[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.

                          ____________________