Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, we have certainly heard our fair share of hot air from Democrats as they attack the Constitution and the rights of Americans.

A Member from Rhode Island recently said that the constitutional rights of the American people are BS. President Biden claimed that the Second Amendment was not absolute.

This is a new and dangerous standard that is being set--that the Constitution is merely a doormat that a Member of Congress wipes his or her feet on.

It will surely pain my Democrat colleagues to hear this, but I will say it anyway: the Constitution is absolute.

If they have a problem respecting our founding document, then why did they take a take an oath to protect and defend it in the first place?

Perhaps they need to do some soul searching.

Mr. Speaker, with his poll numbers tanking, President Biden is trying to buy off voters with mass student loan forgiveness. While this elitist handout may win over his radical progressive base, it is a slap in the face to taxpayers, especially those who never went to college or spent years paying off their own loans.

Make no mistake, blanket loan forgiveness is simply retroactive free college.

Why should a farmer in Idaho or a construction worker in New Jersey pay the tuition bills of an Ivy League lawyer or a wealthy doctor?

Taxpayers are already footing the bill for Biden's student loan repayment moratorium at the cost of $5 billion every month. Now the Biden administration wants to take hundreds of billions more for his student loan forgiveness scam.

This is wrong and unfair.

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Michigan for yielding.

I rise in support of this bipartisan legislation to allow nurse practitioners and physician assistants to act as eligible providers under the Federal Employees' Compensation Act program

within the scope of their practice under State law.

Under current law, nurse practitioners and physician assistants are unable to treat Federal workers covered by FECA, even though most State workers' compensation programs authorize them to provide this care for private-sector employees.

To be clear, H.R. 6087 defers to State law and does not expand the scope of practice. This legislation aligns FECA with other Federal programs that already include care provided by nurse practitioners and physician assistants, such as Medicare and the Veterans Health Administration program.

H.R. 6087 would increase healthcare access and choice for Federal employees when many areas of our country are grappling with provider shortages, especially in rural areas.

According to the National Rural Health Association, nurse practitioners and physician assistants account for a third of all primary care clinicians treating Medicare beneficiaries nationwide, and they are closer to half of the primary care clinicians in rural areas.

Improving healthcare access for FECA beneficiaries would allow injured Federal employees to return to the workforce more quickly, benefiting both employees and taxpayers.

I urge my colleagues to support this commonsense, bipartisan improvement to our Federal workers' compensation program. I thank my committee colleagues, Representatives Walberg and Courtney, and Chairman Scott for advancing this important legislation.

Madam Speaker, due to personal reasons I was unable to make votes this week.

Had I been present, I would have voted YEA on Roll Call No. 188; NAY on Roll Call No. 189; YEA on Roll Call No. 190; YEA on Roll Call No. 191; YEA on Roll Call No. 192; NAY on Roll Call No. 193; YEA on Roll Call No. 194; YEA on Roll Call No. 195; YEA on Roll Call No. 196; YEA on Roll Call No. 197; YEA on Roll Call No. 198; YEA on Roll Call No. 199; YEA on Roll Call No. 200; YEA on Roll Call No. 201; YEA on Roll Call No. 202; YEA on Roll Call No. 203; YEA on Roll Call No. 204; YEA on Roll Call No. 205; YEA on Roll Call No. 206; YEA on Roll Call No. 207; NAY on Roll Call No. 208; NAY on Roll Call No. 209; YEA on Roll Call No. 210; NAY on Roll Call No. 211; NAY on Roll Call No. 212; YEA on Roll Call No. 213; YEA on Roll Call No. 214; YEA on Roll Call No. 215; YEA on Roll Call No. 216; YEA on Roll Call No. 217; YEA on Roll Call No. 218; YEA on Roll Call No. 219; NAY on Roll Call No. 220; NAY on Roll Call No. 221; NAY on Roll Call No. 222; YEA on Roll Call No. 223; YEA on Roll Call No. 224; YEA on Roll Call No. 225; YEA on Roll Call No. 226; YEA on Roll Call No. 227; YEA on Roll Call No. 228; NAY on Roll Call No. 229; NAY on Roll Call No. 230; YEA on Roll Call No. 231; and NAY on Roll Call No. 232.

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

Madam Speaker, Republicans are committed to preparing America's workforce for the 21st century. This reauthorization of the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act, WIOA, will not help our country live up to its potential. In fact, this reauthorization moves our workplace development system in the wrong direction.

Our labor market is not facing a lack of job openings or a lack of workers. Currently there are 11.3 million open jobs, but unfortunately there are too few Americans with the skills needed to fill them effectively. That is why we need a robust workforce development system that will prepare workers for in-demand skills.

