Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of my bipartisan bill, the Save Our Seas 2.0 Amendments Act.

Marine debris is a serious problem. Unfortunately, much of marine debris is made up of plastic pollution. The ocean is littered with plastic bottles, straws, grocery bags, cigarette butts, fishing gear, and abandoned vehicles. Additionally, there are tiny pieces of plastic, microplastics, that make their way into marine life, blocking digestive tracts, altering growth, and, in some cases, killing marine mammals and threatening fisheries.

We still don't know how long it takes for plastic to biodegrade completely. Estimates range from 500 years to never. A 2020 study from The Pew Charitable Trusts found that, every year, more than 11 million metric tons of plastic garbage enter the ocean, harming marine life and destroying ecosystems.

If we do nothing to minimize ocean plastic pollution, it will nearly quadruple by 2040. We need to fundamentally change our reliance on plastics. Not only do they pollute the ocean, but they also exacerbate the climate crisis. The fossil fuel and plastics industries are connected, and plastics contribute to industrial emissions in the United States.

A global challenge of this magnitude cannot be solved with a single bill. We should not limit our action to removing existing plastic from the ocean, and we cannot recycle our way out of plastic waste that ends up on our shores.

We need comprehensive action, but today, we have the opportunity to build on our strong, bipartisan foundation of bicameral efforts to strengthen the NOAA Marine Debris Program and enhance the work of the Marine Debris Foundation.

The bipartisan SOS 2.0 Act, which I worked on and authored with the late Congressman Don Young and Senators Sullivan and Whitehouse, is the most comprehensive legislation Congress has

passed to address marine debris that threatens coastal communities and ecosystems.

The bill created a Marine Debris Foundation to support NOAA's work; advanced the removal and prevention of debris, including plastic waste; and established a pilot program to provide incentives for the proper disposal of marine debris collected at sea.

Despite these important policies, current law does not effectively permit NOAA through the Marine Debris Program to assist and collaborate with foreign governments, international organizations, Tribal groups, and other organizations that may have the specific skills required to achieve the Marine Debris Act's goals.

As co-chairs of the House Oceans Caucus, Representative Gonzalez- Colon and I introduced the Save Our Seas 2.0 Amendments Act. This bill would amend the Save Our Seas 2.0 Act and the Marine Debris Act to provide NOAA with greater flexibility to deliver Federal resources and enter into cooperative agreements to conduct marine debris prevention and cleanup.

The ocean is resilient. We can help it heal, but we cannot afford to wait. We have significant work ahead of us to clean up and prevent marine debris, and the Save Our Seas 2.0 Amendments Act continues to build on our bipartisan foundation to protect the ocean.

I thank the gentlewoman and co-chair of the House Oceans Caucus, Representative Gonzalez-Colon, for her partnership on this bill. I thank our Senate colleagues, Senator Dan Sullivan and Senator Sheldon Whitehouse. I also thank Chairman Graves and Ranking Member Larsen, as well as Chairman Westerman and Ranking Member Grijalva.

Mr. Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to support this bipartisan bill to strengthen the Federal response to marine debris and to continue to make ocean health a priority for future generations.

Mr. Speaker, I thank Representative Sanchez for yielding and for her leadership on this important issue.

I rise today in opposition to the so-called Supporting Pregnant and Parenting Women and Families Act, which would prevent the Department of Health and Human Services from restricting funds to crisis pregnancy centers.

We know, as we have heard, and is included in the report that Representative Sanchez just mentioned, that crisis pregnancy centers prey on people at a very vulnerable time. They often spread misinformation to further what is clearly an anti-choice agenda. They routinely use deceptive advertising to get people into the doors, and then they mislead them about the services they provide.

In fact, a center in Ohio was caught making outlandish assertions, including that ``condoms were only 50 percent effective, the spread of STDs could only be prevented if people followed `God's plan' of avoiding sex before marriage, and that if a woman who has an STD gets an abortion, `your STDs travel up your cervix into your organs and could kill you.' ''

This deception is outrageous, dangerous, and unconscionable, which is why I have introduced the Stop Antiabortion Disinformation Act, H.R. 2736, to direct the Federal Trade Commission to issue rules prohibiting unfair or deceptive advertising of abortion services.

