Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of the resolution offered by the gentleman from Utah, Mr. Owens. America's institutions of higher education should be welcoming learning environments for all students and faculty. I strongly denounce antisemitism: it has no place on our Nation's campuses.

That said, the resolution does not completely paint an accurate picture of what took place on some of the campuses it mentions. For example, while the resolution describes the actions taken by a Stanford instructor, it does not report that the instructor was suspended by the University. Furthermore, the resolution fails to acknowledge that the Brandeis University Student Union, as the University described in a statement designed to correct the record, ``decided to strongly condemn Hamas, and it has communicated its stance to the Brandeis community, and the media more broadly.'' As a co-equal branch of the federal government, Congressional documents should be accurate and reflect the truth of the matters they assert. We must be especially careful when pointing out instances of antisemitism as my colleagues in the majority have reminded us before, accusations of racism (including antisemitism) are easily weaponized in our modern era.

Congress must also be vigilant to ensure that college campuses remain places where freedom of speech and thought are maintained. I know this is an important issue to my colleagues in the majority as they have convened multiple hearings on free speech on campuses.

As we denounce actions that create unsafe spaces for Jewish students on our Nation's campus, we must also recognize that while the First Amendment does not protect threats or fighting words, it does protect unpopular and abhorrent speech. It is in trying and tense political moments like this that it is easy for us to forget our truly American ideals with regard to free speech--debates on issues like this are simply outlawed in other Western democracies. I firmly believe the solution to bad speech is more speech. To that end, we should reject attempts to restrict student association or limit speech that may feel comforting but compromise the very freedoms that make America exceptional. I commend the American Civil Liberties Union for their open letter to College and University leaders asking them to reject efforts to restrict constitutionally protected speech on campuses.

The inaccuracies in the resolution, and concerns about free speech notwithstanding, we realize that instances of antisemitism on college campuses have risen precipitously in the past few weeks. And while this recent rise is attributable to events in Israel and Gaza, the fact is antisemitic acts on college campuses have been on the rise for the last six years.

As such, H. Res. 798 is a missed opportunity, to recognize that issues of racial hostility on college campuses are broader and older than the events it cites. Over six years ago, after an uptick in racial incidents on college campuses, I wrote a letter to Chairwoman Foxx requesting a hearing ``to examine how institutions of higher education are meeting their responsibility under title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Title VI prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, or national origin in `any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.'1A'' In that letter, I contextualized attempts by the Trump Administration to investigate the use of race in admissions, use that had recently been affirmed in the Supreme Court case Fisher v. University of Texas-Austin (Fisher II).

While some of us may have forgotten, 2017 saw a marked increase in racially hostile events on campuses. In a 2017 report describing the uptick in racially hostile events on campus, the Anti-Defamation League

(ADL) said ``White supremacists, emboldened by the 2016 elections and the current political climate, are currently engaged in an unprecedented outreach effort to attract and recruit students on American college campuses.'' Jonathan Greenblatt, CEO of the ADL, was quoted in that same report saying ``[w]hile there have been recruitment efforts in the past, never have we seen antisemites and white supremacists so focused on outreach to students on campus.'' Some of the most infamous events in that year included:

the hanging of nooses with bananas in them on the campus of American University the day after the election of the school's first black student body president, Ms. Taylor Dumpson;

the racially charged murder of Richard Collins, III, a black ROTC student at Bowie State University, during a visit to the University of Maryland, College Park; and

the Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville, Virginia in which white supremacists marched unmasked through the grounds of the University of Virginia, carrying torches and chanting racist and Anti-Semitic phrases such as ``Jews will not replace us!'' and ``Blood and Soil!'', direct allusions to Anti-Semitic conspiracy theories and Nazi sentiments from the 1930s. Later that weekend, counter-protestor Heather Heyer was murdered, and 35 others injured by an attacker in his car as they protested the Anti-Semitic and racist presence in Charlottesville.

My request for a hearing on this issue was ignored, and instead, I convened, in partnership with House Judiciary then-Ranking Member John Conyers, an issue forum on September 8, 2017 entitled, ``Affirmative Action, Inclusion, and Racial Climate on America's Campuses.'' In my prepared remarks for that forum, I said:

The presence of some students of color at some

predominantly white institutions is questioned, even though

those same schools afford advantages to legacy students,

families of wealthy donors, and students who have benefited

from high-quality education because of the inequities in the

educational system. When confronted with racist behavior on

campus, students are often told that the First Amendment

protects such behavior.

Since that initial request in 2017, I welcome the recognition by the majority that colleges have a duty to provide healthy learning environments for all students. This is a point Democrats have made consistently in the wake of issues surrounding racial hostility and free speech on college campuses. We have done so while having to hear past and current colleagues mock students as ``snowflakes'' and assert the problem when it comes to free speech on campus is that students are not

being allowed to ``freely express their beliefs without the fear of retribution from fellow students, faculty, and administrators.'' I am glad that the majority has finally woken up to the realization that free speech issues cannot be separated from demographic changes on campus, the legacy of structural racism and the recent explosion in hate speech on campus. I only wish that the majority would realize that the same protections that apply to Jewish students must be enforced for other students as well.

Under the majority's leadership in the House, we have had multiple hearings and markups where the mere existence of trans students has been questioned. Research shows that due to stigma, trans youth experience depression and suicidal ideation at disproportionate rates compared to their peers. Recent data from the CDC show that transgender youth are 10 times more likely to experience homelessness. Transgender students are also more likely to feel unsafe at school, to experience bullying and other forms of violence including being threatened with a weapon at school, and social isolation. Experiences of a hostile school climate, potentially compounded by an unstable living situation, lead to disproportionate drop out rates for these students. Title IX of the Education Amendments Act of 1972, which prohibits discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity, was modeled after Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964; in the same way schools have to provide safe learning environments to all students irrespective of race, they must also do so irrespective of sexual orientation or gender identity. Democrats have consistently raised this issue only for it to fall on deaf ears with our majority colleagues.

Our committee has held multiple hearings and markups where the idea of having professionals tasked with making sure our colleges and universities are diverse, equitable, and inclusive (DEI) has been ridiculed. We have attempted to explain that institutions of higher education that were not designed to serve diverse student populations are facing specific challenges related to the changing demographics of their student bodies, and having DEI personnel on hand to address these issues can help schools foster the healthy learning environment all students need. To suggest that efforts aimed at inclusion are somehow responsible for the proliferation of AntiSemitic acts on college campuses, as the sponsor of this resolution suggested in closing debate on the resolution, defies belief.

