Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the bill to extend the Affordable Care Act's enhanced premium tax credits through a clean, 3-year extension.

Last year, the Republicans blocked the extension of these credits in the big, ugly bill. With the expiration of the tax credits last month, the health premium costs have skyrocketed, causing millions to lose their coverage.

When more people lose coverage, costs go up for everyone. Uninsured patients often delay seeing a doctor and end up needing more costly care at the emergency room. When there are more uninsured, hospitals, especially in rural areas, face financial hardships and may be forced to close. In other words, those unpaid bills do not disappear. They are shifted onto everybody else, and everyone suffers.

Today, Congress can step in to address the sharp premium increases and provide stability for working families across the country. I urge my colleagues to support this bill and to support affordable healthcare.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to include in the Record, two letters of opposition to H.R. 6703, the Lower Health Care Premiums for Americans Act, from AFL-CIO and AFSCME.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the so-called Lower Health Care Premiums for All Americans Act.

This package includes two partisan proposals marked up in the Education and Workforce Committee. First, it recklessly expands association health plans which would allow small employer groups and individuals to join associations to offer health insurance that are subject to fewer regulations than traditional plans in the individual and small group markets.

AHPs would make it easier for associations to cherry-pick small employers with younger, mostly male workforces who are healthier and can be charged lower rates. Smaller employers whose workers are older and sicker would remain in the traditional market. Simple arithmetic dictates that if you pull healthy groups out, then all of those left behind will be paying more.

Furthermore, these plans, if history is any guide, will show that they are more vulnerable to fraud and insolvency than those in the marketplace.

The second proposal is the Self-Insurance Protection Plan which would prohibit the Department of Labor and States from ever regulating stop- loss

insurance, inviting nefarious practices that could hurt consumers and employers by creating loopholes for plans that will escape any regulatory oversight.

Further, Mr. Speaker, this plan does nothing to extend the ACA enhanced tax credits which are set to expire. Millions of people will see their premiums skyrocket, and millions more won't be able to afford any insurance at all. If we bring up the bipartisan bill, then we could avoid that result.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. DeSaulnier), who is the ranking member of the Health Employment Subcommittee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Adams), the ranking member of the Higher Education and Workforce Development Subcommittee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 45 seconds to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Landsman).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Takano), the ranking member of the Veterans' Affairs Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 45 seconds to the gentlewoman from Virginia (Ms. McClellan).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 45 seconds to the gentlewoman from Arizona (Mrs. Grijalva).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Carter).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Underwood).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from California (Mr. Ruiz).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Dexter).

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

Mr. Speaker, this bill does nothing to reduce costs for all Americans. By weakening protections, undermining State oversight, and siphoning healthy individuals out of the ACA, this bill will actually increase premiums and reduce oversight and protection for families.

We need to extend the 3-year extension for the enhanced tax credits. I oppose the bill and urge my colleagues to do the same.

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

Mr. Chair, I rise in support of my amendment to H.R. 3898, the PERMIT Act, and in opposition to the underlying bill.

For the last fifty years, the Clean Water Act has provided the federal government with the means to hold polluters accountable for contaminating our Nation's wetlands, rivers, lakes, and sources of drinking water. The Clean Water Act, in many cases, has been the sole reason why decades of pollution threatening the health of our communities has been reversed and why countless bodies of water throughout the country are now being preserved for future generations. The PERMIT Act will reverse progress and give polluters the ability to, once again, contaminate our waters by minimizing many of the critical protections in the Clean Water Act. This legislation establishes blanket Clean Water Act exemptions for toxic and cancer-causing chemicals stemming from pesticide use, agriculture, and wildfire management. This legislation also shields polluters from liability for pollutants that they do not disclose on their permit applications, even if they know that their operations result in the introduction of these pollutants.