This, Mr. Speaker, will really make a difference because anyone seeking reproductive care should have access to a real healthcare provider that will provide them with comprehensive and accurate medical information.

Mr. Speaker, anyone seeking reproductive care should have access to a real healthcare provider that will provide them with real, comprehensive, and accurate medical information. That is not what they get at pregnancy resource centers. I urge my colleagues to reject this bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 6914, the so-called Pregnant Students' Rights Act. This legislation requires institutions of higher education to distribute information about some of the rights of and accommodations for pregnant students. I opposed this legislation in committee and do so again today because, among other reasons, what is required in this bill is incomplete and biased by not providing information about comprehensive family planning resources and a full range of reproductive healthcare options for pregnant students.

Additionally, Republican amendments adopted in the committee added controversial misinformation to this bill, including the myth that having an abortion can lead to breast cancer. This claim has been refuted by the National Cancer Institute, the American Cancer Society, and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.

These scare tactics unmasked the true intention of this bill, which is to further the Republican agenda about attacking reproductive healthcare in their attempt to pass a nationwide ban on abortion.

As I mentioned to my Republican colleagues in committee, if you want to encourage pregnancy and childbirth, join with Democrats in passing legislation that will make childcare more affordable, support access to affordable healthcare and affordable housing, expand the Children's Health Insurance

Program, and join the rest of the world in offering paid family leave.

The intent of this bill is clear. It is another attempt to have politicians interfere in the very intensely personal decision of whether and when to have a child, a decision that should be made only by the pregnant student and their healthcare provider, not by judges, and certainly not by Members of Congress.

Mr. Speaker, I oppose this bill. I encourage my colleagues to vote ``no,'' and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, if my colleagues on the other side of the aisle truly cared about moms, they would join us in addressing the embarrassingly high maternal mortality rate in this country, which is especially concerning for women of color.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Ross).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Georgia (Mrs. McBath).

Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned in committee, a pregnant student is not just the only one affected. If whomever impregnated the student got some rights and notification about paternity and child support obligations, that might help this information be more complete, but that is not in this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Michigan (Ms. Stevens).

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I note that our colleagues on the other side of the aisle rejected an amendment to include information about comprehensive reproductive healthcare services.

Mr. Speaker, it is now my honor to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Jeffries), the dynamic, distinguished, and dedicated Democratic leader.

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

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

Madam Speaker, it is clear from the debate on the bill that what my colleagues on the other side of the aisle want to happen is for every pregnant student to stay pregnant with consequences long beyond their time in college. That is why it is so important that we fund WIC, healthcare, childcare, and all the other things that are prowomen, prochildren, and profamily. This bill is not.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Minnesota (Ms. Omar).

Madam Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from Minnesota.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Underwood).

Madam Speaker, I yield an additional 15 seconds to the gentlewoman from Illinois.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Massachusetts (Ms. Clark), the Democratic whip.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott), the ranking member of the full committee.

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

I include in the Record a letter from the Coalition for Pregnant and Parenting Students Advocacy, signed by 60 organizations, opposing H.R. 6914 because this legislation ``would not address the key barriers to pregnant students' educational attainment, and instead would further shame and stigmatize people for their pregnancy outcomes.''

January 18, 2024.

Hon. Mike Johnson,

Speaker, House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Hon. Hakeem Jeffries,

Minority Leader, House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Dear Speaker Johnson and Leader Jeffries: The Coalition for

Pregnant and Parenting Students Advocacy is a diverse group

of advocates and experts dedicated to advancing civil rights

protections and institutional resources for pregnant and

parenting students. We are joined by the undersigned

organizations in voicing our opposition to H.R. 6914, the

Pregnant Students' Rights Act--a thinly veiled anti-abortion

law which would not address the key barriers to pregnant

students--educational attainment, and instead would further

shame and stigmatize people for their pregnancy outcomes.

