Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize and honor Saints Constantine and Helen Greek Orthodox Church of Newport News, Virginia, on its 75th Anniversary.

The church was established in 1949 and moved to its current location in 1982, with a mission to keep, practice, and proclaim the Orthodox Christian Faith. The church facilitates a number of ministries and organizations that offer engaging programs, philanthropic activities, educational initiatives, and community gatherings including the popular Newport News Greek Festival. This also includes the Daughters of Penelope, an organization that encourages civic engagement and offers scholarship opportunities. Importantly, the church has prioritized serving the disadvantaged in our local community through mission and donation, including support for the homeless, Habitat for Humanity, and the Virginia Peninsula Foodbank.

I also want to acknowledge the leadership of Father George Chioros. Father George was assigned to the Saints Constantine and Helen Greek Orthodox Church in August of 1999 where he continues to diligently lead the large Orthodox Christian community on the Peninsula. He has actively served the community as a parish priest and as a member of many community boards. He has also participated in many charity organizations throughout the Commonwealth of Virginia. Father George and the clergy have continued growing the parish community, and they have enhanced numerous church ministries to address the needs of the Peninsula.

Mr. Speaker, in closing, I want to congratulate Saints Constantine and Helen Greek Orthodox Church on its 75th anniversary and thank its members and leaders for all they have done for our community. I wish them many more years of success.

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise to oppose H.R. 3724, what my Republican colleagues call the End Woke Higher Education Act.

H.R. 3724 seeks to circumvent the First Amendment to establish a whole new scheme to regulate speech and association rights on campus outside of established precedents and practices.

The First Amendment protects some of our most deeply cherished rights as Americans. Any student currently who believes their First Amendment rights are being violated can bring a Federal case against their public college or university. In doing so, they have over 200 years of precedent and case law that carefully define and determine what those rights are under the First Amendment.

This includes precedents that specifically address the unique nature of colleges and universities as public entities that both must uphold constitutional rights and must provide students with safe learning environments.

With today's bill, the majority would have us throw out all of the centuries of case law and replace it with a hastily drafted substitute that claims to remove barriers that limit constitutional rights.

What the bill actually does is make public colleges and universities, who could be acting in good faith attempting to protect the safety and security of everyone present on their campus, subject to monetary judgments and possible loss of title IV student aid, counter to Supreme Court precedent.

In so doing, my colleagues, who purport to favor limited government, are micromanaging how colleges and universities must handle their internal governance processes.

Another one of the harmful, misguided policies contained in the bill creates a license for religious student organizations at public institutions to discriminate against LGBTQ+ and other students by allowing these organizations to avoid nondiscrimination requirements that apply to all other student clubs funded by student activity fees.

Student groups are an essential part of the college experience, but if this bill becomes law, minority students would be forced to subsidize student groups that discriminate against them.

In addition to micromanaging how college campuses dispute the First Amendment cases, this bill would undermine the legitimacy of the college accreditation process. For decades, federally recognized accreditors have served as one-third of the oversight triad of the U.S. higher education system, along with States and the Federal Government.

Accreditation is meant to be the gold standard for college quality and performance. After all, accreditation is the gateway to billions of dollars of Federal student aid each year. I recognize that the accreditation systems need improvement, but, unfortunately, H.R. 3724 does not make constructive reforms. Rather, it is a baseless attempt to inject culture wars into an ever-important accreditation process.

For example, the ``prohibition on litmus tests'' invites additional Federal oversight into the accreditation process. Under this bill, accreditors may not assess a school's ``commitment to any ideology, belief, or viewpoint.''

The majority complains that this will prevent a school from losing accreditation if they do not have a diversity, equity, and inclusion office. The reality is that there is no evidence that that is happening.

There are, conversely, several examples of State officials pressuring schools not to teach certain classes or hold subjects that they believe cross the line between academic pursuit and ideological beliefs. That is why the bill is so dangerous.

For example, under this bill, the Department of Education could potentially revoke an accreditor's recognition if that accreditor required science programs to teach evolution. If the accreditor said, no, if it is science, you have got to teach evolution, the Department could potentially revoke the accreditation, suggesting that such standards were an attempt to force a university to commit to a specific partisan, political, or ideological viewpoint or belief.

Well, I think if you are going to teach a science course, that the accreditors ought to have the option of requiring the fundamental basis be science.

H.R. 3724 represents a solution in search of a problem, fundamentally seeks to undermine students' First Amendment rights and their right to be able to join a student organization free of discrimination, and it undermines our accreditation system.

Mr. Chair, I oppose the bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

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

Mr. Chair, we have received a letter from the American Council on Education, which says, in part, rather than respecting the First Amendment and what has been done to apply its principles across a wide range of higher education institutions, the provisions of title II of H.R. 3724 would undermine campus efforts to foster free speech and ensure student safety.

We are particularly concerned with the impact this legislation would have on campuses' ability to prevent discrimination and hateful incidents at a time of widespread national attention.

Mr. Chair, I include in the Record a letter from the American Council on Education.

American Council on Education,

September 17, 2024.

Hon. Mike Johnson,

Speaker, House of Representatives,

Washington DC.

Hon. Hakeem Jeffries,

Minority Leader, House of Representatives,

Washington DC.

Dear Speaker Johnson and Minority Leader Jeffries: On

behalf of the undersigned higher education associations, we

write regarding H.R. 3724, the End Woke Higher Education Act,

which will be considered by the U.S. House of Representatives

this week. Title II of H.R. 3724 incorporates the provisions

of H.R. 7683, the Respecting the First Amendment on Campus

Act. We opposed the Respecting the First Amendment on Campus

Act during its consideration by the Committee on Education

and the Workforce. We now ask you to remove Title II from

H.R. 3724 as it would undermine efforts to protect free

speech on campus and provide safe learning environments free

from discrimination. If Title II is not removed from the

underlying bill, we would urge you and your members to oppose

the bill if it is considered on the floor.

Colleges and universities are strongly committed to

fostering open, intellectually engaging debate enriched by a

diverse set of voices and perspectives. Freedom of speech,

free inquiry, and academic freedom are fundamental to the

quest for knowledge and to the educational mission of higher

education institutions. Institutions take seriously their

obligations to uphold the laws protecting these freedoms,

which, for public institutions, include the First Amendment.

Consistent with these obligations, institutions must also

provide safe learning environments that are free from

discrimination and harassment and in compliance with

applicable federal and state laws, including Title VI of the

Civil Rights Act. Any proposed federal legislation in this

area must reflect these twin institutional obligations.

Despite Title II's purported aims of ensuring that public

institutions uphold First Amendment protections and provide

clarity regarding campus speech policies, Title II would

instead create new counterproductive federal mandates,

undermining the goals it seeks to advance. Title II would

impose a rigid, highly prescriptive, and costly regulatory

and enforcement framework on nearly 1,900 public colleges and

universities. Already subject to the protections afforded by

the First Amendment, public institutions would have to

implement a new campus-wide compliance scheme on top of

existing policies and practices. As an example of the

difficult and costly mandates that the legislation would

impose, it would require institutions to develop ``objective,

content- and view-point neutral and exhaustive standards'' in

allocating funds to student organizations, which are

extraordinarily varied. This could create a regulatory

quagmire.

Under Title II's enforcement provisions, failure to comply

with even minor reporting or disclosure requirements could

result in loss of Title IV funding for an entire award year

and often significantly longer. Penalizing students with a

loss of financial aid does nothing to further the goals of

this legislation and is disproportional to the underlying

violation. While the bill exempts private institutions from

some of its most onerous requirements, the legislation would

nonetheless create a dangerous precedent that encourages

further governmental intrusions into matters of academic

freedom and institutional autonomy, which would undoubtedly

have a chilling effect on private institutions as well.

In addition to the needlessly harsh penalty of loss of

Title IV aid, the legislation would also spawn costly and

time-consuming litigation by creating a new federal cause of

action allowing individuals to sue a public institution for

damages for any violation of Title II's requirements. Adding

this new cause of action on top of existing legal remedies is

unnecessary, duplicative, and would harmfully drain

institutional resources away from efforts to protect students

and campus free speech. Further, the bill would take the

unprecedented and troubling step of waiving a public

institution's sovereign immunity rights under the 11th

Amendment based on its receipt of Title IV funding.

