Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I also rise to recognize Congresswoman Cathy McMorris Rodgers, who is retiring at the end of the 118th Congress.

In 2004, the two of us came to the House in the same class, and we have been friends throughout our time here.

Cathy has the distinction of being the first woman to give birth three times while in the House. She is a visible and vocal leader within the disabilities community, and her advocacy is inspired by her son, Cole, who was born with Down syndrome.

I thank the gentlewoman for her years of service to this great institution, to her constituents in Washington's Fifth Congressional District, and to the American people.

May God continue to bless her, her husband, Brian; and Cole, Grace, and Brynn, their three children, as she enters a well-deserved retirement.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to recognize Congresswoman Kay Granger of Texas, who will be retiring at the end of the 118th Congress.

For close to three decades, the gentlewoman has represented Texas' 12th Congressional District in the people's House, and she made history as the first Republican woman to represent Texas in the people's House.

From her staunch support of the military to her defense of border security, Congresswoman Granger has built a reputation as a rock-ribbed conservative and someone who many look up to, especially when she chaired the House Appropriations Committee.

Kay Granger's departure is a serious loss to the people's House. I thank the gentlewoman for her years of service to this great institution, to her constituents in Texas' 12th Congressional District, and to the American people.

Mr. Speaker, may God continue to bless the gentlewoman and her family as she enjoys a well-deserved retirement.

Mr. Speaker, I am immensely grateful to call Debbie Lesko not only a colleague but also a genuine friend. She is someone I admire. Debbie is one of the kindest and most forgiving people I have ever met in my life. I can attest to that personally because she forgave me in a very big way.

She has built a reputation as a rock-ribbed Conservative champion. From

her time in the Arizona State Legislature to her service here within the people's House, she never faltered in her work to protect the values and God-given freedoms of her constituents and the American people.

Her friendship and collegiality will be sorely missed as we enter into a new Congress, but I know that wherever she goes, she will continue to leave a positive, indelible mark with her work and passion. God bless Debbie, and may He continue to bless her family as she turns the page and enters a new chapter in her life.

Mr. Speaker, the Biden-Harris Education Department has once again failed America's hardworking taxpayers.

For 3 years in a row, the Education Department failed its audit. In other words, the Education Department has been unable to manage effectively, efficiently, or with any sense of accuracy the resources entrusted to it.

Accuracy, transparency, and consistency are critical when it comes to managing finances. The Education Department has taken a different approach. Its student loan data was full of errors, and it made up estimates it could not defend to its auditor.

Bungling and bad budgeting appear to be the Education Department's blueprint. I can't tell if this is due to general ineptness or deliberate wasteful spending of taxpayer dollars, but I can tell you it is an embarrassment. The American people deserve better.

Mr. Speaker, on Roll Call No. 479, I mistakenly voted YEA when I intended to vote NAY.

Mr. Speaker, for decades, Americans have been sold the line that a college degree is a prerequisite to success and economic mobility. This can be discouraging to the vast majority of the American workforce without a baccalaureate degree.

However, study after study shows that this narrative no longer holds true. In the face of rising college costs, a new model for stability and success is available. It celebrates hands-on job experience.

A new study of 65 million American wage earners by The Burning Glass Institute, an independent nonprofit research center, found that by the age of 40, one in five workers with only a high school diploma earned above the median income for college graduates--$70,000--without the drag-down effect of a college degree.

Even more impressive is the nonprofit's finding that 5 percent of them, a cool 2 million Americans, earned six-figure salaries.

How did they get started on these successful careers?

One factor is what Burning Glass calls launchpad jobs. These jobs give high school students and graduates real-world, wage-earning experience that develop skills they can build careers upon. The jobs are widely varied: telemarketer, computer support specialist, software developer, flight attendant, commercial diver, and quarry rock splitter. They all offer this new route to success.

A recent New York Times article profiled two young people whose success is indicative of the value of these launchpad jobs.