This latest bill to ``protect the rights of pregnant

students'' falls far short of the protections that are

actually necessary for pregnant and parenting students and

their children.

Students who are pregnant and/or parents deserve to

complete their education free

from bias and harassment, in environments that support them

on their educational journeys. Unfortunately, pregnant and

parenting students are routinely stigmatized, discriminated

against, and denied the resources, accommodations, and

support they need to thrive in their educational

institutions.

More than 5.4 million college students in the United States

are parents, which is nearly one quarter of undergraduate

students and nearly one third of graduate students. Despite

earning higher GPAs than non-parenting students, parenting

college students are less likely to graduate. This is not due

to personal failing, but rather a lack of institutional

support and recognition of the unique barriers to college

completion for parenting students. Pregnant and parenting

students often experience feeling disconnected from the

larger education community and are not aware of who they can

speak to when they experience discrimination because of their

pregnancy or parenting status.

The proposed bill relies on anti-abortion language and

seeks to limit students' reproductive healthcare decisions.

This type of language is part of a deliverate strategy by the

anti-abortion movement to further legal grounds for a

national abortion ban now that th Supreme Court has

overturned the constitutional right to abortion care as

established in Roe v. Wade. Furthermore, the bill language

contrasts with existing legal protections for pregnant

students experiencing a range of outcomes related to their

pregnancies.

Our belief in personal autonomy and respect for every

person's capacity to make their own decisions--including

whether to continue their pregnancy or not--is at the core of

our work to support pregnant and parenting students. This

bill does not contain any meaningful supports that would

actually help pregnant and parenting students be able to

remain enrolled and meet their educational goals.

Such supports are critically needed, and include:

Strengthened Title IX protections; Nondiscrimination

protection at the state and local level; Accessible and

affordable child care, and increased funding for on-campus

child care; Access to early education and pre-kindergarten

services; Transportation access; Basic needs security

(including food, housing, clothing, etc.); Flexible school

attendance policies; Lactation accomodations; Less stigma and

shame around young parenthood; Increased accountability

measure for institutions who fail to protect pregnant and

parenting students; Federal funding to support campus Title

IX offices' work to prevent and investigate discrimination

against pregnant students; Mandatory data collection on

students' parenting statuses. Student Parent Outcomes Act of

2023, which would allow essential data collection on the

barriers to college graduation for pregnant and parenting

students. But sweeping legislation is necessary to ensure

that pregnant and parenting students and their families

are protected.

Although pregnant and parenting students face many

roadblocks, they can thrive when their educational

institutions listen to them, support them, and prevent

discrimination against them. While balancing their health,

caregiving responsibilities, and educational goals is

challenging, these added responsibilities often renew

students' dedication to their studies. While the decision to

parent and/or continue pregnancy is a personal one, the

barriers that pregnant and parenting students face are not.

This proposed bill would reinforce structural and

institutional bias and scrutiny of the decisions students

make regarding their personal lives.

We welcome the opportunity to have an open dialogue with

the sponsors of the ``Pregnant Students' Rights Act'' and

with any other members of Congress who are ready to step up

as the champion that pregnant and parenting students in our

nation need and deserve.

Sincerely,

The Coalition for Pregnant and Parenting Students Advocacy:

A Better Balance; Generation Hope; Healthy Teen Network;

Institute for Women's Policy Research; Justice and Joy

National Collaborative; National Women's Law Center; New

America Higher Education Program; Pregnant Scholar Initiative

at the Center for WorkLife Law; UNITE-LA.

Joined by:

Advocates for Youth; American Association of University

Women; American Federation of Teachers; American Humanist

Association; BreastfeedLA; California Women's Law Center;

Center for Freethought Equality; Center for Reproductive

Rights; Clearinghouse on Women's Issues; Colorado Teen Parent

Collaborative; End Rape On Campus; Equal Rights Advocates;

Family Equality; Feminist Majority Foundation; Guttmacher

Institute.

