Congressional Record, Volume 169 Issue 188 (Tuesday, November 14, 2023)

[Congressional Record Volume 169, Number 188 (Tuesday, November 14, 2023)]
[House]
[Pages H5809-H5854]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

DEPARTMENTS OF LABOR, HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, AND EDUCATION, AND
RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2024

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 864 and rule
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House
on the state of the Union for the further consideration of the bill,
H.R. 5894.
Will the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wittman) kindly take the chair.

{time} 1757

In the Committee of the Whole

Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the
Whole House on the state of the Union for the further consideration of
the bill (H.R. 5894) making appropriations for the Departments of
Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, and related agencies
for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2024, and for other purposes,
with Mr. Wittman (Acting Chair) in the chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The Acting CHAIR. When the Committee of the Whole rose earlier today,
amendment No. 76 printed in part B of House Report 118-272, offered by
the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Biggs), had been disposed of.

Amendment No. 78 Offered by Mr. Perry

The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 78
printed in part B of House Report 118-272.
Mr. PERRY. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Page 162, line 11, after the dollar amount, insert
``(reduced by $100,000,000)''.
Page 195, line 9, after the dollar amount, insert
``(increased by $100,000,000)''.

{time} 1800

Just this year, the Biden NLRB has issued the following PRO Act
provision by fiat: Joint employers standard, which destroys the
franchise model and eliminates independent contractors; ambush
elections, which shortens the timelines for elections to prevent
employees from making fully informed decisions about whether to
unionize or not; and card check, which eliminates secret ballot
elections and ensures union bosses can intimidate and lie their way
into certification.
Immediately after taking office, President Biden fired the NLRB
General Counsel Peter Robb, even though he had 10 months remaining in
his term and he was replaced with an Acting General Counsel, an end-
around to the constitutional advice and consent process.
This radical acting official rescinded pro-employee memos that:
protected employee's rights not to fund union activity; provided
injured workers with remedies when they were injured due to union
malfeasance; and challenged neutrality agreements as improper efforts
by employers to support a union and eliminate the right of its
employees to decide whether or not to organize.
These actions laid bare the truth that the NLRB is not living up to
its mission, nor is it looking out for the interests of its workers.
Instead, it is implementing a radical, deeply unpopular agenda through
extraconstitutional means at the behest of leftist special interests.
Stand up for the American people and stop this madness.
Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition to this
amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Connecticut is recognized for
5 minutes.
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chair, I rise in strong opposition to this
amendment.
The underlying bill already cuts NLRB funding by one-third. That is
the lowest nominal appropriation since 1999 and the lowest
appropriation in real terms in at least five decades.
A further reduction would mean mass furloughs, reduction in force,
and the closure of field offices. In terms of scale, a $100 million cut
equates to total compensation for more than 500 FTEs. That is roughly
40 percent of the NLRB workforce. Combined with the $99 million cut in
the base text, the agency would lose roughly 80 percent of its staff
capacity.

[[Page H5810]]

Case processing would grind to a halt, even as the agency faces a
backlog following last year's 10 percent increase in case intake.
Let's talk about cases. Let's talk about unfair labor practice.
We should ignore unfair labor practices, according to the majority.
We should not concern ourselves with employers who ignore collective
bargaining rights because, quite frankly, I don't believe the majority
believes in collective bargaining rights.
That really thwarts economic policy. That leaves people on their own,
people who are living paycheck to paycheck who are fundamentally
concerned with their cost of living. We just make it worse for them,
but I believe that this follows a Republican philosophy--antiworker,
antiunion, antiworking family. That is what sums up this amendment.
Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this amendment, and
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. PERRY. Mr. Chairman, I do applaud the chairman of this committee
for making the cuts to the NLRB that he has made. They should be made.
Obviously, the NLRB is running amuck. They must have too much time on
their hands or too many resources.
Did my colleague on the other side not hear the list of infractions?
It would be absolutely fine if the NLRB focused on unfair labor
practices and dealt with that. That is their mission, but that is not
their focus.
Their focus is expanding the force of big labor everywhere that they
can and shutting out the little guy and removing the choice of average
citizens of how they want to work and how they want to be represented,
which is why they need to be hemmed in. That is just the simple fact of
it, and if it takes it back to the point where they are only focusing
on unfair labor practices, then I think we will have done our job well.
This amendment actually strengthens the chairman's position in
negotiations with the Senate when this bill comes to that negotiation.
Mr. Chair, I urge all Members to vote in favor, and I reserve the
balance of my time.
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chair, I continue to oppose this amendment, but it
is really very interesting. We are in the year 2023. We have a budget
for this year, and maybe this is news to the gentleman, but in a
bipartisan way where the NLRB had been flat funded for decades, we came
together and increased the funding for the NLRB.
All of these pejoratives that you are spewing about the NLRB, your
Republican colleagues on the committee from last year voted to increase
funding for the NLRB.
I don't believe that the Republican majority cares much about the
goals; that is, about dealing with worker complaints, dealing with
basic, fundamental, collective bargaining rights. I think you believe
in thwarting people's economic opportunity for the future; otherwise,
you would not be going down this road. In 2023, in a bipartisan,
bicameral basis, we increased the funding for the NLRB to be able to do
its job.
I don't know what has happened to folks since last December, but you
clearly don't follow what has been happening and what was being done
with the NLRB.
Mr. Chair, this amendment really ought to be defeated, and I yield
back the balance of my time.
Mr. PERRY. Mr. Chair, I thank the gentlewoman. Just because we could
increase the funding and there was an agreement to increase funding
across the board to some level doesn't mean we have to. I know it is a
news flash to everybody in this town, but next month in December we are
going to be $34 trillion in debt. We simply can't afford it.
I don't mean to be pejorative about the NLRB, if my colleague on the
other side thinks this is pejorative. These are just the facts. These
are things they have done. If the gentlewoman doesn't like them, don't
blame me. I am pointing out what they did, which is why we need to take
action here and rein this out-of-control agency in.
Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Perry).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania
will be postponed.

Amendment No. 80 Offered by Mr. Kiley

The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 80
printed in part B of House Report 118-272.
Mr. KILEY. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Page 195, after line 3, insert the following:
Sec. 541A. No funds made available under this Act may be
used by the Department of Health and Human Services or any
grantee to implement a mask mandate for children at Head
Start programs.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 864, the gentleman
from California (Mr. Kiley) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California.
Mr. KILEY. Mr. Chair, throughout the COVID-19 era, the United States
was an outlier in many ways, but perhaps most of all when it came to
the treatment of young children. A very clear example of that is the
policy of forcing toddlers to wear masks.
This is from an article from NPR in January 2022. It says: ``The
United States is an outlier in recommending masks from the age of 2
years old. The World Health Organization does not recommend masks for
children under age 5, while the European equivalent of the CDC doesn't
recommend them for children under age 12.''
When it came to the Head Start program, not only was it recommended,
but it was mandated that children as young as 2 years old, over a
million kids in Head Start, had to wear masks up until January 2023.
Now, this flew in the face of not only international norms, but of
all scientific evidence. Study after study has shown no public health
benefit to forcing young children to wear masks.
For example, a 2022 study by Dr. Ambarish Chandra and Dr. Tracy Beth
Hoeg was titled, ``Lack of correlation between school mask mandates and
pediatric COVID-19 cases. . . . `'
At the same time, the evidence continues to pile up as to the harms
done to young children when it comes to the disruption of holistic
processing, of face perception, of social skills, of emotional
development, not to mention the misery that they cause young children
having to wear masks for hours on end each day.
Perhaps the need for this amendment was most clearly demonstrated in
some truly unbelievable testimony by Health and Human Services
Secretary Xavier Becerra earlier this year. I asked Secretary Becerra
whether the policy of forcing 2-year-olds to wear masks saved lives.
He responded by saying: Who did the forcing? The answer, of course,
was him.
When I pointed this out, he said: ``We never forced anyone to do
anything.'' That is what he said. ``We never forced anyone to do
anything.''
When, in fact, the relevant regulation stated that there was a
requirement for universal masking for all individuals ages 2 and older.
I asked him: Can you point to any public health benefit to forcing
young children to wear masks?
He could provide none.
I asked: Do you, as the Secretary of Health and Human Services, can
you point to any evidence that there was a public health benefit to
forcing young children to wear masks?
The flailing Secretary, unable to come up with anything, simply said
that fewer people are dying in 2023 of COVID than were dying in 2020.
What a farce, Mr. Chair. Let's think about the parents who had to
send their 2-, 3-, 4-year-old kids to school every day under this
policy. And here the Secretary of Health and Human Services doesn't
offer an apology, even though he can come up with not a single public
health benefit to the policy that was enforced on these families.
We need to make sure with this amendment that this never happens
again. This amendment will assure

[[Page H5811]]

that Health and Human Services does not dedicate a single dollar to
enforcing mask mandates for Head Start.
Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition to the
amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Connecticut is recognized for
5 minutes.
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to this amendment.
This amendment prohibits the use of funds by HHS or any grantee to
implement a mask mandate at Head Start programs.
First, I think we need to be clear about the facts. There is
currently no Federal mask requirement in place. There is no Federal
mask requirement in place.
This amendment would leave the Federal Government ill-equipped to
implement evidence-based policy that protects the health and safety of
the public if we face another public health emergency, such as a
dangerous new COVID-19 variant.
Preventing diseases reduces healthcare costs, such as hospitalization
and pharmaceuticals. Masking is a critical public health tool. New
variants are an expected part of the evolution of viruses and can be
more aggressive, transmittable, or cause more severe disease than the
original strain.
Face masks can protect the wearer and those around them by preventing
transmission. Although many people would like to act as if COVID is
over, it is not. Over the past 3 years, there were more than 1 million
deaths due to COVID in the United States, some of whom the people in
this room knew and loved.
We also know that some people infected with the virus that causes
COVID-19 can suffer long-term effects from their infection, meaning
they can experience health problems that can last for years.
Our Nation's public health officials need to have options to protect
our communities as we continue to live with COVID and respond to other
public health emergencies in the future.
Why would we politicize something that could help our fellow
Americans stay healthy? This sweeping amendment is unnecessary. It puts
us all at risk. I think it sets a dangerous precedent for Congress to
overrule a scientific process.
We need to follow the science. That is what we need to be doing and
not following the politics, the religious beliefs, the philosophies,
the ideology of Republican Members of Congress.
Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment, and I
reserve the balance of my time.