Under Title VI, institutions of higher education have a duty to provide safe learning environments for all students. What's true for Jewish students now was just as true for Black and Brown students six years ago. This resolution could recognize the universality of the charge in our civil rights laws and call for an end to hostility towards all students on campus based on race, religion, sexual orientation and gender identity, but it fails to do so, and as such is a missed opportunity.

And while some might claim that antisemitic behavior is what is on the rise now, the Federal Bureau of Investigations Director Christopher Wray in testimony to Congress just this week highlighted that events in the Middle East are resulting in increases in threats against both Jewish Americans and Muslim Americans--explicitly referencing the murder of a six-year old boy for no other reason than he was Muslim, an incident the FBI is currently investigating as a federal hate crime.

As I did in 2017, I continue to support efforts to ensure that all schools are safe and healthy learning environments for students. For that reason, I support H. Res. 798. Hate has no place on college campuses, and speech that has crossed the line into threats and hostility directed at Jewish students, or any other group of students, must be exposed and denounced. I firmly believe that colleges and universities can live up to their Title VI obligations to all students, provide forums for students to exercise their rights of free speech and free expression, and be the cauldrons of thought that produce the critical thinkers our country needs to solve the challenges of today and the future.

Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to H.R. 4368, the Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2024. This bill falls woefully short of adequately investing in important programs and policies that support the American people.

The bill's provisions targeting low-income women, infants, and children are especially concerning. The insufficient funding included in H.R. 4368 jeopardizes access to food and critical services for low and moderate income pregnant and postpartum women, infants and children by drastically underfunding the program and undermining science-based WIC food benefits. This is especially concerning as the country continues to face an infant and maternal health crisis.

For over 25 years, there has been a bipartisan commitment to provide sufficient WIC funding to serve all eligible applicants and maintain the longstanding no-waitlist commitment--until now. The House agriculture appropriations bill purports to fund WIC at $6 billion for Fiscal Year (FY) 2024, but the bill also demands a $500 million rescission in a later section. Realistically, the bill only funds WIC at $5.5 billion. This is $800 million below the President's budget request for FY 2024 ($6.3 billion) and $185 million lower than the level of funding made available in FY 2023 ($5.685 billion).

Last month, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) outlined the need for an additional $1.4 billion in Fiscal Year 2024 funding for WIC due to a significant increase in participation this fiscal year with a total of 6.7 million women, children, and infants being served by the program as of June. OMB has warned that without additional funding, participants could see disruptions in benefits. To prevent any disruption to a program crucial to supporting new parents and young children, it is vital that WIC funding be increased to align with projected participation and food costs as the process moves forward. Under the funding levels included in the House agriculture appropriations bill, up to 600,000 eligible new parents and children-- including 11,600 Virginians could be turned away from the program.

While WIC participation is increasing, this bill also drastically cuts WIC's increased science-backed fruit and vegetable benefits for roughly 1.5 million pregnant and postpartum participants and 3.5 million children aged one to four. The bill reduces the monthly fruit and vegetable benefit from $25 to $11 for child participants, from $44 to $13 for pregnant and postpartum participants, and from $49 to $15 for breastfeeding participants. Current benefit levels ensure that participating women and children have access to recommended levels of fruits and vegetables, thus improving health outcomes and program retention. Pre-pandemic benefits of $8 for children and $11 for

pregnant, postpartum, or breastfeeding participants allowed for less than a one-cup equivalent of fruits and vegetables per day, woefully short of the recommended amounts.

In addition to insufficient funding for WIC, the bill includes other harmful provisions targeting nutrition programs. For example, the bill includes a rider that rejects a pending rule to revise WIC Food Packages. Additional riders reject nutrition standards in both school meals programs as well as the Child and Adult Care Food Program (CACFP). These harmful riders weaken the science-based process that determines nutrition standards and criteria in child nutrition and related programs. A dozen health organization and other stakeholders, including the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Heart Association, the American Public Health Association, the National WIC Association, and UnidosUS implored Congress not to include harmful nutrition-related riders and to maintain and respect the current science-based processes.

In addition to the threats to the health and well-being of women and children, this bill would harm farmers as they recover financially from the COVID-19 pandemic. Specifically, this legislation strips funding from Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) programs enacted last Congress. Rescinding the IRA funding will harm farmers as they recover losses suffered during the COVID-19 pandemic. The decision to divest from food security and those who produce the food and fiber we depend on is short sighted. I am also alarmed by amendments to curtail the United States Department of Agriculture's (USDA) work to advance equity and inclusion. For far too long, farmers of color, female farmers, and farmers who identify as LGBTQI+ have faced discrimination in farm lending. Restricting the USDA's ability to address these failures is detrimental to achieving the USDA's mission and ensuring food security.

For these reasons and many others, I urge my colleagues to oppose the bill.

Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition.

Mr. Chair, this amendment, as the gentleman from Wisconsin has said, prohibits funds from being used to finalize, implement, administer, or enforce the milk section of USDA's proposed rule that aligns nutrition standards to the 2020 dietary guidelines for Americans. This appropriations rider is preemptive as the final rule hadn't even been released by the Department, and it is out of place because this issue should be taken up within the context of a child nutrition reauthorization, not an appropriations rider.

This amendment disregards the normal scientific process currently being undertaken to establish the nutrition guidelines.

School meals and beverages are required to be consistent with the dietary guidelines for Americans, which are evidence-based recommendations set to provide nutritional guidance.

This amendment would effectively undermine the unbiased, evidence- based process that ensures that children receive the most nutritious meals and replace that scientifically based process with a political process.

It is critical that science continue to guide the process in determining options in schools and that the regulations are updated to align with the newest dietary guidelines using a process that intentionally allows for adaptations in line with the latest scientific and expert recommendations.

Importantly, the Department of Agriculture has specifically requested public feedback on the proposed milk options for consideration when crafting the final rule.

The bottom line is that scientific experts, not politicians, should be the ones to determine the nutrition standards and ensure that our children get the healthiest meals possible.

A dozen organizations, including the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics, the American Academy of Pediatrics, and the American Heart Association, have all urged Congress to continue to respect the scientific-based process and not interfere with the normal procedure.

