Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 2-- this harmful, partisan, Republican legislation--for many reasons, but especially because it will endanger people seeking asylum.

This bill takes us backwards after years of acknowledging the need for comprehensive immigration reform. The expansion of family detention in this bill will hurt children and families. It is costly, and it does not work as the majority claims.

Mental health and medical experts agree that jailing immigrant families exposes children to high levels of trauma and distress. We should be expanding effective programs like Family Case Management, but this bill guts the program and will undermine its proven record of close to 90 percent compliance.

We live in a country of immigrants, and our Nation is stronger because of its diversity.

I urge all of my colleagues to oppose building walls and detention centers and support comprehensive, humane immigration reform that will strengthen our economy, enhance our security, and reflect our core values as Americans.

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record an article from Social Science & Medicine about the high levels of mental health distress experienced by children who are held in immigration detention.

[From Social Science & Medicine, Apr. 29, 2019]

Mental Health of Children Held at a United States Immigration Detention

Center

(By Sarah A. MacLean, Priscilla O. Agyeman, Joshua Walther, Elizabeth

K. Singer, Kim A. Baranowski, Craig L. Katz)

1. Introduction

Immigrant children who are newly arrived in the United

States demonstrate more positive developmental outcomes, such

as resiliency and positive academic attitudes, than their

U.S.-born peers (Marks et al., 2014). However, several

environmental factors could contribute to the development of

psychological distress in these children and their families

once in the U.S. In addition to exposure to acculturation

stressors (Alegria and Woo, 2009; Suarez-Orozco and Suarez-

Orovco, 2001), immigrants may also encounter deleterious

medical and mental health outcomes associated with perceived

discrimination (Pascoe and Smart Richman, 2009). Latinx

immigrants also face health disparities driven by state-level

immigration policies (Philbin et al., 2018). Furthermore,

immigration policy and fears associated with deportation may

increase the risk of emotional distress among immigrants who

enter the U.S. without inspection or who remain without a

valid visa (Cavazos-Rehg et al., 2007; Martinez et al.,

2015). The forced dislocation from family, communities, and

employment associated with deportation from the U.S. is also

related to negative mental health outcomes (Bojorquez et al.,

2015; Morris and Palazuelos, 2015).

Beginning in 2014, there have been significant increases in

the number of individuals and their families from Guatemala,

El Salvador, and Honduras seeking asylum in the U.S. (Mossaad

and Baugh, 2018). Many women and children fleeing these

nations have reported experiencing human rights violations in

their countries of origin associated with gang-related and

intimate partner violence in the context of un-responsive law

enforcement and government presence (UNHCR, 2014, 2015).

Asylum seekers may experience a range of mental health

outcomes associated with their experiences of persecution

(PHR, 2012). They may continue to be emotionally affected by

trauma experienced in their home countries, as well as the

dangers and violence they often encounter during migration

(Temores-Alcantara et al., 2015). In addition, the very

process of seeking asylum may also contribute to their

psychological distress, as survivors are required to

participate in potentially retraumatizing asylum interviews

or adversarial immigration hearings (Schock et al., 2015).

The U.S. has also increased its capacity to detain

immigrant families seeking asylum through the creation of

more detention centers specifically designated for women and

children over the past five years (Eagly et al., 2018).

Asylum seekers in expedited removal are held in U.S.

immigration detention while they await a screening interview

for credible fear, where an asylum officer evaluates whether

the asylum seeker has a credible fear of persecution or

torture upon returning to their country of origin (HRF,

2018). This step is the first to determine eligibility for

asylum. Adults and children being held in immigration

detention demonstrate high rates of deleterious mental health

outcomes such as depression and anxiety (Keller et al., 2003;

Mares and Jureidini 2004). Studies conducted outside the U.S.

have shown that detained immigrant children present with a

high prevalence of depression/anxiety (10 percent) and post-

traumatic stress disorder (PTSD, 20 percent) (Buchmuller et

al., 2018; Sen et al., 2017). Research findings also indicate

that children held in immigration detention settings may

experience social, emotional, and behavioral difficulties at

higher rates than those seen in the community (Sarkar and

Gupta. 2007; Zwi et al, 2018).

To our knowledge, there have been no large empirical

studies that have evaluated the mental health of children in

immigration detention in the U.S. Previous studies

documenting the mental health of children in U.S. immigration

detention, though compelling, have been largely qualitative

and anecdotal (Brabeck et al., 2014), or have been from the

perspective of lawyers in the field (Bailey et al., 2014).

Furthermore, experts assert that the controversial policy of

forcibly separating children from their parents at the U.S.-

Mexico border is detrimental to children's health and

wellbeing (MacKenzie et al., 2017), therefore prospective

research on the effects of this policy is needed. Given the

significant environmental factors that may contribute to the

development of psychological difficulties in these children,

we sought to understand the current state of mental health in

this population.

2. method

We conducted a cross-sectional evaluation study of children

held at an immigration detention center over two months in

mid-2018. This center detains women who are accompanied by at

least one child under the age of 18 in U.S. Immigration and

Customs Enforcement (ICE) custody. We interviewed a

convenience sample of 425 mothers who presented to the

visitation center of the detention center. Mothers were

eligible to participate if they spoke English or Spanish and

if one of their children detained with them was between 4 and

17 years of age. The purpose of the study was stated

explicitly to mothers, and they were informed that their

participation and responses would not impact their legal

proceedings. Mothers who volunteered to participate provided

informed written consent and were interviewed in private

rooms or other areas of the visitation center that ensured

confidentiality. Nine mothers refused to participate. During

the time period of this study, 17 percent of the children

included in the sample had been previously separated from

their mothers. At the time of interviews, a subset of these

families had been recently reunited. All consenting mothers

completed a demographic survey that included items related to

country of origin, age of children, and date of arrival at

the detention center. Mothers were then asked questions about

their eldest child with them at the detention center.