{time} 1815

Mr. KILEY. Mr. Chairman, the gentlewoman from Connecticut referred to
evidence-based policies, and yet the Secretary of the U.S. Department
of Health and Human Services could not cite a single piece of evidence
in support of this policy. Not only that, this policy has been rejected
by the World Health Organization and the European equivalent of the
CDC.
I yield back to the gentlewoman and ask if she has come across any
evidence that has somehow alluded the Secretary of Health and Human
Services, the World Health Organization, and countries and our
counterparts in Europe.
Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chair, I continue to oppose this amendment. I will
make the point I made before. Why do we really want to politicize an
issue of public health and public safety? We can come together around
these issues. It is not a matter of gotcha.
We all experienced a very traumatic period in our lives with COVID-
19. Yes, there were masks. We were trying to find our way forward to
protect people in this country. That is essentially what it is all
about. You can have a disagreement, but why would we prohibit the use
of funds by HHS or any grantee to implement a mask mandate at Head
Start programs when there is no Federal mask requirement in place?
Mr. Chair, I oppose the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my
time.
Mr. KILEY. Mr. Chair, to be very clear, I just asked the gentlewoman
to provide us with some evidence in support of her position after she,
herself, claimed that her position was evidence based, and she could
not do so; just like the Secretary of Health and Human Services could
provide no evidence for a policy that has been rejected broadly across
the world.
Mr. Chair, I strongly urge passage of this amendment. It is past time
to restore some sanity in this country and to make sure that the sort
of harmful, unevidence-based policies that so many Americans have to
live with never again return in this country.
Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from California (Mr. Kiley).
The amendment was agreed to.
Amendment No. 81 Offered by Ms. Boebert
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 81
printed in part B of House Report 118-272.
Ms. BOEBERT. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

On page 145, line 7, after the dollar amount, insert
``(reduced by $2,000,000)''.
On page 145, line 18, after the dollar amount, insert
(``increased by $2,000,000)''.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 864, the gentlewoman
from Colorado (Ms. Boebert) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Colorado.
Ms. BOEBERT. Mr. Chair, I rise today to offer my commonsense
amendment to transfer $2 million from government bureaucracy to the
Office of Inspector General to combat waste, fraud, and abuse.
As a proud member of the House Oversight Committee, I am a firm
believer in holding our government accountable to the people we serve.
Honest, hardworking American citizens should be able to trust that
their tax dollars are being spent responsibly and for their intended
purpose.
The Department of Education Office of Inspector General must have
adequate resources and funding to uncover waste, fraud, and abuse to
ensure that the Department can focus on providing for the education of
America's children.
Ever since the passage of the Inspector General Act of 1978,
inspectors general have uncovered billions of dollars of fraud and
exposed numerous instances of criminal wrongdoing. The Department of
Education is no exception.
According to this year's semiannual report, the Department of
Education Office of Inspector General ``closed 32 investigations
involving fraud or corruption and secured more than $41.92 million in
restitution, settlements, fines, savings, recoveries, and forfeitures.
As a result of this work, criminal actions were taken against numerous
people, including current and former school officials and service
providers who cheated students and taxpayers.'' The inspector general
accomplished these feats in only half a year.
In fiscal year 2023, the Department of Education had a budget of a
whopping $271 billion. The American people should be able to trust that
these funds are being used to support the education of their children
and for no other purpose.
My commonsense amendment will ensure that the inspector general has
the funding and resources they need to ensure that the Department's
funds are being used responsibly. We have a sacred duty to ensure that
Department of Education funds are used to further the education of our
children, and we must not tolerate any wrongdoing that defrauds
America's children, students, and families.
Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to support my amendment to increase
funding for the Department of Education Office of Inspector General,
and I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from Colorado (Ms. Boebert).
The amendment was agreed to.
Amendment No. 82 Offered by Mr. Allen
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 82
printed in part B of House Report 118-272.
Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

[[Page H5812]]

The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the
following:
Sec. __. None of the funds made available by this Act may
be used to--
(1) finalize, implement, or enforce the proposed rule
entitled ``Retirement Security Rule: Definition of an
Investment Advice Fiduciary'' (88 Fed. Reg. 75890 (November
3, 2023)) or any substantially similar rule; or
(2) to promulgate or enforce any new regulation, rule, or
guidance with respect to the definition or application of the
term ``fiduciary'' under section 3(21) of the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (29 U.S.C. 1002(21)).

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 864, the gentleman
from Georgia (Mr. Allen) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Georgia.
Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I
rise today to urge support for my amendment, which would prohibit
taxpayer funds from being used to finalize the Biden administration's
destructive proposed fiduciary rule.
I believe saving for retirement is crucial for American families, and
access to professional financial advice should not be hindered by
burdensome overregulation. However, the Biden Department of Labor's
recently proposed fiduciary rule is nothing more than a recycled Obama-
era disaster that does more harm than good to the very people it is
claiming to protect, American retirees and savers.
This rule would raise costs and reduce access to financial advice for
Americans with low and moderate incomes, as well as small businesses.
However, don't just take my word for it. A Deloitte study demonstrated
the damage resulting from the 2016 fiduciary rule, finding that 53
percent of U.S. financial advisers limited or eliminated access to
brokerage advice for retirement investors.
Not to mention, having shifted their position on what it means to be
an investment advice fiduciary three times in the last 2 years, the
Department of Labor has created confusion in the marketplace with their
reckless indecisiveness. By requiring financial advisers to adhere to a
strict, burdensome, and unworkable regulation, retirement advice will
no longer be accessible to those most in need of retirement security.
At a time when inflation is soaring, families' budgets are shrinking,
and our Nation's credit rating has been cut from stable to negative, I
am dismayed as to why President Biden would make it even harder for
Americans to receive financial advice to plan for the future, all while
blatantly skirting responsibility for the economic turmoil that we are
currently experiencing.
This rule is a prime example of regulatory overreach by unelected
bureaucrats in government agencies. I urge my colleagues to support
this amendment which would block taxpayer money from going toward a
rule that would only threaten their financial well-being.
Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Connecticut is recognized for
5 minutes.
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chair, I rise in strong opposition to this
amendment.
American families pay into their retirement savings over the course
of their working lives so that they can retire with financial security
and dignity. Responsible advice providers can help people meet their
savings goals and retire with dignity, and they should be paid fairly
for this important work. Unfortunately, many retirement savers rely on
the financial advice of providers who do not put their interests first,
actions that can lead to diminished investment returns or higher
transaction costs.
Let me give you an example. Advice rooted in conflicts of interest
regarding the sale of just one investment product--that is fixed index
annuities--may cost savers as much as $5 billion per year. This hurts
workers, families, and the American economy. Plain and simple, these
are a form of junk fees that can erode the retirement savings of
hardworking American families. Fortunately, the Department of Labor is
proposing to protect retirement investors through a new rule requiring
financial advisers to avoid recommendations that pad their pockets at
the expense of retirement savers. I don't know if somebody can tell me,
why wouldn't we want to protect folks in retirement?
This amendment would block the Department's regulatory efforts to
protect retirement savers from junk fees. This would leave the
investments of hardworking Americans vulnerable to financial advisers
looking out for their own financial gain at their clients' expense.
Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this amendment, and
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Chair, my amendment will help protect the millions of
hardworking taxpayers who rely on financial advisers to assist in
planning for their future. I strongly urge my colleagues to support
this amendment and fight against this administration and unelected
bureaucrats who want to grow big government.
Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chair, I continue to oppose the amendment, and I
yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Allen).
The amendment was agreed to.

Amendment No. 83 Offered by Mrs. Wagner

The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 83
printed in part B of House Report 118-272.
Mrs. WAGNER. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the
following:
Sec. __. None of the funds made available by this Act may
be used to finalize, implement, or enforce the proposed rules
that follow:
(1) The proposed rule entitled ``Prohibited Transaction
Exemption'' (88 Fed. Reg. 75979 (November 3, 2023)).
(2) The proposed rule entitled ``Prohibited Transaction
Exemption 84-24'' (88 Fed. Reg. 76004 (November 3, 2023)).
(3) The proposed rule entitled ``Prohibited Transaction
Exemptions 75-1, 77-4, 80-83, and 86-128'' (88 Fed. Reg.
76032 (November 3, 2023)).

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 864, the gentlewoman
from Missouri (Mrs. Wagner) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Missouri.
Mrs. WAGNER. Mr. Chair, I rise today with an amendment that would
prevent the Department of Labor from finalizing its recently proposed
fiduciary rule.
This proposal marks the Department of Labor's fourth attempt to issue
a fiduciary proposal. Each version of this decade-long effort has drawn
significant investor as well as bipartisan congressional concern. Most
notably, Congress passed a joint resolution I was proud to lead that
would have stopped the Obama administration's 2016 DOL fiduciary rule.
The 2016 version of the rule was vacated by the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit in 2018 due to DOL's exceeding its statutory
authority under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, ERISA, in
writing rules. This court-rejected proposal threatened access to
affordable and reliable retirement investment advice for millions of
low- and middle-income Americans.
Furthermore, this rule caused major disruptions in the market,
created more retirement insecurity, and resulted in fewer product
choices for America's workers and retirees.
The Obama administration's DOL fiduciary rule would have left
Americans who were just starting to build their retirement savings
without access to financial advice or paying more for fewer options and
decreased service. The Biden administration's fiduciary rule is no
different. As Chairwoman Foxx put it just the other day, the proposal,
``is just new lipstick on the same old pig.''
The last time the Department of Labor meddled with the definition of
fiduciary, we watched more than 10 million Americans lose access to
financial advice.
Do we really want to go down this road again when we know exactly
where it leads?

[[Page H5813]]

{time} 1830

The changes that the Department of Labor is proposing contain overly
burdensome requirements that will increase consumer costs, limit
choices, and cut off access to financial investment products that are
known to provide a secure, guaranteed stream of income for retirees.
At the end of the day, many businesses offering these safe financial
solutions will be forced to switch to a fee-based advisory model, which
would require customers to meet account minimums or pay a large up-
front fee.
Ultimately, this will shut millions of low- and middle-income
Americans out of the financial advice market, and we will be left with
two classes of investors: those who can afford investment advice and
those who cannot.
Mr. Chairman, to put it simply, Americans are worried. They are
worried about their future. They are struggling to save for their
retirement, to put a child through college, or to one day open their
own business. On top of all the existing barriers to saving, the Biden
administration wants to make that even more challenging with its--ready
for this?--500-page regulation.
We know these regulations do not work. We have seen them fail. We
have seen them hurt those who can least afford it during the savings
crisis.
Both Chambers of Congress, Republicans and Democrats, have come
together in the past to recognize the harm that this rule will have on
those looking to save for retirement.
Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support
this amendment that protects retail investors and America's savers, and
I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Connecticut is recognized for
5 minutes.
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chair, I oppose this amendment.
I think the gentlewoman is right. Americans are worried about very
serious financial issues. They are living paycheck to paycheck, and
they are struggling.
What, in fact, they don't need is irresponsible providers charging
them junk fees that take money out of their pockets instead of
understanding that they do have some advice and counsel as to where to
go and who the bad actors are.
Once again, this amendment would leave retirement savers vulnerable
to junk fees.
Mr. Chair, I oppose this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my
time.
Mrs. WAGNER. Mr. Chair, the changes the Department of Labor is
proposing contain overly burdensome requirements that will increase
consumer costs, limit choices, and cut off access to financial
investment products that are known to provide a secure, guaranteed
stream of income for retirees.
Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment and shut
down the Department of Labor's fourth attempt at a fiduciary rule that
will hurt retirees and investment savers, and I yield back the balance
of my time.
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chair, I continue to oppose this amendment, and I
yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from Missouri (Mrs. Wagner).
The amendment was agreed to.