One young man worked a summer internship at a local bank the summer after his high school graduation. This earned him a place as a full- time bank teller and soon a loan officer. Now, at the age of 21, he earns $50,000 a year--with no college debt, mind you.

These launchpad jobs are not antithetical to college, either. That 21-year-old bank teller is currently getting his bachelor of arts while working as a loan officer. His job is helping him build the life he wants.

One huge problem with college is that it pushes young people to study and choose a major when they have no real-world experience that would guide their choice of what and how to study. These launchpad jobs can address this obstacle.

A young woman who participated in a career learning program in her junior year in high school received experience that qualified her for a job at a local pharmacy during her senior year. When she graduated high school, she had a high-earning job that she used to put herself through undergraduate school and beyond, ultimately earning a doctorate in a field she knew from firsthand experience she loved and was good at.

At 28 years old, she now earns $100,000 a year as a pharmacy operations manager at a teaching hospital. She credits her success to so-called launchpad programs. She said: I never would have known of the opportunity without the work-study program.

If we want to strengthen the American workforce and help young wage earners achieve economic stability and success, we need to stop shunting them into an education model that saddles them with debt and delays their real-world experience. Instead, we need to empower programs that offer high school students experiences that help develop real skills and launch young Americans into successful careers.

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

Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at 8 o'clock and 24 minutes p.m.), under its previous order, the House adjourned until tomorrow, Wednesday, December 4, 2024, at 10 a.m. for morning-hour debate.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to recognize Patricia Bradshaw for her upcoming and well-deserved retirement after her distinguished career with the Central Intelligence Agency.

Patricia began her career with the Central Intelligence Agency in 1984 as a records clerk, where it quickly became apparent that she would have an excellent career with the Agency.

Working up the ranks within the Office of Security from her time as a security clearance investigator and adjudicator, to serving the Agency overseas in physical and technical security, she eventually reached the pinnacle of the Agency as the Director of the Office of Security.

Over the course of her career, Patricia exemplified the epitome of the American Dream, even without obtaining a college degree. Her story is undeniable proof that with hard work and dedication to your craft, the limits of your achievements are boundless.

All Americans should be immensely grateful to Patricia Bradshaw for her unwavering service and dedication to our Nation.

I thank Patricia for her patriotism. On behalf of a grateful Nation, we hope she enjoys her well-earned retirement.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have good news and bad news to share as we celebrate National Apprenticeship Week. Let's get the bad news out of the way first.

The Biden-Harris administration has taken steps that would destroy the apprenticeship model. Just look at the Department of Labor's nearly 800-page proposed apprenticeship rule.

This is irresponsible and reckless because we know apprenticeships are a proven strategy in closing the Nation's skills gap. With 8 million open jobs in the U.S., expanding apprenticeships will be critical to keep the American economy growing.

Not only does the Department of Labor's proposed apprenticeship rule blatantly circumvent Congress, but more to the point, it sets up a regulatory gauntlet that will limit employer and sponsor participation in apprenticeships. This will effectively close a route into the workforce for Americans seeking an alternative to a baccalaureate degree.

Currently, registered apprenticeship programs in the United States constitute only 0.3 percent of the labor force, a significantly lower share than many other developed countries. Further, these apprenticeships have yet to gain a foothold in growing industries like healthcare and information technology. One reason for this is that employers are discouraged from participating, and the NPRM only provides them with more reasons to stay away.

Instead of buoying up the sinking ship, the administration's proposed rule smothers an already underutilized system with more red tape and a one-size-fits-all mandate. In fact, even President Biden seems to recognize that the rule will deter sponsors and employers from voluntary participation since he had to issue an executive order directing Federal agencies to coerce job creators to subject their apprenticeship programs to Federal control.

What is more, the proposed rule expands Federal control over apprenticeships, injects political ideology and DEI mandates into the apprenticeship system, and imposes significant burdens on apprenticeship sponsors and employers.