During the Education and Labor Committee markup of H.R. 7309, Republicans offered an amendment that would empower employers to respond to local economic needs; streamline the workforce development system by increasing local collaboration and putting program qualification decisions at the State and local level; strengthen outcomes and accountability by adding evidence-based practices, maintaining common performance-based metrics, funding programs with a track record of success, and improving transparency measures; and reduce bureaucracy by requiring the Department of Labor to address regulatory bottlenecks.

Democrats blocked all those commonsense proposals.

Republicans also pushed to allocate more funds for upskilling workers and support robust postsecondary education programs that focus on in- demand skills. Instead of embracing innovative models, Democrats rely on an 85-year-old Federal apprenticeship model from the Great Depression. This model has not been working and throwing more money at it won't change that.

Our Nation's job creators are in a far better position to help run workforce development programs, but this bill puts Washington in the driver's seat. Instead of putting workers first, this legislation makes bureaucrats and labor unions the priority.

For example, provisions in this bill increase the size of State and local governing boards and dilute employer input to increase the power of labor unions. Too often, labor unions have the interests of their union bosses in mind instead of the interests of workers. Giving big labor an outsized role on these boards will render these programs less responsive to industry needs.

H.R. 7309 also promotes progressive gender ideology and critical race theory by requiring States to develop and publish State equity reports regarding performance outcomes on race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, and gender identity. Leave it to the left to destroy equality in pursuit of equity, a word one author aptly described as ``dispensing unequal treatment in order to achieve equal outcomes.'' Taking the focus of our job programs off upskilling workers and putting it onto a woke agenda will do a disservice to all our jobseekers.

This legislation also increases cumbersome administrative hurdles for employers. If we want employers to participate in these programs, we need a system that has fewer barriers and is easier to navigate. This process should be streamlined instead of making it more complex.

Instead of making this program more efficient, provisions in this reauthorization will end up costing taxpayers more. H.R. 7309 will require Job Corps contractors to comply with onerous local prevailing wage requirements. This will significantly increase the cost of all Job Corps projects without improving the program's effectiveness.

On top of that, the bill weakens expectations for Job Corps' success. Job Corps is a program that has been fraught with negative issues for decades. This is a program in which 30 different government reports and audits have raised concerns over its safety and security. People have literally been killed in this program, and the left wants to make it less accountable. Other provisions in the bill water down performance metrics, reducing the ability of Congress to measure the success of workforce development programs.

More accountability and measurable outcomes are clearly necessary. According to a 2018 investigation by the Tampa Bay Times, some local workforce boards had significantly misreported their outcomes and took credit for finding thousands of jobs for people who never even participated in the program.

Other data demonstrate that these programs are not always effective, even when being operated honestly. Less than one-quarter of young enrollees and barely one-third of adults exited programs with occupations related to the workforce development program in which they were enrolled. Clearly, something isn't working. Let me repeat: Fewer than 25 percent of young enrollees and only 30 percent of adults came out of the programs into jobs related to the workforce development program in which they were enrolled.

If we hope to enhance our Nation's economic competitiveness and upskill workers for in-demand jobs, we must create a workforce development system that actually works. This bill utterly fails to do that. The American people deserve so much better.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Grothman).

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Hill).

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

Madam Speaker, in FY 2021, taxpayers spent about $1.8 billion on adult, dislocated worker, and youth activities under title I of WIOA. According to the Department of Labor, only $537 million, or less than 30 percent of that money, went toward ``training services.''

Most people assume that our Nation's workforce development system is primarily focused on providing workers the skills they need to be successful in the modern economy. Unfortunately, that is not accurate.

Not surprisingly, with so little focus on actual skills development, the outcomes for these programs are poor. Among youth participants, less than one-quarter exited the program with employment in an occupation related to the services they received from the system. Among adults and dislocated workers, a little more than one-third exited with employment related to their program.

Republicans would like to address these shortcomings and believe this reauthorization presents an opportunity to do that. The Republican proposal we offered during committee, and to the Rules Committee, increases the percentage of funding going toward skills development. We proposed reforms to bring more employers to the table and engage more employers in the workforce system.

Unfortunately, the Democrats' bill rejects those proposals and, instead, would actually make these problems worse. As a result of provisions in H.R. 7309, an even smaller portion of WIOA funding will be directed toward skills development.

The bill will also dilute employers' involvement in State and local governance of the workforce system, which is the opposite of what we should be doing.

Madam Speaker, this bill is a missed opportunity. I urge my colleagues to oppose the base bill so we can get back to work and truly reform this program to get more workers the skills they need to fill the economy's open jobs.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Rutherford).

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

Madam Speaker, by reversing some of the key reforms made in the bipartisan 2014 WIOA reauthorization, H.R. 7309 takes our workforce system backwards. It does this by imposing more bureaucratic hurdles to job creators and reducing program accountability. It is time to stop being so frivolous with taxpayer dollars.

