[Congressional Record Volume 169, Number 108 (Wednesday, June 21, 2023)]
[House]
[Pages H3054-H3056]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
ISSUES OF THE DAY
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of
January 9, 2023, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Van Drew) is
recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader.
General Leave
Mr. VAN DREW. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members
may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and
include extraneous material on the subject of my Special Order.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from New Jersey?
There was no objection.
Mr. VAN DREW. Mr. Speaker, I feel like a broken record talking about
the invasion of our southern border over and over again, but it
continues to get worse day by day.
When we have a President and an administration that do not take the
crisis seriously, someone has to talk about it. We need to talk about
it. We need to speak about it until we get it fixed.
From day one, Joe Biden has completely and utterly neglected his
duties as President of the United States to enforce our rule of law and
protect the national security of our great Nation. It is truly
shameful.
From day one, Joe Biden abandoned strong and effective border
policies put in place by President Trump that had our border nearly
totally under control.
From day one, Joe Biden and his administration created this crisis.
This is a crisis of their own doing, and Democrats have no one to blame
other than themselves as to why thousands of illegal migrants come to
our border daily. Ironically, some of them actually wear Biden T-
shirts.
To make the border crisis even worse, and it is hard to believe that
you could make it even worse, the radical Democrats are now using
elementary and secondary schools to house these illegal immigrants. It
is shameful.
[[Page H3055]]
There is absolutely no way to know the backgrounds of the
individuals, yet Democrats find it appropriate to provide shelter for
these migrants in children's gyms, auditoriums, and school spaces. Why
do Democrats continue to put our children at risk?
As if trying to indoctrinate our children in the classroom isn't
enough, as if it is not enough to see what they are doing in trying to
affect the relationship of parents and their children in the school
when parents are concerned about education, God knows how long they
will be sheltered at these school campuses.
Democrats show time and time again they are not committed to
protecting the American public and that they care more about the
illusion of appearing compassionate when in reality they are neither
compassionate nor competent.
Democrats cry that it is a political stunt when 40 migrants get flown
to a sanctuary city or their luxury vacation island, yet when our
border States and towns are overrun by this engineered crisis, there is
no concern on their part. It is completely okay. It is okay for you. It
just isn't okay for us.
It is also okay to Democrats that migrants are being held in places
where there are virtually no bathrooms or sanitation facilities--so
much for compassion, so much for caring, so much for the good of the
country. This is hypocrisy at an astronomical level.
Unlike Democrats, Republicans are committed to protecting your
children and will be voting this week to highlight and condemn this
insanity. Once again, we will fight the fight.
Enough is enough. It is time to protect our children. It is time to
take our country back.
I thank my fellow colleagues for being here tonight.
Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr.
Obernolte).
Mr. OBERNOLTE. Mr. Speaker, this week, our House Armed Services
Committee is continuing the critical process of crafting the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2024.
This important piece of legislation will give our servicemen and
servicewomen the resources they need to protect our national security.
That is particularly important to my district.
I represent five major military installations: the Naval Weapons
Center at China Lake, Edwards Air Force Base, the Air Ground Combat
Center in Twentynine Palms, the Army's National Training Center at Fort
Irwin, and the Marine Corps Logistics Base at Barstow. These five bases
are unique because they are classified by the Department of Defense as
remote or isolated.
Service for our servicemen and servicewomen in uniform is
particularly difficult at remote or isolated bases because they are
located so far away from urban centers of population. That is why we
rely on an army of civilian contractors to provide the services that we
need to house our men and women in uniform at these bases.
These civilian contractors provide services such as teaching their
children, preparing their food, cleaning their barracks, and providing
them with the medical care that they need.
Unfortunately, reports by the Department of Defense indicate that all
43 of the remote or isolated bases in the United States suffer from
severe shortages of the civilian contractors needed to provide these
services.
That is why, in committee today, I offered an amendment to the
National Defense Authorization Act that requires the Comptroller
General to conduct a study quantifying the scope of this problem and to
make recommendations to the Department of Defense as to how to better
incentivize civilian contractors to serve our military men and women at
these remote bases.
I am delighted that my amendment was unanimously adopted in committee
today, and I am looking forward to working with my colleagues on the
House floor and my colleagues in the Senate to ensure that it is
included in the NDAA this year.
I thank all of our colleagues on the House Armed Services Committee
for their hard work on this issue and for their work protecting our men
and women in uniform.
Mr. VAN DREW. Mr. Speaker, I thank Mr. Obernolte for his concern and
his commitment to our veterans and his concern and commitment to all
those who serve our country.
{time} 1945
Mr. VAN DREW. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Tennessee
(Mr. Rose).
Mr. ROSE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New Jersey for
yielding me time tonight.