Given the recent focus of the Education and the Workforce

Committee and other House Committees on incidents of

antisemitism and the need for campuses to provide safe,

discrimination-free environments for all students, we are

mystified by Title II's inclusion of provisions that would

tie the hands of campus administrators to address these

issues, likely making campuses less safe. For example, the

bill would mandate that any publicly accessible area of the

campus be designated as a ``public forum,'' open to anyone--

even if they are not a student, staff, or faculty member--

making it more difficult for institutions to secure their

campuses against outside agitators like the kind seen in some

recent protests over the Israel-Hamas war. Further, Title II

would prohibit institutions from factoring in potential

student and public reactions when determining security fees

for events, limiting their ability to safely manage

controversial speakers and events which necessarily entail

far greater security costs.

Rather than respecting the First Amendment and what has

been done to apply its principles across a wide range of

higher education institutions, the provisions in Title II of

H.R. 3724 would undermine campus efforts to foster free

speech and ensure student safety. We are particularly

concerned with the impact this legislation would have on

campuses' ability to prevent discrimination and hateful

incidents at a time of widespread national tension. We urge

the House to remove Title II from H.R. 3724, the End Woke

Higher Education Act, or vote against the broader bill if it

reaches the floor with Title II included.

Sincerely,

Ted Mitchell,

President.

On behalf of:

American Association of Community Colleges,

American Association of State Colleges and Universities,

American Council on Education,

Association of American Universities,

Association of Public and Land-grant Universities,

National Association of Independent Colleges and

Universities.

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

Mr. Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Bonamici).

Mr. Chair, I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Oregon.

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

Mr. Chairman, we received a letter from the Association of Public & Land Grant Universities, which says, in part, the bill's ``purported solutions would radically undermine First Amendment jurisprudence, threatening the ability of public universities to ensure State property can be used for its intended educational purposes, and represents an astonishing level of Federal intrusion in matters traditionally respected as the purview of States and State entities.''

We received another letter from the ACLU, which says, in part, ``H.R. 3724 purportedly prohibits: partisan, political, ideological, social, cultural, or political viewpoints and beliefs; the disparate treatment of any individual or group of individuals on the basis of any protected class under Federal civil rights law; and violation of any right protected by the U.S. Constitution. In reality, H.R. 3724 would encourage these unlawful actions by permitting postsecondary institutions to eliminate curricula that covers historical contributions and lived experiences of some racial and ethnic groups while continuing such curriculum of other groups.''

Mr. Chair, I include in the Record letters from the Association of Public & Land-Grant Universities and the American Civil Liberties Union.

Association of Public &

Land-Grant Universities,

Washington, DC, September 16, 2024.

Hon. Mike Johnson,

Speaker, House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Hon. Hakeem Jeffries,

Minority Leader, House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Dear Speaker Johnson and Minority Leader Jeffries: As

president of the Association of Public and Land-grant

Universities (APLU), a membership association of more than

230 public research universities and systems, I write to

express APLU's strong opposition to Title II of H.R. 3724,

the ``End Woke Higher Education Act,'' which is expected to

be considered on the House Floor this week. Title II contains

the text of the Respecting the First Amendment on Campus Act,

provisions of which are predominantly aimed at state entities

given the application of the First Amendment to public

institutions.

While APLU appreciates goals of the legislation to ensure

public colleges and universities are upholding their

obligations under the First Amendment and fostering learning

environments in which students are exposed to a variety of

perspectives, its purported solutions would radically

undermine First Amendment jurisprudence, threatening the

ability of public universities to ensure state property can

be used for its intended educational purposes, and represents

an astonishing level of federal intrusion in matters

traditionally respected as the purview of states and state

entities.

Further, the timing of the legislation is particularly

perplexing given the enormous challenges public universities

faced in the spring and continue to face as targets from

outside organizations seeking to sow campus unrest to

generate global attention. The legislation would be a major

boon to such organizations by making it substantially more

difficult for public universities to preserve its property

for intended educational uses while protecting the rights of

the vast majority of campus communities simply seeking to

receive an education, further scientific advancement, and

fully enjoy the enriching experiences afforded on public

university campuses. The legislation would also raise the

need for institutions to direct substantial resources to

administration rather than in support of students, including

exposing state institutions to new threats from unscrupulous

lawyers seeking paydays from state coffers through the

legislation's waiver of state sovereign immunity and creation

of new private rights of action.

The First Amendment combined with case law provides deep

protections for free speech and association on campuses of

public universities, while enabling institutions to put in

place reasonable, viewpoint neutral restrictions to protect

public safety and speakers while enabling their higher

education mission. While some aspects of the legislation

related to designated public forums reinforce precedent

within some circuits, not all circuit courts have adopted

such standards. As such, the bill would treat all public

university outdoor property as if it was traditional public

fora like a town square or the quintessential public

university ``quad.'' However, public institutions own and

maintain an incredible diversity of property including

hospitals, bus stations, agricultural field stations,

athletics fields, sewage plants, parking lots, residence

halls, forests, nature preserves, museums, etc. We find it

highly unusual that Congress would insert itself into the

designation of state property in ways it would likely never

consider for other non-federal public lands.

APLU is also concerned with the manner in which the

legislation will drive up legal expenses of institutions,

diverting resources that could otherwise be devoted in

furtherance of public universities' education, research, and

community engagement missions. For example, creating new

private rights of action and conditioning participation in

Title IV federal student aid programs on waiving state

sovereign immunity are deeply concerning. Additionally, the

legislation contains incredibly harsh penalties of loss of

Title IV eligibility for what could be unintentional

infractions due to ambiguities with the bill's extremely

prescriptive standards. APLU questions the need for such

penalties, waivers of sovereign immunity, and creation of

private rights of action as the First Amendment provides

adequate protections for free speech on campus and judicial

remedies for institutional noncompliance.

As public institutions, campuses have obligations to ensure

students and campus communities more broadly have exposure to

an array of speakers and events that further an educational

mission, including the arts and sciences. Public universities

receive countless requests for use of their facilities,

including from outside organizations, speakers, and

candidates for public office. As part of allowing public

university campus property to be used by outside

organizations, institutions must assess fees to recover

costs, including security fees. The legislation would

preclude an institution from taking into consideration ``an

anticipated reaction by students or the public'' as part of

determining a security fee. This provision is particularly

dangerous. Public universities can reasonably anticipate a

greater security need in hosting a controversial public

figure or provocative fringe organization than say a mundane

scientific conference of physicians. With this provision and

especially combined with provisions creating new legal

exposures, public universities would be faced with an

impossible choice of providing inadequate security creating

threats to public safety or having events bankrupt public

university budgets. As like other provisions of the

legislation, this would make public university campuses even

greater targets of outside provocateurs who under the bill

can pass along the financial costs of their events to state

taxpayers.

Lastly, APLU is concerned by numerous provisions of the

legislation that micromanage state university policies at the

federal level, needlessly overriding the judgments of states

and institutional leaders. For example, prescriptive

standards in the legislation regarding governance of student

organization policies override the discretion of campus

administrators who are best positioned to know the needs of

their communities.

APLU urges members of Congress to oppose the legislation

and instead work with the public university community on

legislation that better addresses policymaker concerns

without such deeply troublesome unintended consequences.

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,

Mark Becker,

President, Association of Public

and Land-grant Universities.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, we received another letter from the Association of American Universities which says, in part, ``On behalf of America's leading research universities, I urge you to oppose H.R. 3724, the End Woke Higher Education Act. Title II (`Respecting the First Amendment on Campus') of this misguided legislation would dangerously undermine public universities' ability to implement crucial time, place, and manner policies for campus expression, jeopardizing their ability to protect student safety--particularly for vulnerable groups such as Jewish students--and disrupting the educational environment.''