This bill proposes pouring more money into an already expensive program. In FY 2021, taxpayers spent $1.8 billion on programs under title 1 of WIOA alone. This is too much money, especially as inflation is still at a 41-year high.

The House of Representatives has been entrusted with the power of the purse. It is time we took this responsibility more seriously. The Nation deserves a workforce system that will actually prepare Americans for in-demand jobs. Unfortunately, this bill fails to protect taxpayers at a time of rampant inflation, pushes a radical progressive agenda, expands Federal control over the workforce, and embraces that failed status quo rather than pursuing opportunities for innovation.

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

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

Madam Speaker, this en bloc includes several amendments that I believe would improve the underlying legislation so I will vote for the en bloc.

Unfortunately, I must also note that the en bloc includes three amendments to which I have concerns.

The Gottheimer amendment reduces the flexibility the workforce system needs to meet the needs of workers.

The Harder amendment will reduce the percentage of funds going to help youth receive the skills they need to enter the workforce.

And the Lee amendment authorizes a duplicative study that would not be a reasonable use of taxpayer funds.

However, on balance, this en bloc will improve the underlying legislation. This group of amendments better focuses WIOA on in-demand jobs, decreases duplication by encouraging better alignment between K- 12 education providers and local workforce development boards, and includes information on entrepreneurship in career and skills development services.

Madam Speaker, I hope my colleagues will support this set of amendments, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Madam Speaker, the amendments in this en bloc will refocus the workforce development system on the individuals it was created to serve: jobseekers and employers.

We must make sure that WIOA is helping all American jobseekers get the skills they need to compete in our modern economy. We must also make sure that WIOA programs are helping employers connect with skilled workers, instead of saddling them with unnecessary requirements that have no proven effectiveness.

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

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

Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to the amendment. This Democratic en bloc creates new programs, authorizes new funding, expands bureaucracy on workforce development boards, imposes new mandates on States and local areas, detracts from skills development services, and transforms WIOA from a workforce program into a welfare program.

This laundry list of problems is not what our Nation's jobseekers need. I cannot agree to saddle employers and workers with new Federal mandates that will make it harder for them to grow the economy and better individual lives.

I urge my colleagues to oppose the package, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Madam Speaker, we should focus on empowering jobseekers to select skills development providers that will prepare them for in-demand jobs and make sure that employers are involved in this process so we can close the skills gap.

We should also streamline the workforce system so that funding is not wasted on unnecessary bureaucracy and administrative overhead. This funding should instead be directed toward upskilling workers.

Unfortunately, this Democratic en bloc misses the mark on each of these fronts.

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

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Good).

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

This en bloc includes several amendments that I believe would vastly improve the underlying legislation.

First, these amendments would bring needed flexibility and innovation to the workforce development system when it comes to apprenticeships. Democrats have, unfortunately, chosen to double down on the outdated registered apprenticeship model rather than meet employers where they are at. This group of amendments includes proposals that encourage innovation to occur so that apprenticeships can meet the needs of more employers.

Second, one of the amendments would ensure that States provide a realistic and workable timetable for awarding grants and contracts for adult basic education. This is simply good governance. States should not hold on to funding indefinitely that is intended to be directed toward jobseekers. This amendment will make sure the funding goes where it is intended and doesn't get stuck with bureaucrats to the detriment of individuals seeking basic education services.

Third, WIOA should be focused first and foremost on providing skills development services for jobseekers. It is unfortunate that H.R. 7309 adds vague language encouraging supportive services to include ``healthcare supports.'' While I was pleased that the longstanding Hyde amendment was secured and will apply to WIOA funds for fiscal year 2022 appropriations, I will always fight to see the Hyde amendment applied to ensure Federal funds do not support the killing of babies. It is of utmost importance that taxpayer dollars do not go to pay for killing babies, and this amendment would guarantee that.

The right to life is our most fundamental and sacred right and must always be protected. I will always remain vigilant to ensure that taxpayer funds do not pay for the killing of babies.

Madam Speaker, I hope my colleagues will support this set of amendments, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I have a couple of other speakers, so I am not prepared to close.

Madam Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Jacobs).

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Mrs. Miller).

Madam Speaker, I am prepared to close, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, the amendments in this en bloc will refocus the workforce development system on the individuals it was created to serve: jobseekers and employers. We must make sure that WIOA is helping all American jobseekers get the skills they need to compete in our modern economy.

We must also make sure that WIOA programs are helping employers connect with skilled workers instead of saddling them with unnecessary requirements that have no proven effectiveness.

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

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Iowa (Mrs. Miller- Meeks) for her great work on this committee and for bringing forth this amendment. It is an excellent amendment, and I support it.

We need to do everything we can to improve the workforce development programs in our country.

Madam Speaker, today I stand in opposition to H.R. 5129, the Community Services Block Grant Modernization Act of 2022, CSBG.