Amendment No. 84 Offered by Mr. Norman

The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 84
printed in part B of House Report 118-272.
Mr. NORMAN. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the
following:
Sec. __. None of the funds made available by this Act may
be used to carry out the actions described in the fact sheet
released by the White House on October 31, 2023, related to
cracking down on junk fees in retirement investment advice.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 864, the gentleman
from South Carolina (Mr. Norman) and a Member opposed each will control
5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from South Carolina.
Mr. NORMAN. Mr. Chair, my amendment would prohibit funding from being
used to carry out the actions described in Biden's October 31 fact
sheet regarding cracking down on so-called junk fees that we have heard
a lot about tonight.
Specifically, this amendment would prevent funding from being used to
implement the Department of Labor's controversial effort to crack down
on so-called junk fees in retirement investing that could easily result
and will result in higher fees and fewer investment options for
hardworking Americans.
Since the beginning of the Biden administration's whole-of-government
crusade against so-called junk fees, it has been clear that the
President and his officials are just targeting fees and practices that
go against their own subjective preferences.
The administration can't even define what a junk fee is. Maybe my
good friend on the left could define what a junk fee is.
Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Connecticut is recognized for
5 minutes.
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chair, the prior speaker talked about families
trying to save for college. I understand that. It is tough these days
to save for college, to put your kids through college, especially in
this economy--thwarted, I might add, by some of the prior amendments
that we have seen here tonight.
Why wouldn't we try to protect those folks, allowing them to save
and, quite honestly, save them from junk fees?
I didn't really realize that so many of my Republican colleagues
support this effort, which would leave retirees susceptible to people
who would sell them a bill of goods, a pig in a poke--pick whatever
commentary you want to make--and then charge them for it. You deny
people a real return on their investment, but you charge them a fee for
doing that. That is a junk fee. You are paying for junk--junk advice,
junk assistance--and you bear the brunt of that.
I am not saying it is all providers. There are probably lots of good
folks who are financial consultants and advisers, but don't tell me
there aren't a lot of bad actors in this area who are collecting from
the most vulnerable.
Not every person in retirement has all the knowledge to do everything
that they need to do to evaluate and investigate a financial planner to
make them whole at the end of the day.
As I just mentioned before, this is an amendment that leaves
retirement savers vulnerable to these junk fees.
Mr. Chair, I oppose the amendment, and I reserve the balance of my
time.
Mr. NORMAN. Mr. Chair, I still didn't hear the definition of a junk
fee. You have a politician and bureaucrats in the Department of Labor
restricting what commissions brokers who are in a competitive business
can charge willing buyers.
Again, you have government that is trying to restrict commissions on
funds and annuities they can provide to savers.
Currently, this compensation practice is disclosed to investors and
enables brokers to charge less because of the additional compensation.
The White House fact sheet does not dispute that fees may actually
increase as a result of this rule.
This proposal is misguided and risks creating confusion in the
marketplace, unwarranted compliance expenses, and instability for
retirement plans, retirees, and savers.
Again, this is done voluntarily, depending on who you deal with. It
is a competitive business. You have politicians who have probably never
been in the workforce and bureaucrats trying to dictate what they do.
Don't take my word for it. Listen to the experts who serve in the
industry, who actually work in the industry. According to the American
Council of Life Insurers, a fiduciary-only regulation would shut off
access to important retirement tools and hurt the very people the
regulation intends to help.
The National Association of Insurance and Financial Advisors is
concerned this proposal will have the effect of substantially reducing
consumer access to investment and will create a substantial advice gap
for potentially millions of individuals who need professional guidance
to understand and make investment decisions--

[[Page H5814]]

their own decisions, without government interference--on their
retirement accounts.
Mr. Chair, I urge passage of my amendment, and I reserve the balance
of my time.
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chair, I am still in opposition to this amendment.
Let me tell you this tale here. Grant and Dorothy were a retired
couple who were both in their seventies when they turned over their
retirement funds to their broker. The broker decided it would be
appropriate to employ a complex strategy that was geared toward
generating growth while hedging against catastrophic bear market
losses.
Unfortunately, with the strategy, in just 7 months, the broker lost
almost 20 percent of their $150,000 in retirement funds. During the
same time period, the broker earned $15,000. That is a junk fee. Bad
investment advice that denies savers good returns on their investments
is a form of a junk fee.
Mr. Chair, I oppose the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my
time.
Mr. NORMAN. Mr. Chair, I close with the fact that my good friend from
the left points out one example. What about the millions of people who
are profitable, who choose to get into the stock market, who choose
their broker, who choose to pay the so-called junk fees that
politicians shouldn't get involved with, nor should the government get
involved with?
Mr. Chair, I urge passage of my amendment, and I yield back the
balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Norman).
The amendment was agreed to.

Amendment No. 85 Offered by Mr. Biggs

The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 85
printed in part B of House Report 118-272.
Mr. BIGGS. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the
following:
Sec. __. None of the funds made available by this Act may
be used by the Department of Health and Human Services to
make voluntary contributions to the World Health
Organization.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 864, the gentleman
from Arizona (Mr. Biggs) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arizona.
Mr. BIGGS. Mr. Chairman, I rise to speak in support of my amendment,
which will prohibit the Department of Health and Human Services from
making any voluntary contributions to the World Health Organization.
The World Health Organization failed the world and America with its
response to COVID-19 and has continued to fail the world and the U.S.
The WHO helped perpetuate the Chinese Government's wholly inaccurate
claims and even praised their handling of the outbreak. The WHO
Director-General applauded President Xi's very rare leadership and
China's transparency. The WHO was complicit in its deception, willfully
accepting what China had claimed and spread to the rest of the world
instead of doing its job and verifying the claims that were made.
Further, in 2021, the WHO dismissed the COVID lab leak theory as
being ``extremely unlikely'' after a visit to China. The WHO even
returned from that trip with the theory that the virus was transmitted
to humans through frozen food, which was an absurd claim.
Then, in 2022, 2 years after COVID, the WHO changed its tune and
recommended more investigation into the lab leak theory, the same
theory that it had so eagerly dismissed as a conspiracy theory because
President Trump suspected what was going on back in 2020. It turns out
President Trump was right to withdraw funding from the World Health
Organization.
In addition, the World Health Organization has allowed North Korea to
sit on its executive board. North Korea lacks any qualifications to
justify a seat on the board. North Korea lacks any sort of transparency
in its management of the COVID-19 outbreak. North Korea's track record
of responses to public health issues raises significant concerns that
it is able to participate in the WHO's decisionmaking process.
How is it that North Korea, a country that has a well-documented
history of human rights abuses and atrocities, is allowed to sit on the
World Health Organization's executive board, an executive board that
sets and enforces the organization's agenda and policy? The human
rights record of North Korea is often considered one of the worst in
the world.
Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

{time} 1845

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Connecticut is recognized for
5 minutes.
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chair, the amendment would prohibit HHS, Health and
Human Services, from making any voluntary contributions to the World
Health Organization, including contributions from the Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention and the Administration for Strategic
Preparedness and Response.
WHO, the World Health Organization, is an indispensable partner for
the CDC and the Administration for Strategic Preparedness and Response
to effectively achieve their missions of protecting America from
health, safety, and security threats, both foreign and domestic.
The World Health Organization sets health norms and standards for its
194 member states--for everyday public health concerns, as well as
crises and public health emergencies.
Without collaboration with WHO, CDC and the United States would have
limited means by which to inform and influence those global norms. As a
U.N. organization, the World Health Organization has access to
geographies and populations that may be difficult for our CDC, the
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and other bilateral health
agencies to reach, and therefore, filling critical needs around the
world to address public health threats at their source in a way no
other organization can.
CDC uses all the tools at its disposal, including sharing technical
expertise and deploying emergency responders, to ensure its resources
at the WHO are working to achieve CDC's core mission.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention works with the World
Health Organization to address ongoing public health threats and
priorities, including polio eradication; routine immunizations and
immunization system strengthening; pandemic, seasonal, and avian
influenza; and building foundational public health capacities at the
country level to strengthen global health security.
In addition, I might add that the Administration for Strategic
Preparedness and Response, ASPR, has an agreement with the World Health
Organization to provide smallpox vaccine to respond to an outbreak
should one occur. This amendment could jeopardize the containment of an
outbreak, and therefore, the health and security of the United States.
This amendment is unnecessary, and it would open the door for other
countries to replace our seat at the table. If we are not at the table,
then China will claim our place.
Congress must not tolerate any effort to stymie American leadership
on global health.
Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment, and I
reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BIGGS. Mr. Chair, I have been talking about North Korea. At the
same time that we put North Korea on the board, you see North Korea on
the executive board of the WHO, Taiwan is excluded. Why? Because China
isolates Taiwan.
If you are concerned about China taking our place in WHO, China
already has incredible resources and influence over Director Tedros.
That is what is going on.
Let's talk about this because I think that what we just heard was a
conflation--a conflation, all the things, all the good things the WHO
is doing, this and that. Guess what? We paid mandatory fees to them of
$200 million in 2021. In the 2021 report to Congress, the excess
amount, or the voluntary amount, was $99 million.
Since the despicable attack on Israel by Hamas, the World Health
Organization and its subsidiary in Gaza has

[[Page H5815]]

spent weeks using their platform to advocate for an immediate cease-
fire, a position that has been the rallying cry for the Hamas-
sympathizing political left right here in the United States.
On October 18, the Twitter account for the WHO in occupied
Palestinian territory--in other words, in Gaza--issued a statement on
the explosion in the parking lot of the Al Ahli Arab Hospital, which
turned out to be bogus.
We are saying we will keep paying a mandatory amount. We are not
going to give up our seat, but we are not going to pay a $99 million
voluntary amount.
Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chair, I continue to oppose the amendment, and I
yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. BIGGS. Mr. Chair, I remind everyone that this is only the
voluntary amount that we give above our membership allotment to the
World Health Organization.
We should all be in support of this.
Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Moylan). The question is on the amendment
offered by the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Biggs).
The amendment was agreed to.