Mr. Chairman, I include in the Record a letter from the Association of American Universities.

Association of American Universities,

Washington, DC, September 16, 2024.

Hon. Mike Johnson

Speaker of the House, House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Hon. Hakeem Jeffries,

House Minority Leader, House of Representatives, Washington,

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I received another letter from the American Federation of Teachers which says, in part, ``Academic freedom and the right to peacefully protest on our college campuses are hallmarks of a functioning democracy and a thriving economy. Unfortunately, the bill before you today does not respect the vital and dynamic role that higher education plays in promoting knowledge, pluralism, and democracy. The bill would limit the ability of campuses to stand up against hate and bigotry, which runs counter to the very core of higher education's fundamental purpose.''

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

Mr. Chair, could you advise how much time remains on this side?

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time to close.

Mr. Chairman, we also received a letter from the Americans United for Separation of Church and State and Interfaith Alliance that says, in part, that ``we oppose the provision on `political litmus tests' in accreditation, because it is unnecessary and unwise.

``The provision seems aimed, in part, to allow religious colleges to ignore accreditation standards and still maintain accreditation. Current law and regulations, though, already require accreditors to give significant deference to religious schools.''

``This bill seeks to go further, though, by requiring accrediting agencies to permit religious schools to discriminate against all students and employees. The bill would allow religious schools to require adherence to a statement of faith or religious code of conduct, which could be written so broadly as to allow religious schools to discriminate against people because of sex, disability, national origin, sexual orientation, or gender identity. Every single student, employee, and contractor, including janitors, IT administrators, nurses, and more, could face discrimination--and for students, perhaps even on the basis of their parents' relationship or frequency of church attendance.

``Moreover, this goes beyond what title VII allows religious colleges to do in employment. Religious employers may favor religion--and only religion--in their employment practices. Title VII `does not confer upon religious organizations a license to make those [employment] decisions' on the basis of race, national origin, or sex. Decades of case law makes clear that religious employers do not get a license to discriminate on other grounds, even when such discrimination is motivated by religion or carried out under a `code of conduct.' ''

Mr. Chairman, what we have heard today from the other side are attempts to micromanage and insert themselves into the colleges and universities under the thin guise of protecting students.

In reality, this bill is one of many culture war bills that would strip America's educational institutions of their freedoms to explore the subjects that make up a comprehensive and rigorous academic experience.

For a coalition that claims to support limited government, they are using valuable title IV funds as a weapon to beat colleges and universities into submission. This stops us from having the necessary discussions on difficult issues about race, gender, and inequity that would help us improve our higher education system.

Mr. Chairman, for these reasons, we must reject the bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment and yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York seeks to add religion to the definition of political tests, which already includes COVID categories of race, color, or national origin.

I fear this may cause confusion. As drafted, the language in the underlying bill's definition conforms with classes protected under title VI of the Civil Rights Act which prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, national origin in educational programs receiving Federal financial assistance.

There were a lot of debates when the law was written as to whether or not to include religion, and just like as it is now, it was not covered in the underlying bill. I think we are going to confuse the matter by trying to stick it in now.

Further, while religion is included in title VII of the Civil Rights Act, which covers employment discrimination, title VII protects discrimination also on the basis of sex. Notably, ``sex'' is not included in either definition of the political tests in the bill or by the amendment, which suggests supporters of the bill do not feel that the political tests that discriminate on the basis of sex need to be outlawed.

Mr. Chair, I just think that the inclusion of religion here would just confuse the matter of title VI or title VII. You would have another provision here with a cause of action where religion is in some, not in others, and for no apparent good reason other than a last- minute thought.

Mr. Chair, I would hope we would not accept the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment, even though I am not opposed to it.

Mr. Chair, I thank the gentleman for his amendment, which restates what most of us think is present law, that violence is not protected by the First Amendment. I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Chair, I think any implication that the right to protest is an act of violence in and of itself would fly in the face of hundreds of years of First Amendment precedent. Those protests which, in fact, are violent are not protected. I am not sure that the amendment is necessary, but I am obviously not opposed to it.

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

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

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

Mr. Chair, we received a letter, that I read from previously, from the Americans United for Separation of Church and State and Interfaith Alliance, which says, in part, relevant to this provision: ``We oppose the `Equal Campus Access' provision of the bill because it would sanction discrimination by religious student groups at public colleges and universities.''

I would say that the amendment doesn't really cure the problem of the provision in the underlying bill, as I am speaking both against the underlying bill as well as the amendment.

``To ensure that all students can participate, colleges and universities often have nondiscrimination policies, frequently called `accept-all-comers' policies, that require officially recognized student groups to allow any student to join, participate in, and seek leadership in those groups. These policies are important because they prevent student groups from discriminating. And because funding for student groups often comes from mandatory student-activity fees, accept-all-comers' policies also ensure that universities don't subsidize discrimination and guarantee that all students aren't forced to fund a group that would reject them as members.

``The Equal Campus Access provision, however, would prohibit public colleges and universities from enforcing accept-all-comers' policies.''

``Critically, this provision is not required by the First Amendment. Any student club can become a recognized group and access funds if it adheres to its school's nondiscrimination policy. And if a club decides it wants to impose requirements for membership and leadership that conflict with the school policy, it will not be silenced or driven off campus; instead, it, like any other club, simply will not be eligible for official recognition.''

I would hope that, Mr. Chair, that we would reject the amendment and the underlying bill on this provision because it would allow discrimination in violation of the policies, the accept-all-comers' policies, that many colleges elect to have.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 5339, the so-called Protecting Americans' Investments from Woke Policies Act.

This bill packages four separate bills that the Committee on Education and the Workforce reported on party line votes.

H.R. 5339 relates to what is known as environmental, social, and governance or ESG investing. Many of us believe that workers should be able to invest in a way that reflects their values, whether combating climate change or promoting health and labor standards, without sacrificing investment returns.

To be clear, this kind of investing is not at odds with making a profit. In fact, it makes good financial sense to carefully consider investments that account for a company's exposure to such liabilities as high liability risks, fossil-fuel-dependent business practices, or vulnerability to sea level rise, like whether or not an asset is going to be underwater in 15 years. It would be nice to know that, but you shouldn't be prohibited from even considering it. These are among the factors that could cause a stock to suffer over the long-term horizon. Considering that workers often contribute to their retirement accounts for decades before drawing down their savings, it makes perfectly good sense for those managing the workers' accounts to consider long-term impacts when making investment decisions.

ESG investment is a sound, profit-centered, risk mitigation strategy, and the financial services industry recognizes it.

For example, State Street Global Advisors, one of the largest asset managers, noted that, as a fiduciary, they have ``a duty to act prudently and in the best interest of our clients, which increasingly includes consideration of environmental, social, and governance factors relevant to the performance of the companies in which our clients invest.''

The Trump administration issued a rule that imposed needless barriers and onerous requirements related to ESG investing. Fortunately, the Biden-Harris administration reversed course and finalized a sensible rule clarifying that a plan's fiduciaries may consider ESG factors when they make decisions for retirement plan participants. Let's be clear, the rule is not a mandate.

H.R. 5339 codifies the Trump-era ESG rule. It also codifies the Trump-era rule that would disenfranchise plan fiduciaries from exercising their shareholder rights on behalf of workers.

The bill also undermines efforts to increase diversity among asset managers. This is a worthwhile endeavor, as the GAO noted a few years ago that only 1 percent of the $7 trillion in global assets under management are managed by firms owned by women or people of color.

There is also research to suggest that nondiverse firms do not outperform diverse firms across all asset classes.

In sum, H.R. 5339 takes us backwards and undercuts retirement professionals who are legally bound to make prudent decisions for workers and retirees.

Mr. Speaker, I urge opposition to the bill and reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to celebrate a remarkable individual and a significant milestone. Today, we celebrate Bill Massey, the President & CEO of the Peninsula Agency on Aging, on his 40th anniversary with the organization.