Mr. Chair, I urge a ``no'' vote on the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to acknowledge that 20 years ago, on September 4, 2003, President George W. Bush signed the Prison Rape Elimination Act, or PREA, into law. This law recognized the difficult truth of rampant and completely unacceptable sexual abuse of people in our jails, prisons, and juvenile detention facilities, and endeavored to address it. PREA sought to end these abuses by creating research mandates, promulgating National standards, and providing grant funding to meet those standards.

Ending prisoner rape remains one of the increasingly rare topics on which people on both sides of the aisle can continue to agree. I joined forces with my Virginia colleague, Congressman Frank Wolf, to sponsor the bill in this chamber, and Senators Ted Kennedy and Jeff Sessions sponsored PREA in the Senate. PREA passed with unanimous support in both the House and Senate. Fighting against institutional abuse and protecting those who cannot advocate for themselves should never be a partisan issue, and I have been gratified by the coalition of support PREA has inspired over the years.

Since PREA's passage, we've seen dramatic improvements in how adults and children in detention are treated. Thousands of corrections professionals have been hired and trained to ensure the safety of people in their custody through the implementation of PREA's National standards. The U.S. Department of Justice is now required to gather data on sexual abuse in custody that provides corrections facilities, advocates and policymakers with invaluable information on the dynamics of sexual abuse in detention, and how it can be stopped.

Hundreds of thousands of incarcerated people are educated every year about their right

to be safe and respected, and how to speak out if they are not. Incarcerated people, their families, and advocates now have more effective methods of reporting sexual abuse, as evidenced by the dramatic increase in the number of reports we have seen since PREA's enactment. This is a clear sign that incarcerated survivors understand that people care about their experiences, that they have mechanisms to advocate for themselves, and that their voices should no longer go unheard. Through these efforts and sustained support for survivors, the stigma of reporting abuse has been steadily eroding since PREA's passage.

I also want to acknowledge the broad-based coalition of advocates and civil rights groups that fought to pass PREA, encourage corrections facilities to implement PREA's National standards, and continue to ensure that the law lives up to its intended purpose and promise. Specifically, people who have endured this abuse have been on the front lines of the effort to make our prisons and jails places where people are free of sexual abuse. Just Detention International's Survivor Council deserves special mention. These courageous survivors have fought tirelessly to ensure that no one ever has to face abuse and to instill in all of us the principle that no matter what crime a person has committed, rape is not part of the penalty.

The work we set out to do with PREA is by no means over. Rape in prisons is still far too common. And young people, LGBTQ+ individuals, immigrants, and people who come from communities of color are more affected by this crisis than others. The recent cases of staff sexual abuse in California at the Federal Correctional Institution Dublin (FCI-Dublin) at the highest levels expose and illustrate the impunity with which many staff perpetrators still operate. Making things worse, the dozens of women at FCI-Dublin who were abused could not initially get support services. This highlights a larger problem of a lack of resources for community service providers.

Prisons, jails, and youth detention facilities nationwide must commit to implementing the National Prison Rape Elimination Act standards. This doesn't mean merely changing policies as they're written on paper. It means meaningfully adopting those policies and shifting the culture on the ground in detention facilities. This encompasses everything from safer reporting procedures for survivors to stronger investigations after an assault occurs. We must empower staff to identify signs that incarcerated people are being abused, and to identify red flags in staff behavior that could result in abuse. We must also have more confidential emotional support services in prisons, especially from community providers, so that survivors can get the help they deserve. And finally, we must end the culture of impunity and the code of silence among staff which allows abuse to flourish. As I have before, I call on the Department of Justice to work vigorously to ensure that every state implements PREA to protect all inmates from sexual violence.

Mr. Speaker, on the 20th anniversary of its enactment, let us take this moment to recognize the ways that PREA marked an important shift in how we, as a country, deal with this violence. Sexual abuse in detention may not be a secret epidemic anymore, but it is incumbent upon us to actualize the goal set out in this historic law and end this crisis, once and for all. Let me say again: rape is not part of the penalty.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

schools and institutions of higher learning.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[From Third Way, July 18, 2023]

Third Way Statement on the Schools Not Shelters Act

(By Lanae Erickson)

Washington.--Third Way released the following statement

from Lanae Erickson, Senior Vice President for Social Policy,

Education, & Politics:

``House Republicans have found another target for their

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

would pull federal funding from any school that provides

undocumented immigrants with shelter, even temporarily. By

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

signaling that their priority is to put politics over the

welfare of our country's students.

``During a time when teachers and students are working

tirelessly to overcome learning loss from the pandemic,

Republicans are threatening to defund schools to protest

something that has nothing to do with students' quality of

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

across the country are the targets of this political stunt.

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

Democrats to invest in our nation's schools and improve

educational outcomes. Instead, they're focusing on banning

books, banning history, and banning migrants. Teachers and

students have much bigger things to worry about.

``Republicans have backed out of every major bipartisan

immigration reform deal this century, leaving the system

outdated and overwhelmed. And now they're punishing American

students for the consequences of their inaction.

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

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

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

Council of the Great City Schools,

June 12, 2023.

Hon. Virginia Foxx,

Chairwoman, Committee on Education and Workforce, House of

Representatives, Washington, DC.

Hon. Bobby Scott,

Ranking Member, Committee on Education and Workforce, House

of Representatives, Washington, DC.

Dear Chairwoman Foxx and Ranking Member Scott: For more

than a century, urban schools have taken in children and

families from other countries who came to the United States

seeking a better life and who eventually served as the

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

to not only meet our legal obligations to provide educational

services to whomever comes through our doors but to do

everything we can in partnership with our local communities

to make sure that newly arriving students and families are

welcomed and prepared to give back to the country.

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

opened their doors to families from Afghanistan, Ukraine,

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

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

tomorrow. In addition to providing newcomer aid, instruction,

and social services to students, the Great City Schools are

helping families find housing, coordinating community

services, and providing much of their initial social

contacts, translations, and food services. They have also

provided cultural orientations, language lessons, and other

assistance for refugee families upon their arrival. The

Council has examples from school districts across the

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

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

working with their local agencies, faith-based leaders,

charities, and financial institutions to welcome new

arrivals, align and coordinate services, and create a

seamless transition into the public schools and the

community.

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

before the committee does nothing to help urban school

districts and communities provide the needed educational and

transitional services for newly arriving students and

families. After decades of inaction, we urge Congress to

focus on bipartisan and comprehensive solutions to address

immigration reform rather than threatening federal funding or

intervening in local decision-making regarding housing for

those who need it.

Sincerely,

Raymond Hart,

Executive Director.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor and recognize the National Association of Blacks in Criminal Justice (NABCJ) on their 50th Anniversary.