Each mother completed the English or Spanish parent-report

version of the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire

(SDQ), a 25-question screening instrument widely used

internationally in children age 4-17 years (Goodman, 2001)

and among refugee children (Zwi et al., 2017). The survey

includes items that assess the child's behavior and possible

responses are recorded as ``not true'' (0), ``somewhat true''

(1), and ``certainly true'' (2). Based on these responses,

each participant received a score indicating total

difficulties and a score for the subscales of emotional

problems (e.g., feeling unhappy or having excessive fears),

conduct problems (e.g., being disobedient), hyperactivity

(e.g., being restless or easily distracted), and peer

problems (e.g., preferring to play alone). Participants also

received a prosocial score, which assesses behaviors such as

sharing with other children and volunteering to help others.

Consistent with the scoring of the SDQ, the resulting scores

were assigned to the ``normal,'' ``borderline,'' or

``abnormal'' category for total difficulties and each

subscale. Cutoff scores were originally designed such that

roughly 80 percent

of children's scores fall within the ``normal'' range, 10

percent within the ``borderline'' range, and 10 percent

within the ``abnormal'' range (Goodman, 1997).

A subset of 150 children age 9-17 years also assented to

participate in the study following the informed written

consent for their participation by their mothers. These

children were part of a convenience sample of children who

were in the visitation center at the time of their mothers'

interviews. The children completed the UCLA Post-Traumatic

Stress Disorder Reaction Index (PTSD-RI) Symptom Scale, a 27-

question screening tool used widely to assess symptoms of

PTSD in children (Steinberg and Beyerlein, 2013), including

refugee children (Ellis et al., 2006). Children were asked

how frequently they experienced core symptoms of PTSD in the

past month, with possible responses of ``non'' (0),

``little'' (1), ``some'' (2), ``much'' (3), and ``most'' (4).

A symptom was considered ``present'' with a rating of 3 or 4.

Participants met the criterion for Category B

(reexperiencing) if ; 1 symptom was present and for Category

C (avoidance) if ; 1 symptom alterations in cognition and

mood) if ; 2 symptoms were present and for Category E

(increased arousal) if ; 2 symptoms were present. A probable

clinical diagnosis of PTSD was determined by meeting the

criteria for all 4 categories (Steinberg & B Beyerlein,

2013). Because a clinical assessment to establish a formal

diagnosis of PTDS was not included in this study, the term

``probable PTSD'' will be used when referring to prevalence.

We describe sociodemographic characteristics with

frequencies and percentages. We examined the prevalence of

outcomes for the SDQ and PTSD-RI subscales. Cronbach's alpha

for the SDQ and PTSD-RI were 0.768 and 0.908, respectively.

Covariates included age, gender, country of origin, and

previous separation from the child's mother. We considered

results to be significant if p < 0.05. All analyses were

performed using IBM SPSS (version 224).

The research protocol, survey, and consent forms were

reviewed and approved by the Institutional Review Board at

the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai. All participants

provided written, informed consent.

3. results

Most mothers were from Honduras (50 percent), El Salvador

(23 percent), or Guatemala (22 percent), which is consistent

with the overall population of residents at this detention

center. The average age of the mothers and children were 33

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to this regressive, shortsighted, and cruel default on America act that would devastate programs that are critical to Oregonians and Americans.

We have a housing affordability and homelessness crisis, but this bill would eliminate affordable housing assistance for many families and seniors.

Our constituents can't find or afford childcare, but this bill would take away access to Head Start.

The cost of higher education keeps rising, but this bill would cut Pell grants and slash additional funding to support millions of disabled and low-income students.

Instead of addressing the climate crisis, this legislation would entrench reliance on fossil fuels; undermine renewable, sustainable energy options; and raise taxes for middle-class Americans.

This bill could cause millions of low-income seniors and veterans to lose access to nutrition assistance, and up to 10 million people could lose Medicaid coverage.

There is a simple solution to prevent these harmful outcomes: Bring a clean debt ceiling bill to the floor so we can end this MAGA Republican-created manufactured crisis.

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a report from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities on how up to 10 million people could be at significant risk of losing health coverage under Speaker McCarthy's bad, backward bill.

[From the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, Apr. 21, 2023]

McCarthy Medicaid Proposal Puts Millions of People in Expansion States

at Risk of Losing Health Coverage

(By Gideon Lukens)

A Republican proposal led by House Speaker Kevin McCarthy

would take Medicaid coverage away from people who do not meet

new work-reporting requirements. The McCarthy proposal would

apply to all states, but in practice it would heavily impact

people covered by the Affordable Care Act (ACA) Medicaid

expansion. Of this group, more than 10 million people in

Medicaid expansion states would be at significant risk of

losing coverage under the McCarthy proposal. This group would

be subject to the new Medicaid requirement, and they are not

part of a group that states could readily identify in

existing data sources and exclude from burdensome reporting.

The McCarthy proposal could jeopardize coverage for millions

more, by prompting some states to drop the ACA Medicaid

expansion or dissuading states that have not yet taken the

expansion from adopting it.

Nationwide, we estimate that over 10 million Medicaid

expansion enrollees--more than 1 in 5 of all Medicaid

enrollees in expansion states--would be at risk of losing

Medicaid coverage under the policy in McCarthy's debt limit

bill, using 2019 (pre-pandemic) data. Some 74 percent of all

expansion enrollees and 21 percent of all Medicaid

beneficiaries in the states that have adopted the expansion

would be subject to the new requirements and, thus, at risk

of losing coverage.

