Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise to recognize a very soothing, informed, and familiar voice in the High Country in North Carolina: Tom Lanier.

On July 23, Tom will be celebrating his 50th year on the air at WATA in Boone--a monumental milestone.

In both Boone and surrounding areas, he is highly regarded as a true staple as he continues his early morning radio program without fanfare. With half a century of serving the High Country, you would be hard- pressed to find someone who does not know of Tom and his commitment to keeping people informed.

Tom, the service you continue to provide to our community is invaluable, and it is a testament to the caliber of person you are.

Congratulations, and here is to many more years on the air.

Mr. Speaker: ``We turned a promise broken into a promise kept.'' That is what President Biden said to union members and retirees about his bailout of union-run multiemployer pension plans.

These plans need reform. But instead of reform, we got a bailout. Is this really a promise kept?

The most recent bailout will disburse $90 billion to multiemployer pension plans. This is a short-term fix, one that fails to address the possibility of future

insolvency and hurts taxpayers in the process.

It seems the left would rather dump taxpayer money into a broken multiemployer pension system to appease unions than do the hard work of drafting bipartisan legislation.

In fulfilling this promise to his union buddies, President Biden ignored his responsibility to safeguard American taxpayers.

Mr. Speaker, last time I checked, the President serves all Americans, not just union bosses. Perhaps his memory has failed him yet again.

Mr. Speaker, the left's woke agenda is putting the retirement savings of many Americans at risk.

The Biden administration's proposed rule would require retirement plan managers to consider environmental, social, and governance factors when making investment decisions for workers and retirees. These factors can include a company's carbon footprint, hiring practices, and whether it is unionized.

ESG factors are subjective and arbitrary, making them a perfect weapon for the left. Forcing ESG standards on retirement accounts is a clear violation of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, which requires fiduciaries to put the financial interests of plan participants first.

ESG requirements pressure investors to subject retirement savings to low-yield investments. This is irresponsible. We should be doing all that we can to safeguard the savings of retirees instead of putting them at risk to satisfy the woke mob.

Mr. Speaker, we must equip workers with the tools for success by empowering employers to play a more influential role in our Nation's workforce development system. To do this, we must embrace a flexible, employer-driven apprenticeship model.

Under the previous administration, a task force composed of business leaders, educational institutions, and trade associations recommended reducing the regulatory burden faced by businesses, allowing them to be flexible in their apprenticeship program requirements to meet the varying needs of different industries.

Industry-Recognized Apprenticeship Programs, IRAPs, help cut through the overly prescriptive and burdensome red tape many new and small businesses face. But the Biden administration killed IRAPs and is actively working to limit job creators' input by doubling down on registered apprenticeships and foolishly ignoring any alternatives.

Ending this innovative and successful program will hurt students, jobseekers, and job creators.

Madam Speaker, I rise to recognize Randy Marion, the owner of Randy Marion Automotive Group and a true titan of entrepreneurship in North Carolina.

Recently, Randy was selected as the recipient of the 2022 Lifetime Achievement Award from the North Carolina Automobile Dealers Association.

His automotive group is one of the largest car dealerships in the Carolinas, and he has built a reputation that is second to none.

This award is a testament to his entrepreneurial spirit, civic leadership, and commitment to furthering the automobile industry within the Tar Heel State, as well as his being a wonderful role model and citizen.

I would be remiss if I did not mention the generous, philanthropic efforts that he and his wonderful wife Betty continue to make within their community as well.

Congratulations, Randy, on this tremendous accomplishment.

I wish him many more years of serving the State of North Carolina and continuing to serve as the great role model that he is.

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my colleague from Virginia yielding time. This is essentially the same bill we passed overwhelmingly yesterday, except it was improved by our colleagues in the Senate. This bill is a more targeted approach that includes temporary support for students and schools. It puts an end to the permanent pandemic narrative that led to unnecessary Federal programs with little return to taxpayers. For more than 2 years, broad nutrition waivers provided free meals to everyone, including wealthy families. This legislation returns these programs to regular order.

Most importantly, this bill is fully paid for. It is an example of respecting taxpayer funds, something the Federal Government is in short supply of.

Simply put, this bill puts our school nutrition programs back on track, so taxpayers, schools, and students are better served.