The mission of the National Association of Blacks in Criminal Justice is to act upon the needs, concerns, and contributions of African Americans and other people of color as they relate to the administration of equal justice. This milestone of NABCJ advancing justice for 50 years signifies decades of positive change and a commitment to criminal justice as a fundamental aspect of our democracy.

At the heart of NABCJ is its dedicated members, who consist of criminal justice professionals including those in law enforcement, corrections, courts, social services', academia as well as religious and community leaders. They work diligently to research relevant legislation and focus attention on improving law enforcement and our criminal justice system through evidence-based policies. Their strong commitment to respect the dignity of all humans contributes to the NABCJ's rich history of excellence and integrity.

The 400 Years African American History Commission, created by Congress in 2017, has been heavily engaged with NABCJ through 11 student chapters of the organization at Historically Black Colleges and Universities. Additionally, the National Alliance of Faith and Justice, first formed as a committee of the NABCJ, was founded and has successfully grown over the last 20 years. The establishment of these relationships have helped pave the way for African Americans and other people of color to receive equal justice under the law.

The National Association of Blacks in Criminal Justice has a long history of promoting evidence-based strategies that more effectively address crime and keeping America's communities safe. I was grateful for NABCJ's support of my Youth Prison Reduction through Mentoring, Intervention, Support and Education (Youth PROMISE) Act, which I first introduced in 2007 to help communities develop and implement evidence- based strategies to reduce youth violence and delinquency. Provisions of the Youth PROMISE Act were ultimately enacted in the Juvenile Justice Reform Act of 2018, and it would not have been possible without the work and support of organizations like NABCJ.

Mr. Speaker, NABCJ embodies what it means to fight for ``liberty and justice for all.'' It is my pleasure to congratulate the National Association of Blacks in Criminal Justice on the many hard-fought battles won since its inception 50 years ago and wish the organization many more years of success.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding. I also thank her and the gentleman from Illinois for talking about the importance for opportunity and a recognition of the history of discrimination in the United States.

The Supreme Court has long held that our Nation has a compelling interest in creating racially diverse college campuses.

Holistic college admissions practices that narrowly tailor the use of race as one of many factors in evaluating prospective students are a key to fostering such diversity in a college campus environment.

Such admissions policies not only help the historically underserved students, research confirms that diverse campuses also provide all students with a better quality, well-rounded education.

Last month, the Supreme Court decided, with little regard for precedent, that Harvard's and the University of North Carolina's pursuit of these compelling interests is unconstitutional.

Regrettably, the Supreme Court's decision is a setback in our effort to eliminate invidious disparities in access to higher education and an effort to ensure diverse learning environments for all students.

Now that it is done, it is imperative that we review all other facets of college admissions that research shows may be racially discriminatory and have a disparate impact and determine if they, too, need to be eliminated, given this ruling.

Now, there are admissions factors to take into consideration: Racially inequitable K-12 schooling opportunities, racially biased admissions tests, the legacy admissions that have been mentioned, and other factors that may have a discriminatory impact.

Now, race-conscious affirmative action provides a counterbalance to these discriminatory practices, but since the Court has invalidated that balance, we must now review all current admissions practices to see if they, too, have disparate impact so that we can see whether or not they are in violation of the Equal Protection Clause or Title VI of the Civil Rights Act.

To facilitate that review, we must pass the Equity and Inclusion Enforcement Act. This bill that has been pending for several years would hold federally funded programs, including schools, accountable for providing students with equal access to education by restoring a private right of action for students and parents to bring disparate impact claims under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act.

Because of a Supreme Court's interpretation about 20 years ago, there is no longer a private right of action in Title VI cases. Those cases based on disparate impact must be brought by the Federal Government. So if there is discrimination going on, the Federal Government has to run around the country and find it. If it is going on in your community and you know it, you can't bring that individual case.

Mr. Speaker, Justice Sotomayor said it best in her dissent when she said that: ``Ignoring race will not equalize a society that is racially unequal. What was true in the 1860s, and again in 1954, is true today: Equality requires acknowledgment of inequality.''

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

Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to H. Res. 461.

Like clockwork, we are here, yet again, taking up another proposal that, among other things, purports to improve school safety but does nothing to address gun violence in schools or improve students' mental health.

So far this Congress, the Republican priorities for K-12 education have focused almost entirely on so-called culture wars. First, the House Republicans passed legislation to ban books. The House then advanced legislation targeting trans students.

We just debated an impeachment resolution, and now the House is considering a proposal that would encourage taking away funding from schools whose facilities are used to temporarily house refugees and immigrants.

Schools are routinely used to temporarily house people in emergencies like hurricanes or earthquakes. So now I guess they are suggesting that we check citizenship papers before we let people in.

The resolution falsely implies that temporarily using school facilities to house immigrants leads to learning loss, but there is no evidence to support that claim.

Addressing learning loss and helping students make up for lost time in the classroom is what we did last year, without a Republican vote, when we made historic investments in the American Rescue Plan to help schools make up for lost time by funding after-school, summer mentorship programs, and other initiatives to actually make up for lost time.

But we cannot continue to meaningfully address learning loss or meet students' mental health needs if all we are talking about is taking away Federal funds from schools.

Moreover, any conversation about school safety that does not meaningfully address gun violence, is not a serious conversation. This is a haphazard proposal and another distraction. Since it is a nonbinding resolution, it doesn't actually do anything the supporters of the resolution say need to be done.

It does nothing to improve immigration policy. It doesn't even stop the use of schools to house immigrants. This is a nonbinding resolution.

If my colleagues are serious about addressing learning loss, we should be talking about evidence-based strategies that meet the needs of our students. There is nothing in the resolution that addresses learning loss or mental health.

If my colleagues were serious about school safety, we should be confronting what is actually killing them. Parents, teachers, and students are demanding that we take up meaningful legislation to address gun violence. There is nothing in the resolution to address gun violence.

I strongly urge my colleagues to oppose H.R. 461.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Garcia).

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Mrs. Ramirez).

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

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

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Bonamici), the ranking member of the Early Childhood, Elementary, and Secondary Education Subcommittee.

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

Madam Speaker, it is unfortunate that House Republican priorities for K-12 education are focused entirely on distractions. Instead of devising ways to meaningfully address learning loss or gun violence in schools, here we are, threatening to withhold Federal funds from K-12 schools that do not adhere to the extreme MAGA agenda.