People in every expansion state would be affected, with the

share of total Medicaid enrollees at risk ranging from 15 to

37 percent. (See Table 1 and Methodology.) Because we use

2019 data, the national estimate does not include the nine

states that expanded coverage after that date and therefore

very likely understates the number of enrollees at risk. If

those states were included, it would likely add upward of 1

million more enrollees at risk of losing coverage.

While not all of those at risk under McCarthy's proposal

would lose coverage, many would, including people who are

working or are eligible for an exemption but would be

disenrolled due to administrative burdens and red tape. This

was the experience in Arkansas, which is the only state that

briefly took people's Medicaid coverage away for not meeting

work-reporting requirements, until a federal court halted the

program following massive coverage losses. In just seven

months of implementation, some 18,000 people--1 in 4 subject

to the requirements--lost coverage. Moreover, research found

that the new requirements had no impact on employment

outcomes. The McCarthy Medicaid provision draws heavily from

the failed Arkansas experiment but is harsher in some

respects, applying to somewhat older adults, for example.

The more than 10 million estimate (looking just at the

states that had expanded Medicaid prior to 2019) does not

fully account for the sweeping impact the Medicaid work-

reporting requirement could have. For example, while the bill

directs states ``whenever possible'' to use electronic data

sources to verify whether people meet the criteria for

continued Medicaid coverage, the extent to which this would

protect people from losing coverage or from onerous reporting

would depend on implementation decisions at both the federal

and state level.

Proponents of the new requirements argue that they give

states an option to take Medicaid coverage away from people

who don't comply with the new work-reporting requirement.

This is misdirection at best.

The bill terminates federally funded Medicaid coverage for

those who don't meet the work-reporting requirements. In

theory, states could provide fully state-funded coverage to

those whose federal Medicaid coverage is taken away, but with

the federal government currently covering 90 percent of the

cost of coverage for expansion enrollees, states are

exceedingly unlikely to continue coverage for large numbers

of people who don't meet the requirement. (It is worth noting

that states did not provide state-funded coverage for this

group prior to the ACA's expansion, though they were able to

do so.)

Moreover, administering these new requirements would be

complicated for state and local governments, which would have

to pick up a significant portion of the costs associated with

implementing the complex systems to verify work, determine

who meets automatic exemption criteria (such as those with

children), and assess applications for exemptions based on

criteria, such as an illness, that the state doesn't know

through its eligibility system.

States also would have to absorb the costs associated with

higher caseload churn--that is, people losing coverage and

then having to reapply or seek to have their coverage

reinstated, all processes that require caseworker staff time.

And uncompensated care costs would increase because people

have lost coverage, adding further to the costs that states

and safety net health care providers would have to pick up.

Without a doubt, adding work-reporting requirements to

Medicaid would cause many low-income adults to lose coverage

due to bureaucratic hurdles and would leave people without

the health care they need, including life-saving medications,

treatment to manage chronic conditions, and care for acute

illnesses. People's access to health care and other basic

supports, such as housing, food, or child care, should not

hinge on whether they meet a work-reporting requirement or

successfully navigate a complicated system to either report

work hours or claim an exemption.

McCarthy Medicaid Provision Builds on Failed Arkansas Experiment

The Arkansas plan, implemented in 2018, required that

Medicaid expansion enrollees aged 19-49 document at least 80

hours of work or other qualifying activities (e.g. job

training, volunteering) per month. Exemptions were available

for various groups including pregnant people, certain types

of caregivers, and people with certain health conditions, but

qualifying for these exemptions required that enrollees

successfully navigate the reporting system or that the state

use available data to determine exemption status. As a

result, more than 18,000 people (about one-quarter of those

subject to the requirements) lost coverage in just seven

months, before a federal court blocked the policy.

The McCarthy plan is similar to Arkansas' but applies to a

broader set of Medicaid enrollees. First, it applies to

enrollees aged 19-55, a wider age range that includes more

older adults. Second, it is not explicitly limited to

Medicaid expansion enrollees, unlike the Arkansas policy.

While all states would have to set up new processes to

validate exemptions, we assume that because existing state

data sources could readily be used to exempt the bulk of

Medicaid enrollees who are not part of the expansion group,

the impact would be largely on expansion enrollees. Third,

some groups exempt under the Arkansas plan, including

postpartum people, people identified as ``medically frail,''

and people receiving unemployment benefits, are not exempt

under the McCarthy plan.

A KFF study estimated that under a nationwide Medicaid

work-reporting requirements policy similar to policies

implemented in Arkansas and proposed by other states, most

people losing coverage would be complying with or exempt from

the requirements but would be disenrolled due to

administrative burdens and red tape. Using conservative

assumptions about disenrollment based on a survey of the

research literature, the study found that 62 to 91 percent of

those losing coverage would be people who qualify as eligible

under the policy. Coverage losses would be concentrated among

those eligible because the overwhelming majority of Medicaid

enrollees already meet the requirements or an exemption

criterion, yet they would still be at risk due to the

bureaucratic complexity of reporting and proving exemption

status.

Overall, between 1.4 and 4 million people would have lost

Medicaid coverage if Medicaid work-requirements were imposed

in 2016, the KFF study estimated. This estimate is roughly in

line with the Congressional Budget Office's projection that a

nationwide policy similar to Arkansas' would result in a

reduction in Medicaid enrollment of 2.2 million adults per

year for the 2023-2031 period.

Our analysis is not a projection of the number of people

who will lose coverage, but rather shows that more than 10

million people would be subject to these requirements and,

thus, at risk of losing coverage from a policy that would

erect burdensome requirements to report work or claim

exemptions. A large share of the 10 million people subject to

the requirements would have to navigate complex work-

reporting and verification systems each month while others

would have to navigate the exemption process periodically to

retain coverage.