Here is just one example of the NPRM's expansion of control: It eliminates the competency-based model that currently permits registered apprenticeship programs to measure skill acquisition through the demonstrated attainment of competencies instead of the amount of time spent on the job learning. Competency is increasingly becoming the currency of the labor market as more employers are focusing on the skills a worker possesses, not how long it takes to acquire them.

Why would the Department of Labor move apprenticeships in the opposite direction and eliminate the competency-based model, a model that has been referred to as the ``bread and butter'' of apprenticeship expansion?

The people most injured by the current administration's regulatory overreach are American workers who are eager to find routes to economic independence that avoid the ballooning costs and depreciating values of a baccalaureate degree.

Now it is time for the good news. Under the second Trump administration, Americans can look forward to an apprenticeship liberation that benefits students, workers, and job creators. In his previous administration, President Trump presided over a booming workforce that emphasized on-the-job learning, upskilling and reskilling opportunities for American students and workers. His industry-recognized work program was part of this success.

Under the second Trump administration, we look forward to a renewal of this expansion of apprenticeship opportunities, which is so central to maintaining America's economic leadership in the world.

Job creators are on the front lines of their respective industries every day, and they understand the exact skills workers need to be successful. We should empower them to provide their workers with tools for success, and we look forward to doing so under the second Trump administration through the expansion of the apprenticeship program.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 1568, I call up the bill (H.R. 8932) to establish an earlier application processing cycle for the FAFSA, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 8932.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 8932, the FAFSA Deadline Act, and I start by highlighting the critical role the Free Application for Federal Student Aid, or FAFSA, plays in the lives of many American students and families. For them, FAFSA isn't just a form, it is a path to postsecondary education.

In recent years, bipartisan efforts were made to simplify this complex, daunting process. The FAFSA Simplification Act, passed in 2020, was intended to make applying for financial aid more accessible and less overwhelming. That is what this country needs, an effective, user-friendly system that lowers barriers to education and increases access for students of all backgrounds.

Unfortunately, we are here because the Biden-Harris administration is failing to provide this vital tool to the very students and families it was designed to help. Instead of the smooth rollout we planned, the Biden-Harris administration's execution of the new simplified FAFSA has led to widespread frustration, delays, and costly errors.

Imagine being a high school senior working hard to qualify for scholarships and planning your future, only to be met with glitches, incomplete forms, and endless processing errors. That was the reality for too many students.

Last year, the Department of Education delayed the FAFSA release until late December, 3 full months after its recommended October 1 release date, due to administrative incompetence.

The soft launch that followed was chaotic, resulting in millions of errors and little clarity regarding the form's actual functionality. Delays in the Department's failure to communicate effectively left families in a state of uncertainty, scrambling to understand what aid they would receive, or even if they would receive aid at all.

As we sit here, the FAFSA is delayed for a second straight year, and some capabilities are still unavailable, forcing students, schools, and State agencies to wait again.

The FAFSA Deadline Act introduced by Representative Erin Houchin is the answer. This legislation seeks to hold the Department of Education accountable by requiring the FAFSA to be available by October 1 each year, and it does so with broad, bipartisan support. The bill passed through committee 34-6, sending a clear signal that both sides of the aisle believe families deserve better.

In short, today's conversation is about restoring the promise of FAFSA, fulfilling our obligation to students, and making sure the Department's failure is not a new normal.

It is our job to ensure that the Department of Education rolls out FAFSA each year with clear timelines and accurate data so American families can rely on this process.

Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``yes'' vote on the FAFSA Deadline Act, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from Indiana (Mrs. Houchin), the author of the bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Owens).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Kiley).

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

Mr. Speaker, as my colleague from Virginia said, several organizations have announced public support for the FAFSA Deadline Act. Here are some of the things that they are saying.