While I recognize that the CSBG program has been serving those in need for decades, I do not believe that this reauthorization bill improves CSBG services or fixes the program's flaws.

As Members of Congress, we have an obligation to ensure that taxpayer dollars are being spent as efficiently and effectively as possible. In that regard, the CSBG program is missing the mark. Spending $1 billion on a program that has limited accountability is yet another reason why our country is experiencing the biggest inflation crisis we have seen in 41 years.

With our national debt exceeding $30 trillion, it is time to stop mortgaging the future of the next generation with spending on programs that may not even work. There is little proof that CSBG programs are accomplishing the one goal they were created for: moving Americans out of poverty.

In fact, there is more proof that CSBG has become nothing but another welfare program, which keeps Americans in poverty instead of lifting them into self-sufficiency.

Under current law, CSBG lets States set their own benchmarks for progress, allowing ineffective programs to continue receiving taxpayer dollars despite poor performance. This bill continues that ineffective policy rather than creating commonsense measures to judge the programs' outcomes. This does not help people in need, and it is an irresponsible use of taxpayer dollars.

When creating programs like CSBG, our goal should be self- sufficiency, not government dependence. This is particularly true with some of the changes proposed in H.R. 5129.

For example, the bill raises the income threshold for individuals who can receive services under CSBG programs from 125 percent of the Federal poverty level to 200 percent.

In addition, it will allow individuals in the program to continue receiving services even after they have exceeded the income threshold. This program was created to help individuals most in need, but Democrats are trying to twist it into a permanent welfare pipeline.

H.R. 5129 has other troubling provisions.

Under this bill, organizations would be able to use grantee facilities for voter registration activities. While promoting political participation is important, it is simply not the purpose of this program.

This new provision risks distracting servicers from their primary purpose and opening the door to partisan politics. We must preserve the integrity of CSBG by keeping in place important safeguards that protect against intertwining Federal policy and partisan political activity.

This legislation also adds a new requirement that will allow CSBG funds to be used for vague, undefined ``healthcare needs.'' With Democrats' increasingly radical stance on abortion and attempts to strip the Hyde amendment from Federal legislation, this legislation could open the door for taxpayer-funded abortions and gender transitions. This is an unacceptable risk.

Lastly, one of the most concerning points of this bill is how it got protections for faith-based organizations. Religious workers have been on the front lines serving the poor long before this program began. Instead of honoring their long history of service, this bill would require religious organizations to check their faith at the door to participate in the CSBG program. Faith-based providers deserve an equal opportunity to serve those in need.

Our Founding Fathers wrote the First Amendment to protect the free exercise of religion from interference by the Federal Government. Yet, this bill suggests that faith-based organizations should not be able to hire employees who share the same faith if they are going to participate in a Federal program. This is unacceptable.

The Constitution protects the right of religious organizations to hire in accordance with their beliefs. Congress recognized this right in enacting title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The Supreme Court unanimously upheld the constitutionality of a religious employer's staffing exemption in 1987.

The current law protections, which were adopted in a bipartisan manner nearly 25 years ago, should be uncontroversial, but H.R. 5129 makes these provisions controversial because Democrats think religious belief is backward and discriminatory.

Democrats have claimed that these current law protections allow faith-based providers to discriminate against program beneficiaries. But that simply isn't true. Democrats can't point to a single instance of widespread discrimination in the CSBG program. These faith-based organizations exist to serve the neediest among us. The current law protections ensure they can continue to do that. If the purpose of H.R. 5129 was to improve CSBG, then I am afraid the bill has failed miserably. This modernization attempt is a false start.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Banks).

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Allen).

Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Walberg).

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

Madam Speaker, if CSBG programs were fulfilling their statutory purpose, we would be hearing lots of numbers of people lifted out of poverty. But those numbers have been notably absent in the committee debate and here today.

We have been given no proof, no proof at all, that these programs are working as they have been set up. We are asking hardworking taxpayers-- let me repeat that--hardworking taxpayers to give money to support these programs that have no accountability.

The goal is to take people out of poverty and have them become hardworking taxpayers to balance out the burden here in this country, but that is not happening, Madam Speaker.

This bill would appropriate $1 billion. I said in my opening comments that we are $30 trillion in debt. We are going to add to our debt with this program with no accountability. We should not spend a dime of taxpayer dollars without knowing that those dollars are being spent effectively.

Republicans support commonsense efforts to fight poverty and provide a safety net for Americans truly in need. We want to make our Nation's antipoverty programs the best they can be, a streamlined network that specifically focuses on aiding those in dire need and helps lift them out of poverty, but that is not what we have here.

H.R. 5129 fails to reform CSBG. In fact, the program widely expands the pool of eligible beneficiaries, leaving those most in need with fewer resources.