Research suggests that some populations would be especially

harmed by these work-reporting requirements, including people

with disabilities, women, people who are experiencing

homelessness, and people with mental health conditions or

substance use disorders. Even though exemptions would apply

to some in these groups, states often lack the capacity to

hire sufficient staff to respond to people's questions or

manage work-reporting systems and the exemption process.

People who have fewer transportation options or live in rural

areas, face language or literacy barriers, are in poor health

or have limited mobility, or have limited internet access

would face particular barriers to understanding the new

requirements and navigating reporting systems, applying for

exemptions, and collecting the verification needed to prove

that they meet an exemption criterion.

There is no upside to Medicaid work-reporting requirements.

Research has not found any impact of the requirements on

employment, and data from Arkansas show that few enrollees

engaged in new work-related activities. Instead, work-

reporting requirements strip health coverage from people with

low incomes--most of whom are already meeting or exempt from

the requirements--

leading to gaps in care that damage their health and

financial security and make it harder for them to find or

keep a job.

In this paper, we estimate the number of Medicaid expansion

group enrollees at risk of losing coverage using

administrative data on Medicaid expansion enrollment for

2019, combined with American Community Survey (ACS) data and

state enrollment policies.

We use 2019 Medicaid expansion group enrollment to avoid

including the large increase in Medicaid enrollment that

began in 2020 as a result of the requirement that Medicaid

provide continuous coverage during the public health

emergency. This continuous coverage requirement ended on

March 31, 2023, and while estimates of coverage loss during

the unwinding of the requirement are highly uncertain,

enrollment declines are potentially large. By using 2019

data, we avoid overstating our estimates of expansion

enrollees at risk in each state once unwinding is complete.

Methodology

As stated above, our estimates are based on a combination

of administrative data on Medicaid expansion enrollment, ACS

data, and state enrollment policies.

Because our data are based on 2019 (pre-pandemic) Medicaid

expansion enrollment, they do not include expansion enrollees

at risk in states that expanded in 2019 or later, including

Idaho, Maine, Missouri, Nebraska, Oklahoma, Utah, and

Virginia. We also cannot produce expansion group estimates

for North Carolina and South Dakota, which have enacted but

not yet implemented expansion. Our national total estimate is

therefore likely to understate the number of enrollees at

risk. Finally, by shifting costs to states, the McCarthy

proposal could result in some states deciding to drop the ACA

Medicaid expansion, jeopardizing coverage for millions more.

Similarly, these new requirements could dissuade some states

that have not yet adopted the expansion from doing so.

We consider Medicaid expansion enrollees aged 19-55 and

exclude from this group people who live with dependent

children aged 0-17. States should be able to exclude this

group automatically (without requiring them to apply for an

exemption) using existing administrative data, so they are

less likely to be at risk.

We do not estimate other exemptions or work status because

these individuals would be more likely than parents to have

to report their employment or earnings monthly or to apply

for and submit documentation to receive an exemption.

Research indicates that most people who would lose coverage

under work-reporting requirements would be disenrolled

despite working or qualifying for an exemption due to the

complexities of proving that they are working or meet an

exemption criterion.

Publicly available administrative data on Medicaid

expansion enrollees do not include detailed enrollee

characteristics. We therefore use data from the U.S. Census

Bureau's American Community Survey as well as state-level

eligibility rules to estimate the share of expansion

enrollees who are aged 19-55 and who do not have dependent

children in each state.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor the celebration of Muslim- American Heritage Appreciation Month, which the City of Beaverton, Oregon and its communities and community partners across Oregon recognized in March of 2023. I honor the many contributions of the more than 20,000 Muslim Americans in Beaverton and throughout the State of Oregon who have made many valuable contributions to the city and community. The Muslim community in Oregon compromises different races and ethnicities and includes those both in the United States and those who immigrated from all over the world. Muslim-American Heritage Appreciation Month is an opportunity to spread awareness of the many facets of the Muslim Community and to condemn the islamophobia they have faced.

The month of March also includes the holy month of Ramadan on the Islamic lunar calendar, where observing Muslims fast from sunrise to sunset for 30 days starting March 22nd and concluding the evening of April 21st. At the end of this holy time, Muslims celebrate Eid Al- Fitr, one of the most significant holidays of the year.

I celebrate the many community events that were held throughout this month, including cultural night dinners, Ramadan food box distribution, toy drives for refugee foster youth, and Iftar community meals. I also recognize the many contributions of community organizations that have built this effort. Some include Cool Islam, which offers youth programming, toy drives, and assistance to help children learn about being Muslim; and The Islamic Society of Greater Portland, which works to develop continuing relationships in the greater community and confront the islamophobia that Muslim people living in the United States face too often.

I appreciate the dedication of these organizations and community partners and join with them in honoring the contributions of Muslim Americans in the Beaverton community as we recognize March 2023 as Muslim-American Heritage Month.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this bill, a bill that puts politics over participation. I am deeply concerned about the increase in and apparent normalization of attacks against trans students.

Contrary to what my Republican colleagues say, this legislation will diminish civil rights, discriminate against students, and dismantle relationships of trust between students and their coaches and educators.

Trans rights are human rights. Denying trans students the opportunity to play on sports teams that are consistent with their gender identity sends a clear message to those students that they don't matter.

If my Republican colleagues are interested in protecting women and girls, I have a long list of priorities that I am eager to work on.

Let's pass commonsense gun violence prevention legislation. Let's pass legislation protecting reproductive freedom. Let's pass paid family leave and medical leave and close the gender pay gap.

We should be working together to create opportunities for every student to thrive with a focus on those who are most vulnerable, especially trans youth.

I want every trans student out there to know I see you, and I will never stop fighting for you. I urge my colleagues to show some humanity, stop attacking trans people, and vote ``no'' on this bill.

Mr. Speaker, as a fellow Oregon Ducks fan, an Oregonian, I am really grateful to be here today with my colleagues to honor an exceptional staffer, Jenn Wickre.