Hadassah; Harvard Law School; If/When/How: Lawyering for

Reproductive Justice; Indivisible, Ipas; League of Women

Voters of the United States; Legal Momentum, The Women's

Legal Defense and Education Fund; Michigan Organization on

Adolescent Sexual Health (MOASH); National Asian Pacific

American Women's Forum; National Association of Nurse

Practitioners in Women's Health; National Association of

Social Workers; National Center for Lesbian Rights; National

Center for Parent Leadership, Advocacy and Community

Empowerment; National Center for Transgender Equality;

National Council of Jewish Women; National Education

Association; National Family Planning & Reproductive Health

Association; National Latina Institute for Reproductive

Justice.

National Network to End Domestic Violence; National

Partnership for Women & Families; National Women's Health

Network; National Women's Political Caucus; Partners in

Abortion Care; Physicians for Reproductive Health; Planned

Parenthood Federation of America; Positive Women's Network-

USA; Power to Decide; Public Justice; Reproductive Freedom

for All (formerly NARAL Pro-Choice America); SIECUS: Sex Ed

for Social Change; Southeast Asia Resource Action Center;

Stop Sexual Assault in Schools; The Hope Center at Temple

University; Union for Reform Judaism; Women of Reform

Judaism; Won't She Do It; YWCA USA.

Madam Speaker, the so-called Pregnant Students' Rights Act does nothing to strengthen pregnant students' existing protections and freedoms, and it leaves pregnant students in the dark about their rights under Federal civil rights law.

In fact, when committee Democrats tried to include information that would meaningfully support pregnant and parenting students in our committee's markup, Republicans voted down our amendments.

Democrats submitted amendments that would have included information about programs that promote the health and well-being of mothers and children, such as Medicaid and WIC. Coincidentally, these are the very programs Republican appropriators are right now actively working to roll back and defund.

The bill provides partial information, but no help. That is why dozens of health and reproductive rights organizations, the National Women's Law Center, the National Partnership for Women & Families, and the American Civil Liberties Union have stated that H.R. 6914, ``falls far short of the protections that are actually necessary for pregnant and parenting students and their children.''

In fact, I have a bill to get students information about their SNAP eligibility. I wish we were doing that right now.

Madam Speaker, college is hard enough already, and we should do our part to ensure that all pregnant students have the resources they need to succeed. The legislation before us does nothing to achieve that goal.

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

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

Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of workers and franchisees and in opposition to this harmful resolution.

The joint resolution we are debating today would reverse a rule of the National Labor Relations Board that clarifies who or what is a joint employer. Under this rule, employers can no longer use subcontractors or a staffing or temporary agencies to block the opportunity for hardworking Americans to bargain for fair wages or safer workplaces.

The Biden administration's joint employer rule will help workers and grow the middle class by restoring the NLRB's ability to consider an employer's control over an employee when determining joint employer status. This is not new. It was the law for decades.

Also, I want to push back on the arguments that some of my colleagues continue to make that a strong joint employer rule threatens the franchise model. It does not.

As a lawyer who formerly represented franchisees, I know the franchise model, and I know how it works. A franchisor does not have an employer relationship with the franchisee's employees. Additionally, franchisors do not determine the terms and conditions of their franchisee's employees. It is the franchisee who runs the business and controls the employees. That is freedom.

In fact, the rule actually helps franchisees, because it discourages franchisors from trying to micromanage the franchisee's employees. In fact, as Ranking Member Scott has made clear, the NLRB has never found a franchisor to be a joint employer.

Now, the chair mentioned this increase in expenses. Well, they certainly are not the expenses of the franchisees. I would expect that a significant amount of that money has been lobbying against this rule and spreading misinformation about how the sky is falling for franchisees when, I repeat, there has never been a franchisor who has been found to be a joint employer.

The rule works. Let's stand with workers and defeat this joint resolution.

For these reasons, I oppose H.J. Res. 98, and I encourage all of my colleagues to vote ``no.''