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

Mr. Speaker, today is the 50th anniversary of the passage of Title IX, legislation that revolutionized women's sports and women's access to education.

Since the Education Amendments of 1972 passed, women's participation in sports has skyrocketed. Mr. Speaker, 50 years ago, only 1 out of every 27 women participated in college-level sports. Today, that number is one in five.

Title IX granted women equal access to educational opportunities, including college admissions and teaching positions at postsecondary institutions. Because of this, more women are going to college today than ever before.

While this monumental legislation has strengthened our country and our workforce beyond belief, it is under threat today. Expanding this legislation to include other designations like sexual orientation and gender identity goes beyond the intent of Congress.

It also dilutes protections for women, and in some cases, threatens their safety.

We already knew Democrats were willing to weaponize Title IX when they used it to deny due process to students accused of sexual assault on college campuses.

The rights of due process should not end simply because someone is a student, but, thankfully, the Trump administration set things right on this front.

Now, new threats are emerging. While the advancements made under Title IX have been numerous, the Biden administration is attempting to use this legislation to further a progressive social agenda.

For example, the Biden administration is threatening to hold school lunches hostage if K-12 schools do not agree to a slew of controversial gender-neutral policies.

One of these policies will likely be forcing schools to allow biological males to compete in girls' sports, something already happening at many schools across the country.

The results are in: It erases women. Let me say that again: It erases women.

Ignoring the biological differences between the male and female body is a catastrophe for women, especially in sports. It destroys a level playing field and makes women second-class citizens in their own sports.

Even the international stage has begun to take notice as the International Swimming Federation voted to restrict many transgender women from competing in international swimming competitions. We have already seen women's records in swimming and track obliterated by biological males.

Athletes give their all to be the best they can be. It is cruel to take the chance of success away from women, especially when it could mean losing out on a college scholarship or other important opportunities.

Perhaps even more concerning is the threat these policies pose to women's safety. It is completely irresponsible to take away a woman's right to privacy and security by mandating gender-neutral spaces.

Allowing biological males, even if they identify as a woman, into women's locker rooms, bathrooms, jails, and domestic violence shelters poses a threat to the safety of women.

I shouldn't have to spell this out for you. It is common sense. Today should be a day of celebration, one where we marvel at the gains women have made in sports and in education, but the Biden administration's actions have certainly put a damper on this momentous anniversary.

It is time for Democrats to regain their senses, and, once again, commit to protecting--protecting--the integrity of women's sports and the safety of women. This political agenda is destructive and unbecoming of a country dedicated to equal opportunity for all.

Madam Speaker, we always hear Democrats preach about choice when it comes to the issue of abortion. However, we never hear them discuss the other side of the coin, choosing life instead of death.

We do not hear them condemn criminal acts, such as the defacing of

churches or crisis pregnancy centers being firebombed and vandalized by radical progressive activists.

If they believe choice is so important, why don't they respect the people who refuse to choose death and instead choose life?

Democrats use ``choice'' as a subjective term. They agree with choice as long as you agree with them--choice on their terms.

Madam Speaker, Americans overwhelmingly choose life. We would all do well to remember that.

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for yielding time.

Madam Speaker, evidence is clear that students are able to focus more at

school if they are receiving adequate nutrition. Too many students are still suffering from the harmful effects of school closures, and we cannot afford to let students fall further behind.

The rise in food prices is putting most Americans in a tight spot. The same is true for schools. The bipartisan Keep Kids Fed Act will empower schools to meet the crises our country is facing, from supply chain problems to record-high inflation.

It is, however, extremely important to emphasize that the support provided in this legislation is both targeted and temporary, as all aid should be. We also worked hard to ensure that this legislation was budget-neutral so it does not put additional burden on taxpayers. Importantly, this legislation will return our Nation's school meal programs to regular order. This is the primary reason I support this legislation.

For over 2 years, Democrats used a permanent pandemic narrative to increase Federal spending across the board, including within school meal programs. This has fueled inflation. This is not only irresponsible but ignores the narrow limits Congress purposefully placed on these programs.

Congress never intended to provide universal free breakfasts and lunches to all K-12 students regardless of need. By returning these programs back to normal, we can uphold our responsibility to taxpayers and the principle that aid should be targeted and temporary.