Jenn is a longtime, dedicated, and invaluable staffer for the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, on which I have had the honor of serving since I joined Congress in the beginning of 2012.

Jenn has been a tireless public servant, supporting members of the Science Committee in our efforts to craft and advance meaningful legislation.

I know her unwavering commitment, her expertise, and her bipartisan approach have really left an indelible mark, and we are honored to pay tribute to her exceptional contributions this evening.

Committee staff plays a crucial role in supporting the work of the committee. They are really essential to the functioning of the legislative process. I learned when I went from the Oregon legislature to Congress how important our committee staff members are.

Jenn has been working diligently behind the scenes, providing her valuable expertise, her research, and her assistance to help Members fulfill their responsibilities on the committee. She, like many of our staff, possesses specialized knowledge in policy and really plays a pivotal role in helping us understand complex issues.

Many of us who serve on the Science Committee are not scientists. We don't have that expertise. Our committee staff really helps us identify potential pitfalls, because we occasionally run into those, and develop effective strategies to achieve our goals. Her expertise and dedication have really contributed to the development of well-informed and evidence-based policy decisions, leading to more effective policymaking that benefits the American people.

I had the honor of traveling with Jenn on a bipartisan delegation to the Galapagos Islands in 2018. When you travel with somebody, you get to spend time together. We conducted oversight of NSF-funded research and observatories. The primary subject of the trip and a significant area of cooperation between the United States and each of the nations we visited was our scientific research enterprise.

The trip was noteworthy because it really gave a unique insight into the bipartisan cooperation that lay ahead. It was great to have Jenn on that trip. It was one of those Science Committee trips that you will never forget for the lessons learned and the relationships made.

In addition to her exceptional expertise, she has been a model of bipartisan collaboration. I have heard stories from her friends across the aisle about how she has continued to foster a culture of inclusivity, cooperation, and mutual respect, transcending political differences and working with her colleagues on both sides of the aisle to

achieve common goals. That is something we know we desperately need in this institution.

Her ability to find that common ground to build consensus was crucial to the passage of important legislation like the recent CHIPS and Science Act. Many have suggested this would not have been possible without her unwavering commitment to the underlying policy, which helped bridge divides and really led to significant results for our Nation's economy, research and technology sectors, and, of course, our scientific research enterprise.

Mr. Speaker, I am really honored to be able to join my colleagues in extending our deepest appreciation and gratitude from both sides of the aisle for Jenn's exceptional service to the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology and to the American people.

I thank Jenn for her unwavering dedication, kindness, and extraordinary contributions.

I can't end without saying: Go Ducks.

I know what a wonderful Ducks fan Jenn is, so I had to get that shout-out to my alma mater.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for the opportunity to honor Jenn Wickre this evening.

Madam Chair, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 1, which should be called the polluters over people act. This is a critical moment. Just last week, the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change released its sixth and final assessment, which presents our most comprehensive understanding of climate science to date. It is not, as my colleague suggested, that you can go outside and breathe fresh air and decide that there is no climate change.

Scientists have made it abundantly clear, there are two options: significantly cut emissions now or face catastrophic challenges ahead.

Future generations will look back and scrutinize the decisions we make as leaders. Did we have the political courage to take action or did we ignore science, stifle the most vulnerable voices in our community, and leave a climate catastrophe for our children and grandchildren?

In northwest Oregon, my home, smoke from raging wildfires made the air unhealthy to breathe, and in the summer of 2021 hundreds of people in the Pacific Northwest died from a 1 in 10,000 year heat dome event where temperatures reached 118 degrees.

Acidic oceans are harming our fishing industries. That is from carbon pollution. Droughts and extreme weather patterns jeopardize the livelihoods of our farmers. Warmer temperatures in the Columbia River are further endangering salmon that are so vital to the region and indigenous peoples.

H.R. 1 is a dangerous move in the wrong direction under the guise of promoting lower energy costs. It would do no such thing, and the American people will not be fooled. Instead, this bill is a package of anti-climate and anti-public lands policy that would undermine recent environmental protections, destroy the National Environmental Policy Act, and take a significant step back in the fight against climate change.

The bill will also raise, not lower, costs for working families by repealing tax cuts the Democrats passed last year for home efficiency upgrades. It even repeals the methane emissions reduction program.

While Americans faced higher gas prices, make no mistake, the top five big oil companies made record profits--more than $196 billion last year--that is more than the economic output of most countries.

These companies abuse billions of dollars in taxpayer-funded subsidies, stockpiled thousands of unused leases on millions of acres of public lands and engage in price gouging at the pump.

This bill? It advances policies that allow Big Oil to increase their profits, even more at the expense of our constituents. The bill would expedite dirty mining operations, exempt oil, gas, and drilling industries from adhering to important environmental regulations, shorten public review timelines, and limit public engagement.

We must protect our bedrock environmental laws that safeguard communities and allow the public to have a say in local projects. We must continue the implementation of the Inflation Reduction Act, which finally, after so many years, will make significant investments we need to save our planet.

Addressing the climate crisis cannot be delayed. We must defeat this bill and turn our attention to investments that create jobs.

Madam Chair, we must defeat this bill and turn our attention to investments that create jobs, cut costs for working families, and grow our clean energy economy for the sake of our planet, our vulnerable communities, and for future generations to come.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong opposition to H.R. 5, which should be called the politics over parents act.

After spending 15 years as a very involved public school parent, I can say without hesitation that I strongly support parental involvement in education. You won't meet a Member on this side of the aisle that disagrees with that. The bill before us today misses the mark.

This could have been an opportunity to address the real challenges facing education, to make changes that would involve parents in a constructive way, and also make a positive difference in education. I am disappointed that we aren't doing that.