In Southeastern Virginia, one of our region's most critical resources is the Chesapeake Bay. The Bay provides our local economy with many opportunities in recreation, business, education, and tourism. Throughout the watershed, the Bay brings in nearly $14.3 billion in annual revenue and supports nearly one million jobs. The federal government and the states in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed recognize that our communities rely on the health of the Bay and signed the Chesapeake Bay Watershed Agreement to regulate pollutants and implement standards like the Total Maximum Daily Load, or TMDL. It is extremely concerning that the PERMIT Act includes language specifically targeting the Chesapeake Bay Watershed Agreement's TMDL by weakening the federal government's role in its implementation. My amendment strikes this language from the bill. The long-standing collaboration between the federal government and the states should not be diminished.

I would like to thank the twelve members who cosponsored my amendment to strike this language. Because this amendment is not included and because of the various provisions in the underlying bill that endanger the protection of our Nation's waters, I oppose passage of this legislation.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of S. 284, the Congressional Award Program Reauthorization Act.

Since its inception in 1979, the award program has honored young people for their remarkable achievements through volunteering in their communities, personal development, physical fitness, and exploration.

The Congressional Award is a unique initiative, completely voluntary and noncompetitive, allowing young individuals who are ages 13 to 24 to set and achieve personal goals at their own pace.

It encourages them to engage with their communities and strive for excellence in all areas of life. By providing this recognition, we give young people the motivation and push they need to realize their potential, reminding them that they are the future of this country.

This bill reauthorizes the program through 2029. The award operates solely on private donations overseen by a bipartisan Congressional Award Board, which underscores the collective commitment to fostering the potential of our Nation's youth.

At a time when our youth face unprecedented challenges, it is essential that we continue to uplift and recognize their efforts. By supporting the bill, we can take a small step to reaffirm our commitment to supporting the youth, nurturing their potential, and celebrating their achievements.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Michigan (Mrs. Dingell).

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

Mr. Speaker, this bill reauthorizes the Congressional Award program that has been an acknowledgment of achievements by individuals since 1979, recognizing their accomplishments and service within their communities.

This is more than just an award. It is about empowering our youth to engage in their communities and realize their full potential.

As young people are being tested in today's climate and atmosphere, it is crucial that we uplift them and celebrate their accomplishments.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, today, we are considering S. 222, the Whole Milk for Healthy Kids Act of 2025.

School meals play a critical role in reducing child hunger and providing children with the healthy food they need in this country. Milk offered as part of these meals can deliver essential nutrients that are central to a child's development. That is why it is important that students be provided with the most nutritional options.

Child nutrition standards for school meals, including milk options, are guided by the Dietary Guidelines for Americans, DGAs, which are periodically updated based on recommendations from child nutrition experts and public input.

The latest DGAs, supported by the American Heart Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Public Health Association, the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics, and over a dozen other public health advocate organizations, agree that fat-free and low-fat milk are the healthiest options for children.

The DGAs must follow the Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee's evidence-based recommendations to maintain current limits on saturated fat, sugars, and sodium. Simply put, nutrition standards must be guided by scientists, not politicians and industry lobbyists. If there is a controversy, that should be debated at meetings of the Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee, not with a group of politicians.

S. 222, the Whole Milk for Healthy Kids Act of 2025, disregards evidence-based recommendations by removing the statutory requirement that milk options served must align with the DGAs and exempts the saturated fat found in milk from the total regulatory limits on saturated fat in school meals. This would allow schools participating in the National School Lunch Program to serve dietary options, such as whole milk, that do not align with the current science-based recommendations, which protect children's health.

For these reasons, Mr. Speaker, the bill should be defeated.

I do recognize, however, that there are some improvements to existing law in the bill, including better options for students seeking a non- dairy alternative. Schools will now have an easier process to serve nutritionally equivalent, nondairy beverages, such as soy milk, and provide that they may be served in the regular lunch line. Increasing access to plant-based meals and beverages in the lunchroom is a goal everyone should be able to support. However, this is not enough of an improvement, considering the bill's other shortcomings.