The American Council for Education said: ``Given the issues institutions of higher education faced during the 2024-2025 FAFSA processing cycle, it is critically important to avoid future problems. For this academic year, overall first-year enrollment is down by 5 percent, at least in part due to issues with the 2024-2025 FAFSA. In addition, universal access to the 2025-2026 FAFSA is already delayed, and some campus officials have expressed concerns about whether the FAFSA will be fully available by December 1. We offer our full support for this piece of legislation and hope to see it pass the House.''

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Walberg).

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

Mr. Speaker, the FAFSA is a cornerstone of America's commitment to educational opportunity. When we fail to uphold this promise, we jeopardize the dreams and hard work of students who look to postsecondary education as a pathway to a better future.

The FAFSA Deadline Act is a necessary measure to protect that future by enforcing deadlines, ensuring transparency, and making certain that families receive the aid they depend on to make college accessible.

This is about delivering the basic functionality students deserve and safeguarding their ambitions against bureaucratic failure.

Students have enough on their plates as they prepare for college. It is up to us to make sure that the Federal Government isn't adding to that burden.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this piece of legislation, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, today I rise in honor of Mr. Ian Lanoff, who passed away on September 29, 2024. Mr. Lanoff dedicated his career to implementing and upholding principles inherent in the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), during his time in both public service and private practice.

Mr. Lanoff served as head of the Pension and Welfare Benefits Administration, the agency that preceded the Employee Benefits Security Administration, under President Carter and President Reagan. Mr. Lanoff's contributions in the early years of ERISA laid a solid foundation for the following decades. In 1976 and 1977, before his tenure as the nation's top ERISA administrator, Mr. Lanoff served as counsel to the Senate Labor Committee, the predecessor of the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee. Mr. Lanoff also served on the Board of Directors of the Pension Rights Center, a national nonprofit, nonpartisan organization that helps individuals receive the pension benefits they have earned. Mr. Lanoff's public service was matched by his recognition as a powerhouse in private practice for decades where he advised fiduciaries of both public and private pension plans.

Today we recognize and honor Mr. Lanoff's direct impact on and devotion to millions of pension beneficiaries across the Nation. We express the highest commendation for Mr. Lanoff's dedication to protecting the retirement benefits of American workers.

We also express our condolences to Mr. Lanoff's friends and family, including his wife, Patricia Lanoff, and children, Jennifer Lanoff of Washington, D.C., Julie Lanoff of Oakland, California, Lisa Applegate of Hamilton, New Jersey, and Keith Sprague of Waterville, California.

Mr. Speaker, the final frontier of the woke mind virus is the banks and capitalism themselves. They have already tarnished America's other institutions.

Last week, House Republicans passed H.R. 5339, the Protecting Americans' Investments from Woke Policies Act, a bill that would confront and dispatch one of the most nefarious and hidden forms of wokeness: environmental, social, and governance investing, or ESG for short.

In his book, ``Go Woke, Go Broke,'' author Charles Gasparino punctures the woke mind virus and ESG.

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record the book review of ``Go Woke, Go Broke.''

[From the Wall Street Journal, Sept. 8, 2024]

`Go Woke, Go Broke' Review: The Worst Investments

(By Tunku Varadarajan)

Charles Gasparino is a gladiatorial journalist. When he

steps into the arena to fight a money-man or enterprise that

he believes is anticapitalist or crooked, he can be brutal.

Making an enemy of him is not for the faint-hearted: Watch

him trade insults with his critics on social media. He was

once a Wall Street reporter for this newspaper, where

editors and colleagues remember him for his no-holds-barred

style. Which is precisely how we'd describe the approach in

``Go Woke, Go Broke,'' Mr. Gasparino's blistering account of

``how corporate America became something close to a foot

soldier in the progressive movement.'' Now a senior

correspondent at the Fox Business Network, Mr. Gasparino is

also a columnist at the New York Post, whose irreverent,

indignant (and often irresistible) tabloid style is very much

in evidence here. (Fox, the Post and the Journal share common

ownership.)