House Democrats have shown time and time again that we are committed to providing all parents--including those who traditionally face barriers to engagement--with meaningful involvement in their kids' schools. Indeed, it is becoming increasingly clear that the Democratic Party is the party of parental rights and family values.

We have put forward a substantive plan that will actually increase the frequency, quality, and accessibility of parental involvement and engagement in schools; a substantive plan that invests in evidence- based models and support systems that have been shown to increase family engagement and improve student achievement; a substantive plan that encourages parents to be partners, not adversaries, in their children's education; a substantive plan that roots out discrimination based on race, disability, socioeconomic status, sexual orientation, or gender identity in our public schools; a substantive plan that, unlike H.R. 5, doesn't carry dangerous, authoritarian undertones encouraging book bans, discouraging the teaching of scientifically and historically accurate curricula, and leading to the micromanagement of the work of educators.

We welcome a conversation about how to empower parents, and urge our friends and colleagues on the other side of the aisle to abandon their politically motivated attacks on schoolteachers and students. We should instead be working together on these issues in a bipartisan manner. Our Nation's students and families deserve that.

We need more parents, including those from diverse backgrounds, to feel included, supported, engaged, and welcomed at their kids' school. This bill does not even begin to do that.

I am leading more than 45 of our colleagues on a Bill of Rights for Students and Parents, a resolution that is supported by more than 250 education, civil rights, and parents' groups, including the National

Madam Chair, today, the National Parents Union released a poll that supports an alternative version of H.R. 5 and does not support H.R. 5 in the least.

In fact, the majority of people believe that the bill of rights should guarantee that students should have access to a high-quality, well-rounded education with resources to support their individual needs. They overwhelmingly agree that parents' own personal beliefs should not prevent other students from accessing certain curricula and materials.

The majority encourage the teaching of topics like women's history, Black history, Native American history, and Latino, Latina, and Hispanic history.

The majority of parents want Congress to focus on issues like anti- bullying measures in schools and providing students with access to career and technical education and academic tutoring.

They rank requiring public schools to provide parents with a list of books and reading materials in the library as the least important priority for Congress compared to other issues.

They say that public schools should teach about and discuss concepts like kindness, empathy, cooperation, and collaboration.

Ninety percent say that students should have access to high-quality, well-rounded education. Ninety percent say that students should be protected from any form of discrimination against them at school. Eighty-nine percent say that students should be taught using educational materials that are historically accurate. Eighty percent say students should be taught using educational materials that reflect the diversity of the United States. Eighty-three percent say students should be taught about how government works so they can be prepared to participate in democracy.

My colleagues, H.R. 5 misses the mark. Please, vote it down. I will be offering a substitute amendment. We have something we can stand for that will really, truly address the needs of students and parents.

Madam Chair, I include in the Record a letter from the Council of the Great City Schools in opposition to H.R. 5.

Council of the Great City Schools,

Washington, DC, March 23, 2023.

House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Dear Representative: The Council of the Great City Schools,

the coalition of the nation's largest central city school

districts, writes to offer our perspective on H.R. 5, the

Parents Bill of Rights Act pending before the Committee.

Urban schools have long supported and encouraged family

involvement in our students' education and view parental

engagement as an invaluable tool to further school

improvement. Yet H.R. 5 includes excessive and redundant

federal requirements that are costly, time-consuming, and

unnecessary to improve student performance. The bill also

contains problematic requirements, such as provisions that

impede school districts' ability to operate effective

instructional programs and ones that may deter the

identification of students that need mental health support.

The Council does not support H.R. 5 and urges House leaders

to develop legislation that focuses on the instructional

improvements and supports that provide our students with the

best opportunity for success in school and life.

Urban school districts provide an endless number of

engagement opportunities and have longstanding local policies

and state laws to foster this connection. Parental

involvement on school-based committees is routine in urban

schools, with positions designated specifically for parents

and family members to review library materials and textbooks,

budget expenditures, school safety procedures, and school

improvement plans to increase student learning. The inclusion

of federal requirements in H.R. 5 that, for example, mandate

a specific number of in-person teacher meetings per year, the

annual disclosure of library and reading materials at each

school, and detailed budget publications needlessly duplicate

commonplace practices in districts that customarily have

multiple parent-teacher meetings, online card catalogs, and

regular public meetings for developing annual district-level

and school-level budgets that are posted on the districts'

websites.

We also do not support provisions that hinder districts'

ability to provide the instruction and support that our

students need to succeed. Urban school districts have worked

hard to ensure that the benefits of content-rich resources

are available to our children and have invested in online

tools to promote an ``anywhere/anytime'' approach to

learning. Encouraging parental objections to the use of such

technology will likely prove extremely disruptive for all

students and creates avoidable strictures for school and

district staff. Similarly, any restrictions on access to

school psychologists and counselors to support mental health

will unsettle school districts that are prioritizing the

well-being of those students that need it most.

Urban school districts are committed to their students,

parents, and families and have long worked to keep them

informed, inspired, and ready to partner with their local

schools. Authentic parent engagement is essential to

increasing student achievement and readiness for college,

career, and life. The Council urges a NO vote on H.R. 5 and

encourages Congress to develop legislation that will help our

districts and school communities reach these goals.

Sincerely,

Raymond Hart,

Executive Director.

Madam Chair, I have a substitute amendment at the desk.

Madam Chair, I rise today to urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support my amendment in the nature of a substitute to H.R. 5.

My amendment in the nature of a substitute is a commonsense piece of legislation that makes tangible investments in parental involvement. It enhances the ability of school districts to involve all families, not just the privileged few.

By adopting this amendment in the nature of a substitute, we will invest in evidence-based, full-service community schools, public schools that coordinate closely with community organizations to improve the integration, accessibility, and effectiveness of services for students and families; provide families with access to critical wraparound services; and, importantly, improve student achievement.