For 4 decades, Mr. Massey has shown his commitment and compassion for older adults in Hampton Roads, and his work has empowered both older adults and their caregivers. Mr. Massey has been a cornerstone in the Hampton Roads community, working tirelessly to ensure the Peninsula Agency on Aging fulfills its mission to promote healthy aging by offering a wide range of services to seniors tailored to their specific needs.

The Peninsula Agency on Aging offers older generations the opportunity to foster greater independence, security, and an improved quality of life. The organization specifically implements several vital programs authorized under the Older Americans Act--the country's preeminent law that supports our nation's seniors. The Peninsula Agency on Aging also provides seniors with information regarding Medicare and Medicaid, as well as other supports for families and caregivers. In 2022, under his leadership, the Peninsula Agency on Aging served over 10,200 clients and provided 183,000 home delivered meals to senior citizens as well as transportation for non-emergency medical appointments. Simply put, Mr. Massey and his organization have helped Virginians stay healthy and safe.

Mr. Speaker, as we celebrate Bill Massey's 40 years of service with the Peninsula Agency on Aging, I want to express my gratitude for all of his hard work and dedication to supporting seniors, understanding the obstacles they face. His dedication has made a lasting impact.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the life and sacrifice of Mess Attendant 3rd Class David Walker.

David Walker was raised in Portsmouth, Virginia, where he attended I.C. Norcom High School, one of the first Black high schools in Virginia. Before graduating, he decided to leave school to join the Navy. At the time, the Navy offered few jobs to African Americans, so Mr. Walker enlisted as a mess attendant.

On December 7, 1941, David Walker was serving aboard the USS California at Naval Station Pearl Harbor when the base was attacked by Japanese forces. The USS California sank during the attack, and Mr. Walker sadly perished along with 102 other sailors aboard the ship. The remains of many fallen sailors were identified in the years following

the attack, but Mr. Walker's remains were not accounted for at the time and were reburied in the National Memorial Cemetery of the Pacific in Honolulu, Hawaii.

With advances in identification technology, the Defense POW/MIA Accounting Agency decided in 2018 to exhume unknown remains from the national cemetery in hopes of identifying unaccounted sailors. After nearly 82 years following the attack on Pearl Harbor, David Walker's remains were identified earlier this year and were interred in Arlington National Cemetery on September 5, 2024.

Honoring those who have fallen in the line of duty is one of the most sacred responsibilities of our government. Many like David Walker still wait to be identified decades after sacrificing their lives for their country. I want to thank the staff at the Defense POW/MIA Accounting Agency for their work towards finding David Walker and all other servicemembers still lost. We must continue to support this work, so these fallen Americans may receive the recognition they deserve.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate members of the Inaugural Class of the Bethel High School Athletic Hall of Fame. The honorees have distinguished themselves for their commitment to sportsmanship and their contributions to the sports community. To acknowledge their many accomplishments, the Bethel High School Athletic Hall of Fame will have an Induction Ceremony on Saturday, August 31, 2024.

Bethel High School, home to the Bruins, is an institution that has a rich legacy of success with its athletic programs. Throughout its fifty-five-year existence, the school has fielded numerous teams that have successfully won district and state championships in multiple sports. In addition, several former students have gone on to make significant contributions as collegiate and professional athletes.

Mr. Speaker, the inaugural class of the Bethel Athletic Hall of Fame includes figures who have, simply put, helped Bethel High School establish its identity. Inductee Allen Iverson, a 2016 Basketball Hall of Fame Inductee, was a member of the Bethel basketball team. As the starting point guard, he joined Inductee Tony Rutland on the 1993 State Championship Basketball team. Mr. Iverson played on for Georgetown University en route to his Hall of Fame Professional Basketball career. Mr. Rutland went on to be a successful collegiate basketball player with Wake Forest University, where the Men's Basketball team won back- to-back Atlantic Coast Conference Championships in the 1996 and 1997 seasons. Inductee Mike Bailey coached the Boys' Varsity Basketball team from 1985-1994. He coached the team to regular season, tournament and playoff championships, including the 1993 AAA State Championship.

Bethel's Football team has also been revered in the City of Hampton for its sustained excellence on the gridiron. Coached by Inductee Dennis Kozlowski, the program won three state championships during his twenty-five-year tenure. Inductee Mike Dunn was the starting quarterback and safety on the 1974 AAA State Championship team. Inductee Allen Iverson was the starting quarterback, defensive back and kick returner on the 1992 Division 5 championship team.

Mr. Speaker, the Bethel Track and Field program has enjoyed tremendous success for several generations. Coached by Inductee Eddie Williams, the program amassed fourteen state championships between the boys' and girls' teams. One of his most prominent athletes was Inductee Francena McCorory, who broke national indoor track records in the 300- meter and 400-meter races. Ms McCorory later won an Olympic Gold Medal as a member of the 4x400 Relay team during the Games of the XXX Olympiad in London, England.

Inductee Glenn ``Skeeter'' Heath, II, was a standout member of the boys' golf team as a student-athlete at Bethel High School. He won the Group AAA State High School Individual Championship en route to being named an All-American on the collegiate level at East Tennessee State University. He later enjoyed a professional golf career on the PGA Tour.

Inductee Stephen Forbes was the first State Championship wrestler in Bethel High School history. He went on to wrestle on the collegiate level with the College of William and Mary.

Mr. Speaker, lastly, Liberty Baptist Church, a prominent church in the Bethel neighborhood, is also being inducted for its various contributions to the Bethel High School Athletic program.

Mr. Speaker, as the Inductees' family, friends and supporters gather for the Induction Ceremony, I join them in thanking them for all they have done for the Bethel High School family, the City of Hampton, and their legions of fans.

Mr. Chair, I rise today in support of my amendments to H.R. 8997, the Energy and Water Development and Related Agencies Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2025.

These two amendments support essential funding for our National Labs and specifically for the Continuous Electron Beam Accelerator Facility, or CEBAF, at the Thomas Jefferson National Accelerator Facility, commonly known as JLab, in Newport News, Virginia. CEBAF is a world- leading facility studying the inner properties of nuclei, such as the quark and gluon structure of protons and neutrons. The research conducted at this facility has vastly improved our understanding of the fundamental make-up of matter and is actively supporting collaborative research globally in medium energy physics.

The first amendment highlights the need for funding critically needed infrastructure improvements at CEBAF. The workforce at JLab is rapidly growing with the increased use of CEBAF and the installation of the Department of Energy's High Performance Data Facility. For JLab to effectively support its employees and researchers, the lab needs increased funding to build a modern workspace to match the research conducted at this facility. The final appropriations bill should include $32 million for JLab to update its CEBAF infrastructure.

The second amendment highlights the importance of an optimal runtime for CEBAF.

Currently, numerous PhD students and researchers are waiting to use the facility for experiments, and the backlog continues to grow as more scientists hope to use this critical technology. The funding in the underlying bill only allows CEBAF to operate 29 weeks of the year, but to meet the research needs and to optimize the use of this facility, CEBAF requires an additional $10 million to operate for an optimal runtime of 34 weeks. An appropriation of $160 million for CEBAF operations should be included in the final legislation.

I would like to thank my colleague, Congressman Rob Wittman, for cosponsoring these amendments that draw attention to the need for additional funding to spur innovation, create jobs, and facilitate incredible discovery. I urge my colleagues to support these amendments.

Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.J. Res. 165, the Congressional Review Act resolution aimed at repealing the Biden-Harris administration's Title IX rule.

This rule is crucial for three reasons.

First, it ensures protections against all forms of sex-based harassment and discrimination. It overturns problematic provisions from the previous administration's rule that allowed educational institutions to ignore harassment and discrimination that happens off- campus, even if it is at an event sponsored by a college organization. It extends this protection to LGBTQIA+ youth, aligning with recent Supreme Court precedent.

Second, it enhances accountability in how schools handle discrimination complaints, including expanding the number of employees required to report problems. It mandates timely responses and fair processes, unlike the previous rule that allowed unreasonable delays, and ensures equitable treatment for all involved.

Third, it empowers students and families to exercise their Title IX rights without fear of retaliation. It supports survivors and provides necessary services while maintaining due process for the accused.