``Go Woke, Go Broke'' is a takedown of ``corporate

wokeness,'' which Mr. Gasparino describes as the ``noxious

ideology of progressive politics in the boardroom--an

ideology, he says, that ``needs to die a thousand deaths.''

The book can be seen as a demotic complement to ``Woke,

Inc.'' (2021), by the brainy (and sometimes tiresome) former

Republican presidential contender Vivek Ramaswamy. Mr.

Gasparino's is the better book for its plainspokenness: Many

more Middle Americans--whose jobs have been outsourced or

have been imperiled by the high-minded dictates of

``diversity''--will grasp its message. These are the people

who, Mr. Gasparino argues, have been shafted by the Wall

Street ``fat cats'' who've grown ``much fatter'' by their

``feeding at the ESG trough.''

ESG stands for ``environmental, social, and governance''--

metrics intended to direct or funnel investment in an

ostensibly socially responsible direction. Mr. Gasparino is a

populist-capitalist, and ESG is his bete noire, along with

``diversity, equity, and inclusion'' (DEI). These ``leftist

shibboleths'' have, the author says, ``warped'' American

business practices for nearly two decades and grew in

intensity under the second Obama administration.

Mr. Gasparino traces the roots of ESG to the 1980s and

'90s, when business leaders began embracing so-called

corporate social responsibility (or CSR, in its now archaic

abbreviation). CSR, in time, evolved into bien-pensant

notions of stakeholder capitalism, championed by the likes of

Klaus Schwab, the founder of the World Economic Forum in

Davos, Switzerland. Davos Man, writes Mr. Gasparino,

``represents the ultimate marriage of the progressive

globalist corporate citizen with the globalist progressive

regulatory bureaucrat.''

All this performatively moral investing is a revolt against

Milton Friedman, the economist who in 1970 stated that ``the

social responsibility of business is to increase its

profits.'' Friedman, writes Mr. Gasparino, would have hated

ESG and DEI, ``among the most heinously anti-American

management philosophies ever developed.'' (Readers of Mr.

Gasparino's robust book will realize pretty quickly that

nuance is for wimps.)

Basing his book largely on a host of interviews with

``company insiders,'' Mr. Gasparino gives us entertaining

(and informative) accounts of corporate blunders in the name

of wokeness. He reminds us of the time AB InBev--the holding

company for Anheuser-Busch and its beer, Budweiser--thought

it would be a great idea to use a ``transwoman influencer''

named Dylan Mulvaney to market its top-selling Bud Light.

Middle America revolted and stopped buying the beer,

heretofore branded as a manly beverage. Mr. Gasparino also

recounts how the discount retailer Target was punished by

consumers for promoting ``tuck-friendly bathing suits for men

transitioning to women'' alongside rainbow-colored onesies

for toddlers. And Disney, recalls the author, erred

politically and financially when its chief executive, Bob

Chapek, embarked on a bruising battle with Florida's Gov. Ron

DeSantis and challenged the validity of a state law barring

public schools from teaching sexual education to children

before the fourth grade. In each case, the company's stock

price tanked and sales plummeted.

It enrages Mr. Gasparino that America's corporate

management luxuriates ``in progressive causes as a side

hustle.'' But in some cases, he tells us, these causes are

the main course. Among the villains trying to ram ESG down

our throats are Larry Fink, the CEO of BlackRock; Jamie

Dimon, the CEO of JPMorgan Chase; David Solomon, the CEO of

Goldman Sachs; and the ``ESG-obsessed'' Gary Gensler,

President Biden's chairman of the Securities and Exchange

Commission, whom Mr. Gasparino describes as ``a male

version'' of Sen. Elizabeth Warren, ``among the most woke,

annoying, and . . . dangerous bureaucrats in government.''

Add to the list Adena Friedman, the CEO of Nasdaq, which

demands that companies seeking to list on its exchange

disclose board-level diversity statistics and, if the need

arises, explain why they don't have a diversity of directors.