The reality is that H. Res. 461 does nothing to address the real issues confronting students today. This is a nonbinding resolution, so it does nothing to fund education. It doesn't even prevent schools from being used to house undocumented immigrants.

One thing that we have to come to grips with is complaining about a problem doesn't solve the problem. Complaining about immigration policy doesn't solve the problem. Complaining about schools doesn't address any of the underlying problems. It doesn't fix anything. What this resolution is, is an opportunity to complain, but it doesn't do anything.

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

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

Madam Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Chair, the proposals in H.R. 3799 are yet another recycled, futile attempt to sabotage the Affordable Care Act and actually make it harder for workers and families to find affordable, high-quality health insurance.

This legislative package includes two bills that were marked up by the Committee on Education and the Workforce.

The first is the Association Health Plans Act. This act undermines a core promise of the ACA, access to affordable healthcare for all. This faulty legislation may provide lower costs for some enrollees, but it would do so by skimping on benefits and increasing costs for everybody else.

Specifically, the bill would allow association health plans to cherry-pick low-risk, young individuals for a pool separate from the ACA marketplace. You may hear my colleagues on the other side of the aisle tout the bill's nominal protections against discrimination based on preexisting conditions, but they omit the details regarding the other large loopholes that leave consumers vulnerable in this bill, such as charging higher risk groups more so that the plan will not be attractive to them and charging low-risk groups less so that they will be the ones that come in.

In fact, this legislation explicitly authorizes AHPs to set premiums based on the ``specific risk profile'' of employer members, enabling them to charge higher premiums to groups based on their age, gender, and other factors. AHPs could also exclude certain categories of coverage, such as maternity care, mental health, or substance abuse disorder, to dissuade certain groups or individuals from enrolling. Under the bill, association health plans could also evade essential health benefits and other consumer protections under State and Federal law.

It is a bad idea because of simple arithmetic. If healthy, low-risk individuals can leave the Affordable Care Act marketplace risk pool and join a separate association and pay lower rates on average, those that did not get into these plans will, on average, pay higher premiums.

Let's be clear. Only low-cost groups will be in these plans because if you are a high-risk group, the cost will be too much and will not be attractive. If they are high-risk groups with preexisting conditions, older groups, and whatnot, they will not be able to form groups that charge less than the ACA marketplace, and nobody will want to join.

Under the ACA, everybody pays an average. If you have a preexisting condition or do not have a preexisting condition, everybody pays the same, and everybody gets insurance at an affordable cost.

Everybody enjoys all the essential benefits under the ACA. Association plans, for example, do not have to provide coverage for essential benefits like maternity benefits. All the costs of maternity care will be borne by fewer and fewer people.

The average cost of insurance for those not in the plans will slowly grow as the number of association plans grows.

Various versions of this legislation have been pushed by Republicans for decades, but all iterations suffer from the same fundamental flaw, they shift costs to the most vulnerable. That is why more than 30 leading consumer and patient groups have expressed serious concerns with this harmful legislation.

The other bill marked up in the Education and the Workforce Committee was the Self-Insurance Protection Act, legislation that further erodes the ACA by exempting stop-loss insurance from key consumer protections.

The bill would prevent the Secretaries of Health and Human Services, Labor, and the Treasury from regulating stop-loss insurance coverage. Even more troubling, the bill makes it virtually impossible for States to protect consumers from abusive practices by invalidating State laws that regulate stop-loss.

Stop-loss insurance usually covers costs above a catastrophic level, over a million dollars or something like that. They can be written to cover everything over a thousand dollars when they become essentially regular insurance except that they are not regulated. There are no solvency regulations, no benefit regulations, no nothing.

We can all agree that small businesses and self-insured people deserve access to affordable healthcare, and that is what you get under the Affordable Care Act. We should also agree that people deserve basic consumer protections to ensure that they have insurance with quality, solvency, an agency to call if something goes wrong, and coverage for essential benefits. That is why we passed the Affordable Care Act in the first place. It is also why, when Democrats were in charge in the last Congress, we passed the American Rescue Plan and the Inflation Reduction Act to make coverage even more affordable.

The question before us is: Do we want to make sure that every individual can continue to find affordable and quality healthcare coverage, or do we want to pass H.R. 3799 and create roadblocks for Americans seeking care?

Madam Chair, I would hope that we would oppose this bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett), the ranking member of the Health Subcommittee of the Ways and Means Committee.

Madam Chair, I would inquire as to how much time is remaining.

Madam Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Chair, the gentleman from Michigan talked about the motive of employers. I think the employers want to give good coverage. The problem with this bill is it enables one company to find loopholes to get a good deal for that company even if it results in higher costs for everybody else. That is the problem with this legislation.

Madam Chair, I include in the Record a letter of opposition written by the AFL-CIO.

Among other things, the letter states that this bill undermines comprehensive coverage and subjects workers to financial risk.

Madam Chair, I include in the Record a broad post written by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.

Among other things, the post states that the bill will undermine consumer protections, segment insurance markets, and impose new burdens on individuals to navigate an already complex system.

[From the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, June 20, 2023]

Health Bills Headed for a Vote in the House Undermine Consumer

Protections and Market Rules

(By Sarah Lueck)

The House is moving toward a vote on legislation that would

weaken Affordable Care Act (ACA) consumer protections and

private market rules. Proponents of these changes claim they

will increase choices and reduce red tape for employers, but

a closer look shows the problems they would create. The

legislation would:

Expand association health plans (AHPs). The legislation

would allow AHPs, a type of health plan that trade

associations, professional groups, and other organizations

may offer their members, to cover self-employed individuals

and small businesses as if they were large employers. This

would exempt them from ACA standards that otherwise apply to

health plans in the individual and small group markets.

Similar to a Trump-era rule a court struck down in 2019, the

bill would segment insurance risk pools: some individuals who

are younger and healthier, or small businesses whose

employees have that profile, could get plans with lower

premiums because they would be priced separately from ACA-

compliant coverage and would not have to meet ACA standards,

such as a requirement to cover a set of essential health

benefits. As a result, other individuals and small businesses

remaining in ACA-regulated markets would see higher premiums.

Expand Individual Coverage Health Reimbursement

Arrangements (ICHRAs). The legislation would codify

provisions similar to a Trump-era rule currently in place

that allows employers to forgo offering a regular group

health insurance plan and instead offer an HRA (a tax-

favored, employer-funded account) that workers could use to

buy their own individual insurance coverage. Increasing such

arrangements could raise ACA marketplace premiums; they are

likely to attract sicker-than-average firms that can spend

less to fund an ICHRA than they must pay for a group health

plan. And firms may find strategies to shift sicker workers

to HRAs, even with guardrails in the legislation meant to

prevent this.