Mr. Speaker, this weekend, on June 24, marks one whole year since the
landmark Supreme Court decision that overturned Roe v. Wade. As we look
back and celebrate this occasion as a win for all those that believe in
the sanctity of life from the moment of conception, I can't help but
wonder how many lives have been saved just since this decision.
Of course, there is still more work to be done, but I am forever
thankful for those across our great country, including in my home State
of Tennessee, who helped achieve this victory. From those who have
traveled and continued to travel to our Nation's Capital every year
since 1974 to march for life, to the many volunteers and professional
counselors who provide caring services to mothers at crisis pregnancy
centers all across the country, this was truly a national movement.
Showing great insight at the time, our Tennessee State legislature
took decisive action prior to the Dobbs v. Jackson decision to outlaw
most abortions the moment this decision was returned to the States.
I couldn't be prouder of our State of Tennessee, which has become a
leader in the pro-life movement in recent years.
Now innocent, unborn children have the legal protection they so
desperately needed. I believe we must continue our efforts to protect
children from gender mutilating surgeries, the horrid sexualization of
our children's classrooms and libraries by drag queen performances on
public property, and to protect the ability of women to play sports
against other women.
As a Christian, a father, and a husband I will always stand up for
what is right for our families and fight back against the left's attack
against our conservative Christian beliefs. Just like with Roe v. Wade,
I believe we will be victorious.
Mr. Speaker, I ask all Members present in the Chamber to join me in a
moment of silence for those millions of unborn babies who lost their
chance to live out the life God meant them to have to the horrid
practice of abortion.
Mr. VAN DREW. Mr. Speaker, I thank Mr. Rose for his care and love for
our children, both born and unborn.
Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Iowa (Mrs. Miller-
Meeks), the sponsor of this legislation.
Mrs. MILLER-MEEKS. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague, Representative
Van Drew, for yielding me time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 3799, the CHOICE Arrangement
Act, which we just voted on tonight.
According to the National Federation of Independent Business, small
businesses have ranked the cost of health insurance as their number one
problem for 32 years straight. Even our largest employers rank the cost
of health insurance and healthcare as a tremendous issue.
Offer rates from small employers with under 50 workers dropped from
39 to 31 percent from 2010 to 2021. This is both unfortunate and
alarming because small business owners and employees who drive the
American economy with their skills deserve better.
As a physician and a former small business owner myself and a
supporter of small businesses, I understand the importance of quality
healthcare. I am all for innovative solutions that bring down costs
without expanding the power of the Federal Government.
The inaptly named Affordable Care Act doubled down on a broken
individual health market that now costs taxpayers more than a trillion
a year. The CHOICE Arrangement Act eliminates the need for small
businesses to choose between expensive, unaffordable ACA-compliant
coverage or no coverage at all.
Furthermore, any business size can offer this type of coverage and
employers can offer coverage so that their employees can obtain health
insurance. The benefit to employees is--let me say it in three words:
portability, cost, and choice.
Of these three, the most important, especially as a physician
delivering care, is for patients to have choice. We
[[Page H3056]]
know with the innovation that has come about through technology that
patients want choice now more than ever.
Imagine having an arrangement where you can use your healthcare
dollars to get devices that measure your blood sugar rather than having
to prick your finger every day, or other things that are not covered
necessarily by health insurance or Federal health insurance.
Furthermore, this Act codifies a rule created by President Trump that
makes it easier for businesses and self-employed individuals to band
together or pool together across State lines to purchase association
health plans and expanded health reimbursements.
Mr. Speaker, I am proud to support the CHOICE Arrangement Act, and I
look forward to the Senate's swift consideration of this measure.
Mr. VAN DREW. Mr. Speaker, I thank Mrs. Miller-Meeks for the work she
does and the difference that she makes.
Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. LaMalfa),
my friend.
Mr. LaMALFA. Mr. Speaker, talking on the issue of a campaign being
used for buying votes, the President back in his 2020 campaign promised
to cancel up to $10,000 of Federal student loan debt per borrower. Of
course, after his election he called for the 117th Congress to pass a
bill to facilitate $10,000 in student loan forgiveness.
When he first announced his attempt by his administration to forgive
the debt for those who need it most was in August of 2022. Since that
announcement, the plan has been mired in pushback from the judiciary
and legislative branches of the government. It isn't even seen as legal
or constitutional is the charge.
The Administration's main legal argument for its ability to forgive
student loan debt is that the 2003 HEROES Act, a bill that provides
reservists and their families relief from making student loan payments,
also allows, theoretically, the executive branch to cancel student debt
for anyone they wish to. This theory has faced severe pushback from
many legal experts.