By the way, this rule does not address participation in sports. As has been said, that is the subject of another rule that has not been finalized. The rule does not change anything about sports participation that is already happening.

Unfortunately, this resolution has been clouded by misinformation, unfounded fears, and with some just hatred of transgender individuals. We must reject these narratives and focus on real issues of safety and equity.

This resolution, if passed, would prevent future administrations from enacting similar protections, undermining progress and safeguarding women, LGBTQ individuals, and survivors of sexual assault.

Let us prioritize issues like reproductive healthcare, affordable childcare, and closing the gender pay gap instead of perpetuating harmful stereotypes.

Madam Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to oppose this resolution.

Madam Chair, I rise today in support of the inclusion of a pilot program for a national simulation-based emergency preparedness network in the Fiscal Year 2025 Homeland Security Appropriations Act. This pilot program will support the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Office of Health Security's (OHS) mission to strengthen the Nation's health security through leadership and partnership, a safer and healthier Department of Homeland Security (DHS) workforce, and optimal care for patients.

I worked on this language with my fellow co-chairs of the Modeling and Simulation Caucus, Reps. Bergman, Sorensen, and Rutherford and am pleased to see it included.

The simulation-based emergency preparedness network will deliver simulation-based training that meets existing and emerging local and regional needs to licensed healthcare professionals, first responders, and volunteers. This network supports all five phases of emergency management by ensuring our vital healthcare workforce is prepared prior to an emergency, able to respond effectively, save lives, prevent further damage, and contribute to healing during recovery. The program will also serve the training needs of the greater U.S. healthcare system.

Unfortunately, the underlying appropriations bill fails to invest in other national needs. It fails to fund effective strategies to keep our communities safe, much needed programs to

assist migrants, and critical programs to combat public health threats. The bill also limits the ability of the department to counter misinformation, meet cybersecurity needs, and bans abortion services for individuals in U.S. Immigrations and Customs Enforcement (ICE) custody. I urge my colleagues to maintain this program to further modeling and simulation-based emergency preparedness network as we work towards a mutually agreeable funding bill.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the brave and selfless members of our nation's Coast Guard. I also rise to urge my colleagues to join me in working to develop America's maritime and shipbuilding workforce to meet the growing demand of the offshore wind industry.

I am concerned that the Coast Guard Reauthorization Act, which is a critical piece of legislation, includes language that would be detrimental to the budding domestic offshore wind industry. If enacted without changes, this bill would significantly slow our transition to clean, renewable, and domestic energy. We have seen this worrisome provision before. Numerous stakeholders, then and now, have expressed concern that crewing requirements on globally rare vessels that are already in high demand would make it all but impossible for offshore wind projects to move forward in the near term.

While I certainly share the goal of expanding opportunities for American mariners in offshore wind farm construction, this jeopardizes jobs in offshore wind manufacturing as well as jobs that will last decades in offshore wind turbine operations and maintenance. While I plan to vote for this legislation due to the important work of our nation's Coast Guard, I urge my colleagues to work together and remove this shortsighted provision.

Last spring, in the interest of finding a path to empower American workers without threatening progress in the near term, I introduced the Offshore Wind American Manufacturing Act. This Act requires the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) to conduct a study to inform public and private investment in shipbuilding and workforce training to support the Biden Administration's goal of deploying 30 gigawatts of offshore wind energy by 2030. The study would also identify ways that current policies could be strengthened to support

American workers, including new opportunities for American mariners interested in installing offshore wind on the outer continental shelf.

This study is a pragmatic approach that balances our responsibility to reduce emissions and support American workers and mariners. Thanks to momentum generated by the passage of the Inflation Reduction Act, offshore wind has the potential to catalyze major investments in American manufacturing and shipbuilding. By studying opportunities to maximize the role of American mariners and shipbuilders in meeting these goals, we ensure that we do not allow the perfect to become the enemy of the good.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize and honor New Calvary Baptist Church on its 90th Anniversary.

New Calvary Baptist Church traces its origins to the Second Calvary Baptist Church, which served the community from 1879 until it was forced to close during the Great Depression. Members of the Second Calvary Baptist Church congregation reopened the church as the New Calvary Baptist Church on May 16, 1934.

Since its establishment, New Calvary Baptist Church has prioritized serving the City of Norfolk's disadvantaged through mission and donation. New Calvary's outreach ministry has provided food, groceries, clothing, and more to people in need. New Calvary also operates a community development corporation that connects people with affordable housing, support services, and job opportunities. The members of this congregation uplift the Norfolk community, for which I thank them.

I also want to acknowledge the leadership of then five pastors over the course of their history. They are Reverend Dr. D.Y. Campbell, Reverend Dr. Samuel A. Wilson, Reverend Dr. Milton Reid, Reverend Dr. Gilbert G. Campbell, Jr., and their current pastor Reverend Dr. William Marcus Small, who has served since 2010. Under Dr. Small's leadership, the membership of the church has grown tremendously. Dr. Small has found new innovative ways to preach and teach, and he has enhanced numerous church ministries to address the needs of the Hampton Roads community.

Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate New Calvary Baptist Church on its 90th anniversary and thank its members and leaders for all they have done for the Norfolk community. I wish them many more years of success.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor my friend, Congressman Donald M. Payne, Jr. Don tragically passed away on April 24th. His passing is a loss for New Jersey and this entire chamber.

Don will be missed, not only by family and friends, but also by his constituents. He came from a family of committed public servants. I also had the pleasure of serving with his father, Congressman Donald Payne, Sr., for many years on the Committee on Education and the Workforce.

Like his father, Don was steadfast in his service to his constituents and the entire state of New Jersey. During his public service career, he was a passionate advocate for fair housing, for unfettered access to healthcare, and for those who were often forgotten by people in powerful positions. The Tenth District of New Jersey has lost a dedicated and effective public servant. He will be sorely missed.

I send my condolences to his wife Beatrice, their children, and his staff during this difficult time.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Virginia for yielding time, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I rise once again in strong opposition to H.J. Res. 98, the Congressional Review Act resolution to repeal the National Labor Relations Board's joint employer rule, which the board finalized last October.

Workers should be able to negotiate for higher pay, better benefits, and safer workplaces through their unions. Regrettably, this is not the case for millions of Americans, including janitors, housekeepers, cooks, and many others who are employed through subcontractors or temp agencies.

The rise of what is called the fissured workplace, where firms increasingly use overlapping arrangements of contracting, subcontracting, and temping, has weakened workers' bargaining power and allowed large corporations to evade bargaining obligations and liabilities.

For example, if an employee of a subcontractor unionized, the subcontractor would be unable to actually bargain over pay, hours, workplace safety, or other issues. That is because the actual contract is with the prime contractor who essentially sets the terms and conditions of employment for the employee, and the subcontractor is just administering the terms of that contract. Bargaining with the subcontractor becomes essentially useless because the subcontractor is paid based on assumed wages, and they don't have the ability to change those wages. The prime contractor needs to be at the table if someone is thinking of negotiating wages at all.

Additionally, by evading bargaining obligations, the prime contractor, who is actually setting some or all of the terms of conditions of the work, can actually shift liability for an unfair labor practice onto the subcontractor or the temp agency.

Mr. Speaker, the NLRB's new rule fixed the problem by ensuring workers can negotiate with all entities who actually control their working conditions. This also protects small businesses from being held liable for labor violations that are a result of the larger firms' actions.

This isn't about franchising. No franchiser has ever been found to be a joint employer under any of the various joint employer rules, including this one.

H.J. Res. 98 would undermine workers' ability to exercise their rights and reinstate the deficient Trump-era rule that narrowed the joint employer standard. Under the Trump-era standard, employers who control the working conditions could easily evade their obligations to collectively bargain with employees. That would have the effect of reducing the earnings of workers.

According to the Economic Policy Institute, the Trump-era rule would reduce workers' hard-earned paychecks by about $1.3 billion. Conversely, the Biden joint employer rule is estimated to raise workers' earnings.