Plus, these arrangements require employees to do

considerable work compared with signing up for an employer

plan--they must apply for and select a plan, set up premium

payments, and understand what expenses the ICHRA covers.

Also, workers offered an ICHRA could be confused about

whether the offer renders them ineligible for a marketplace

premium tax credit--that is, whether it constitutes an

``affordable'' employer offer that precludes credit

eligibility. And while employers must give workers a notice

of HRA rules, they needn't personalize them to tell

individual workers whether their plan is affordable. These

complications for employees could drive down coverage.

Increase self-insured employer plans. Another provision

would encourage more small employers with healthier workers

to self-insure (meaning that the employer bears the financial

risk), rather than offering a fully insured health plan (for

which an insurer bears the risk). Specifically, the bill

would protect a complex self-insurance arrangement known as

level funding from tighter regulation. Similar to AHPs, this

scheme allows small firms with healthier workers to provide

plans that avoid ACA small-group market premium and benefit

standards without being a large employer or taking on the

risk of self-insurance. This provision would make level

funding an even more common way for smaller firms to avoid

having to offer plans that meet ACA market rules--this would

raise premiums for small businesses that remain in the fully

insured, small-group market if small firms with younger and

healthier workers move to self-insure.

House committees recently approved other health bills that

raise concerns. The Ways and Means Committee moved to expand

health savings accounts (HSAs), which overwhelmingly benefit

high income people and exacerbate racial and ethnic

inequities in coverage access and wealth accumulation. HSA

tax benefits currently are only available when someone has a

high-deductible health plan that meets certain federal rules.

But the committee approved a bill that would allow high-

deductible plans to cover telehealth services pre-deductible,

while still qualifying for HSA tax benefits. It is estimated

to cost $5 billion from 2025 through 2033.

Another bill, approved by the House Education and Workforce

Committee, would let employers offer workers stand-alone

telehealth-only plans and exempt the plans from providing ACA

consumer protections or meeting other federal laws that

otherwise apply to employer coverage. The bill would exempt

telehealth plans from, for example, covering mental health

care at parity with other care and providing preventive

services at no cost to enrollees. The plans could also impose

annual and lifetime limits on coverage and sharply limit the

types of conditions they would address.

Additional policy changes are needed to make health

coverage and care more affordable for many people, despite

the ACA's significant benefits for individuals and small

businesses. But the legislation heading to the House floor is

misguided. It would undermine consumer protections, segment

insurance markets, and impose new burdens on individuals to

navigate an already complex system.

Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I am prepared to close, and I yield myself the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I regret that my Republican colleagues continue to relitigate the Affordable Care Act. However, what we have seen is not new. It is what we have seen time and time again over the last 13 years. They continue using every tool they can to undermine the ACA and limit access to quality healthcare, weaken consumer protections, and increase average costs.

The provisions of this package do nothing to lower overall healthcare costs for workers and their families. In fact, for most consumers, the result of this legislation is that while some may save a little bit, most consumers will end up paying more.

Madam Chair, I strongly urge my colleagues to oppose the bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.

Madam Chair, I rise in support of this amendment. Association health plans have a long, well-documented history of cutting costs for themselves by cherry-picking the cheapest people to cover and leaving the more expensive behind. This raises costs for everybody else and causes premiums to go up in the rest of the market. Republicans have been pushing this idea for decades, and experts have consistently found it to be harmful.

The Affordable Care Act made a number of reforms to commercial insurance markets, including a requirement that plans in the individual and small group markets cover essential health benefits such as maternity care and prescription drugs. The ACA also prevented these plans from charging higher rates based on health status and limited the premium amount that older people could be charged compared to younger people. This was a vital protection that ensured that an age tax would not make coverage unaffordable for older individuals.

This legislation has no protection without this amendment. The bill is entirely silent on discriminatory pricing against older people. In fact, by explicitly allowing associations to base premiums on risk factors of each employer within the group, it actually invites them to charge older Americans much more.

This amendment would ensure that older workers are protected by providing in this bill that it would not take effect until the Secretary of Labor certifies that it would not have the impact of raising premiums for older workers.

I thank the gentlewoman from Connecticut for her leadership on the Education and the Workforce Committee.

Madam Chair, I urge my colleagues to support the amendment.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

May 8, 2023.

Hon. Chuck Schumer,

Majority Leader, U.S. Senate,

Washington, DC.

Hon. Kevin McCarthy,

Speaker, House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Hon. Mitch McConnell,

Minority Leader, U.S. Senate,

Washington, DC.

Hon. Hakeem Jeffries,

Democratic Leader, U.S. House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Leader Schumer, Minority Leader McConnell, Speaker

McCarthy, and Minority Leader Jeffries: The undersigned 261

organizations representing millions of students, workers,

people of color, veterans, people with disabilities,

consumers, and people of faith write in strong opposition to

bicameral efforts to use the Congressional Review Act (CRA)

to overturn President Biden's actions to pause student loan

payments and provide student debt relief for low-income and

working-class Americans continuing to recover from the deadly

COVID-19 pandemic and its devastating economic fallout.

In March, policymakers in the House and Senate unveiled a

CRA resolution to retroactively overturn the pause of federal

student loan payments and interest accrual, and President

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

would immediately force tens of millions of borrowers into

abrupt and unplanned repayment with devastating effects,

including adding thousands of dollars of payments and

interest onto their loan balances. It will also force the

Department of Education to unwind loans forgiven under Public

Service Loan Forgiveness for first responders, nurses,

educators, servicemembers, and hundreds of thousands of other

public service workers across the country. These actions are

a clear attack on millions of the most vulnerable workers and

families who are still reeling from the devastating impact of

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

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

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

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

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

American Federation of Teachers,

May 22, 2023.

House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Dear Representative: On behalf of the 1.7 million members

of the American Federation of Teachers, I strongly urge you

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

providing for congressional disapproval of the Biden

administration actions to support student loan borrowers that

were announced in August of last year.

This resolution would immediately force tens of millions of

borrowers into abrupt and unplanned repayment with

devastating effects, including adding thousands of dollars of

interest onto their loan balances. Proponents of the

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

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

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

implications are more severe. Passage of this resolution

would be particularly destructive for teachers, nurses,

servicemembers and firefighters eligible for Public Service

Loan Forgiveness.