Such demands aren't, of course, slapped on Chinese companies,

which are, Mr. Gasparino points out, curiously exempt from

all the wokest rules. When was the last time a Chinese

company was asked why it didn't have a Uyghur on its board,

or an LGBTQ+ person?

Attacking Larry Fink as ``Mr. ESG,'' says Mr. Gasparino,

has become ``a rallying cry on the populist right,'' whose

backlash against corporate wokeness has been so fierce that

even BlackRock has started to dismount from its moral high

horse. Consumers' Research, a conservative advocacy group

pushing back against ESG, derides the abbreviation as

``elitists, socialists, and grifters,'' as well as ``erasing

savings and growth''--pungent and effective put-downs. More

and more investors are aware that ESG-specific funds are

expensive and rarely beat the market. In fact, writes Mr.

Gasparino, ``they're some of the worst investments,'' even as

they make it harder to tackle inflation by forcing curbs on

fossil fuels. But Middle America appears to have woken up to

the perils of ESG and is giving voice to its displeasure.

``It's now their Arab Spring,'' says Mr. Gasparino. This may

be hyperbolic overreach, even for the crusading Mr.

Gasparino, but he's confident that America's version of a

grassroots people's revolt will end better than the one in

the Middle East. Let's pray he's right.

He describes ESG, and diversity, equity, and inclusion, DEI, as `` . . . among the most heinously anti-American management philosophies ever developed.''

This book amplifies the points we made when we passed our legislation last week. ESG is an ideological cancer buoyed by asset managers, banks, and financial institutions that kneel at the altar of anticapitalism.

Americans saving for retirement don't want to see their hard-earned money go up in flames in ESG funds. They want a sizeable return on their investments.

We need to embrace true capitalism again in America. This woke garbage needs to be put out to pasture and left to die.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 3724.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 3724, the End Woke Higher Education Act. No woke week could possibly be complete without a robust debate regarding the state of free speech on college campuses. However, first I can't help but acknowledge the juxtaposition of this floor debate and debates in the university setting.

The Constitution's Speech and Debate Clause grants Members of Congress the absolute freedom of speech on the House floor. It is a privilege that has survived 248 years of nationhood.

Sadly, the privilege of the First Amendment and campus free speech has not. Therefore, I will use this time at this pulpit to make three conservative statements to express three truths that would otherwise be punishable offenses on today's college campuses.

Men and women are biologically different. This position held by swimmer Riley Gaines endangered her very life on a trip to San Francisco State University. Student activists assaulted Ms. Gaines during a speaking engagement, forcing police to lead her into a safe room.

DEI policies overlook qualified candidates. This sentiment expressed in a tweet by conservative-libertarian

Georgetown lecturer Ilya Shapiro led to a 122-day investigation and his eventual coerced resignation.

Finally, wear what you want on Halloween. This opinion, shared in an email by Professor Erika Christakis, sparked outrage at Yale. The unchecked student overreaction drove Professor Christakis to stop teaching classes.

Men and women are biologically different, DEI policies overlook qualified candidates, and wear what you want on Halloween--these three statements, as unobjectionable and inoffensive as they may seem, are widely censored on college campuses. That is because, for every example of retaliatory censorship, there are hundreds, if not thousands, of examples of self-censorship and social pressure to conform.

That is why I support H.R. 3724. Not only does H.R. 3724 aim to protect politically disfavored speech, but all speech. To achieve this goal, it would, among other things, mandate viewpoint neutrality in the college accreditation process, require robust free speech policies before public colleges access title IV funds, and prohibit universities from giving political litmus tests to students and faculty.

Mr. Chair, I thank Representative Owens of Utah, Representative Williams of New York, Representative Houchin of Indiana, Representative Walberg of Michigan, Representative Stefanik of New York, Representative Crenshaw of Texas, Representative Kiley of California, and Representative Murphy of North Carolina for their significant contributions to this bill.