The administration's argument is that because of the language of the
HEROES Act of 2003, the President would somehow have the authority to
unilaterally transfer up to $500 billion in student loan debt from
those who are contractually required to repay it to taxpayers who never
borrowed the money.
The plan would cancel up to $20,000 in Federal student loan debt for
more than 40 million borrowers. Republicans and Democrats have voted
for legislation that prevents the administration's bailout from taking
effect.
Many Republicans see the bailout as a wealth distribution scam
because it in effect forces working-class Americans to subsidize the
college tuition of wealthier Americans.
Nearly all borrowers who today obtain Federal student loans do so
under the William D. Ford Direct Loan Program authorized by Congress in
1993. The designation of this Federal program as a direct loan program
means that when making an FDLP loan, the Federal Government disburses
funds to a non-Federal borrower under a contract with the borrower that
requires repayment.
Since September of last year, multiple lawsuits have resulted in the
administration's scheme being put on hold. A Federal judge in Texas
declared the entire plan to be unlawful. The Department of Education
stopped taking applications from student loan borrowers who would have
been forgiven under the plan, but the DOJ is currently appealing that
decision.
The U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals rejected an appeal from the
Biden administration asking to allow the scheme to continue while the
Supreme Court took up the case.
Lawsuits against the Biden administration have been filed in the U.S.
Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals. In a case known as Biden v. Nebraska,
the U.S. Supreme Court is set to weigh in on the constitutionality of
the plan. Oral arguments were heard in February. A decision has not
been announced, but many legal experts expect the Court to overturn the
program.
Congress itself has also reacted negatively to the plan. H.J. Res 45,
a bipartisan resolution which uses the Congressional Review Act to
overturn the administration's student loan forgiveness plan, was vetoed
by the President earlier in June.
Republicans in Congress have likened the President's plan to a vote-
buying scheme, claiming it is an attempt to buy college graduate votes
in exchange for the possibility of financial reward in the form of debt
forgiveness.
Concerns have been raised that if the President's scheme is
successful, there is the possibility a future President may forgive
large sections of the country's debts and use the Biden student loan
cancellation as a precedent to justify it.
The bottom line is that for the people who took the loans out, they
need to pay their own loans back. Hardworking people in this country
that chose not to take student loans for college, or just went
immediately to work or went into a trade or other aspects of that,
should not be footing the bill for those that agreed to do it when they
signed up as adults to take on these loans.
Mr. Speaker, we don't need to have an administration somehow
intervene and buy votes on that and promise things that it cannot
deliver for folks that really don't deserve it when they incurred the
debt and were making a free decision to do so.
This is a scam, a scheme, and it needs to be prevented. I hope the
Supreme Court rules that way and Congress needs to act to make sure
that isn't carried out.
Mr. Speaker, let's reward the people that work hard and pay their
debts and not have a giveaway program that the Federal Government does
in order to buy votes.
Mr. VAN DREW. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate Mr. LaMalfa's focus on what
is a very important issue and it is a fairness issue. I appreciate the
time and trouble he put into that. Well done.
Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Langworthy),
my friend.
Mr. LANGWORTHY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New Jersey
for yielding me the time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H. Res. 461, condemning the use of
elementary and secondary school facilities to provide shelter for
illegal immigrants.
Under the policies of the Biden administration, every State is a
border State. The communities across my district are feeling this
burden.
Five counties in my district declared a state of emergency because
they simply do not have the resources to handle the flood of illegal
immigration that this administration has allowed unchecked.
This crisis is exacerbated by the radical sanctuary city policies of
New York Democrats. They have turned their back on hardworking
Americans, forcing small towns to manage illegal immigrants that
overflow out of these Democrat-run cities. Now they want to take
resources away from our students.
By turning taxpayer-funded schools into housing, we steal critical
resources from student achievement, impede the learning process, and
jeopardize the safety of our schools.
Let me be clear: the radical open border policies of Democrats in
Washington, Albany, and New York City have created these problems. It
is our duty to protect our borders, secure our schools, and uphold the
rights and the safety of our children.
Mr. Speaker, I am proud to be cosponsor of H. Res. 461, and I urge my
colleagues to support this measure and join us in our commitment to
securing our borders and enforcing our immigration laws. Together, we
can put an end to this crisis and ensure the well-being of our
communities and the future of our Nation.
Mr. VAN DREW. Mr. Speaker, I thank Mr. Langworthy for his focus on
this. I spoke about it earlier. We need to talk about it over and over
and over again until we have policies that make sure our American
people are number one and are safe.
Certainly, we can have immigration but in a legal and appropriate
way. Our President has been shameful in this.
Mr. Speaker, I believe that concludes my Special Order, and I yield
back the balance of my time.
____________________