So we should not go backwards. The Biden-Harris administration's joint employer rule empowers workers and protects small businesses, so I applaud President Biden for his veto of H.J. Res. 98.

So let's be clear. This is not about the joint employer rule. We have already had that debate back in January.

This is a debate about the Republican majority's inability to do basic arithmetic. Overriding the President's veto requires two-thirds, or 290 Members, of the House. That is not going to happen. This measure only passed with 206 votes, nearly all of them from Republicans, so anybody who can count knows the Republican majority does not have the votes to override the veto.

So why are we taking this up?

It is because we are just a metaphor for the Republicans' failed agenda. Instead of taking time to do something constructive, we are taking precious floor time on this doomed override vote when we could be doing something better like raising the minimum wage, or making workplaces safer and healthier, or ensuring women receive equal pay for equal work, or combating child labor, or establishing paid sick leave, or strengthening workers' ability to organize and collectively bargain.

However, that is not what we are doing. All that is happening now is what has happened during the whole 118th Congress: the House majority insists on spending floor time on votes like this that have no chance of succeeding.

So House Democrats believe we can do better. We remain focused on the priorities and others that lower costs and grow the middle class. That is what we ought to be focused on.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I think we have to get some job numbers rather than just adjectives and everything on the table.

The fact is that President Trump during his 4 years lost over 6 million jobs, but President Biden so far has created over 15 million, the longest period of time with unemployment under 4 percent since the 1960s.

Before you start excusing President Trump because of a pandemic, he had a pandemic for about 10 months, President Biden had a pandemic for 2 years.

So this legislation the President has vetoed, I think it is helpful just to read the President's message of why he vetoed the resolution.

He said: ``I am returning herewith without my approval H.J. Res. 98, a resolution that would disapprove of the National Labor Relations Board's rule entitled `Standard for Determining Joint Employer Status.'

``Since day one, my administration has fought to strengthen workers' right to organize and bargain for higher wages, better benefits, and safer working conditions. The NLRB's rule would prevent companies from evading their bargaining obligations or liability when they control a worker's working condition--even if they reserve such control or exercise it indirectly through a subcontractor or other intermediary. If multiple companies control the terms and conditions of employment, then the right to organize is rendered futile whenever the workers cannot bargain collectively with each of those employers.

``Without the NLRB's rule, companies could more easily avoid liability simply by manipulating their corporate structure, like hiding behind subcontractors or staffing agencies. By hampering the NLRB's efforts to promote the practice and procedure of collective bargaining, Republicans are siding with union-busting corporations over the needs of workers and their unions. I am proud to be the most pro-union, pro- worker President in American history. I make no apologies for my administration protecting the right to organize and bargain collectively.

``Therefore, I am vetoing this resolution.

``Joseph R. Biden, Jr.''

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record letters in opposition to this resolution in support of the President's veto from SEIU, AFL-CIO, and the Teamsters.

November 2, 2023.

Dear Representative: On behalf of the 12.5 million workers

represented by the AFL-CIO, the 2 million workers represented

by SEIU, and the 1.2 million workers represented by the

International Brotherhood of Teamsters, we write to urge you

to support the National Labor Relations Board's (``NLRB'' or

``the Board'') recent final rule addressing joint-employer

status under the National Labor Relations Act (``NLRA'' or

``the Act''). This important rule will ensure that workers

have a real voice at the bargaining table when multiple

companies control their working conditions. Accordingly, the

undersigned unions strongly oppose any effort to nullify or

weaken the rule, whether by legislation or resolution under

the Congressional Review Act.

The rule, published on October 27, 2023, rescinds the Trump

NLRB's 2020 joint-employer rule and replaces it with an

updated standard that is based on well-established common-law

principles and consistent with recent D.C. Circuit decisions

identifying critical flaws in the Trump NLRB's approach to

this issue. The Board's updated rule is welcome and necessary

because the Trump rule was harmful to workers' organizing

efforts, inconsistent with the governing legal principles,

and against the policies of the Act.

The crux of this issue is simple--when workers seek to

bargain collectively over their wages, hours and working

conditions, every entity with control over those issues must

be at the bargaining table. The Act protects and encourages

collective bargaining as a means of resolving labor disputes.

Collective bargaining cannot serve that purpose if companies

with control over the issues in dispute are absent from the

bargaining table. The Trump rule offered companies a roadmap

to retain ultimate control

over key aspects of workers' lives--like wages and working

conditions--while avoiding their duty to bargain. This

standard left workers stranded at the bargaining table and

unable to negotiate with the people who could actually

implement proposed improvements.

Companies are adopting business structures specifically

designed to maintain control over the workers who keep their

businesses running while simultaneously disclaiming any

responsibility for those workers under labor and employment

laws. Such businesses often insert second and third-level

intermediaries between themselves and their workers. These

companies seek to have it both ways--to control the workplace

like an employer but dodge the legal responsibilities of an

employer. This phenomenon is often called workplace

``fissuring.''

Fissured workplaces, sometimes involving staffing firms,

temp agencies, or subcontractors, often leave workers unable

to raise concerns, or collectively bargain with, the entity

that actually controls their workplace. In such arrangements,

multiple entities may share control over a worker's terms of

employment. For example, if employees of a subcontractor were

to unionize and bargain only with the subcontractor, it might

simply refuse to bargain over certain issues because its

contract with the prime contractor governs those aspects of

the work (e.g., pay, hours, safety, etc.). This harms workers

because the entity that effectively determines workplace

policy is not at the bargaining table, placing workers'

desired improvements out of reach.

The way to ensure that workers can actually bargain with

each entity that controls their work is to readily identify

such entities as ``joint employers.'' The Act requires joint

employers to collectively bargain with employees over working

conditions that they control. But the Trump NLRB's joint

employer rule was designed to help companies with such

control escape bargaining. The rule's standard for finding a

joint employment relationship was unrealistic and overly

narrow. It conditioned a company's joint employer status on

proof that it actually exercised substantial direct and

immediate control, discounting its reserved or indirect power

to control a small list of working conditions. This conflicts

with the governing common law principles, which make clear

that a company's power to control working conditions must

bear on its employer status (and thus its bargaining

responsibilities under the Act) regardless of whether it has

formally exercised that power. The new final rule correctly

rescinded the Trump rule.

Critics of the new rule claim that its joint employer

standard will outright destroy certain business models or

dramatically change operations. Opponents claim, for example,

that companies will be required to bargain over issues they

have no control over, or will be automatically liable for

another entity's unfair labor practices. This is simply

untrue and a further attempt to leave workers with no

opportunity to bargain with controlling entities. The final

rule makes it clear that a joint employer's bargaining

obligations extend only to those terms and conditions within

its control. And current Board law--unchanged by the rule--

only extends unfair labor practice liability to a joint

employer if it knew or should have known of another

employer's illegal action, had the power to stop it, and

chose not to.

Similarly, critics claim that the new standard imposes

blanket joint employer status on parties to certain business

models like franchises, temp agencies, subcontractors, or

staffing firms. This is also untrue. The rule does not

proclaim that all franchisors are now joint employers with

their franchisees, or that any company using workers from a

temp agency is automatically their employer. The particular

business model used by parties in any case is not

determinative. Instead, the Board looks at every case

individually, and grants companies a full and fair

opportunity to explain the underlying business relationship

and dispute whether they control the relevant workers'

essential terms and conditions of employment. The Board

conducts a fact-specific, case-by-case analysis that

considers whether the putative joint employer controls

essential terms and conditions of employment.

Make no mistake, the Board's rule may well result in the

employees of a staffing firm, for example, being treated also

as employees of the firm's client, but only if the client

controls the employees' terms and conditions of employment.

That is the only way workers can meaningfully bargain at

work. But even in that situation, the workers are deemed

employees only for purposes of the NLRA and collective

bargaining, and the client would be obligated to bargain only

about the terms it controls. It would still be up to workers

to choose whether they want to organize a union and

collectively bargain with their employer or employers.