Mr. Speaker, I thank Representative Crockett for organizing this Special Order.

I am grateful to join my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to remember our esteemed former colleague, the late Congresswoman Eddie Bernice Johnson. I expect to see her sitting over there, where she always sat.

Affectionately known as EBJ, Congresswoman Johnson showed tremendous leadership, and that is especially true on the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology.

I have been on the Science Committee since I first joined Congress about a dozen years ago. I learned a lot from her example of hard work, civility, and perseverance.

EBJ was a civil rights trailblazer, as we heard from Mr. Horsford.

She led with the philosophy that building compassionate relationships, fostering curiosity, and working in good faith can yield successful, long-term policies.

Her leadership left a lasting, positive influence on the Science Committee, which continues to shine as a refreshingly bipartisan body in this Congress today and should continue to serve as an example of collaborative work for years to come.

In the last Congress, as the committee chair, she oversaw the passage of the bipartisan Chips and Science Act, some of the most significant scientific research and manufacturing legislation the committee has ever passed.

I will be forever grateful for her support of several issues I brought to the committee, issues important to the district I represent, including ocean health, conservation of marine life, and investing in clean energy technologies that will protect our planet and address the climate crisis.

I share in mourning Congresswoman Johnson passing. I send condolences to her family and friends. I know her legacy will live on through the many people she inspired and mentored throughout her storied career and through the legislation and policies she helped craft to help improve our country.

Colleagues, please remember, with open hearts and fond memories, Congresswoman Eddie Bernice Johnson.

Mr. Speaker, I regret that I missed the vote on rollcall No. 722. Had I been present, I would have voted ``nay'' on rollcall No. 722.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that I may hereafter be considered to be the first sponsor of H.R. 822, a bill originally introduced by Representative Stewart of Utah, for the purpose of adding cosponsors and requesting reprintings pursuant to clause 7 of rule XII.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in opposition to House Resolution 847 and to reiterate our commitment to equal justice under the law.

As Members of this distinguished body, we all take an oath to support and defend the Constitution. Unfortunately, the Financial Services and General Government bill we will consider this week will undermine the constitutional rights of Americans.

In this legislation, Federal public defenders face a steep cut--an underfunding of nearly $100 million. This is unacceptable and will disrupt equal access to justice.

Nearly 90 percent of defendants in Federal criminal cases cannot afford an attorney, which is their constitutional right to have. If there are not enough Federal defenders, cases could be delayed, and the cost will be more in the long run.

Defendants will be referred to private panel attorneys, who typically have less experience and cost more. That makes no sense.

This is not a partisan issue, Mr. Speaker. This is an issue of constitutional rights, and it is smart fiscal policy.

For several years, I have led bipartisan efforts to adequately fund Federal public defenders, and this year, I have led several bipartisan calls to fully fund our Federal defenders.

We must defeat this rule and return the bill to committee so we can follow through on our constitutional responsibility to adequately fund Federal public defenders. It is their right to have counsel. If it is not afforded, they will be referred to panel attorneys, who cost more. That makes no sense, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to include in the Record a letter from the Defender Services Advisory Group, emphasizing that failing to adequately fund Federal public defense will inflict a cascade of dangerous and damaging consequences on their program, on clients, and on our criminal justice system.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member for yielding time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this so-called Schools Not Shelters Act, which should be called the shutting out students act to reflect what this cruel legislation actually does. It would punish public schools and colleges and their students for showing humanity.

This is the second time in less than a month that the majority is bringing legislation to the floor that discriminates against and scapegoats vulnerable people based on their identity. It is the continuation of a trend that, unfortunately, we have seen in this Congress.

Republicans claim that there is a crisis in American education, but their legislation on the floor today would deepen disparities rather than improve public education.

I am disheartened by the continued attempts by my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to delegitimize public schools, the only schools that are required to serve everyone and turn no one away.

Mr. Speaker, public schools are often used as shelters. I hope this bill does not become law, but if it did, what would public schools have to do--check everyone for citizenship before offering shelter to those in need?