Amendment No. 86 Offered by Mr. Biggs

The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 86
printed in part B of House Report 118-272.
Mr. BIGGS. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the
following:
Sec. __. None of the funds made available by this Act may
be used to pay the salary and expenses of the position of the
Director of the Office of Refugee Resettlement in the
Administration for Children and Families at the Department of
Health and Human Services, occupied by Robin Dunn Marcos.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 864, the gentleman
from Arizona (Mr. Biggs) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arizona.
Mr. BIGGS. Mr. Chair, my amendment would prohibit the use of funds to
pay for the salary and expenses of the Department of Health and Human
Services Office of Refugee Resettlement, which is currently occupied by
Director Robin Dunn Marcos.
ORR's negligence has led to the endangerment of unaccompanied alien
children.
In March of 2021, ORR weakened its safety protocols by eliminating
the proof of address requirements for sponsors and exempting other
household members from submitting to a background check or providing
identification.
ORR has prohibited asking whether a sponsor of a UAC is a citizen and
doesn't consider a sponsor with deportation orders as disqualified. In
addition to this, criminal history and a refusal to submit to a
background check also are not considered disqualifiers for individuals
becoming sponsors.
Think of this: Children, unaccompanied minors, who have come into the
U.S. that we have placed into the care of ORR are being given to people
who may have a criminal history, but those people with a criminal
history are not disqualified for being a foster parent for this UAC.
It is an abject failure that the lack of a vetting process is in
place to allow for an individual to become a sponsor when they have a
criminal history or deportation orders that are not considered.
Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Connecticut is recognized for
5 minutes.
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chair, I rise in strong opposition to this
amendment.
It really is disgraceful that the Republican majority has shown a
proclivity in the 2024 appropriations bills to target dedicated public
servants and threaten their livelihoods.
Public servants are doing their jobs, and they carry out the policy
of the administration that they serve, Democrat or Republican.
The gentleman may have genuine concerns about the Office of Refugee
Resettlement, but Congress should be talking about policy concerns
without rhetoric and certainly without personal retribution to the
employees devoting their time and talent to the Federal Government.
Ms. Dunn Marcos is extremely qualified. She has worked tirelessly on
refugee issues domestically and internationally for years. She has led
teams for the International Rescue Committee across the United States
and Europe. She has served in the Peace Corps. She stood up the
processing services and safe havens for thousands of Afghans during
Operation Allies Welcome. She now oversees the care of thousands of
vulnerable unaccompanied children.
Ms. Dunn Marcos is a dedicated public servant. Defunding the office
of the director position is not how we solve policy differences.
I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this amendment, and I reserve
the balance of my time.
Mr. BIGGS. You know what I think is a disgrace? I think it is
disgraceful when the person who is in charge of placing those children
has lost contact and communication with more than 85,000, according to
The New York Times, and that was 7 months ago. The real number now
exceeds 100,000. Mr. Chair, that is 100,000 children that this
individual has lost contact with--her office and the Department has
lost contact with. That is what is disgraceful.
If we are talking about policy and that she is merely carrying out
the policy of the administration, are you telling me that it is the
policy of this administration to lose contact and not adequately vet
people? You know, you have some people who received literally a dozen
or more individuals--little children--into that home, and that person
was not qualified and not adequately vetted.
Two-thirds of all UACs that leave HHS's care work illegal, full-time
jobs, often in factories and in hazardous conditions.
ORR has an agreement that the sponsor is supposed to sign to protect
the UAC from being trafficked or exploited, but that doesn't seem to be
very effective.
Caseworkers within ORR claim that HHS regularly ignored obvious signs
of labor exploitation, such as single sponsors sponsoring multiple UAC,
hot spots in the country where many UAC sponsors are not the children's
parents, UAC with significant debts, and direct reports of trafficking.
These sponsors that are inadequately vetted by ORR and HHS can be
dangerous, and they are sending these children to work in factories and
other hazardous work environments.
You want to know what is disgraceful? That is what is disgraceful.
This person should not be in this position. If this is the Biden
policy, that is disgraceful. I don't think that is really what this
administration wants done.
This amendment would remove this person from office, and let's get
somebody in there who is interested in taking care of those kids and
making sure they are cared for.
I get down to the border regularly. I go to the border often. I can't
tell you how many times I have come upon groups with unaccompanied
children, knowing that we have no idea whether they are going to be
cared for in our country or not.
Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chair, I continue to oppose this amendment. It
really is pretty disgraceful that this woman is a public servant with
an impeccable background in the area of dealing with refugees,
International Rescue Committee, Peace Corps, safe haven for Afghans
serving with Operation Allies Welcome, caring for thousands of
vulnerable children now.
This is beneath our dignity, and I might add it is a little bit about
theater of the absurd, and it is disgraceful the direction that this
committee has gone in dealing with really dedicated public servants and
denigrating them and trying to threaten their livelihoods.

There are policy differences, as I said, and without rhetoric,
certainly without personal retribution--nobody out there, if they have
differences with us, threatens our livelihoods. Why are we doing that
to others?

[[Page H5816]]

If we have a policy difference, let's get it sorted out and find
another way to deal with policy differences instead of defunding the
office of the director position.
Again, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this amendment, and I
yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. BIGGS. Again, you know what I think is disgraceful? That we are
going to start discussing someone's livelihood and say, oh, they have
an impeccable background. Do you know who doesn't care about their
livelihood and impeccable background? How about the kids that have been
misplaced, over 100,000, many working in illegal labor jobs. They don't
care about her livelihood. They would like to be cared for humanely.
How about the children who have been sex trafficked? They don't care
about her livelihood or her impeccable background, and I don't either.
I care about those children.
I think it is disgraceful that this administration continues to allow
this kind of policy to be implemented if that is their policy. The
vetting requirements that this director put in place facilitates this
trafficking and abuse of these children. It is disgraceful.
Mr. Chair, I urge people to adopt my amendment, and I yield back the
balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Biggs).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Arizona will
be postponed.

{time} 1900

Amendment No. 87 Offered by Mr. Brecheen

The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 87
printed in part B of House Report 118-272.
Mr. BRECHEEN. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the
following:
Sec. ___. None of the funds made available by this Act may
be used to finalize, implement, administer, or enforce the
proposed rule entitled ``Safe and Appropriate Foster Care
Placement Requirements for Titles IV-E and IV-B'' (88 Fed.
Reg. 66752; published September 28, 2023).

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 864, the gentleman
from Oklahoma (Mr. Brecheen) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Oklahoma.
Mr. BRECHEEN. Mr. Chair, before we debate this amendment, I want to
start with some important facts. A lot of us, in our States, including
Oklahoma, are facing a foster care home shortage. According to one
report, between 2020 and 2021 to 2022, the number of licensed foster
homes in Oklahoma decreased by 8 percent.
HHS has reported that in my home State, more than 7,400 children were
in foster care as of 2021 and more than 3,700 were awaiting adoption.
This reflects a national crisis in our foster care system where more
than half of the States, between 2021 and 2022, reported declines in
licensed foster homes. Additionally, more than 407,000 children and
adolescents were in foster care as of 2021 and 113,000 awaited
adoptions.
With these sobering facts in mind, we need to recognize that any new
foster care policies have to be directed toward solving a shortage, not
making it worse. I sincerely ask my colleagues to keep this idea, which
I hope we can all agree on, as you consider this amendment before you.
This amendment would prevent the Department of Health and Human
Services from finalizing or enforcing its proposed rule titled: ``Safe
and Appropriate Foster Care Placement Requirements for Titles IV-E and
IV-B,'' a rule which will worsen our foster care crisis, burden States,
and create a hostile environment for faith-based providers, harming
children.
If finalized, this rule requires State and Tribal agencies to ensure
that children who identify as LGBTQI+ are placed only with providers
designated as safe and appropriate. In order to be considered ``safe
and appropriate,'' providers seeking to take such a child who
identifies as LGBTQ+ must actively affirm the child's identity, use
preferred pronouns, and facilitate the child's access to ``services and
activities'' to support the child's identity.
We can infer from this that providers will be required to facilitate
giving children puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones, and other
dangerous treatments to be in compliance. This will co-opt State
agencies and foster care parents into the radical Biden
administration's agenda, which is sexualizing our kids.
This rule also has a glaring federalism concern. As of November 2023,
at least 18 States enforced laws that protect children from harmful,
irreversible, medical election transition procedures, yet these States
would have to violate their own statutes to be in compliance with this
rule. Assistance to child welfare agencies should not be contingent on
States' willingness to affirm the Biden administration's radical gender
ideology aimed squarely at children.
Another federalism concern is that HHS admits this rule would have a
``substantial direct impact'' on the cost State agencies will incur.
The Department estimates that the combined total Federal and State
agency costs of this rule between 2025 and 2027 will be almost $40
million. State agencies are already barely scraping by with current
resources. This will be another burden placed on them from the Federal
Government.
This rule could also create an environment of hostility toward faith-
based providers. By directing States to enact policies that label
providers with basic religious views on human sexuality as unsafe and
inappropriate, this rule clearly indicates that the LGBTQ+ affirmation
is the only way for a child welfare provider to be deemed legitimate.
Besides attacking religious liberty, this is concerning since faith-
based providers play an enormous role in the foster care system.
Let me back that up. Pew Research finds that 65 percent of non-kin
foster family parents attend religious services weekly compared to 39
percent of the population. Research has also found that practicing
Christians are twice as likely to adopt compared to the general
population.
Faith-based providers play an important role in the foster care
system. This proposed rule will have a chilling effect on the number of
providers available to help kiddos. Already HHS acknowledges that ``a
majority of States would need to expand their efforts to recruit and
identify providers and foster families.'' What HHS is admitting is that
this undermines their ability to recruit foster families. This rule
undermines foster family recruitment. Why in the world would we want to
move forward with this?
Given what I shared at the beginning of my remarks about States
facing a crisis in recruiting and retaining foster homes, this will
have an effect that will be devastating for young adults in the foster
care system. They will be less likely to find homes, and those who do
find homes will find longer wait lines.
Protecting our Nation's children should be a bipartisan, nonpolitical
issue. Unfortunately, the Biden administration has decided to place
thousands of children at risk.
Mr. Chair, I encourage support of this amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition to the
amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Connecticut is recognized for
5 minutes.
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chair, I rise in strong opposition to this
amendment. This amendment attempts to block a proposed rule that would
protect LGBTQ youth in foster care.
The foundation of our foster care system is that it must act only in
``the best interest of the child.'' Taking custody of a child is a last
resort, a step the government should take only when there is no other
way to keep a child safe.
Federal law requires foster care agencies to ensure that each child
in foster care receives ``safe and proper'' care and has a plan that
addresses the specific needs of the child while in foster