It goes along with other programs that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle and the Biden administration keep proposing, and that is to put more people in dependency in this country, not make them independent.

It also attacks religious liberty. I believe my colleagues have basically admitted that in the last few minutes.

Over 19,000 vital faith-based organizations work tirelessly to help their communities through the CSBG program. Yet, H.R. 5129 sets a terrible and destructive precedent. Preventing faith-based organizations from competing for grants while remaining true to their religious character means fewer low-income Americans will receive the help they need.

This legislation is another Washington-knows-best approach that will keep Americans dependent on hardworking taxpayers' dollars. My colleagues should reject this legislation, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Madam Speaker, while the amendments before us include some positive reforms to improve accountability and transparency in the community services block grant program, there are unfortunately several problematic amendments in the mix that outweigh the improvements and require me to oppose them when considered together.

These amendments are duplicative, add additional requirements to the program, and lessen accountability.

It is critical to streamline antipoverty programs to make them work for low-income Americans. But instead, these amendments layer on duplication and move us in the opposite direction.

I cannot agree to add more inefficiency to an already ineffective program, and therefore, cannot support the Democrat amendments before us today.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

My friends at home tell me all the time that they believe common sense is in short supply in Washington. I completely agree with them. It is practically nonexistent on the other side.

Madam Speaker, we can exercise common sense by focusing on reforming the Federal safety net so that programs pull people out of poverty and into self-sufficiency and not encouraging them to stay in dependency on the Federal Government. Adding more duplication and bureaucracy to the CSBG program will not accomplish that goal.

I urge my colleagues to oppose these amendments and yield back the balance of my time.

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

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

Madam Speaker, this en bloc includes several amendments that I believe would vastly improve the underlying legislation.

First, one of the included amendments will address a critical concern. I cannot support any legislation that opens the door for taxpayer funding of abortion, and this bill opens that door. The legislation includes vague language allowing program funds to address health needs and improve health and well-being. While this might sound nice at first blush, it hides a huge problem. I am concerned that instead of helping people receive high-quality healthcare, it will lead to taxpayer dollars funding abortions.

The majority of Americans oppose seeing their hard-earned dollars go to pay for abortions, and we must do all in our power to stop that from ever happening. This amendment will make sure that no taxpayer dollars are used to reimburse healthcare services. It will also ensure that taxpayer dollars are not used for experimental gender hormone medications or other harmful gender medical interventions.

Additionally, this amendment takes the commonsense steps to prohibit taxpayer dollars from funding lobbying activities and voter registration activities. H.R. 5129 would allow program funds to be used for voter registration efforts. While getting more eligible individuals registered to vote is a worthy goal, we should not jeopardize the integrity of this program or let the next election distract from serving low-income Americans.

Finally, this amendment ensures that limited Federal funds are spent on those Americans most in need by maintaining the poverty threshold that exists in current law. Increasing this threshold will just expand the pool of eligible participants and stretch resources thinner. We need to tailor the program to ensure that Federal dollars serve those most in need.

Madam Speaker, I hope my colleagues will support this group of amendments, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Good).

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Michigan (Mrs. McClain.)

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Grothman).

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

Madam Speaker, my colleagues have presented many good arguments against this bill in general and why we should be voting for these amendments that are in this en bloc. These amendments will provide needed improvements to the underlying legislation and make sure that program funds are spent on the program's original goal, serving low- income Americans and helping them get out of poverty.

Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this en bloc amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Madam Speaker, I claim the time in opposition, but I am not opposed.

Madam Speaker, we owe our military veterans a huge debt of gratitude, and we must make sure they are well supported as they transition back into the civilian workforce.

This amendment encourages the CSBG program to meet the needs of low- income veterans, especially homeless veterans. It is surprising to me that we need to put such an amendment in this bill because we would think that the CSBG program would already be doing it. But since this is a worthy goal and one that I support, I will support this amendment.

In fact, Madam Speaker, I wear a pin every day with the United States flag, the North Carolina flag, and a banner under it that says: ``I support veterans.'' Therefore, I must support an amendment that would support veterans.

While I have concerns with the underlying bill, I think this is a good amendment, and I appreciate the gentleman offering it.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Madam Speaker, we must do all we can to make sure we help low-income and homeless veterans. I think this amendment furthers that effort.

Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, in honor of National Charter School Week, I am here to talk about the importance of school choice.

Families should be empowered to find the best learning environments for their children instead of being forced into failing public schools that may not meet their child's needs.

Piedmont Community Charter School, located in Gaston County, North Carolina, is an amazing example of a school that puts students first. This school isn't afraid to hold its students to a high standard or to provide a challenging curriculum.

Schools like Piedmont should inspire us all to renew and strengthen our support for education freedom. Instead of trapping children in a race to the bottom, charter schools like Piedmont are pushing students to the top. More options mean more successful students.