With enough like-minded Members committed to the First Amendment, we can once again renew free expression as a pillar of post-secondary education.

Mr. Chair, I urge a ``yes'' vote on H.R. 3724, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Williams), the bill's sponsor.

Mr. Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Walberg).

Mr. Chair, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Owens), the bill's sponsor.

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

Mr. Chair, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Kiley).

Mr. Chair, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman from California.

Mr. Chair, it is astounding to me that associations of higher education in this country are opposing this bill, absolutely astounding. That should send a message to the American people about what the status of higher education is right now.

I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Murphy).

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

Mr. Chair, we have groups that are supporting this bill, strong support. Over the years, we have worked with experts in the field to craft these policies.

Let me read just some of the praise. The James G. Martin Center for Academic Renewal states: This legislation is an essential step in restoring the fundamental purpose of higher education to foster free inquiry and equip students to think critically and independently.

Too many institutions have prioritized ideological conformity over academic excellence. Accreditation bodies and universities have increasingly promoted DEI initiatives that risk undermining intellectual diversity and free expression.

I won't read all of these, but Young America's Foundation has given strong support, as has the Defense of Freedom Institute. The American Council of Trustees and Alumni stated: ``The respecting the First Amendment on Campus Act is a step in the right direction toward protecting freedom of speech, association, and religion on college and university campuses across the country.''

``. . . Congress is listening to major public concerns as the battle for the soul of American education continues to play out in the form of hegemonic diversity, equity, and inclusion efforts, the heckler's veto, disinvitations, and deplatforming.''

In addition, we have the National Panhellenic Conference, the North American Interfraternity Conference, the American Council of Trustees and Alumni, the Defense of Freedom Institute, Foundation for Individual Rights

and Expression, and Young America's Foundation supporting this bill.

Mr. Chair, may I inquire as to the time remaining?

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

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

Mr. Chair, I indicate to my friends and colleagues that we have an opportunity in the bill before us today to make a strong stand for free speech.

This bill does not mandate any political viewpoint or ideology. It simply demands, from the accreditation process down to the classroom, that all levels of postsecondary education respect the free speech rights of students.

Postsecondary education should empower students to discover truth and think critically. American universities risk losing sight of this core mission by refusing to engage with certain viewpoints.

The End Woke Higher Education Act will restore the essential freedoms that make our universities the global leaders of open debate and intellectual growth, ensuring that the next generation of Americans can think for themselves and engage in the pursuit of truth.

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

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 1455, I call up the bill (H.R. 5339) to amend the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 to specify requirements concerning the consideration of pecuniary and non-pecuniary factors, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and to insert extraneous material under H.R. 5339.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in full support of the Republican fight against the woke, progressive agenda.

The Committee on Education and the Workforce is proud to lead debate on the Protecting Americans' Investments from Woke Policies Act, or H.R. 5339, a bill that would confront and dispatch one of the most nefarious and hidden forms of wokeness.

Wokeness comes in all shapes and sizes. It is a problem when it is pushed at your local public school. It is an existential threat to the country when it is pushed by the institutions that police how we think, what we say, and where our money goes.

Wokeness destroys everything it touches, including the value-neutral institutions that America used to take for granted.

First, wokeness conquered academia. Then, it conquered the media. The final frontier of the woke mind virus is the banks and capitalism itself.

You may say, what? Banks are woke? They are driven by things like profit motive and the markets. Well, we need to think again.

Under the guise of a practice known as environmental, social, and governance investing, or ESG for short, banks are responsible for woke social engineering on a scale that history's authoritarians could only dream of.

In essence, a big bank or asset manager will take your hard-earned pension or 401(k) and invest it in radical, progressive causes. These ESG funds exclude businesses deemed insufficiently woke.