The Keep Kids Fed Act offers a viable solution to the problems facing school meal programs while also refocusing these programs on their purpose: helping students in need.

Madam Speaker, though what I am about to say will surely cause a strong case of hypertension among my Democrat colleagues and their union allies, I won't hold back: Unions didn't build the middle class in America. Entrepreneurs and hardworking Americans did.

Tomorrow marks the 75th anniversary of the landmark legislation that enables States to pass right-to-work laws, and it is a cause for celebration.

Since 1947, 27 States have decided to allow employees to choose for themselves whether to belong to a union or not. What a smart decision passing right-to-work laws was, Madam Speaker. They give workers the freedom to make their own choices when it comes to paying union dues.

With rising inflation and gas prices, workers should not be forced to hand their hard-earned paychecks over to the unions in order to keep their jobs.

Time and again, unions prove that worker representation plays second fiddle to a partisan political agenda that comes as no surprise to anyone.

For example, the AFL-CIO's financial disclosure form shows that they spent more than $37 million on political activity and lobbying while spending just $16 million to represent workers. Workers should never be forced to fund political causes they disagree with.

The truth is, right-to-work laws are good for unions, too. Making union membership a choice instead of a mandatory condition of employment improves unions by making them more responsive to worker needs.

It is no secret that unions in mandatory dues States neglect the needs of workers. It isn't until unions have to fight to get and keep members that they make workers a priority. Giving workers a choice gives workers leverage, and this can lead to more transparency and accountability.

The truth is that right-to-work laws are good for the economy and bolster industries. Data shows that States with right-to-work laws have lower unemployment and higher job and wage growth than States without such laws. Worker freedom leads to flourishing. What a concept, Madam Speaker.

One study shows that right-to-work States attract more manufacturing and construction jobs than States with compulsory union membership. States which have enacted right-to-work laws in the past 22 years have a 20.7 percent higher manufacturing share than they would have if they did not protect worker freedom. According to the National Right to Work Committee, factory employment rose by 150,000 in right-to-work States in 2021 alone.

These numbers speak for themselves. Being pro-right-to-work means being progrowth.

In the face of such overwhelming positive figures, I find it mind- boggling that Democrats want to push the radical Protecting the Right to Organize Act, the PRO Act. The PRO Act would overturn right-to-work laws in 27 States and force workers to line the wallets of union bosses.

PRO Act policies will undermine worker choice, burden employers, and harm our economy for years to come. That is why I have been working in Congress to oppose this legislation and to hold the Biden administration accountable when it tries to push PRO Act policies by executive fiat.

Madam Speaker, it is time to embrace worker freedom, a quintessential American value, and it is time to protect worker rights. I am proud to celebrate the 75th anniversary of the right to work.

Let's make every State a right-to-work State. I guarantee the country would be much better off.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to recognize Randy Marion, the owner of Randy Marion Automotive Group and a true titan of entrepreneurship in North Carolina.

Recently, Randy was selected as the recipient of the 2022 Lifetime Achievement Award from the North Carolina Automobile Dealers Association. His automotive group is one of the largest car dealerships in the Carolinas, and he has built a reputation that is second to none.

This award is a testament to his entrepreneurial spirit, civic leadership, and commitment to furthering the automobile industry within the Tar Heel State, as well as his being a wonderful role model and citizen.

Congratulations, Randy, on this tremendous accomplishment. Here is to many more years of serving the State of North Carolina and continuing to serve as the great role model that you are.

Madam Speaker, I rise to congratulate the staff, volunteers, and board members of Oak Hill Charter School in Caldwell County, North Carolina.

The school was unanimously approved by the North Carolina Charter Schools Advisory Board, and its doors will officially open this August.

This accomplishment is amplified by the fact that Oak Hill is one of only two accelerated schools to earn this opportunity this year. Let me tell you, Madam Speaker, this is no small feat.

Recently, I received a heartfelt email from Kelly McIntyre, the board chair of the school. She marveled at how God has guided the journey of everyone involved at Oak Hill and how along the way the right people and resources came together in perfect harmony.

Kelly, I agree with you wholeheartedly. God's hand has been in your work every step of the way.