Happy National Charter School Week.

Madam Speaker, I rise to recognize Gavin Christopher Deal, a native of Alexander County in the Fifth District.

Gavin has served over a decade in the military and is currently a Surface to Air Ballistic Missile Specialist on the USS Fitzgerald.

Recently, he joined 12 other Petty Officers in representing the United States in the Milan 2022 Multinational Naval Exercise, and the International City Parade.

He also successfully launched two harpoon ballistic missiles in the previous war games near the Philippines. These are terrific accomplishments indeed.

Gavin, thank you for your continued service to both North Carolina's Fifth District and our great country. You are a shining example of the best that the Fifth District has to offer.

Recognizing Maura Schaffer-Greer

Madam Speaker, I rise to recognize Maura Schaffer-Greer, a social studies teacher, assistant swim

coach, and percussion instructor at South Caldwell High School. As you can tell, she is a true renaissance woman.

Recently, her class participated in a project where class members wrote letters to me about different pieces of legislation and asked for my thoughts. In doing so, her students learned a truly invaluable lesson: becoming an informed citizen is one of the most important duties we have as Americans.

Madam Speaker, after talking with Mrs. Schaffer-Greer and learning about her love of teaching, it is clear to me that she leaves an indelible mark on the lives of her students. May she continue to do so for many years in the future.

outhern Border Catastrophe Continues

Madam Speaker, our southern border is under siege and President Biden is asleep at the wheel.

Over 40 illegal aliens on the terror watch list have been arrested at the southern border since President Biden took office.

In March of this year, 220,000 illegal aliens were encountered at the southern border, and 62,000 of them evaded Border Patrol agents.

Madam Speaker, that averages out to roughly 2,000 people per day escaping into our country.

So who did Border Patrol agents not catch? Who else is on the terror watch list that escaped into our country?

Madam Speaker, border security is national security, and it is clear that this administration fails to recognize that most basic fact and do its duty.

Mr. Speaker, April is Financial Literacy Month, the perfect time to remind Americans just how financially irresponsible Democrats are. Democrats have used the pocketbooks of hardworking Americans to fund a multitrillion-dollar spending spree and now have the audacity to deny responsibility for the inflation crisis. This includes extending the student loan repayment moratorium three times, costing taxpayers over $150 billion.

Democrats are financially irresponsible and are dragging student borrowers along with them. In January, the administration announced it would no longer require borrowers to sign an online acknowledgment about their total student debt each year before taking out additional loans. We should make it easier for student borrowers to understand the gravity of taking out tens of thousands of dollars in student loan debt, not hiding it from them.

Mr. Speaker, Democrats' policies don't promote financial literacy, they promote financial illiteracy.

Mr. Speaker, President Biden's recently submitted budget for fiscal year 2023 is a literal dumpster fire.

His budget confirms what we have known all along: He does not have the slightest clue what fiscal responsibility means.

Right now, families are facing a $3,500 yearly inflation tax, but President Biden wants to spend a whopping $73 trillion over the next decade, a 66 percent increase over the previous 10 years. Over the next 5 years, inflation rates would increase by 2.8 percent.

In fact, this scheme would be the highest sustained government spending endeavor in American history.

Mr. Speaker, President Biden has failed to read the room yet again. The American people do not want another Biden budget bust.

Mr. Speaker, the strides women have made across all corners of the sports world deserve to be celebrated, not torn to pieces by the far left's radical ideological agenda.

This year officially marks the 50th anniversary of title IX, a law from 1972 that mandates equal opportunities for women in education.

While this anniversary deserves to be recognized, the threat of President Biden's flawed interpretation of this legislation looms larger than ever before. This administration's radical reinterpretation of title IX to include sexual orientation and gender identity has pushed women to the sidelines.

President Biden's decision to allow biological male athletes who identify as transgender to compete in women's sports is an affront to the progress that women have made since 1972.

Title IX was a revolution for women's sports. Since its passage, title IX has spurred women's participation in sports by a considerable margin. Instead of rightfully celebrating these achievements, the left is willing to sacrifice them for the sake of its radical political agenda.

Mr. Speaker, we should not be tolerating the left's assault on women. We must ensure that the safety and needs of young girls and women are made a top priority. Erasing sex and gender means, ultimately, erasing women, especially when it comes to sports.

Girls and women at the top of their sport lose a fair chance to compete when a biological male enters the field. How is this any different than keeping women off the field altogether?

We can't let women's sports become collateral damage to the far left's campaign against the traditional, science-based understanding of sex and gender. Allowing women and girls to suffer for the sake of being politically correct is the textbook definition of cowardice.

I am proud of the progress our Nation has made in the past 50 years to uplift and affirm the rights of women. The prospect of those advances being lost today is gut-wrenching. If we allow these fantasies of the radical left to become mainstream, 50 years of progress will be buried completely.