Whole milk contains far more saturated fat, cholesterol, and calories than fat-free and low-fat milk. Experts agree that saturated fat from whole milk increases the risk of heart disease, the leading cause of death in this country.

In fact, the majority of Americans consume too much saturated fat. More than 80 percent of the U.S. population exceeds the recommended limit. This bill needlessly inserts politics into what should be a science-based process, to the detriment of our children's health.

The Trump administration has demonstrated time and time again its disregard for public health and evidence-based interventions, and these revisions to the DGAs in this bill will have the same disregard for following the evidence. However, hopefully, future administrations will recommit to science and the decades of nutritional guidance that ensure children will receive the healthiest meals possible.

Mr. Speaker, I am also disappointed by the majority's decision to depart from precedent by moving a limited child nutrition bill outside of a comprehensive child nutrition reauthorization.

More to the point, this is the only piece of legislation that our committee has considered this year that amends laws governing child nutrition programs.

We have considered no bills that improve access to free school meals; no bills to improve the Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children, the WIC program; no bills to improve options for summer food programs; no bills to improve the Child and Adult Care Food Program, and no bills to address the need for healthy meals after the school day is over.

The majority did, however, choose to advance that big, ugly bill which contains Medicaid and SNAP cuts, which will result in a drastic reduction in the number of students eligible for free school meals.

Mr. Speaker, for these reasons, I oppose the bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Carter).

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

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, as earlier noted, S. 222 does make some improvements to the whole milk debate with its inclusion of better options for students seeking nondairy alternatives. The gentleman from Louisiana spoke to those provisions, and that is something that is supported by our Nation's nutritionists, pediatricians, and scientists.

However, I remain disappointed that the bill overall makes school meals less healthy. This bill goes against the dairy industry's stated commitment to ensure that students have access to the healthiest dairy options consistent with the DGAs. The DGAs make clear that fat-free and low-fat milk are the healthiest options for children 2 years and older. Whole milk contains far more saturated fat, cholesterol, and calories than fat-free and low-fat milk.

In a nation where the obesity rate among children is over 16 percent and the children are already facing obesity-related challenges such as type 2 diabetes, high cholesterol, and high blood pressure, we should not ignore the stance of dieticians, nutritionists, pediatricians, and the overall science.

Mr. Speaker, I am committed to ensuring that students have access to the healthiest dairy options in accordance with science-backed guidelines, but S. 222 contradicts that commitment by interfering with the independent process that aligns child nutrition standards with the latest science.

Furthermore, let me just point out that after months of Republican- led political brinksmanship, we are still considering a bill that does nothing meaningful to address childhood obesity, nutrition, or hunger.

The bottom line is that Members of Congress should not inject politics into child nutrition standards at the expense of nutritious school meals that our children need.

For those reasons, I urge my colleagues to oppose S. 222, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Connecticut for her relentless attention on this issue.

First, when we talk about protecting the Department of Education, I think we have to first--when we talk about dismantling the Department of Education, we keep saying we are going to return education to the States. Education never left the States. It has always been with the States.

What the Department of Education has done has been civil rights. The Department of Education has nothing to do with curriculum, teacher qualifications, or the courses needed to graduate from high school. All of those are local and State.

The Department of Education's Federal interests is civil rights beginning in 1954 when the Supreme Court decreed that we could not maintain so-called separate but equal schools.

In Brown v. Board of Education, the court said: ``It is doubtful that any child may reasonably be expected to succeed in life if he is denied the opportunity of an education. Such an opportunity . . . is a right which must be made available to all on equal terms.''

The court then concluded that segregation of students by race denies the students of a minority race of an equal educational opportunity because separate facilities are inherently unequal.

That is what the Supreme Court did in 1954. They didn't tell the State what they would teach. They just said students can't be segregated.