Right now, nearly every single class at Oak Hill has a waiting list. Families are beyond enthusiastic at this opportunity for their children.

The outpouring of support from the surrounding community must also be recognized. Donations of furniture, school supplies, and other essential items continue to stream in on a weekly basis, and volunteers continue without delay to see projects through.

Madam Speaker, there is a quote from American anthropologist Margaret Mead that encapsulates the story of Oak Hill perfectly: ``Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world; indeed, it's the only thing that ever has.''

It is clear that these committed citizens are also working in the will of God. In Kelly's email to me, she remarked that, ``It's the most amazing thing to see this mission that started as just a thought, a spark, grow into a force that I believe will be life-changing for many.''

Madam Speaker, that sentiment is profound, and it is a direct reflection of the opportunity that charter schools provide across the country.

Parents, teachers, and communities recognize the value of charter schools because they challenge a failing status quo. Charter schools are guaranteed operational autonomy to provide rich alternatives to students and families. Most importantly, they provide educational freedom and choice, two fundamental principles that are desperately needed in education right now.

Instead of being held accountable to the education bureaucracy, charter schools are accountable to students, families, and their communities, as they should be, Madam Speaker.

Congratulations again to everyone at Oak Hill Charter School. The work you will undertake and the opportunities you will provide to our next generation of leaders in the coming months and years will be nothing short of spectacular.

May God continue to bless you in your mission of serving the Caldwell County community.

Mr. Speaker, Democrats keep forcing taxpayers to bail out failing and mismanaged union-run multiemployer pension plans, and it needs to stop.

The Committee on Education and Labor has dedicated considerable time and held countless hearings on the problems posed by multiemployer pension plans and the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation's, PBGC's, multiemployer insurance program.

Unfortunately, unlike previous bipartisan legislation to address the failing system, our Democrat colleagues decided to go it alone by enacting the deceitful American Rescue Plan Act, ARPA.

Under the guise of COVID relief, ARPA included an irresponsible and uncapped taxpayer bailout of failing and insolvent multiemployer pension plans. Let me repeat, there is no cap on the amount of taxpayer dollars that PBGC may send to multiemployer plans.

This is especially concerning given that multiemployer plans are currently underfunded by $756 billion.

Unsurprisingly, the cost of ARPA's pension bailout program continues to grow. The Congressional Budget Office originally estimated it would cost taxpayers $86 billion. Five months later, PBGC estimated it would likely distribute $94.2 billion. After 2 more months, PBGC estimated it would likely distribute $97.2 billion and, in one scenario, could distribute upward of $147 billion.

To date, PBGC has disbursed $6.7 billion to 26 plans, and this is just the beginning.

In April, the Central States, Southeast and Southwest Areas Pension Plan

requested a staggering $35 billion from taxpayers. PBGC is reviewing an additional eight applications requesting a total of $1.1 billion. In all, PBGC is expected to send money to over 250 pension plans.

PBGC has confirmed what we knew to be true, but others refused to admit: ARPA's taxpayer-funded bailout will not fix a thing.

In September, the agency stated the massive influx of taxpayer dollars will only delay the immediate insolvency of the multiemployer insurance program, and insolvency is still likely. Simply throwing money at plans will not solve the problem.

ARPA failed to address the underlying structural issues in the multiemployer system that contributed to the crisis, thus ensuring that plan mismanagement and underfunding will persist. In fact, ARPA includes a galling provision that explicitly bars PBGC from reforming plan governance or altering plan-funding rules of plans receiving a bailout.

It is clear to me that the mismanagement of multiemployer plans and the risks they pose to workers, retirees, and the taxpayer cannot be ignored. Congress must require multiemployer plans to measure their liabilities accurately and collect adequate contributions to fund benefits.

Failing and insolvent plans must stop making promises that they are unable and unwilling to keep. It is common practice for insolvent plans, which do not have enough funds to pay current retirees, to continue allowing active participants to accrue benefits and enroll new workers into the plan. This is deceptive. This is wrong. This must stop.

Congress should increase multiemployer insurance premiums to account for the risk that underfunded plans pose to PBGC.

Multiemployer plans pay a meager flat-rate premium of $31 per participant. In contrast, the single-employer program requires plans to pay an $88 flat-rate premium in addition to a variable rate premium based on a plan's level of underfunding.