Nothing in the NLRB's rule alters employers' responsibilities

under any other state or federal law (e.g., tax laws, wage

and hour laws, or workplace safety laws) or requires any

changes to business structures. But it does make clear their

responsibility under the NLRA to show up at the bargaining

table.

The new rule is clear and commonsense: there is no

bargaining obligation for an entity that cannot control

workplace policies or working conditions. And for good

reason--their presence at the bargaining table would be

pointless. Workers have no interest in bargaining with a

company that lacks the power to implement the workplace

improvements they seek.

This rule simply invokes a more realistic joint employer

standard on par with the standard enforced during the Obama

administration, allowing a company's indirect or reserved

control over working conditions to be sufficient for finding

joint employer status. Workers' right to collectively bargain

cannot be realized if the entity that has the power to change

terms and conditions of employment is absent from the

bargaining table.

For the reasons explained above, the undersigned unions

oppose any effort to nullify the Board's rule. In particular,

we urge Congress to oppose efforts to nullify the rule under

the Congressional Review Act (``CRA''). Here, a successful

CRA disapproval resolution would be particularly harmful: it

would revert the NLRB's joint employer standard to the Trump

Board's 2020 rule, which stymies workers at the bargaining

table. And further, as explained above, at least one federal

appeals court has strongly suggested that provisions of the

2020 rule are inconsistent with the NLRA, so litigation would

likely invalidate that rule as well. This would create

confusion for the workers, unions, and employers regulated by

the NLRB. Not only could the two standards be nullified,

leaving the Board's joint employer analysis in limbo, but the

NLRB's ability to address that limbo would be unclear due to

CRA limitations.

The CRA provides that once a disapproval resolution is

passed, the underlying agency cannot issue a subsequent rule

in ``substantially the same form'' as the disapproved rule

unless it is specifically authorized by a subsequent law.

Thus, if the Board's new rule is nullified under the CRA, and

the prior Trump rule is invalidated by federal courts, the

NLRB would be limited in issuing a clarifying rule. To avoid

confusion and ensure stability for workers, unions, and

employers, Congress must steer clear of using the CRA to

address the joint employer standard.

For these reasons, we ask that you support the NLRB's joint

employer rule and oppose any effort to weaken or nullify the

clarified standard.

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a letter from the United Steelworkers, in support of the President's veto.

United Steelworkers

Pittsburgh, PA, November 14, 2023.

Re: United Steelworkers urges a NO vote on H.J. Res. 98,

which would invalidate the National Labor Relations

Board's new Standard for Determining Joint Employer

Status.

U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, DC.

Dear Representative: On behalf of the 850,000 active

members of the United Steel, Paper and Forestry, Rubber,

Manufacturing, Energy, Allied Industrial and Service Workers

International Union (USW), I write to oppose a misguided and

short-sighted Congressional Review Act (CRA) resolution--H.J.

Res 98. If this resolution passes, American workers will

increasingly face a fractured workplace and lose access to

federally protected collective bargaining rights.

Updating the NLRB joint employer standard is necessary as

employers are increasingly using ``fissured'' workplace

models to keep the parent company from having to bargain with

workers employed by the smaller contracted companies. The

continued contracting out and increased usage of temporary

workers leads to terrible outcomes for the most vulnerable,

precisely because these workers lack the ability to

meaningfully organize and collectively bargain with their

appropriate employer(s).

For example, a 2014 National Employment Law Project report

found that workers at subcontracted firms receive wages from

7-40 percent lower than their non-contracted out peers. That

same study also showed that workers in subcontracted firms

suffer higher rates of wage theft and unpaid overtime.

Analysis from ProPublica has also shown that temp workers are

at an increased risk of workplace injury. Lastly, and perhaps

most chillingly, child workers have been found in meatpacking

plants, while auto-supply chains in the South have had

children as young as 14 years old working for subcontracted

firms--sometimes with deadly consequences. If this resolution

passes, Congress will have made it easier for corporations to

shirk responsibility of their employment oversight, and make

it harder for the American labor movement to stop labor

abuses such as wage theft, unpaid overtime, workplace

injuries, and child labor.

The NLRB had to act as the result of a partisan rulemaking

process during the Trump administration. Prior to 2020, the

NLRB's assessment of a joint employer standard had been

guided by common law for over 50 years. The NLRB, as a quasi-

judicial body, would use case decisions to substantiate its

joint employer standard.

The Trump administration's NLRB dramatically broke with

precedent and created a regulatory rulemaking process to

establish a new joint employer standard. Through this final

rule, the previous NLRB added non-statutory and non-common

law requirements to the NLRB joint employer assessment--

notably, the requirement that an employer must ``possess and

exercise . . . substantial direct and immediate control''

over a worker's ``essential terms and conditions of

employment'' to be considered joint employers.

The problem with this Trump era rule is that it

significantly constrained the NLRB's

ability to exercise jurisdiction over cases, and limited the

scope of the joint employer standard on when the NLRB can

weigh in. With such a weak standard, employers were able to

simultaneously influence a worker's wages, hours, and working

conditions--all while being inoculated from having to bargain

over those issues with their workers.

By returning to common-law principles in this new standard,

the NLRB provides ``a practical approach to ensuring that the

entities effectively exercising control over workers'

critical terms of employment respect their bargaining

obligations under the NLRA''.

Unfortunately, Representative James John (R-MI-10), along

with 29 other Republicans, introduced a Congressional Review

Act resolution to repeal the NLRB's return to past precedent.

USW strongly opposes the use of a CRA to undermine the NLRB.

If a CRA were to be successfully used, it would prevent the

federal agency from ever issuing a substantially similar

rule, freezing in perpetuity a process that was designed to

evolve with employment practices.

USW opposes H.J. Res 98 in the strongest terms and will

educate union membership on any floor vote outcome. The

NLRB's released joint employer standard returns the country

to prior precedent, and strengthens the legal right of

millions of workers across this country to collectively

bargain with their appropriate employer(s). Again, I urge you

to support this new standard and oppose H.J. Res. 98.

Sincerely,

David McCall,

International President.

Mr. Speaker, lastly, I include in the Record a letter from dozens of labor and civil rights organizations in support of the veto.

November 20, 2023.

Re: NLRB Joint Employer Rule CRA.

Hon. Charles Schumer,

Hon. Mitch McConnell,

Hon. Bernie Sanders,

Hon. Bill Cassidy,

U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.

Hon. Mike Johnson,

Hon. Hakeem Jeffries,

Hon. Viriginia Foxx,

Hon. Robert ``Bobby'' C. Scott,

House of Representatives, Washington, DC.

Dear Members of Congress: The undersigned organizations

write to share our opposition to the Congressional Review Act

(CRA) challenge to the National Labor Relations Board's 2023

Joint Employer Rule.

Millions of workers in precarious and subcontracted work

depend on the joint-employer doctrine to protect their right

to organize under the NLRA. In labor-intensive and underpaid

industries like retail, hospitality, fast food, janitorial,

construction, and delivery, workers hired through

intermediary subcontractors like staffing agencies and

specialized contract firms are effectively deprived of their

labor rights because the law fails to recognize who their

employers are. They provide work central to the hotels,

retail operators, fast food chains, construction contractors,

delivery companies, and other corporations that rely on their

labor but are unable to hold those employers accountable when

their labor rights are violated. While this harms a broad

range of workers, it has particularly damaging impacts for

women, Black workers, immigrants, people of color, and people

with disabilities who disproportionately hold precarious,

low-paid jobs.

The Board's new rule reaffirms that, under the NLRA, a

worker may be jointly-employed when more than one entity

shares or co-determines the essential terms and conditions of

their work. What matters is not the corporate structure or

what the companies call the work relationship; what matters

is who has the power to control the essential terms of

employment, like pay, discipline, and health & safety on the

job.