In 1965, the Elementary and Secondary Education Act addressed inequality in education. Title I addressed it by putting money into low-income areas. We fund education with the real estate tax, guaranteeing that low-income areas won't be at a disadvantage, so title I comes in with money for low-income areas.

Other provisions in the Elementary and Secondary Education Act talk about students with disabilities and making sure students with disabilities have a free and appropriate public education. It also supports those for whom English is a second language. It eliminates racial achievement gaps. That is what the Federal role in education is, not what the courses are.

With higher education, Title IX talks about equality of the activities of men and women. We don't tell colleges what to teach, but we just make sure we have Pell grants and student loans so that people can go.

When we dismantle the Department of Education, we are not returning anything to the States. We are just eliminating civil rights. It is no surprise that the first victim in the dismantling of the Department has been the Office of Civil Rights. The Office of Civil Rights enforces civil rights.

The big, ugly bill that they passed earlier this year cuts back on student loans and Pell grants so fewer students can attend. Other actions have been limiting equal opportunity in education.

That is why the dismantling of the Department of Education is so reprehensible. It is not because we are so-called returning anything to the States. It is because we are dismantling civil rights.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Connecticut for all of her work and for her relentless attention on this issue and making sure people understand what is going on.

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

I rise in opposition to H.R. 1069, the so-called PROTECT Our Kids Act. This bill would add a new stipulation that disqualifies public schools from receiving Federal funds under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act if the school receives contributions, materials, or other resources from China or an individual or entity acting directly or indirectly on behalf of the Government of the People's Republic of China.

The bill gives no guidance on what ``acting directly or indirectly on behalf of'' means or how you are supposed to know and how a parent's contribution to a school program should be evaluated, and really, are you supposed to scrutinize all parents' contributions or just those from parents of Chinese-American students?

H.R. 1069 would specifically prohibit Federal funding for any school that operates the program sponsored by the Confucius Institutes or Confucius classrooms. It is worth noting that although there may have been a lot of programs in the past, right now there may be as few as five Confucius Institutes in this country serving K-12 students. The provisions of this bill will have to be administered not by those five school systems, but every school district--15,000 school districts-- will have to administer the provisions of this bill.

As written, the bill would create significant administrative burdens to our schools and chill community investment in our children. For example, the bill would disqualify a school from receiving Federal funds by simply accepting donations from a Chinese immigrant if it turns out the immigrant is acting indirectly on behalf of the Government of the People's Republic of China. That is if you can find out.

The bill bestows upon the Secretary of Education the sole discretion of deciding if an individual is acting indirectly on behalf of the Chinese Government, the very department which the Trump administration is actively dismantling. Without any additional funding or dedicated help, schools would have to become investigators and determine if an individual who wanted to donate to the school or participate in parents' contributions could possibly be tied to the Chinese Government. The justified fear of losing critical Federal funds would almost assuredly lead schools to eye any well-meaning donations skeptically, sowing distrust in our neighbors.

Now note, there is no limit to this level of funding. It doesn't say contributions over $1,000 or over $10,000. It is any contribution. It must be said that there is no credible evidence to support the claims that China is exerting any inappropriate or undue influence over America's K-12 public schools. Even the report from the group Parents Defending Education, which makes these allegations, offers speculation rather than verifiable incidents or actual influence.

However, even if we are able to verify that China poses a credible threat to our K-12 schools, this bill, as written, does nothing to actually address any national security threats. Instead, it seeks to punish schools for accepting educational materials or participating in cultural exchange programs. Actually, our schools would be the victims of the undue foreign influence, but instead of deterring the bad actors, the bill seeks to punish the victim and, in effect, punish our students. The bill is, therefore, poorly written, poorly tailored, misdirected, and ultimately counterproductive and not a targeted national security measure.