This resolution would force the U.S. Department of

Education to unwind loans forgiven under Public Service Loan

Forgiveness for nurses, educators, servicemembers and

hundreds of thousands of other public service workers across

the country. Retroactively repealing months of the payment

pause initially authorized by the Trump administration would

have far greater implications than thwarting Biden's

cancellation plan. It would force teachers, veterans and

nurses who finally received Public Service Loan Forgiveness

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

resolution would reinstate the debt of more than 150,000

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

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

bipartisan law is cruel.

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

borrowers have received PSLF-qualifying payments under the

last payment pause of 2022, but this resolution would claw

back those benefits, setting back firefighters and educators'

eligibility for PSLF for many months.

The COVID-19 pandemic had a devastating impact on American

workers, many of whom were already struggling to make ends

meet.

Those workers' precarity and risk of delinquency on their

debt has severely worsened during the pandemic. Given the

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

drive workers out of public service, a permanent solution,

rather than a temporary deferment, is necessary.

And the law is clear: Student debt cancellation falls

squarely within the statutory authority Congress granted the

secretaIy in the HEROES Act. Cancellation will help ensure

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

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

pandemic.

Tens of millions of families are struggling under the yoke

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

breathing room that student debt relief would bring, and

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

consideration in debt cancellation for Pell recipients

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

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

payments and interest--while the legal challenge wends its

way through the courts, and retroactively making them pay

what they cannot afford, is cruel. These borrowers are

teachers, firefighters, nurses and so many other dedicated

workers. Their current student debt is a far greater burden

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

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

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

decisions, and it undermines plans they responsibly made

based on the situation at the time.

Congress should be building on the Biden administration

actions, not undermining those actions. Throwing tens of

millions of student loan borrowers into chaos by

retroactively adding interest and missed payments to their

loan balances, while extending their student debt sentence,

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

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

Sincerely,

Randi Weingarten,

President, American Federation of Teachers.

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the life and legacy of my late friend, Dr. William E. ``Bill'' Spriggs, who passed away on June 6, 2023. Serving as both the Economics Department Chair at Howard University and as Chief Economist for the AFL-CIO, Bill was a champion for working people and economic justice. His legacy will live on in the hearts and minds of those of us that had the opportunity to learn from and work with him over the years.

Bill was born to World War II veterans and he continued their public service through his years of work in the federal government. He served as the Assistant Secretary of Labor for Policy during the Obama Administration, and before that he served in the Clinton Administration in a variety of roles. Bill graduated from Williams College with a bachelor's degree in economics and political science and then attended graduate school at the University of Wisconsin, where he earned a master's degree and doctorate in economics. This was at a time when there were very few Black Ph.D.s in economics, and he maintained that trailblazing spirit throughout his life and career.

Bill was steadfast in his commitment to uplifting working people through economic policy. He was focused on many issues, including education, minimum wage, and workplace safety and he was particularly passionate about closing racial disparities in the labor market. His work highlighted how people of color, particularly Black Americans, were disproportionately lower income in our country, and he believed economic policy makers had an obligation to address these inequities. At times, he spoke the uncomfortable truth. For example, Bill bluntly stated that ``the reason that racist policies have continued to exist is that racism involves an unexamined set of assumptions.''

This was quite evident during my first term in Congress as we debated the 1994 Crime Bill, and I looked to Bill's scholarship to resist draconian, slogan-driven legislation. Many people were trying to codify tough-on-crime slogans and soundbites, such as ``you do the adult crime, you do the adult time,'' or ``three strikes and you're out.'' Bill steadfastly researched and presented evidence of how programs like Head Start, after school programs and other prevention and intervention strategies did more to effectively reduce future criminal behavior than the slogans and soundbites.

On a personal note, Bill and I shared both a personal and professional bond. I first met Bill while serving in the Virginia General Assembly, when he was a professor at Norfolk State University. We were both admirers of the Attucks Theater on Church Street in Norfolk, Virginia that was noted for its unique architecture designed by an African American architect and financed by a Black bank in 1919. Bill's work has significantly influenced how I approach policymaking, especially in my role as the former Chairman and current Ranking Member of the Committee on Education and the Workforce. I had the honor of calling him a friend, and I can attest to his personal kindness and fundamental good nature.

Mr. Speaker, I want to extend my condolences to his wife, Jennifer, his son, William, his loved ones, and everyone else who was influenced by his work.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor and recognize Mr. James D. Dahling of Norfolk, VA.

After serving for twenty years as the President and Chief Operating Officer of Children's Hospital of the King's Daughters (CHKD), the only freestanding children's hospital in Virginia, Jim Dahling will retire on June 20, 2023.

Jim joined CHKD in 1994 as Vice President and Chief Operating Officer. He previously served as Senior VP of Richmond Memorial Hospital and held senior management positions at Texas and Minnesota hospitals. Jim became CHKD's Chief Executive Officer in 2003.

As a result of Jim's visionary leadership, CHKD solidified its reputation as an internationally acclaimed pediatric hospital. During his tenure, CHKD built the first and only Level 1 Pediatric Trauma Center in Hampton Roads, the region's only pediatric outpatient surgery center, the state's sole pediatric inpatient rehabilitation unit, and the region's first pediatric urgent care center. In response to the growing community concern about a lack of pediatric mental health services in Hampton Roads and across Virginia, Jim led the construction of an innovative 60-bed mental health hospital and outpatient center. The initiative marks a historic expansion of CHKD's mental health services for children, bringing nearly twenty child and adolescent psychiatrists and dozens of other mental health providers to Hampton Roads to address the region's youth mental health crisis.

The Hampton Roads region is home to one of the largest concentrations of active-duty military in the country. CHKD is one of the nation's leading providers of healthcare to military dependents, and Jim has led more than two decades of tireless and growing commitments to providing outstanding medical care to the children of our servicemembers. For that, we owe CHKD and Jim a debt of profound gratitude.

Amy Sampson, a trusted member of CHKD's leadership team and the Board's unanimous choice, will succeed Jim as President and CEO. Amy already has a long and distinguished career at CHKD. Serving for over 30 years in a variety of roles, including strategic planning, government relations, marketing and communications, philanthropy services, community outreach, experience services, the donor milk bank, the call center, and volunteer services. Of Amy's many accomplishments, she has been instrumental in developing CHKD's mental health initiatives, spearheading efforts to secure federal, state and local government approval and financial backing for CHKD's $224 million pediatric inpatient psychiatric facility. I am excited about the vision, energy and enthusiasm Amy brings to the CEO role, and I know she will continue Jim's and CHKD's outstanding record of service to our region's children.