Now, large corporations and industry trade groups are

pushing Congress to vote for a CRA resolution to overturn the

rule. Despite the claims made by these self-interested

groups, the joint employer rule is a simple and necessary

course correction that:

Rescinds the misguided 2020 rule, which improperly narrowed

the NLRA's coverage and unmoored the legal standard from the

common law, by requiring workers to show that a business had

``substantial direct and immediate control'' over the

essential terms of employment;

Grounds the legal analysis in the common law, building on

the Obama-era Browning-Ferris decision that the 2020 Trump

rule overrode;

Affirms that companies are liable for committing unfair

labor practices (such as terminating workers for exercising

their right to organize) and required to bargain with their

workers as joint employers, where they control the essential

terms and conditions of employment;

Accounts for forms of control that are ``indirect'' and

``reserved,'' as well as direct and actually exercised, in

determining whether or not there is an employment

relationship; and

Recognizes that the ``essential terms and conditions of

employment'' include workplace health and safety, and

direction as to how to complete the work, as well as control

over pay and discipline.

This rule is a major step toward safeguarding the labor

rights of millions of workers in subcontracted employment,

ensuring that corporations cannot skirt the law simply by

outsourcing responsibility for their workers. Should a CRA to

overturn this rule be brought to the floor, we strongly urge

all Members of Congress to vote No.

Sincerely,

A Better Balance; AFL-CIO; American Federation of State,

County, and Municipal Employees (AFSCME); APALA; Asian

American Pacific Islander Civic Engagement Collaborative of

New Virginia Majority; Bruckner Burch PLLC; Care in Action;

Caring Across Generations; Center for Economic and Policy

Research; Center for Law and Social Policy; Cincinnati

Interfaith Workers Center; Clearinghouse on Women's Issues;

Communications Workers of America (CWA); Community Legal

Services, Philadelphia; Congregation of Our Lady of Charity

of the Good Shepherd, U.S. Provinces.

CRLA Foundation; Demand Progress; Demos; Economic Policy

Institute; Endangered Species Coalition; Equal Rights

Advocates; Feminist Majority Foundation; Impact Fund;

International Brotherhood of Teamsters; Japanese American

Citizens League (JACL); Jobs to Move America; Jobs With

Justice; Justice & Accountability Center of Louisiana;

Justice at Work; Justice in Motion.

Kentucky Equal Justice Center; KIWA; Lawyers' Committee for

Civil Rights Under Law; Legal Aid at Work; Long Beach

Alliance for Clean Energy; National Advocacy Center of the

Good Shepherd; National Center for Law and Economic Justice;

National Council for Occupational Safety and Health; National

Domestic Workers Alliance; National Education Association;

National Employment Lawyers Association; National Employment

Law Project (NELP); National Institute for Workers' Rights;

National Organization for Women; National Partnership for

Women & Families.

National Resource Center on Domestic Violence; National

Women's Law Center; New Jersey Association on Correction;

North Carolina Justice Center; Northwest Workers' Justice

Project; Public Justice Center; Restaurant Opportunities

Centers United; Santa Clara County Wage Theft Coalition

Service Employees International Union; Shriver Center on

Poverty Law; TechEquity Collaborative; The Leadership

Conference on Civil and Human Rights; The Legal Aid Society;

The Women's Employment Rights Clinic (WERC) at Golden Gate

University (GGU); Transport Workers Union of America.

UAW; United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of

America; United Food and Commercial Workers International

Union (UFCW); Women Employed; Worker Justice Center of New

York; Worker Power Coalition; Workers Defense Action Fund;

Workplace Fairness; Workplace Justice Lab at Rutgers

University; Workplace Justice Project at Loyola Law Clinic;

Worksafe; Young Invincibles.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to reiterate that the credit rating that was threatened was the result of the Republicans threatening a default on our debt. That wasn't anything the Democrats had done.

Again, I just reiterate that under Biden over 15 million jobs were created. Under Trump over 6 million were lost. We have had the longest period of time of unemployment, under 4 percent, since the 1960s. I think that is a fairly easy record to defend.

Mr. Speaker, in closing, there is no reason to override the President's veto, and the votes aren't going to be there. Unfortunately, this is how the Republicans have operated during the 118th Congress. This is going to be the least-productive Congress in history.

In contrast, under Democratic leadership, last Congress, we delivered on significant results. We created millions of jobs, reduced unemployment to record lows, and, under this administration, kept it under record lows. We have saved more than a million people's pensions under the multi-employer pension fund, and we helped tens of thousands of businesses because they were legally obligated to pay into those failing funds until the businesses went broke.

We delivered historic funding for education. We improved child nutrition. We brought the number of uninsured Americans down to the lowest level ever. I think we can take credit for all of that.

By prioritizing and wasting time on efforts like this, the Republican majority is failing to live up to the same standard that Democrats have lived up to.

Mr. Speaker, I commend the President for vetoing H.J. Res. 98 and protecting American workers. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this override effort and yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor and recognize the work of Maggie Garrett, who recently left Americans United for Separation of Church and State (Americans United or AU) after leading AU's Public Policy Department and advocating for the separation of church and state for nearly 20 years. Maggie worked on church-state issues before state legislatures, Congress, and the Executive Branch, becoming a nationally recognized expert on religious liberty issues and how these issues intersect with other civil rights.

Prior to joining Americans United, Maggie served as Legislative Director and Staff Counsel for the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Georgia, and as Staff Attorney at the ACLU of Alabama. During her time in Alabama and Georgia, Maggie litigated high-profile cases. At the ACLU of Georgia, she also lobbied the state legislature, working with legislators across the political spectrum to fight for policies that protect civil rights and civil liberties and improve the lives of all Georgians. She played a key role in educating legislators about the harms of a proposed state Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), successfully working to ensure that the measure did not advance since it was drafted in a manner to deny civil rights protections in the name of religious liberty.

In 2007, Maggie joined Americans United as Assistant Legislative Director and remained at AU for almost 17 years, achieving the position of Vice-President for Public Policy. In her role at AU, Maggie worked tirelessly to ensure that religious freedom is not misused to license invidious discrimination. Maggie led the work of the Coalition Against Religious Discrimination (CARD)--a diverse set of stakeholder groups she brought together from religious, religious freedom, civil rights, labor, reproductive rights and health, LGBTQ rights, and secular organizations--to oppose taxpayer-funded religious discrimination in social service programs. Maggie's leadership of CARD, together with her expertise, helped ensure that the religious freedom of people who use taxpayer-funded social services is protected and that these programs include safeguards for the separation of church and state.

Also, as part of her work at AU, Maggie co-chaired the National Coalition for Public Education (NCPE), a group of more than 50 national organizations working to oppose private school vouchers. Maggie has long been a champion of public education and fought to ensure that public funds remain in our public schools to be used for the education of all students.

Mr. Speaker, I want to extend my thanks and appreciation to Maggie for her years of service to the cause for separation of church and state and to protecting civil rights. Her decades of expertise were invaluable to me and my staff. Our Founding Fathers knew from personal experience the dangers of governmental entanglement with religion, leading them to enshrine religious freedom in the First Amendment of our Constitution. In fact, Thomas Jefferson warned against such excess in the Virginia Assembly in 1779, with the introduction of the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom which would serve as the nation's precursor to the First Amendment; he cautioned that, ``our civil rights have no dependence on our religious opinions, any more than our opinions on physics and geometry.'' Maggie's work carried on that tradition. For over two decades, Maggie fought to uphold

the separation of church and state, a foundational principle that is the cornerstone of true religious freedom.

I wish her the best in her next role as Vice-President of Federal Affairs with the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, where she will follow her other passion, advocating for the humane treatment of animals, inspired by her beloved rescue dogs Atticus and Finn.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of the amendment I joined with Congressman Issa and Delegate Moylan in support of foreign military funding for the Philippines. Earlier this month, as cochair of the United States-Philippines Friendship Caucus, I had the opportunity to meet with the President of

the Philippines, along with members from the Philippine House of Representatives, to discuss the important bilateral relationship between our two countries.

In these discussions, we emphasized our shared maritime vision of keeping peace and freedom, particularly in the South China Sea. As the gentleman from California has mentioned, we are pleased to see the Biden administration recognize this important relationship, particularly by enhancing the defense cooperation agreement. This would allow the United States and the Philippines to better address the shared challenges in the Indo-Pacific region.

Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.