Similar to H.R. 1005 and H.R. 1049, which we considered yesterday, H.R. 1069, if passed, would force school districts already facing shortages of teachers, counselors, and support staff to divert critical time and resources from instruction to completing bureaucratic paperwork. This is the very definition of an unfunded mandate. It imposes obligations on 15,000 school systems without offering any capacity or funding to meet that obligation.

Lastly, we have to note that the Trump administration is in the process of trying to abolish the Department of Education, with key responsibilities being shifted to other agencies. We are left with a chaotic patchwork of authority and no one apparently left to actually administer the provisions of this bill.

For those reasons, Mr. Speaker, I recommend a ``no'' vote on the bill and reserve the balance my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from Georgia (Mrs. McBath).

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

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, when you hear the title, PROTECT Our Kids Act, you wonder what this bill is all about. You might think it protects kids from guns, protects kids from bullying, or protects kids maybe from online predators; but no, this is from the foreign influence of China.

There is no credible evidence of any improper influence in K-12 schools, yet this is what the bill is about. It imposes sweeping penalties that do nothing to enhance national security. It only harms students. The apparent target of this legislation seems to be the maybe five school districts that have Confucius Institute programs, but it applies the provisions of the bill to 15,000 school systems in America.

All of this unfolds while the Trump administration works to dismantle the Department of Education, leaving critical responsibilities scattered throughout agencies. This bill wastes critical resources without any apparent benefit.

Therefore, 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 in opposition to H.R. 1005, the Combating the Lies of Authoritarians in School Systems Act.

This bill would compel schools to implement new reporting mechanisms, monitoring procedures, and compliance structures despite the complete absence of any factual verified threats.

Under current law, K-12 schools are not required to report funding from foreign governments or contracts with foreign entities, as most school funding comes from local property taxes, State formulas, and a little bit from the Federal Government. This bill would require schools to report funding from or contracts with a foreign source.

Let's be clear. There is no evidence that K-12 schools are under any threat from misinformation or covert influence by authoritarian foreign governments in any measurable way.

If passed, school districts already facing shortages of teachers, counselors, and support staff now will have to divert critical time and resources from instruction to completing bureaucratic paperwork, like what qualifies as a foreign source and who qualifies as a foreign source. Schools have got to have professional development, so every school principal and superintendent knows exactly who needs to be reported and how.

Confucius Institutes were mentioned. We have got 15,000 school systems that will have to comply with this bill. Five Confucius Institute classrooms have been found to exist in the United States at last count. Mr. Speaker, 15,000 school systems are going to have to put up with this paperwork. This is the very definition of unfunded mandate and imposes obligations without offering the capacity or funding to meet the mandate.

Instead of strengthening our school system, it distracts from the urgent challenges our schools are facing, such as widening achievement gaps, as reflected in the latest National Assessment of Educational Progress scores, the NAEP scores, and the growing difficulty of recruiting and retaining quality educators.

Let me underscore the broader point. My colleagues across the aisle have remained silent as the administration has dismantled or is in the process of dismantling the Department of Education, undermining its legitimacy, capacity, and effectiveness. Most recently, the administration announced plans to move six interagency agreements which would offload core functions of the Department of Education and spread them across other Federal agencies.

Yet this bill assigns additional responsibilities to what is left of the Department of Education. It simply doesn't add up. Who will be left in the Department of Education to enforce these mandates?

For these reasons, H.R. 1005 does nothing to improve our schools and everything to bog down schools in administrative red tape. I strongly recommend a ``no'' vote.

Mr. Speaker, I inform the chairman that I have no additional speakers. I reserve the balance of my time until closing.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, this bill is not limited to China. This bill says ``foreign source,'' and under the definition of foreign source, it includes any individual who is not a U.S. citizen or national of the United States, so if you have a plumbing contract over $10,000, you have got to check out the owner of the plumbing company's citizenship to know whether you have to document and report the contract.