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

Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 6833.

Americans are rightly concerned about the price of prescription drugs, but Democrats are trying to solve this problem in the wrong way, as usual. Instead of discussing bipartisan, commonsense legislation to address the rising costs of prescription drugs, we are debating H.R. 6833. This radical bill is another attempt by the left to advance a government takeover of prescription drug pricing.

Don't be fooled. This legislation is a Trojan horse. H.R. 6833 claims to address insulin prices, but what it actually does is opens the door to government price controls without addressing the root problem, which is the rising cost of insulin.

H.R. 6833 won't lower costs. It is a smokescreen that will raise premiums for workers and seniors when inflation is at a 40-year high.

Why are Democrats knowingly raising healthcare premiums on the majority of Americans when so many Americans are struggling to pay for gas and put food on the table? Four out of five Americans in large group plans already pay under $35 a month for insulin. This

bill will raise healthcare costs for the vast majority of working Americans.

When insurers are required by the Federal Government to cover an insulin product, this allows manufacturers to raise the price of insulin indiscriminately. Since insurers can charge only $35 a month out of pocket to the patient, the insurer must make up for the increased cost of insulin by raising premiums for all beneficiaries. With a lack of competition in the market, this bill removes the bargaining power insurers use to keep insulin prices low, leading to increased insulin prices and higher premiums.

This legislation will only worsen the root problem of high insulin prices, which is a lack of competition in the market. H.R. 6833 will lead to fewer approved generic insulin brands, making the insulin monopoly even worse. If Democrats really want to decrease the price of insulin, they should pave the way for more competition, not less.

This legislation will cost taxpayers $11 billion, giving the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services $1.5 million in fiscal year 2022 to administer these drug-pricing caps. Trusting the Washington bureaucracy to manage drug pricing and distribution is a mistake. This legislation would be the largest expansion of Federal control over Americans' private health insurance since ObamaCare.

We must stop the Federal Government from wedging its foot in the door of our healthcare system and moving us one step closer to a socialist, single-payer system for Medicare for All. In fact, this week, the chair of the Progressive Caucus said she was ``fighting to make it the law of the land.''

H.R. 6833 sets a dangerous precedent. If the Federal Government can set prices for insulin, what is to stop it from implementing price controls for every drug on the market or in every other sector of the economy?

The free market is the reason the United States outpaces every other country in developing lifesaving cures and treatments, particularly countries with socialized medicine. Federal drug-pricing mandates will discourage medical innovation, resulting in fewer cures, which will keep Americans from receiving the therapies they rely upon.

Instead of perpetuating Obama-era schemes to expand Federal controls over Americans' health insurance, the Biden administration and congressional Democrats should bring to the floor H.R. 19, the bipartisan Lower Costs, More Cures Act.

Every single provision in H.R. 19 has bipartisan support. Lawmakers on both sides of the aisle agree that this legislation will lower healthcare costs and protect America's status as a leading healthcare innovator.

Furthermore, H.R. 19 sets a new standard in healthcare affordability. This bill caps seniors' out-of-pocket insulin costs at only $50 a month in the Medicare program. It also allows for high-deductible insurance plans to cover insulin before a deductible kicks in, and it increases the availability of low-cost options for treatment in the marketplace.

The cost of insulin, like most healthcare costs in this country, are climbing rapidly. Yet, total Federal control is not the solution.

H.R. 6833 is a perfect example of legislative trickery. This bill will lower out-of-pocket costs for insulin for a minority of Americans by bloating premiums and other healthcare costs for the majority of Americans and leave our healthcare system worse off.

Supporting socialist drug pricing isn't a solution, which is why I am rejecting this one-sided, harmful bill. I urge my Democrat colleagues to support the Lower Costs, More Cures Act, bipartisan legislation that will lower drug costs for Americans without limiting access to cures.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Grothman).

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Good).

Madam Speaker, I believe I have the right to close, so I will reserve the balance of my time.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Madam Speaker, I cannot let go past one of our colleagues saying before that we don't believe in helping average people. Yes, we do.

Republicans are here every day. We are average people. We are here to help average people. But what we believe in most of all is freedom for Americans.

And we happen to believe that Democrats don't believe in that, and this bill is an exemplar of the fact that they want the government to control our lives in every way they possibly can.

In the past, Democrats and Republicans have worked together to bring down the cost of prescription drugs, but Democrats have once again pursued politics over progress.

H.R. 6833 is a massive power grab that will lead our country one step closer to socialized medicine. That is not what the American people think and want.

There is no such thing as a free-market system when government bureaucrats control prices. This legislation sets an extremely dangerous precedent.

We shouldn't pursue policies that will harm the health and well-being of American patients, and we should not knowingly raise healthcare premiums on American workers and their families when prices for goods are soaring.