I point out if this bill were to become law and schools lost Federal funding because of it, that hurts students--not the people making the decision; the students.

Title I funding, for example, is designed to help schools with high populations of low-income students. Title II supports professional development for educators. IDEA helps students with disabilities. Losing any of that funding would be detrimental to students and educators for showing humanity toward those in need. I urge my colleagues to check their values before they vote on this.

Mr. Speaker, I came to Congress to improve public education and to help all students succeed in school and in college and in life. I have said repeatedly in committee hearings and in this Chamber, I am ready to come to the table with my colleagues and work on serious solutions to the challenges faced by students and their families.

Mr. Speaker, I know the ranking member talked about gun violence in schools. When I was home in June, a student said to me, I only have one more week of school, and then it means I got through the whole year without getting shot. Mr. Speaker, that is what is on students' minds. That is what they are concerned about.

Mr. Speaker, the so-called Schools Not Shelters Act is not a serious solution. I urge my colleagues to reject this harmful legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I want to note that words matter. Presence in the United States of America without proper documents is a civil offense, not a criminal one, and I object to calling people illegal.

Mr. Speaker, again, this is not a serious solution to the challenges facing our schools today. I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to reject this harmful legislation.

Madam Speaker, I regret to inform you that I missed the vote on rollcall No. 290. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall No. 290.

Madam Speaker, I thank the ranking member for yielding.

Madam Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H. Res. 461, a harmful resolution that condemns public schools for showing humanity in helping vulnerable people.

Listening to this debate, it sounds like my colleagues are interested in working on some bipartisan migration reform. We would welcome that-- policies that would help our immigration

system run more smoothly and effectively--but that is not what we are doing here today.

Throughout this Congress, I have heard my colleagues on the other side of the aisle claim that American education is in crisis. Are there needs in our public schools? Absolutely. We need more mental health counselors, we need resources to address mislearning and policies to address gun violence, but is that what the majority is focusing on? No.

When my Republican colleagues felt threatened by the accurate teaching of history, they passed legislation that provides a blueprint for book bans. When my Republican colleagues felt threatened by the Biden administration's inclusive interpretation of Title IX, what did they do? They passed legislation to ostracize trans students and allow discrimination in sports. When my colleagues felt uncomfortable about reducing the crushing debt burden faced by students who choose to go to college, they passed legislation to wipe out relief and plunge more borrowers into financial distress.

What is their focus today? Picking on desperate people who are fleeing war, violence, and abject poverty in search of a better life for themselves and their children.

Now, the Republicans are threatening Federal funding to schools. That is funding that is intended to support all students. I won't support the harmful scapegoating of migrants and repeated attacks on marginalized communities, and I won't support actions that delegitimize our public schools.

These are the only schools that have an obligation to serve all students and families, regardless of race, ethnicity, disability status, ability to pay, sexual orientation, gender identity, religion, or any other characteristic. Our public schools are for everyone.

What I will support and what I repeatedly expressed an eagerness and enthusiasm to work on are substantive, positive evidence-based solutions that make schools safer, improve opportunities for students from all backgrounds, and enhance the quality and frequency of parents' and families' involvement in their children's education.

Madam Speaker, I welcome those conversations. I am disappointed that we keep finding ourselves engaged in culture wars with the majority putting politics over people instead of passing policies that help students, their families, and our communities.

At a time when we have an opportunity to demonstrate compassion and empathy, this resolution takes us in the wrong direction. I strongly urge all of my colleagues to reject this resolution. Let's put humanity first. Let's focus on what really truly helps public education.

General Leave

Madam Speaker, I rise today to call on Congress to reject the Republicans' reckless default on America act and to protect the progress that we have made in the very important transition to clean energy.

The Inflation Reduction Act is a significant investment in our country's clean and healthy future. We are on the cusp of a major clean energy expansion, generating billions of dollars in private clean energy investments and thousands of clean energy jobs.