What may disqualify a company from receiving woke capital is including, but not limited to, too many White, straight men on the board, too much profit in the oil and gas industry, or too many politically incorrect takes by your CEO on X, formerly known as Twitter.

That the S&P 500's ESG index delisted a green company like Tesla only proves the point that ESG is nothing but a woke power grab.

Concerns about the environment are secondary to enforcing bland, progressive conformity. What is more, ESG factors guide about one- fourth of all assets under management, or $30 trillion.

Yet, these funds underperformed when compared to their conventional peers. Take this from the Financial Times: ``Over the past 12 months, global sustainable equity funds made an 11 percent return, compared with 21 percent for conventional stock funds, according to a May report from JPMorgan.''

Sacrificing pensions and retirement income for woke impact should be illegal. This legislation makes it clear that other people's retirement income may not be sacrificed for woke impact.

Pensioners forged the infrastructure that powers modern American cities. Pensioners built the industries that make America great.

Pensioners put their life and work into this country, and they don't want their hard-earned nest egg deflating because its principal is serving political causes.

I especially thank Representative Allen from Georgia, Representative Houchin from Indiana, Representative Good from Virginia, and Representative Banks from Indiana for leading this charge on behalf of pensioners and retirees.

The Protecting Americans' Investments from Woke Policies Act is a product of their hard work, and it is the necessary first step toward making ESG investing illegal under certain retirement plans.

Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``yes'' vote on H.R. 5339 and reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Allen).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. My colleagues on the other side of the aisle have made many claims about the supposed advantages of ESG, just now saying that ESG funds tend to do better.

Well, let me set the record straight. ESG funds have underperformed for years. According to a Bloomberg report, the 10 largest ESG funds posted double-digit losses in 2022, and 8 of the 10 performed worse than the S&P 500.

It is no surprise that in 2023, according to The New York Times, investors pulled $13 billion out of ESG funds.

Another study from Boston University found there is little reason to infer that ESG criteria is reliable for predicting stock returns. I think it is really important to set the record straight.

To make matters worse, ESG products charge higher fees to participants than traditional investment funds, which can significantly reduce participants' retirement savings over time.

Finally, according to researchers at George Mason University, ESG funds expose workers and retirees to additional investment risk.

Increased costs, increased risk, and lackluster returns make for a bad cocktail. Weakening the investment portfolios is not what we should be doing here.

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

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

I ask that the speaker's words be taken down.

Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my demand.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is important, I think, that we again set the record straight. The RETIRE Act codifies the principles in the Trump Labor Department rule on retirement plan ESG investing. Under this bill, as with the Trump rule, if a fiduciary finds that an ESG factor is a pecuniary or financial factor, then that factor can be considered when investing and exercising shareholder rights. Nothing in the Trump rule prevents a fiduciary from appropriately considering any material risk with respect to investment.

Like the Trump rule, the RETIRE Act recognizes ESG factors can present an economic risk or opportunity, which qualified investment professionals would appropriately treat as material economic considerations under generally accepted investment principles.

This bill neutrally applies financial investment principles to all investment decisions. To suggest that this bill bars a fiduciary from appropriately considering any factors that may be material to an investment is blatantly false. Unlike the Biden-Harris rule, this legislation is neutral regarding fiduciaries' prudent decisions.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, we have heard today about the riskiness of ESG. We have heard about the radicalness of ESG. We have heard about the racism inherent in ESG investing.

If today's debate has proven one thing, it is that wokeness will not be satisfied until the entire country thinks the same way.

To my colleagues, I urge that we return to the neutral fiduciary standard. Let's quit playing ideological games that have a real impact on workers' livelihoods.

To my banking-sector friends, I will put it this way: There is no alpha in ESG. Our adversaries will surpass the American financial industry if we continue down this path.

The Protecting Americans' Investments from Woke Policies Act would safeguard our financial system from politically driven agendas, ensuring that capital is allocated based on merit and performance, not ideology.

For these reasons, I support its passage, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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