[[Page H5817]]

care to support their health and their well-being.
The administration's proposed rule ensures ``safe and proper'' care
for some of the most vulnerable youth in our foster care system. It
would require a foster care agency to place an LGBTQ child in a home
that is free of, again, ``hostility, abuse, or mistreatment'' based on
their LGBTQ status and to provide appropriate training to their
caregivers. That is all. Why wouldn't we want a child to be in an
environment that is free of hostility, abuse, or mistreatment?
Voting for this amendment would be voting to allow children who
suffered abuse or neglect to be placed in homes where they are subject
to hostility, abuse, or mistreatment.
LGBTQ youth are disproportionately represented in the child welfare
system, and they have disproportionately worse outcomes. They are more
likely to be abused while in foster care. They are forced to change
homes more often. They are more likely to be placed in institutions.
They are more likely to run away from foster care. They have a higher
suicide rate.
Family and caregiver support is essential for the mental health of
LGBTQ youth. To take one example, LGBTQ youth who feel high levels of
social support report attempting suicide at less than half the rate of
their peers who feel low or moderate levels of social support.
It is unconscionable and disgraceful that anyone would try to make
the child welfare system less safe for any youth, let alone the LGBTQ
youth we know are especially vulnerable.
Mr. Chair, I strongly urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this
amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman has the only time remaining.
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chair, I continue my opposition of this amendment.
LGBTQ youth in foster care are very vulnerable. Why do we not want them
to be provided with safe and proper care, to be in an environment free
of hostility, abuse, or mistreatment, based on that status. That is all
this signifies. I am opposed to this amendment, which really attempts
to block this rule that protects LGBTQ youth in foster care.
Mr. Chair, I continue opposition, and I yield back the balance of my
time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Brecheen).
The amendment was agreed to.
Mr. CLYDE. Mr. Chair, I rise as the designee of the gentlewoman from
Texas (Ms. Granger), and I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Georgia is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. CLYDE. Mr. Chair, just a few weeks ago, the administration issued
a proposed rule which imposes radical sexual orientation and gender
identity policy on the child welfare system. I rise in strong support
of my colleague Representative Brecheen from Oklahoma's amendment which
prohibits funding for the finalization of this rule.
By requiring States to deem some foster care providers as safe and
appropriate, the administration has created a policy which implies that
faith-based providers who have traditional views of marriage and
sexuality are incapable of providing a safe environment for children
and adolescents.
I vehemently oppose such a notion and strongly believe that faith-
based providers often fill gaps in a child welfare system and provide
quality, loving care rooted in a deep calling and conviction to care
for those in need.
The foster care system in the United States is in a deep crisis, with
over 400,000 in the system and over a 100,000 awaiting adoption.
We must stand up and support faith-based providers across this
country. We must object to the villainizing of these organizations, and
we must defund the imposition of radical political policies in the
child welfare system.
Mr. Chair, I urge all my colleagues to join me in supporting this
amendment by the gentleman from Oklahoma, and I yield back the balance
of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The Chair understands that amendment Nos. 88 and 89
will not be offered.

Amendment No. 90 Offered by Mrs. Cammack

The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 90
printed in part B of House Report 118-272.
Mrs. CAMMACK. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the
following:
Sec. ___. None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made
available by this Act may be made available to finalize any
rule or regulation that meets the definition of section
804(2)(A) of title 5, United States Code.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 864, the gentlewoman
from Florida (Mrs. Cammack) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Florida.
Mrs. CAMMACK. Mr. Chair, I rise today in support of my amendment,
which would restrict funds at Federal agencies, such as the Department
of Labor, Health and Human Services, Education, and other related
agencies, from being used to finalize any rule or regulation that has
an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more.
Since President Biden took office over 2 years ago, his
administration has added several billion with a b of dollars in new
regulatory costs to the economy. Agencies like OSHA, the CDC, and EBSA
often impose compliance costs and regulatory hurdles that create mass
confusion for businesses and the healthcare industry.
My amendment seeks to prevent these agencies from finalizing new
major rules and regulations, which often involve major policy decisions
that should be decided by Congress, not nameless, faceless,
bureaucrats.
By including my amendment in this bill, we restore Congress' Article
I authority by bringing major policy questions back to the elected
representatives of the people. We commit ourselves, once again, to open
governance rather than allowing the regulatory regime to make decisions
behind closed doors.
During the COVID-19 pandemic, we have seen where OSHA was issuing
burdensome health rules under questionable legal authority. Fifteen
months into the pandemic, OSHA issued a mandatory workplace safety rule
that required healthcare facilities to develop COVID-19 plans, install
barriers between workplaces, and impose mask mandates.
Once OSHA failed to finalize this rule, they sought to impose another
rule covering assisted living facilities and other healthcare workers
in March of 2022. This rule created even more confusion among the
healthcare industry leaders, who then saw overlapping guidance and
conflicting guidance within OSHA and the CDC, as well as CMS, the
Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services.

{time} 1915

Outside the burden of compliance with these rules, violating these
murky OSHA measures could land a business with financial penalties of
up to $15,000 per violation, and up to over $150,000 for repeated
violations. These penalties, in other words, could completely drown a
business in costs.
Furthermore, we have seen where the Department of Labor finalized a
rule directing the Federal Government to treat climate change as a
threat to workers' retirement savings. Now, sponsors of investment-
based employee plans are directed to take ESG factors, like carbon
emissions, into their investment decisions instead of strictly applying
the fiduciary duties under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act.
This shift to an ESG standard, as it turns out, is not a prudent
investing plan at all. According to the Harvard Business Review, assets
under management at global exchange-traded sustainability funds have
not fared well financially. Even worse, researchers found that U.S.
companies and ESG portfolios have had worse compliance records for both
environmental and labor rules than companies in non-ESG portfolios. The
evidence, however inconvenient for my colleagues on the other side, is
overwhelming that hardworking Americans' retirement plans should not be
subject to a radical climate agenda at the Department of Labor.
It is simple, Congress should make these major policy decisions here
in

[[Page H5818]]

the people's House rather than the regulatory regime.
Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Connecticut is recognized for
5 minutes.
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chair, I rise in strong opposition to the amendment.
This amendment is absurd and would bring the Medicare program to a
standstill.
If this amendment were to be enacted, Health and Human Services would
be prohibited from finalizing rules for paying physicians, hospitals,
nursing homes, or any other healthcare supplier or provider--which
would throw the Medicare program into chaos.
I know my colleagues on the other side of the aisle don't really like
Medicare, but now they want to throw it into chaos.
By law, Medicare issues annual rules that govern how it runs the
programs and pays for services that Medicare beneficiaries need. These
rules are always major rules of over $100 million, and they happen by
law several times a year so that Medicare beneficiaries know the rules
of the programs and providers know how they will get paid for the
upcoming year.
If this amendment were enacted, Medicare would not be able to pay
physicians or hospitals for new services. Medicare would not be able to
pay for new drugs or devices. Medicare would not be able to pay rural
hospitals that depend on Medicare to stay open to serve beneficiaries
in rural areas.
These rules always exceed $100 million because they govern how
Medicare pays for services for its 60 million beneficiaries.
In short, this amendment would cause a massive disruption to
healthcare for millions of seniors and individuals with disabilities.
The amendment is not a serious policy proposal. It really is a
campaign slogan.
Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment, and I
reserve the balance of my time.
Mrs. CAMMACK. Mr. Chair, may I inquire as to how much time I have
remaining.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman has 1\1/2\ minutes remaining.
Mrs. CAMMACK. Mr. Chair, I don't know how else to quite say this, so
I am just going to lay it out bluntly. That is a lie what was just
spelled out.
The notion that CMS will cease to operate because they do not have
the capability to just issue regulations at random or at will is
nonsense.
It is absolutely absurd that the Representatives of the people's
House do not have a final say in major economic implications for people
who utilize Medicare.
It is ridiculous that if you are a physician you have to go through
your Member of Congress to get in touch with CMS. When we talk about
nameless, faceless bureaucrats, we are talking about this amendment
which would fix not only the financial burden that people have to bear
as a result of an overactive regulatory regime but restoring the open
accountability process here in Congress.
This is the people's House. We should be absolutely responsible for
the impacts that every single one of our constituents has to bear as a
result of the work that is being done here on Capitol Hill.
If you pick up the phone and call CMS, you can't find a single person
who will answer that phone. You cannot call up OSHA and ask for
answers. You cannot get answers out of the Federal Government, which is
why half of the team that we employ in Congress is based back home in
our districts in order to liaison with these Federal agencies.
We have got to restore accountability and restore Article I
authority.
Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to pass this amendment, and I yield
back the balance of my time.
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I continue to oppose this.
The information--I just didn't make it up. I don't know where the
gentlewoman's information is coming from. This came from the Ways and
Means Committee. I am not making it up. It is not anecdotal.
If the amendment would be enacted, Medicare would not be able to pay
physicians or hospitals for new services. Medicare would not be able to
pay for new drugs and devices. It would not be able to pay rural
hospitals that depend on Medicare to stay open to serve beneficiaries
in rural areas. These rules exceed $100 million. They govern how
Medicare pays for the services for these 60 million beneficiaries.
We have that information. I do not know where the gentlewoman has
received her information. I suspect maybe there is a misunderstanding
of the scope and the reach of CMS and its oversight of Medicare
beneficiaries and the services that they need.
Mr. Chair, I oppose the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my
time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Cammack).
The amendment was agreed to.
The Chair understands that amendment No. 91 will not be offered.