Every one of the 15,000 school systems, every school, every contract over $10,000, you have got to report, and you have to ascertain the citizenship of who you are contracting with. I don't know how you do that. If you order something over the internet, you have got to check out somebody's citizenship. I don't know how you comply, but that is just a little gap in the bill.

Every school system, every school would have to comply with this. It is just not China. It is any person who is not a citizen or national of the United States.

Mr. Speaker, there is actually no credible evidence that this bill is even needed. We are under no threat of misinformation or covert influence by authoritarian foreign governments.

I urge my colleagues to oppose the bill. This bill does nothing to improve our schools, close the achievement gaps, or increase teacher pay. It burdens schools with bureaucratic red tape due to imagined covert influence from foreign governments.

It is so broad that it covers every contract over $10,000. If we don't know the citizenship of the other side, I don't know how we find out the citizenship of the other side.

We have real issues that we need to address, and we should address those issues. For those reasons, I urge a ``no'' vote, and I urge my colleagues to do the same.

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 today in opposition to H.R. 1049, the Transparency in Reporting of Adversarial Contributions to Education Act, the TRACE Act. This bill suffers from many of the same shortcomings in the earlier bill we just discussed. This bill, H.R. 1049, would require schools to allow parents to access certain information if it was paid for by a foreign entity of concern. It doesn't say ``China.'' It says ``foreign entity of concern.''

This includes all teachers' and administrators' professional development material and salary information, as well as the school districts' contracts and records for all materials purchased from or paid for by a foreign entity of concern. While this is not currently required by law, parents now already have access to their children's records, including their curriculum, under the Protection of Pupil Rights Amendment, or PPRA.

It is worth noting that there is no evidence that foreign entities of concern are contributing to public schools at any scale. We have already noted that there are five Confucius Institutes throughout the United States, throughout 15,000 school systems.

H.R. 1049 would impose new layers of reporting, auditing, and bureaucracy on every school district in the Nation. Yet, once again, this is without allocating a single dollar to support these added responsibilities.

For years, my Republican colleagues have warned against unfunded mandates. They have rightly criticized Federal actions that impose requirements on States and local communities that cannot afford to implement those policies.

Yet, H.R. 1049 is precisely that, another unfunded mandate wrapped around rhetoric but lacking in substance. At a time when our schools need smaller class sizes, they need to pay teachers more, and they need more academic support for students, the last thing they need is a new stack of new Federal compliance paperwork.

That would include the professional development to inform every school official what a foreign entity of concern is and where they can get the most recent list.

Let me underscore the broader point though. At the same time as congressional Republicans are creating additional bureaucratic hurdles for K-12, the Trump administration is actively dismantling the Department of Education.

Who is going to enforce these mandates anyway?

I challenge my colleagues, many of whom privately acknowledge that abolishing the Department of Education is a mistake, to actually oppose those actions publicly. Our schools need stability and support, not disarray and mixed messages.

Mr. Speaker, again, I oppose the bill, and 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, if there was real evidence of influence, I think we would have heard specifically what that evidence is. We haven't.

My colleagues keep talking about China, about the Confucius Institute. At last count, there were only five active programs in 15,000 school divisions. There used to be more. There are only about five now.

This bill is going to be hard to manage. It is difficult, if not impossible, to easily access the most recent list of foreign entities of concern.

As we have pointed out, this bill doesn't talk about China. It talks about foreign entities of concern. That list can change without notice. In fact, the most recent list from the Department of State has 91 listings, 12 added since Labor Day of this year. Good luck to those 15,000 superintendents who have to keep up with that list, with the added problem that the Departments of Energy and the Treasury also keep separate lists. Those 15,000 superintendents have to keep up with those lists, too.

At its core, this is just another unfunded mandate, where you have to train 15,000 superintendents and unlimited numbers of principals so they will know what a foreign entity of concern is and how to deal with it with this new legislation. It burdens our already overstretched schools with new reporting requirements, new paperwork, and new bureaucratic hurdles, all without adding a single dollar to help them meet their obligations. Our educators deserve meaningful support, not legislative gestures that create more problems than they solve.

