety guidelines. If States don't conform their childcare regulations to whatever the Secretaries deem appropriate, they could lose funding which, as I indicated, is already inadequate.

There are no real guardrails to the scope of the changes that the Secretaries could propose under the amendment. States could be punished if they do not adopt the same standards as mandated by the Secretaries.

This amendment, therefore, is too broad, allows too much discretion to an administration which has already shown its willingness to cancel or freeze funding for social service programs in Democratic States.

For these reasons, Mr. Chairman, I oppose the amendment and urge my colleagues to do the same. I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Other than to say that that assumes that the Federal regulations that they come up with will be better than what they have already come up with. This could be worse, could be better. The problem is, if you don't actually comply, you could lose your funding. I think that would be a step backward, so I would hope we would oppose the amendment as it is written.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, the assumption is that regulations that these Secretaries will get together and provide will be better than what is already there. We don't know what they are going to come up with. We do know, however, that if the State, if the local people don't comply exactly with those regulations, they are going to lose funding. There is broad discretion on the Secretaries, and as I have said, these Secretaries have been known to cancel programs in Democratic States. I don't think that broad discretion is appropriate. I would hope we would defeat the amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.