Republicans stand ready to work with Democrats to advance legislation that promotes competition, lowers costs for consumers, establishes transparency and accountability in drug pricing, and advances the cause of freedom.

H.R. 6833 is not that legislation. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no,'' and I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, it is undeniable that religious freedom is America's keystone. This great country was founded by men and women who fled religious persecution and sought to govern themselves according to their religious beliefs.

Despite religious freedom having been woven into our constitutional system for well over two centuries, and the precedents it has established, Democrats are choosing to play judge, jury, and executioner in its trial.

Today, religious organizations are under attack by the woke agenda of Democrats. Those on the left claim that faith-based organizations must abandon their conscience and amend their employment practices, or they should not have access to Federal contracts or funds.

It is a damning ultimatum. Imagine how many faith-based organizations would be forced to close their doors because of this.

Madam Speaker, this coordinated campaign is being carried out by the left, and it is guided by the assumption that a radical, progressive dogma is more legitimate than religious beliefs. That assumption is pure insanity.

In this country, faith is not subjugated or left at the door. It is carried with us no matter where we may go.

I applaud every man and woman who is standing up to this egregious assault from the left and is fighting for the right to live by religious convictions at work and in business.

President Biden's so-called Build Back Better framework is riddled with discriminatory provisions. One clause would have required faith- based childcare providers to abandon their faith during program hours if they wanted to participate in the Federal program.

And in the Community Services Block Grant program, the Democrats want to strip a provision that protects faith-based providers' right to remain strong in their faith as they serve individuals in need.

This protection has been in place without controversy or harm to any individual seeking assistance for decades. Why change it now? I think we know.

This isn't just religious persecution; it is textbook coercion. Unfortunately, there is more.

Democrats have also sought to remove protections for religious nonprofit organizations and Federal contractors. Like their secular counterparts, faith-based charities in the United States simply want to serve the less fortunate, but discriminatory legislation could keep them from being able to do that.

Faith-based charities and religious Federal contractors alike deserve the chance to practice their religion freely without government interference.

It appears Democrats need a refresher on the First Amendment.

The government does not bestow the freedom of religion upon us; it is a freedom we have possessed since birth.

Whenever we see protections for religious freedom being chipped away in this country, it is our solemn duty as Americans and people of faith to take a stand.

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Georgia for yielding me time.

H.R. 2954 includes the text of the RISE Act, a bill that I am proud to lead with Chairman Scott of the Education and Labor Committee.

This bill was born out of true bipartisan collaboration, and I am pleased at the progress we have made with our colleagues across the aisle.

Hardworking Americans deserve the opportunity to save for a secure future, yet too many workers aren't putting anything towards their retirement nest egg.

By removing the red tape tying up job creators and providing incentives for workers to save more, this legislation will strengthen and modernize America's retirement system, so our Nation's workers, retirees, and employers are better served.

It truly is a much-needed step in the right direction. Practical solutions like the RISE Act and H.R. 2954 are a win for job creators, workers, and our Nation's economic future.

I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes''.

Madam Speaker, I would like to inquire if the distinguished chairman of the Education and Labor Committee would be willing to engage in a colloquy with me about the matter of furnishing paper ERISA disclosures to participants and beneficiaries.

I yield to the chairman.

I thank the chairman.

Madam Speaker, the underlying bill includes an imperfect provision requiring retirement plans to provide a paper statement annually.

The bill also directs the Department of Labor to revise its 2002 and 2020 safe harbor regulations to conform with this requirement.

While I support the bill, I have serious concerns about this blunt provision which would undermine DOL's 2002 and 2020 e-delivery safe harbor regulations. Participants in plans have been relying on the 2002 safe harbor regulations for nearly 20 years.

The Committee on Education and Labor has dedicated considerable time to this issue. I do not consider this a settled matter, and I will continue to engage with my House and Senate colleagues to find a workable solution that simplifies and modernizes the disclosure requirements for retirement plans.

I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.

Madam Speaker, reclaiming my time, I thank the chairman for his willingness to continue working on this issue together.

Again, I urge a ``yes'' vote on the bill.

Madam Speaker, Labor Secretary Marty Walsh needs to remember that he is a Cabinet member, not an activist. His one-sided involvement in active labor disputes is unfair and unprecedented.

He is a former union president and the first union member in nearly half a century to lead the Department of

Labor. If you believe he can be an impartial arbiter, then I have swampland in New Mexico to sell you. The head of the AFL-CIO herself expressed approval of Walsh's willingness to work ``behind the scenes.''

Walsh's infamous picket line participation with strikers at the Kellogg's factory won't be his last attempt to interfere with labor- management disputes. Politico recently reported Walsh is ``eager to help with others.''

Walsh's pro-union advocacy disqualifies him from acting as an honest broker. He would rather protect his union boss cronies than protect workers and job creators.