For these reasons, I will be voting ``no'' and urge my colleagues to reject this measure and refocus our efforts on policies that will actually strengthen our public schools.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize and celebrate New Beech Grove Baptist Church in Newport News, Virginia, on the occasion of its 100th anniversary. For a century, New Beech Grove has stood as a steadfast pillar of faith, service, and fellowship in the Newport News community.

In 1925, Reverends A.B. Ellis, H.L. Blackwell, and J.D. Farrow led efforts to build a new house of worship. Named for the grove of beechnut trees surrounding it, the church was dedicated as Beech Grove Church. Under the leadership of Reverends James Farmer, B.C. Harrod, Samuel Fladger, and James Lawson, the church expanded its community outreach by joining the Eastern Virginia Christian Conference and the National Progressive Baptist Conference, adopting the name New Beech Grove Baptist Church.

On March 6, 1983, the congregation held its farewell service at the original building, forming a motorcade to its new home. The church later moved into its current facility on April 29, 2018.

Guided by its vision that was established under the leadership of Dr. Willard Maxwell, Jr., ``Building Kingdom Minded People to Serve the Community,'' New Beech Grove has consistently embodied service in action. During the Flint Water Crisis, members collected and sent 6,000 cases of water to those in need. The church also hosts the InTouch Community Basketball Tournament, fostering unity between first responders and the community.

Mr. Speaker, as New Beech Grove marks this remarkable milestone, I extend my sincere gratitude for a century of faithful service and lasting impact on the people of Newport News.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize and celebrate Bethel Temple Church in Hampton, Virginia, on the occasion of its 70th anniversary. For seven decades, Bethel Temple has been a steadfast pillar of faith, service, and fellowship in the Hampton community.

In the early 1950s, Reverend Beverly W. Fox, then pastor of Phoebus Assembly of God, led efforts to build a new house of worship. With the support of the community, a modest sanctuary was completed and dedicated as Bethel Assembly of God. In the summer of 1955, Reverend Fox and thirty congregants held the church's first service, laying the foundation for a ministry that would thrive for generations.

Under the leadership of pastors, including Reverends Howard S. Ryan, G.P. Hertweck, Gerald Ogg, Sammy Hayes, and Arnold Brown, the church grew in both membership and outreach. Expanding facilities, establishing new ministries, and adopting the name Bethel Temple Assembly of God reflected its evolving mission and growing congregation.

In the decades that followed, Reverends Ron Johnson and Glenn Reynolds deepened the church's community engagement through programs such as the Great Turkey Giveaway, Christmas Toy Giveaway, and weekly Community Dinner. These initiatives have benefitted countless families across Hampton Roads.

Today, under the leadership of Senior Pastor Reverend Charles Ricks, Jr., and Pastor Lori Ricks, Bethel Temple continues to embody faith in action. Through partnerships with local organizations and tireless service for the Hampton community during the COVID-19 pandemic, they have strengthened the church's legacy of compassion and service.

Mr. Speaker, as they mark this milestone, I extend my sincere gratitude to Bethel Temple Church for seventy years of faithful service and enduring impact on the people of Hampton.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding and for organizing this Special Order.

Mr. Speaker, this summer, Americans from coast to coast are enduring the hottest temperatures in recorded history. Days are not just uncomfortable, they are life-threatening for millions of workers across the country.

From agricultural workers in the fields, to warehouse employees, to construction crews and factory staff, many are laboring in extreme heat with no Federal protection from one of the oldest, most serious, most common workplace hazards, and that is, of course, heat stress.

The science is clear, the medical evidence is overwhelming, and the moral case is undeniable. Yet, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, OSHA, still lacks a national standard to protect workers from dangerous heat exposure on the job.