Mr. Speaker, Jim Dahling embodies CHKD's mission--``Health, Healing, and Hope for All Children''--and his vision will live on in the spirit of those working tirelessly to provide the highest quality of care to Virginia's children. I ask my colleagues to join me in honoring Mr. James Dahling for his nearly thirty years of service to CHKD and the Hampton Roads region.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate the Phoebus High School Football Team from Hampton, Virginia on becoming the Virginia High School League's Class 3 State Champions.

On Saturday, December 10, 2022, the Phoebus Phantoms won the Class 3 State Championship Game against the Heritage High School Pioneers with a score of 48-7. This is the second year in a row Phoebus High School has claimed the title. Led by Coach Jeremy Blunt, the Phantoms won this title on the tail end of an equally astounding season. Phoebus High School closed their season undefeated, with a record of 15 wins and 0 losses, and maintained a 20-game winning streak going back to their previous season.

Not only did the Phantoms win the state championship, but they also exemplified the ability to overcome the unexpected. In the semifinal game against Brentsville District High School a week prior to the championship match, Phoebus' starting quarterback, Nolan James, was injured, preventing him from competing in the tournament further. Back- up quarterback, Jayden Earley, stepped up, and in the championship game, passed for 236 yards and three touchdowns leading to their victory. For the final play of the game, the Phantoms carried James onto the field to take the final snap as an instrumental part of the championship run.

These young athletes exemplify hard work and sportsmanship. Overcoming adversity requires that we take challenges head-on no matter what obstacles present themselves in our path. The Phoebus High School Football team is a model of this enduring quality and an inspiration for all of us.

Mr. Speaker, I want to again congratulate the Phoebus High School Football Team on accomplishing this amazing feat and thank Coach Blunt, the parents, and the entire Phoebus High School community for supporting these students throughout this remarkable season. They have all made their community proud. I wish them the best in their future endeavors, and I wish the program continued success.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to voice my opposition to the House Republicans adjourning for the holiday while leaving the American people in limbo.

I get tired of being lectured by Republicans about debts and deficits. Twenty-five percent of the entire national debt was accumulated under the 4 years of the Trump administration.

Every Democratic administration since Kennedy has left for their Republican successors a better deficit situation than they inherited, and every Republican administration since Nixon has left for their Democratic successors a worse deficit situation than they inherited-- all without exception.

Speaker McCarthy has presented a false choice: either we default on our debts for the first time in history, or we agree to devastating cuts in education, law enforcement, veterans benefits, food assistance, border security, and healthcare and going into a recession.

House Republicans created this crisis. It is time they ended it by at least five of them signing the discharge petition and agreeing to responsibly pay our Nation's debts.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.J. Res. 45.

Forty-three million Americans are eligible for President Biden's student loan relief. That is an average of almost 100,000 people in each of our districts.

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

To be clear, the people who would be impacted the most are not the wealthy and well-connected. Ninety percent of the relief would go to borrowers earning less than $75,000 a year. You are not even eligible if you are making over $125,000 a year. That is in stark contrast, of course, to the Trump tax scam, where 80 percent of the benefits went to the top 1 percent and corporations.

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

How do you unpause a payment that you were supposed to make many months ago? What is going to happen to all those interest payments that now have to be added back to the loans? That is about $233 per month in interest and principal.

What happens to the credits that participants in the Public Service Loan Forgiveness Program were promised during those months? Are these firefighters, teachers, police officers, and other public servants who may have had their loans forgiven now on the hook for four additional payments?

The reality is that H.J. Res. 45 would trigger a wave of delinquencies and defaults for our most vulnerable borrowers. Intentionally or not, this resolution would create chaos for borrowers and their families, as well as loan servicers.

The Congressional Research Service has confirmed that this chaos would be triggered by the retroactive application of this rule.

Mr. Speaker, anyone in the country who wants to take advantage of the benefits of a college education should be able to do so, not just the wealthy few. That is the way it used to be just several decades ago. Pell grants covered 80 percent of the cost of attending a State college. Now, it is less than 30 percent. When adjusted for inflation, States are paying less for State colleges than they used to.

Mr. Speaker, this proposal does nothing to help students pay for their college education, so I strongly urge my colleagues to oppose the resolution.

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

Mr. Speaker, I remind my colleague from Virginia that over 90,000 borrowers in his district will be denied relief if this resolution is enacted.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Clyburn), the assistant Democratic leader for the U.S. House of Representatives.

Mr. Speaker, I remind my colleague from Michigan that over 90,000 borrowers in his district will be denied relief if this resolution is enacted.

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

Mr. Speaker, I remind my colleague from Georgia that over 110,000 borrowers from his district would be denied relief if this resolution is enacted.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Takano), the ranking member of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs.

Mr. Speaker, I remind my colleague from Florida that almost 120,000 borrowers from his district will be denied relief if this resolution is enacted.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Adams), the ranking member of the Workforce Protections Subcommittee.

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

Mr. Speaker, I remind my colleague from Illinois that over 75,000 borrowers from her district will be denied debt relief if this resolution is enacted.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis).

Mr. Speaker, I remind my colleague from Tennessee that 89,000 borrowers from his district will be denied relief if this resolution is enacted.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. Jayapal), a member of the Education and Workforce Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I remind my colleague from Texas that over 88,000 borrowers from his district will be denied relief if this resolution is enacted.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Michigan (Ms. Tlaib).

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time is remaining?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Instead of addressing these challenges, we are trying to force through a resolution that hurts tens of millions of student borrowers and their families, an average of almost 100,000 in each of our districts.

Many of my colleagues on the other side have justified this resolution by arguing that we can't afford it, but it is just a matter of priorities.

Congressional Republicans are willing to charge taxpayers more than twice as much for a tax package where 80 percent of the benefits were scheduled to go to the top 1 percent and corporations, but now they are unwilling to invest half that amount to help student borrowers pay for their education.

We should be passing proposals that meaningfully support borrowers and make college more affordable for current and future borrowers.

The bottom line is that it is our responsibility to strengthen the support for those seeking a college degree because those who want a college degree should be able to access that opportunity. That opportunity should not be reserved for just the wealthy few.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose H.J. Res. 45, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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