Amendment No. 92 Offered by Mr. Crane

The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 92
printed part B of House Report 118-272.
Mr. CRANE. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Page 145, line 7, after the dollar amount, insert
``(reduced by $37,735,000)''.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 864, the gentleman
from Arizona (Mr. Crane) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arizona.
Mr. CRANE. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of my amendment,
which reduces Federal education funding by $37,735,000.
This amendment maintains fiscal responsibility, protecting Americans'
hard-earned tax dollars from going to waste at the Department of
Education.
According to the Congressional Budget Office's estimation, this
amendment would reduce allowances by $38 million and outlays by $30
million for fiscal year 2024.
Like many Americans, I don't trust the Biden administration with our
tax dollars as they trample on our constitutional protections and allow
violations of these protections on college campuses across the U.S.
In Arizona, we are seeing the Department of Education impose a
record-setting fine of $37,735,000 on Grand Canyon University.
Foolishly, this fine is being imposed for something that the
university has already been cleared of in a court of law. Adding insult
to injury, they are imposing a record fine on GCU that would unjustly
impede their ability to operate.
As the largest private Christian university in the Nation, GCU's
enrollment has grown to an estimated 118,000 students because of their
innovative approach to higher education.
If GCU is forced to pay this fine, I believe the Department of
Education should be defunded by the same amount. We the people are sick
and tired of the woke indoctrination of our youth.
I find it absurd that the Department of Education would target
private Christian schools while ignoring the larger systemic issues
within higher education.
The cost of college tuition has skyrocketed 175 percent in the last
four decades, far exceeding inflation rates. Meanwhile, the values of
these degrees have not kept up.
Despite the Supreme Court establishing that college and university
campuses are not immune from the protections of the First Amendment, we
are seeing a suppression of free speech rights on college campuses
across the Nation.
Mr. Chair, 63 percent of students believe the political and social
climate on their campus prevents people from freely expressing their
opinions--an increase of almost 10 percent in the past 2 years.
The University of Texas at Austin threatened to fire or penalize a
professor who exposed the university's plans to ensure that new hires
have uniformly leftwing views on cultural issues.
Virginia Tech and other universities deploy teams that rely on
students to

[[Page H5819]]

snitch on classmates who express offensive views and then subject those
classmates to investigations, reeducation, or even discipline.
Following the recent terror attack against Israel, we have seen anti-
Semitism skyrocket at universities, especially at Ivy League
institutions, who reap the benefits of billions of taxpayer dollars.
At Columbia, we saw a tenured professor describe the terrorism
inflicted by Hamas upon Israelis as awesome and a stunning victory.
We also saw more than 30 student groups at Harvard blame Israel for
the terror attacks conducted by Hamas.
To combat this infiltration of woke mind rot in our classrooms,
Congress needs to pass a substantial funding reduction for the
Education Department for fiscal year 2024.
My amendment is designed to mitigate and thwart the weaponization of
the public education system against Americans.
Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment, and I
reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Connecticut is recognized for
5 minutes.
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chair, I rise in strong opposition to this
amendment.
The underlying bill already cuts Program Administration at the
Department of Education by $77 million or 18 percent. This amendment
would slash another $38 million from this account, bringing the total
cut to $115 million or a stunning 27 percent.
The Program Administration account funds the Federal civil servants
who provide grants to States. If your State is looking for a grant,
these are the folks that are going to help you. School districts--if
your school district is looking for a grant, these folks are going to
help you--and institutes of higher education. These staff answer
questions and provide vital funding to communities across the country.
This amendment fits with others like it. Let's face it, the
underlying bill where there is a 28 percent cut, the goal is to
dismantle public education and higher education in the United States of
America so that working people, middle-class families, and vulnerable
families have fewer economic opportunities. This denies Americans the
opportunity for an education.

This amendment takes glee in breaking the Department of Education by
decimating the nonpolitical career staff that administers its vital
programs. This is plain wrong.
Vote ``no'' on this amendment. This is another in the list of what I
call the list of particulars taking public education to the graveyard.
There is this new one right now by the gentleman from Arizona. He had
an earlier one which cuts education--this is it; this is his $38
million in cuts.
It slashes Pell Grant funding. It eliminates funding to give out Pell
Grants and collect student loans. It eliminates funding for HBCUs,
MSIs, Tribal colleges, TRIO, and GEAR UP. It eliminates education
research funding and eliminates the salary of the Education Secretary.
This is on top of the underlying bill with a 28 percent cut.
Do I make my point?
The Republican majority is looking to eliminate public education in
the United States of America. That is not a very noble goal.
Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this amendment, and
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CRANE. Mr. Chairman, this issue has already been settled in
Federal court. In January, the 11th Circuit Court found GCU innocent of
the charges ED is using to impose this record-setting fine.

{time} 1930

What right do bureaucrats have to overrule our judicial system?
This is a multimillion-dollar fine we are talking about. It is the
largest penalty ever handed down by the Education Department. I want to
repeat that. This issue has already been settled in Federal Court.
Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chair, I continue to be opposed to this amendment.
Nevertheless, we keep hearing that Grand Canyon University has 86,000
students online. Once again, let me repeat that they are a nonprofit,
but they deal with for-profit companies. What they do is they are
ripping off students. They are ripping them off.
That is something that we need to really take a very hard look at
because they are predators with young people. They make a ton of money,
and they don't provide the services, education, or opportunities for
employment after that.
We have people here who are all over these so-called nonprofits that
are really in league with profitmaking companies that are raking in
tons of dollars at the expense of our students.
Mr. Chair, I oppose the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my
time.
Mr. CRANE. Mr. Chairman, it is interesting that my colleague on the
other side says that Grand Canyon University is ripping people off. If
that is the case, then why didn't the 11th Circuit Court find GCU
guilty? That is not what happened at all.
My colleague on the other side of the aisle is not the judge or jury.
As I said, the 11th Circuit Court has already found GCU innocent.
My colleague also said that there are only 87,000 students at GCU.
There are 118,000 students because of their innovative approach to
higher education. We are very proud of this college in Arizona.
Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Crane).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Arizona will
be postponed.
The Chair understands that amendments No. 93 through 95 will not be
offered.

Amendment No. 96 Offered by Mr. Good of Virginia

The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 96
printed in part B of House Report 118-272.
Mr. GOOD of Virginia. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the
following:
Sec. __. None of the funds made available by this Act may
be used to require any institution of higher education to
require its students or staff to receive a COVID-19 vaccine
as a condition of enrollment or employment.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 864, the gentleman
from Virginia (Mr. Good) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Virginia.
Mr. GOOD of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, this evening, I rise in support
of my amendment to ensure that no funds will be used to require
universities to enforce COVID-19 vaccine requirements for students and
faculty.
My amendment is important for two reasons. The first is because many
universities, unbelievably so, are still actively mandating COVID-19
vaccines for their students. Their students, mind you, Mr. Chairman,
were never at any serious risk of the virus.
At the start of the 2023-2024 school year, there were still nearly
100 universities in this country that required a COVID-19 vaccine to
attend their universities. Mr. Chairman, think of that. It has been
about 4 years since the China virus first came to the United States,
and the Federal Government finally, in May of this year, declared the
pandemic was over. For many of us, the remediation efforts were over as
soon as we realized what we suspected, that the masking up and the
vaccine requirements were exploited by a bureaucracy that was trying to
impose their will on normal Americans.
Yet, so many universities are still forcing students, who have likely
already contracted COVID at this point--everybody has had it by now.
Many of them were never sick with symptoms and all have recovered. In
the event that there were any serious risks, to begin with, it didn't
matter. They were required to take a vaccine that they didn't need and
didn't want.
The second reason it is important that my amendment is supported is
to

[[Page H5820]]

preemptively check the government authority, a government that has,
sadly, broken the trust of the American people on this and many other
issues. Over the last 3 years, we have seen this government push so
many unconstitutional vaccine mandates for healthcare workers who
treated us during the height of the virus, government employees,
members of the military and Armed Forces who were discharged for not
getting a vaccine, law enforcement officers, first responders, and lots
of other regular Americans and workers across the country.
In fact, the Biden administration is still spending money to promote
the COVID vaccine, and they have a program to pay for the vaccine for
uninsured Americans through the end of next year, the end of 2024.
We cannot assume that because the pandemic is officially over, the
anti-freedom vaccine agenda will stop. Students should be free to
pursue an education without the government violating their most basic
personal freedoms.
Mr. Chair, I urge all of my colleagues to support my amendment, and I
reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Connecticut is recognized for
5 minutes.
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chair, I rise in strong opposition to this
amendment.
This amendment prohibits the use of funds to require any institution
of higher education to enforce any COVID-19 vaccine mandate. This is
the second and third time I have repeated this.
Let us be clear that there is no Federal requirement that any
institution of higher education put a COVID vaccine mandate in place.
Now, the university could easily have its own immunization policy
that is part of its immunization strategy. However, no one from the
Federal Government is forcing universities to enforce any COVID-19
vaccine mandate. There is no one.
I find what is really interesting here is that I am told all the
time, especially with regard to education, that government should not
be interfering with education and educational institutions. They should
be doing what they want to do, and the Federal Government should stay
out. Now, all of a sudden, what we are going to do is prohibit the use
of funds to require any institution of higher education to enforce any
COVID-19 vaccine amendments where there is no Federal requirement to
enforce a vaccine amendment. It really is pretty preposterous here.
Let me just step back. COVID-19 vaccines are safe and effective at
protecting people from getting seriously ill, being hospitalized, or
dying. Vaccination remains a safer strategy for avoiding
hospitalizations, long-term health outcomes, and death. COVID
vaccination reduces the risk of death by at least 75 percent. Getting a
COVID-19 vaccine is a safer and more reliable way to build protection
than getting sick with COVID-19.
For those who have had COVID, vaccines offer added protection against
being hospitalized for a new infection. New variants are an expected
part of the evolution of viruses and can be more aggressive and
transmittable or cause more severe disease than the original strain.
Vaccines continue to be our best line of defense. Scientific experts
have determined the COVID vaccines to be safe and effective, and
hundreds of millions of doses have been administered in the United
States.
We should not place restrictions like those of this amendment when we
say we do not want interference from the Federal Government.
Imagine that we talk about the Federal Government in curricula. We
certainly don't want to do that, and we don't. However, the Republican
majority now wants to impose a restriction on institutions of higher
education regarding the tools that they use in their own best interest
to protect the health and safety of their students.
Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this amendment, and
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GOOD of Virginia. Mr. Chair, it should be chilling to Americans
as they watch the resistance to efforts to prevent the Federal
Government from funding and enforcing a vaccine requirement.
My friend on the other side said there is no vaccine requirement.
Then why would she not support an amendment that says the Federal
Government cannot enforce or require a vaccine mandate on a college
campus?
For that matter, the Federal Government doesn't require it, so how
about we say the Federal Government cannot require it? They cannot
require it, not that they don't require it but that they cannot require
it. We don't permit the Federal Government to require a vaccine
mandate.
Why would we even allow that to be an option?
Over the last few years, Americans watched their most basic,
fundamental freedom trampled on by this Federal Government: their right
to worship. There is a reason why the beginning of the Bill of Rights
starts with the freedom of religion. That is the first one. The right
to assemble was trampled upon, and the right to travel, freedom of
movement; the right to earn a living, to operate your business; and the
right to make basic medical decisions for yourself or even disclose
your own medical information, Mr. Chair.
America is done with tyrannical China virus mandates. Our economy is
still reeling from how the government crushed it during the COVID virus
and the disastrous policies of this administration.
I am sure if they could, the other side would reinstate mask mandates
right here in this Chamber and vaccine mandates all around the country
if given the opportunity.
Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to support freedom and to vote in
favor of this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chair, I oppose this amendment.
One more time, to be clear, there is no Federal mandate for vaccines.
There is no mandate. There is no Federal Government forcing a
university to have a vaccine mandate.
If you want to vote for freedom, Mr. Chairman, then allow the
university to do what it would like.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. GOOD of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, virtually all the universities in
this country are subsidized by Federal tax dollars. I encourage my
colleagues to join us in ensuring that there will be no vaccine
mandate.
Mr. Chairman, I ask all of my colleagues to support this amendment,
and I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Good).
The amendment was agreed to.
The Chair understands that amendments No. 97 and No. 98 will not be
offered.