In addition to the important legislation mentioned by the gentleman from Arizona to address the issue, I am a proud cosponsor of the bill introduced by the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Chu) to prevent senseless deaths of workers due to heat. The bill honors the memory of a farm worker who tragically died after working 10 straight hours in 105 degree heat without access to shade, water, or a break. His death was preventable, as are the deaths of so many others happening every year.

We have known for a long time that it does not have to be this way. In the fourth century BC, Alexander the Great was counseled to guard against heat stress as his troops marched through the desert. Heat stress is even documented several times in the Old Testament. Our own military adopted a heat stress prevention program in 1952, and I remember when I was in basic training in the Army, when the heat reached certain temperatures, we would have to loosen the bottom of our pants and stop doing physical training, or PT. The National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health, NIOSH, advised OSHA on the need to protect workers from heat stress back in 1972, and again in 1986, and yet again in 2016.

Workers have waited long enough. Thanks to Representative Chu's leadership, we have reintroduced a bill that will end delays and excuses and finally bring workers the commonsense protection they deserve. Within one year, OSHA would be required under the bill to finally issue an enforceable rule setting out the strongest feasible protections against heat illness. It empowers OSHA to require rest breaks, access to water, shaded or cool recovery areas, and training that delivers information in a language and format that workers can certainly understand. These are simple and sensible safeguards that will save lives.

As the climate crisis accelerates, workers are increasingly at risk. Heat stress is a predictable problem, but it is also a preventable problem. The urgency of the crisis requires us to act now, and this legislation is the roadmap for that action. Workers' lives depend on it.

I thank the gentleman from Arizona for forming the Extreme Heat Caucus and for organizing this Special Order to give us the opportunity to emphasize the importance of this issue.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding, and I thank her for organizing this Special Order so we can discuss the actions of the Department of Labor.

Right now, the Trump administration and congressional Republicans are starting to implement an aggressive deregulatory agenda that harms workers. Trump's deregulatory agenda weakens workers' civil rights, undermines worker protections and hard-earned wages, and downgrades the U.S. economy.

Right now, the Trump administration is in the process of rolling back labor regulations that do a lot of things, such as promote nondiscrimination and strengthen the regulations we have. The ones they are trying to undermine are the regulations that promote nondiscrimination and strengthen registered apprenticeship standards. They are rolling those back.

They are rolling back the regulation that prevents the privatization of State civil services. They are rolling back the regulation that strengthens fair wage protections for home care workers that would enable them to keep minimum wage and other protections. They are rolling that back.

The regulation requiring Federal contractors to pay workers at least $15 an hour. They are rolling that back. They are rolling back regulations to create clear and specific requirements for occasions when employers must require the use of respirators that prevent exposure to toxic chemicals that can cause cancer and other diseases.

Regulations to bolster labor protections for farmworkers on guest worker visas; they are rolling those protections back.

The implementation of Federal law requiring affirmative action for employees and applicants with disabilities, ensuring that they are hired, retained, and promoted by Federal contractors; they are rolling that back.

Enforcement of antidiscrimination and affirmative action requirements that ensure that Federal contractors are for equal employment opportunities for workers, they are rolling that back.

There are more rollbacks waiting in the wings, because, in fact, the Labor Department in a draft rule that is sitting in the White House regulatory office right now would likely weaken the rules that prohibit children from working in particularly dangerous jobs.

All workers deserve to be paid fairly, earn good benefits, and come home safely at the end of the day. If we truly want to prioritize workers, then we

must strengthen the laws, including regulations that protect workers' health and safety on the job and that empower workers' ability to form unions and bargain for their rights.

The Trump administration, instead, is rolling back regulations that protect workers. We should be doing better.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for organizing this Special Order and giving us the opportunity to discuss what is going on with the Department of Labor.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from Virginia, the Honorable James Walkinshaw, be permitted to take the oath of office today.

His certificate of election has not arrived, but there is no contest and no question has been raised with regard to his election.