In northwest Oregon, the Inflation Reduction Act has brought millions of dollars in funding for climate-resilient infrastructure, low- emission public transportation, and clean schoolbuses.

Benefits are flowing to red, blue, and purple States, bringing cost savings to our constituents. Texas and Iowa, for example, are leading the U.S. in solar and wind production. It would be foolhardy and fickle to disrupt or delay this important work, just like it is foolhardy and fickle of the Republicans to try to force draconian budget cuts by threatening default.

We must put our constituents first by passing a clean debt limit increase so we can turn our attention to the real work at hand, creating jobs, cutting energy costs, growing our clean energy economy for the sake of our vulnerable communities, future generations, and our planet.

Madam Speaker, it would only take five brave Republicans to put country over party and sign the petition.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to this misinformed attempt by our Republican colleagues to deny some needed financial relief to about 43 million Americans.

Education is the best investment we can make to give everyone the opportunity to be successful in school and in life. In this Congress, we have repeatedly seen how willing our colleagues on the other side of the aisle are to put politics over people and special interests over students. This CRA is no different.

Facts matter. Let's set the record straight. President Biden's loan forgiveness plan helps a lot of borrowers with debt but no degree. Many were borrowers who were defrauded by their schools or who had to take on other responsibilities and couldn't complete their education.

The President's plan directs 90 percent--let me repeat--90 percent of relief to borrowers earning less than $75,000 per year. This may be news to my colleagues who continue to misrepresent that student debt relief will be a bailout for the rich. It is not.

Another fact. Because of interest capitalization and negative amortization, many student loan borrowers who are current on their payments still have loan balances that are the same as or even greater than when they first took out their loan. That is unfair.

Beyond the numbers, we must humanize who will be hurt the most if we allow this CRA to pass:

Our Nation's teachers in red and blue districts who work with students every day; healthcare workers and first responders in red and blue districts who keep our communities safe and healthy; caregivers in red and blue districts who support the work of raising and sustaining families; and our Nation's small business owners in red and blue districts who make communities vibrant and unique.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to show some humanity, compassion, and empathy. Let's pass good-faith policies that make college more affordable and recognize the intrinsic value of opportunity and possibility in every American.

Mr. Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this regressive resolution that will harm people in Oregon and across the country.

Mr. Speaker, the House Republicans released their proposed agricultural funding bill this morning, and there is no doubt that they are ready to cut nutrition benefits.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to defend the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP.

When I worked my way through college, I used assistance--called food stamps at the time--so I would have enough to eat.

My experience is not unique. More than 34 million people in the United States are food insecure. Every day millions of Americans rely on SNAP to help them put food on the table for themselves and for their families.

SNAP is our most effective anti-hunger program, and we should be improving its vital benefits. Unfortunately, my colleagues across the aisle are doing the opposite.

Under the House Republicans' budget bill, which should be called the default on America act, many people across the country, including many seniors, will lose access to this critical assistance.

My colleagues claim their benefit cuts will get people back to work and reduce our national debt, but taking food assistance away from vulnerable Americans will not help anyone find work, it will just make them hungry.

Balancing the budget on the backs of low-income seniors is shameful. Unlike the default in America act, the bill I will soon introduce will increase access to SNAP benefits for our Nation's most vulnerable seniors.

My Senior Hunger Prevention Act will reduce food insecurity and raise the value of SNAP benefits so seniors can live and age with dignity.

Additionally, the first bill I introduced this Congress is designed to eliminate barriers for college students accessing SNAP benefits.

Students of any age can't learn when they are hungry, and we know that they are more likely to succeed in the classroom when they are not worried about where their next meal is coming from.

Mr. Speaker, strengthening SNAP should not be a partisan issue. I also support the bills that several of our colleagues have introduced that will improve our food security programs.

Following last year's White House Conference on Hunger, and as we consider the farm bill, Congress must make it a priority to get assistance to those who need it most.

Mr. Speaker, we are at a critical moment to take action to end hunger, and the default on America act is not the answer. We must strengthen SNAP, not cut it.