Amendment No. 99 Offered by Mr. Gosar

The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 99
printed in part B of House Report 118-272.
Mr. GOSAR. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the
following:
Sec. __. None of the funds made available by this Act may
be used to fund--
(1) grant R01AI110964 of the National Institutes of Health
titled ``Understanding the Risk of Bat Coronavirus
Emergence''; or
(2) cooperative agreement U01AI151797 of the Department of
Health and Human Services titled ``Understanding Risk of
Zoonotic Virus Emergence in EID Hotspots of Southeast Asia''.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 864, the gentleman
from Arizona (Mr. Gosar) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arizona.
Mr. GOSAR. Mr. Chairman, as recently as fiscal year 2023, the
National Institutes of Health has spent more than $10 million in
taxpayer dollars to fund virology research at the Wuhan Institute of
Virology in China. The funding continues through 2027.
This is in direct violation of policy barring funding for such risky
research known as gain-of-function research.
Despite being dismissed as a conspiracy theory, mounting evidence
proves that the coronavirus originated from a leak at the Wuhan lab. It
is estimated that 7 million people across

[[Page H5821]]

the globe have died from the coronavirus.
Nearly 3 years have passed since the first case of COVID-19 was
detected, yet the NIH continues to fund experiments in the China lab
that created the deadly virus. The fact that the United States
continues to fund dangerous experimentation in the country of our
greatest foreign adversary is unacceptable.
My amendment No. 99 would prohibit funding for virology research by
the National Institutes of Health in Southeast Asia. Not another dime
of Federal taxpayer dollars should be used to create a bioweapon for
our enemies. Even Barack Obama wanted a pause on this.
Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support my amendment, and I
reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Connecticut is recognized for
5 minutes.
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
The amendment would block funding for two research grants funded by
the National Institutes of Health. NIH grants are funded after a
vigorous peer review process to identify the most promising research
proposals. In this case, the Congressman from Arizona has identified
research grants to study bat coronavirus as well as zoonotic virus
emergence in Southeast Asia.
Given the global impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, I would argue that
we really do need to understand more about bat coronavirus as well as
zoonotic virus emergence in Southeast Asia.

{time} 1945

I will tell you; I am not in the medical profession. I am not a
scientist. I believe in the research. I believe that we need to take a
look at things, given what we have heard anyway. Again, I am not a
scientist, but I believe in research and we need to understand more
about bat coronavirus, zoonotic virus. Coronavirus and zoonotic viruses
are not going to disappear if we stop funding research. Why are we
research deniers?
Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment, and I
reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GOSAR. Mr. Chair, I find it absolutely fascinating in regard to
the science. I am not a scientist, but I do deal in science quite a
bit.
In fact, the Wuhan virology lab didn't even qualify for what it was
doing with virology. Didn't even qualify by the standards set by
international standards, and yet we are still going to do that. I have
got to tell you something is wrong with this deal.
Barack Obama--I want to reiterate this--Barack Obama actually stated
that this should take a pause, but he was overrun by people at NIH at
the time. Now, I believe that we ought to be looking all the time at
different things but gain of function is totally different. This is
building a bioweapon. We have got to stop this.
Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chair, I continue to oppose this amendment, and I
say to my colleague just keep your head in the sand.
Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. GOSAR. Mr. Chair, once again, I find it very fascinating.
Keep my head in the sand?
What about the science? Hydroxychloroquine, ivermectin weren't going
to work. Are you kidding me? The other side has got their head in the
sand.
This is very important that we stop this. We shouldn't be dealing
with somebody else. If we are going to do something like that, it ought
to be done here not in Southeast Asia where we can't control it.
Mr. Chair, once again, I ask for all my colleagues to support this
bill.
Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Gosar).
The amendment was agreed to.

Amendment No. 100 Offered by Mr. Graves of Louisiana

The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 100
printed in part B of House Report 118-272.
Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

At the end of the bill (before the short title) insert the
following:
Sec. __. None of the funds made available by this Act may
be used to promulgate new rules that the Administrator of the
Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs of the Office of
Management and Budget finds has resulted in or is likely to
result in--
(1) an annual effect on the economy of $100,000,000 or
more;
(2) a major increase in costs or prices for consumers,
individual industries, Federal, State, or local government
agencies, or geographic regions; or
(3) significant adverse effects on competition, employment,
investment, productivity, innovation, or the ability of
United States-based enterprises to compete with foreign-based
enterprises in domestic and export markets.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 864, the gentleman
from Louisiana (Mr. Graves) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Louisiana.
Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana. Mr. Chair, this amendment is a simple
amendment.
Earlier this year, as part of the Fiscal Responsibility Act, we
enacted for the first time ever an Administrative Pay-Go. We put a
provision in place that said if this administration is going to try and
put regulations in place that cost in excess of $100 million, then they
have to offset those costs, meaning they have to rescind other
regulations, to offset that cost on American taxpayers, therefore, the
net cost would be zero.
If you are going to put $100 million in new burden-requiring
regulations in place, impacting American households and businesses, you
have to rescind $100 million worth of regulations on American families
and American businesses.
This amendment takes it to the next level. When our constituents
elect us to office, they expect us to be here representing them, yet
during this administration's first 2\1/2\ years, they attempted to put
additional costs or heap additional burdens to the tune of $1.5
trillion on American taxpayers.
Mr. Chairman, I want you to think about that for just a minute. It is
effectively the President of the United States, one person,
unilaterally spending $1.5 trillion. That is effectively what we are
going to spend in discretionary spending this year and it is one person
doing it without any action by the Congress.
What this amendment does is, it says it is fine. If you want to put
regulations in place, that is fine, but if you are going to propose
something that is going to cost over $100 million, it has to come to
Congress. It has to come before the Representatives that were elected
by the people to approve it or shut it down.
I think this is a simple amendment. It is complementary to amendments
that have passed the three other appropriation bills. It is
complementary to what President Biden signed into law earlier this year
on the Administrative Pay-Go.
Mr. Chair, I urge adoption of the amendment, and I reserve the
balance of my time.
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition to the
amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Connecticut is recognized for
5 minutes.
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chair, I say to the gentleman, my colleague and
friend, I will refer to my earlier remarks on a similar amendment from
the Congresswoman from Florida.
This amendment would bring Medicare operations to a standstill. I
urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment, and I am hoping that the
gentleman will make good on a muffuletta.
Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana. Mr. Chair, certainly being a Representative
that represents thousands and thousands of seniors, I would never do
anything that would adversely affect Medicare.
As a matter of fact, I would argue that this actually helps to
protect Medicare. As we all know, the solvency of the Medicare trust
fund is in jeopardy. By being more efficient, being

[[Page H5822]]

more judicial with the limited dollars that the trust fund has, this is
actually a step in the right direction.
Let me be clear on what I am saying here: If the Centers for Medicare
and Medicaid Services is going to try and impose a new regulation that
is going to cost additional dollars in excess of $100 million, all that
would happen under this regulation, Mr. Chairman, is that that
regulation would then come to Congress for an approval before it would
be implemented.
It doesn't stop it from happening. It simply ensures that it is
consistent with the wishes of the American people. This does nothing to
jeopardize Medicare. It does nothing to impede or prevent services to
seniors. We all represent thousands and thousands of seniors, and I
certainly would not do anything to jeopardize that care.
Mr. Chair, I urge adoption, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chair, I oppose the amendment, and I reserve the
balance of my time.
Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana. Mr. Chair, I just want to reaffirm that
Louisiana does have the best muffulettas in the United States. I would
be happy to have this conversation in depth with my friend from
Connecticut.
Mr. Chair, I am going to say we should support this amendment, and I
yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chair, the gentleman and I agree on muffulettas, and
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Graves).
The amendment was agreed to.

Amendment No. 101 Offered by Ms. Greene of Georgia

The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 101
printed in part B of House Report 118-272.
Ms. GREENE of Georgia. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the
following:
Sec. __. None of the funds made available by this Act may
used to implement, promote, or enforce the recommendation of
the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to add the
COVID-19 vaccine to the child and adolescent immunization
schedule of the Advisory Committee of Immunization Practices.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 864, the gentlewoman
from Georgia (Ms. Greene) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Georgia.
Ms. GREENE of Georgia. Mr. Chair, my amendment prohibits funding for
the promotion, implementation, or enforcement of the CDC's
recommendation to add the COVID vaccine to the child and adolescent
immunization schedule.
In the fall of 2022, the Advisory Committee of Immunization Practices
voted to recommend that the CDC add the COVID vaccine to the child and
adolescent immunization schedule, despite having zero scientific
evidence for such recommendation.
This decision recommended that children as young as 6 months get the
COVID vaccine and accompanying boosters. In direct contradiction to the
science, the CDC officially implemented the recommendation earlier this
year. All studies show that young children were far less likely to be
infected or hospitalized by COVID.
Between August 1, 2020, and August 21 of 2021, the CDC reported that
less than 1 percent of kids' hospitalizations for COVID resulted in
death, less than 1 percent. Children comprised less than 0.01 percent
of COVID hospitalizations and 0.0005 percent of deaths according to the
CDC study.
Why would the CDC implement such a recommendation to knowingly inject
an experimental shot, especially one that is not even fully FDA
approved into kids who have an almost zero percent chance of dying from
COVID?
Now, we see that the side effects of the unapproved experimental
vaccine are proving to be detrimental to children and are causing
irreversible injuries.
Nine days after receiving the vaccine, a 6-foot-9 healthy 17-year-
old, Everest Romney, was admitted to the ICU with blood clots in his
brain. Anyone who talked about the incident on social media was
censored.
Nine months later, he was admitted for a second time. Doctors found
another blood clot. A deep vein in his right leg and potentially
permanent heart inflammation. Now he can no longer play basketball, and
he has to take blood thinners. Thank God he is still alive.
Stephanie De Garay's now 15-year-old daughter was in the Pfizer COVID
vaccine trial and is now in a wheelchair with vision problems and a
feeding tube. Several groups on Facebook were even taken down after she
tried telling her story.
Dr. Cody Meissner, chief of pediatric infectious diseases at the
Tufts Children's Hospital in Boston said, ``It is hard to deny that
there's some event that seems to be occurring in terms of
myocarditis.''
Although, the CDC does not have the authority to officially mandate
the vaccines for kids, the CDC's recommendation to add the vaccine to
the child and adolescent immunization schedule is the foundation for
all the vaccine mandates for kids in schools, daycares, sports leagues,
and extracurriculars.
My amendment would protect children from the experimental shot by
blocking the implementation of the baseless CDC recommendation.
Mr. Chair, I urge all of my colleagues to support my amendment, and I
yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition to the
amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Connecticut is recognized for
5 minutes.
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
This amendment prohibits the use of funds to implement, promote, or
enforce the recommendation of the Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention to add the COVID-19 vaccine to the child and adolescent
immunization schedule of the Advisory Committee on Immunization
Practices.
This amendment would set a dangerous precedent for Congress to
overrule the scientific process used in determining eligible vaccines
for children.
The amendment would interfere with the work and purpose of the
Advisory Committee on Immunization Practice, CDC's Federal advisory
committee, which develops recommendations on the use of vaccines in the
civilian population of the United States.
The advisory committee is comprised of medical and public health
experts who make recommendations that include the ages when the vaccine
should be given, the number of doses needed, the amount of time between
doses, and precautions and contraindications.
Before recommending any vaccine, the advisory committee considers
many factors, including the safety and the effectiveness of the
vaccine. CDC sets the U.S. adult and childhood immunization schedules
based on these recommendations. The COVID-19 vaccine has already been
added to the CDC immunization schedules based on recommendations from
the advisory committee.