We will be able to hire dedicated parent coordinators in public schools to work directly with parents, connecting them with the resources and support they need to help their children succeed and ultimately improve parental involvement and student success.

We will direct more investments toward the Department of Education Statewide Family Engagement Centers program so States can share best practices on parental engagement, and school districts can receive the support and training they need to increase parental participation and involvement.

Madam Chair, I was a very involved parent, and I talked to parents who wanted to come to school and wanted to participate, but they were working extra shifts, didn't speak English, or didn't have transportation. Let's break down those barriers.

Importantly, we will prohibit the banning of books and curricula in our public schools and restore the ability of students to receive a historically accurate, well-rounded education.

Madam Chair, I worked on this substitute with the input of stakeholders who are in our public schools each and every day, who are parents themselves, and who represent diverse communities in red and blue States across our Nation. I am proud to introduce this amendment in the nature of a substitute for consideration on the House floor because, unlike the bill it seeks to amend, it reflects the true diversity of our Nation and embodies the approach we should be taking to make lasting improvements to public education, an inclusive, collaborative, and evidence-based approach.

On behalf of all students and parents, I encourage all of my colleagues to vote for this amendment and soundly reject H.R. 5, a bill that should be named the politics over parents act.

Madam Chair, I thank the staff of the Education and the Workforce Committee for all of their help with this amendment in the nature of a substitute. I also thank my own staff in my office, Sujith Cherukumilli and Dr. Alfonso Garcia, both of whom have spent time as classroom teachers. I acknowledge the work of the staff on this important work, as well.

Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, in response, again, I reiterate that every single Democrat on our side of the aisle absolutely supports parental involvement and parental engagement. We talked about that in the debate on the bill.

About costs, it is my understanding that the so-called Parents Bill of Rights Act doesn't have any additional funding with all the extra obligations that are put on our schools, districts, and teachers.

There is no effort to silence parents. We want parents to be involved, peacefully, and peacefully state their concerns.

I know that Ranking Member Scott talked about how Democrats tried to put an amendment in to put some reasonableness in there. If you have 200 parents show up at a school board meeting, and each one of them wants to speak for 2 hours, that is not reasonable.

We absolutely support parental involvement. We want to do that. We want to provide that evidence-based engagement and, again, make the relationship collaborative, not adversarial.

That is why I encourage colleagues to support this collaborative, evidence-based approach to involve all parents in education.

Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I regret to inform you that I missed the vote on rollcall No. 144. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall No. 144.

Mr. Chair, I regret to inform you that I was unable to attend today's legislative session. Had I been present, I would have voted: ``yea'' on rollcall No. 61, ``yea'' on rollcall No. 62, ``yea'' on rollcall No. 63, ``yea'' on rollcall No. 64, ``yea'' on rollcall No. 65, ``yea'' on rollcall No. 66, ``yea'' on rollcall No. 67, ``yea'' on rollcall No. 68, ``yea'' on rollcall No. 69, ``yea'' on rollcall No. 70, ``yea'' on rollcall No. 71, ``yea'' on rollcall No. 72, ``yea'' on rollcall No. 73, ``yea'' on rollcall No. 74, ``yea'' on rollcall No. 75, ``yea'' on rollcall No. 76, ``yea'' on rollcall No. 77, ``yea'' on rollcall No. 78, ``yea'' on rollcall No. 79, ``yea'' on rollcall No. 80, ``yea'' on rollcall No. 81, ``yea'' on rollcall No. 82, ``yea'' on rollcall No. 83, ``yea'' on rollcall No. 84, ``yea'' on rollcall No. 85, ``yea'' on rollcall No. 86, ``yea'' on rollcall No. 87, ``yea'' on rollcall No. 88, ``yea'' on rollcall No. 89, ``yea'' on rollcall No. 90, ``yea'' on rollcall No. 91, ``yea'' on rollcall No. 92, and ``nay'' on rollcall No. 93.

Mr. Chair, I regret to inform you that I was unable to attend today's legislative session. Had I been present, I would have voted: ``yea'' on rollcall No. 37, ``yea'' on rollcall No. 38, ``yea'' on rollcall No. 39, ``yea'' on rollcall No. 40, ``yea'' on rollcall No. 41, ``nay'' on rollcall No. 42, ``yea'' on rollcall No. 43, ``nay'' on rollcall No. 44, ``yea'' on rollcall No. 45, ``yea'' on rollcall No. 46, ``yea'' on rollcall No. 47, ``yea'' on rollcall No. 48, ``yea'' on rollcall No. 49, ``yea'' on rollcall No. 50, ``yea'' on rollcall No. 51, ``yea'' on rollcall No. 52, ``yea'' on rollcall No. 53, ``yea'' on rollcall No. 54, ``yea'' on rollcall No. 55, ``yea'' on rollcall No. 56, ``yea'' on rollcall No. 57, ``yea'' on rollcall No. 58, ``yea'' on rollcall No. 59, and ``yea'' on rollcall No. 60.

Amendment No. 84 Offered by Ms. Lee of California

Mr. Speaker, I regret to inform you that I was unable to attend today's legislative session. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall No. 32 and ``yea'' on rollcall No. 33.

Mr. Speaker, l rise today in opposition to House Republicans' Select Committee on the Strategic Competition Between the United States and the Chinese Communist Party (CCP).

The purported focus of this Select Committee is essential to the national security and economic vitality of the United States. Unfortunately, there is a consistent trend by some in the House Republican Conference, and unfortunately by many across the country, to use xenophobic rhetoric that enflames violence bias, and hate crimes against members of the Asian American and Pacific Islander (AAPI) community.