Decades of chronic underfunding and false promises have put millions of workers and retirees at risk. By propping up this clearly unsustainable system without enacting reforms, ARPA continues to enable and encourage the irresponsible behaviors that caused this crisis.

Taxpayers saving for their own retirements should not be on the hook to pay for the broken promises of union-run multiemployer pension plans.

There must be accountability for this gross mismanagement and real reform to ensure the multiemployer pension system does not continue to deceive workers and the American people.

Madam Speaker, I rise to recognize and wish a happy 88th birthday to an exemplary North Carolinian, Lindsay Holcomb, Jr., of Winston-Salem, North Carolina. It has been my honor and pleasure to know Lindsay for nearly 30 years, and I understand what a remarkable man he truly is.

After graduating from Duke University in under 4 years, he went on to serve in both the United States Army and National Guard. Later, he became president of Pine State Knitwear, a prominent textile manufacturer in Mount Airy, North Carolina.

Additionally, he served on the Board of Trustees for Northern Surry Hospital for three decades, and was chairman four of those years.

That is an impressive resume. But there is more, much more to his story. He served in pivotal leadership roles within the community as well and showed his generosity in many ways.

He and his late brother, Smith, funded a care wing at Arbor Acres, an independent living community in Winston-Salem, in honor of their mother who suffered from dementia. They also donated the waiting room in the Perry Clinic at Arbor Acres.

He is the kind of person who would give the shirt off his back to help someone in need, and his service to others speaks volumes about his character.

God bless you, Lindsay, and happy 88th birthday. Here is to many more.

Recognizing the Service of William Morgan, Jr.

Madam Speaker, I rise to recognize William Morgan, Jr., of Statesville, North Carolina. For the last 8\1/2\ years, he has served as a city council member and mayor pro tem of Statesville. In these two roles, he has excelled tremendously.

I have had the pleasure of knowing William for many years, and there is no question about how dedicated he is to serving others.

William, your tireless advocacy efforts, and record of accomplishments for the city of Statesville and its many

citizens has not gone unnoticed. Thank you for your service to our great State, and may God bless you and Tina as you enter this new chapter of your life.

It Is Time to Re-educate Washington

Madam Speaker, Washington needs to be re-educated on the meaning of ``shall not be infringed.''

The Second Amendment insulates the American people from the Federal Government exerting undue influence over them; otherwise known as infringement.

When the Federal Government acts in haste, the room for error is drastically compounded; as is the case with the Democrat gun control bills that are before this very body.

Let me be very clear: The horrific tragedies that occurred in Uvalde and Buffalo are truly heartbreaking. I continue to pray for our society and for the families of the men, women, and children who were senselessly murdered.

Before proposals are put on the table, however, this problem must be diagnosed in its entirety.

The Supreme Court has recognized the right of individual citizens to keep and bear arms under the Second Amendment.

Further, the Court specifically recognizes that the inherent right to self-defense is protected by the Second Amendment as well.

A study conducted in 2013 estimated that firearms are used in defense from half a million to 3 million times annually. Americans exercise their Second Amendment rights when protecting their family and property. It was not written so that one could go hunting.

As former Senator Tom Coburn once said, ``It was to create a force to balance a tyrannical force here.''

The Federal Government should not be in the business of issuing edicts that threaten the Second Amendment rights of Americans. It is a right that cannot be infringed.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 2377, the Extreme Risk Protection Order Act. Simply put, this bill tramples upon the Second Amendment by means of destroying the Fifth.

However, I would like to direct my argument against the bill towards another amendment, the Tenth, which reserves powers to the States. Nineteen States have already enacted red flag laws in some form or another, and all 31 additional States have the authority to do so.

The Federal Government must ask itself whether this bill will add any measure of additional security the States are not already able to make for themselves. The Federal Government must also look to these States to gauge whether red flag laws have any effect on gun violence at all.

It is certainly not the case in Chicago, Illinois, a city subject to State red flag laws, which leads all American cities in the number of persons killed and injured in mass shootings over the past 4 years. Red flag laws have saved no lives in Chicago.

This bill is redundant, not to mention likely ineffective. Americans deserve better than this.