Let me be clear. The CCP has an egregious record on human rights and forced labor, especially regarding the Uyghur people. Additionally, the CCP consistently uses underhanded economic tactics like manipulating its currency, stealing intellectual property, and using unfair trade practices to undercut American companies and gain an unfair advantage in the global market.

The CCP's record does not, however, mean we should condone xenophobic rhetoric, fearmongering, or attacks on individual people and AAPI community in the United States. This is especially concerning after the recent spikes in hate crimes and violence against Asian Americans. In 2021, hate crimes against Asian Americans increased by 339 percent and in 2020 they increased by 124 percent.

Many of my colleagues across the aisle have invoked racist terms like ``the China virus'' to ignore our own responsibility to safeguard public health throughout the COVID-19 pandemic. Under the Trump Administration, the Federal Bureau of Investigation's China Initiative profiled Asian American researchers in the United States as conducting espionage on behalf of the CCP. The China Initiative led to numerous false accusations, quashing opportunities for affected researchers, and failed to demonstrate any effective results until, wisely, Attorney General Garland ended this program.

It is necessary to grow the United States' global leadership and dedicate resources that strengthen our scientific enterprise, bolster research and development, grow our domestic semiconductor manufacturing base, and onshore critical supply chains. That is what Democrats did, in a bipartisan manner, last Congress by passing the CHIPS and Science Act. Unfortunately, most of my Republican colleagues opposed this bipartisan economic competition legislation when it passed the House and was subsequently signed into law by President Biden.

Under the leadership of President Biden, CHIPS and Science will put our nation on a path to reassert our international economic strength. Expanding the market for U.S. goods will help businesses grow in this country. Oregon exports everything from computer chips to potato chips, and more exports means more jobs at home. Competing globally necessitates a level playing field for all nations, including China. And when the playing field is level, America wins.

Although I remain hopeful that this Select Committee might be an important forum to focus on priorities for economic and national security priorities, we must make it clear that xenophobia, hate crimes, and stigma against Asian Americans have no place in our nation. I am heartbroken and infuriated by the violent attacks on members of our AAPI community and vandalism against AAPl-owned businesses.

Additionally, there are existing committees in the House with jurisdiction over the related issues that already have authority to examine and make progress on these important matters. And the Select Committee lacks legislative authority, so it will not deliver the solutions that House Republicans argue it will be working toward. Members of these existing committees have the experience necessary, many from our work last Congress on CHIPS and Science, to take the nuanced approach required to address these challenges. For these reasons, I cannot support the formation of this new Select Committee.

Madam Speaker, I strongly oppose violence and destruction of property regardless of venue.

The resolution on the floor today, however, is a distraction from the real issue regarding crisis pregnancy centers, which is that they regularly provide inaccurate, incomplete, and injurious information to people who are seeking guidance and fact-based healthcare.

Crisis pregnancy centers often engage in deceptive advertising to get people in the door, and then they mislead them about the services they provide.

A crisis pregnancy center in Texas, for example, was caught telling people that abortions cause mental illness and implied that abortions cause cancer

and infertility. I heard from someone who visited a crisis pregnancy center, and after she left she started getting calls from strangers who were told about her visit. Another woman was shown an ultrasound picture of her kidney and was told it was a baby.

This deception is unconscionable, which is why I will soon introduce the Stop Anti-Abortion Disinformation Act to direct the Federal Trade Commission to issue rules prohibiting unfair or deceptive advertising of abortion services.

At a time when reproductive rights are under attack, it is especially important for anyone seeking abortion care to be able to find a real healthcare provider they can trust who will respect their bodily autonomy and their privacy.

Madam Speaker, this bill is extremist, dangerous, and unnecessary.

It is extremist because it would criminalize doctors with up to 5 years in prison and put them in fear of providing lifesaving, medically necessary procedures to those who are pregnant.

It is dangerous because the bill has no exceptions to protect the health of the patient and no exceptions in cases where there is a serious fetal anomaly.

It is unnecessary because, as Mr. Nadler said, it is already a crime to kill a baby born alive.

Many of my Republican colleagues talk about keeping Big Government out of people's lives. But when it comes to the hardest and most intimate decision--decisions that should be made between patients and their healthcare providers--these same colleagues think the government knows better.

Republicans in Congress and conservative extremists on the Supreme Court are waging a war on reproductive healthcare, a war on bodily autonomy, and a war on the medical community and the doctor-patient relationship.

I will continue to stand up against these assaults on reproductive freedom and against extremist, dangerous, unnecessary, and misguided policies like this bill.

Madam Speaker, I rise to honor the career of my colleague and neighboring Oregon delegation member, Congressman Kurt Schrader. Kurt's long career in public service started in Salem, where he served in both the Oregon House and Senate before being elected to Congress in 2008. Kurt has always been known as a practical lawmaker who wants to get things done for the people of his district. As the sole veterinarian in Congress, Kurt is a prominent voice in the work to end animal cruelty and advocated for bipartisan solutions to safeguard public health. Kurt is also known for his leadership in fighting to uplift Oregon farmers. Through his service on the Agriculture Committee and in strengthening several farm bills, Kurt has helped put Oregon's specialty crops in a place to compete and succeed.

I am particularly grateful to have partnered with Kurt to hold our government accountable for its long and shameful history of separating Native American children from their families. Kurt has thoughtfully led our work regarding the challenges around Chemawa Indian School in Salem, Oregon, and our efforts to provide oversight on whether the school can protect the well-being of its students and get them on a path to academic success. Kurt has demanded answers from both Democratic and Republican Administrations and has not wavered from the fight to stand up for the students and their families.

Kurt will depart with a strong legacy of serving his constituents and championing bipartisan legislative successes. I offer my best wishes to Kurt, his wife, Susan, and his hard-working staff in Oregon and in Washington, D.C.