{time} 2000

This amendment would undermine CDC's ability to engage in its ongoing
immunization work, including the safe and effective COVID-19 vaccines.
Kids may be less likely to get COVID, but why wouldn't we want to
continue to protect them? For immunity sake, we need to protect the
entire population to be able to protect everyone.
I oppose this amendment due to its interference with the scientific
process that is used in determining eligible vaccines for children. I
urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment, and I yield back the
balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from Georgia (Ms. Greene).
The amendment was agreed to.

Amendment No. 102 Offered by Ms. Greene of Georgia

The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 102
printed in part B of House Report 118-272.
Ms. GREENE of Georgia. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the
following:
Sec. __. None of the funds made available by this Act may
be used to enforce any COVID-19 vaccine mandate.

[[Page H5823]]

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 864, the gentlewoman
from Georgia (Ms. Greene) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman.
Ms. GREENE of Georgia. Mr. Chair, my amendment prohibits funding for
the enforcement of any COVID vaccine mandate. This includes every
agency under the Department of Health and Human Services, the
Department of Labor, and the Department of Education.
During COVID, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration
implemented unconstitutional, tyrannical vaccine mandates for
businesses with more than 100 employees. This mandate applied to 84
million workers.
The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services implemented the same
tyrannical mandates for healthcare workers. Thousands of healthcare
workers were unjustly fired for refusing the experimental vaccine, many
of whom were from my district in northwest Georgia.
The Department of Education also put out recommendations and guidance
for schools to require students to get vaccinated. Furthermore, the
Federal Government has spent more than $30 billion on the COVID
vaccines, including incentivizing their development, guaranteeing a
market, and ensuring that these unsafe vaccines would be free to the
public, but they weren't. The American taxpayers were forced to pay for
them.
Big Pharma was the only industry that benefited from these mandates.
From 2020 to 2021, Pfizer saw a 95 percent increase in earnings while
businesses all over America were shut down and crushed. In 2020,
Pfizer's revenues were $41.6 billion. In 2021, Pfizer's revenues were
$81.3 billion, doubling the year before. In 2022, Pfizer's revenues hit
a record of $100 billion. That is outrageous. Americans suffered,
people lost their jobs, and businesses were forced to close.
As we know now, the experimental vaccines have been detrimental to
Americans and have caused irreversible injuries, and in some cases
death. In just 15 months after the vaccine rollout, approximately 1,400
peer-reviewed articles documented severe adverse events after the
COVID-19 vaccinations, a concerning safety signal not even rivaled by
combining all other vaccines in the worldwide medical literature over
the last century.
There have been approximately 1 million adverse events resulting from
the COVID vaccine reported in the VAERS system, which includes
everything from myocarditis, blood clots, permanent disability,
miscarriages, stillbirths, and menstrual abnormalities.
The following shows significant increases in various diseases and
medical conditions among servicemembers who were forced to take the
vaccine: hypertension, 2,181 percent increase; disease of the nervous
system, 1,048 percent increase; malignant neoplasms of the esophagus,
894 percent increase; breast cancer, 487 percent increase; female
infertility, 472 percent increase. These are just to name a few.
Historically, a vaccine is subjected to an average of 10 to 12 years
in clinical trials before it is authorized to be administered to the
general population. Under an emergency use authorization, these
vaccines were available to the public as early as 10 months after
development. Mandating such a vaccine is a complete abuse of power, and
no American should be forced by the Federal Government to have any
experimental shot injected into their body.
Our Secretary of Health and Human Services, Xavier Becerra, said it
is absolutely the government's business to know whether and which
Americans have not been vaccinated. He also previously said:
Absolutely, the message is clear. You are vaccinated, guess what? You
get to return to a more normal lifestyle. If you are not vaccinated,
you are still a danger, and you are still in danger as well, so get
vaccinated.
These vaccines are not as safe and effective as the American people
were told. COVID is over. Not only has Congress passed it, the
President himself signed it. No one should be forced to take a vaccine.
My amendment prohibits the enforcement of any COVID vaccine mandate,
and I urge all of my colleagues to support my amendment.
Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. DeLAURO. Madam Chair, I claim the time in opposition.
The Acting CHAIR (Mrs. Kim of California). The gentlewoman from
Connecticut is recognized for 5 minutes.
Ms. DeLAURO. Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment. This
amendment prohibits the use of funds to enforce any COVID-19 vaccine
mandate. Okay, one more time, let's be clear. There is not a COVID
vaccine mandate in place. I will repeat, there is not a COVID vaccine
mandate in place.
COVID-19 vaccines are safe and effective at protecting people from
getting seriously ill, being hospitalized, and dying. Vaccination
remains the safest strategy for avoiding hospitalizations, long-term
health outcomes, and death. COVID vaccination reduces the risk of death
by at least 75 percent.
Getting a COVID-19 vaccine is safer and a more reliable way to build
protection than getting sick with COVID-19. For those who have had
COVID, vaccines offer added protection against being hospitalized from
a new infection.
There are new variants that are expected as part of the evolution of
viruses, and those could be more aggressive, transmittable, or cause
more serious or severe disease than the original strain. Vaccines
continue to be our best line of defense. Scientific experts have
determined the COVID vaccines to be safe and effective, and hundreds of
millions of doses have been administered in the United States.
Our Nation's public health officials need to have options to protect
our communities. As we continue to live with COVID, we should not be
limiting the use of our most effective public health tool. This
amendment would set a dangerous precedent for Congress to overrule the
scientific process.
Although many people would like to act like COVID is over, it is not.
More than a million people have died due to COVID in the United States.
We all have lost someone.
Why isn't it understandable in terms of some of these amendments that
there is no COVID vaccine mandate in place? What are we speaking about
here?
Madam Chair, I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment, and I
yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from Georgia (Ms. Greene).
The amendment was agreed to.

Amendment No. 103 Offered by Ms. Greene of Georgia

The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 103
printed in part B of House Report 118-272.
Ms. GREENE of Georgia. Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the
following:
Sec. __. The salary of Rachel L. Levine, Assistant
Secretary for Health for the Department of Health and Human
Services, shall be reduced to $1.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 864, the gentlewoman
from Georgia (Ms. Greene) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman.
Ms. GREENE of Georgia. Madam Chair, my amendment uses the Holman Rule
to reduce--no, castrate--the salary of Assistant Secretary for Health
Richard Levine to $1, the same way he supports castrating children who
suffer from gender dysphoria.
Richard Levine was a diversity hire by the Biden administration to
push the demonic gender-affirming care agenda, and he is unfit to serve
as the HHS Assistant Secretary for Health. He should never have been
hired after he, serving as Pennsylvania's Health Secretary, directed
nursing homes and care facilities to take in COVID patients while
simultaneously pulling his mother out of her own care facility.
Dr. Levine has spent his career focusing on treating--let's say
grooming--children, adolescents, and young adults. He now serves as a
top adviser for our Nation's health policy while masquerading as a
woman. A mentally

[[Page H5824]]

ill man who thinks he is a woman should never be responsible for
overseeing anything in the Department of Health and Human Services, let
alone the Office on Women's Health.
This same man who is empowering kids to mutilate and castrate
themselves under the guise of so-called gender-affirming care said that
he was happy to have waited to transition genders so that he could have
kids. What a complete hypocrisy.
He has promised that mutilating and castrating kids will soon be
normalized and that it has the highest support of the Biden
administration. He has stated that ``sex reassignment surgery and
puberty blockers for kids is lifesaving, medically necessary, age-
appropriate, and a critical tool.'' He also said there shouldn't be
``State laws and actions that dictate principles of transgender medical
care by us, pediatric experts,'' illustrating why we need Federal
protections like my bill, the Protect Children's Innocence Act, for our
most vulnerable and innocent children.
It is our job to protect our children from sexual groomers like
Levine and reducing his salary to $1 is a strong first step. He has
infiltrated our Department of Health and Human Services with guidance
and curricula that further his perverted agenda. The Office of
Population Affairs, which is directly overseen by Levine, put out
guidelines encouraging our youth to seek gender-affirming care. These
guidelines discuss how and why our youth should seek puberty blockers,
as well as top and bottom reassignment surgeries. Let's be real. That
is cutting off their body parts before they are adults.
Other initiatives and guidance he has issued include a cultural
competency curricula. This cultural competency curricula is for
behavioral health and primary care practitioners to ``assess, treat,
and refer LGBTQ clients in a culturally appropriate manner.'' Part of
this curricula is for nurses to focus on teaching cultural competency
in the care of LGBTQ older adults. Another part of this curricula
includes utilizing the National LGBTQIA+ Health Education Center for
its educational programs on how to best meet the learning styles,
needs, and time constraints of LGBTQ people.
A last additional part of this cultural competency curricula includes
a training specifically designed to help both administrators and
clinicians address the various aspects of providing effective substance
abuse treatment to LGBTQ people. Obviously, they shouldn't be cutting
off their body parts as children. The training covers such topics as
legal issues, the coming out process as it relates to behavioral
health, how to make a provider organization more LGBT-welcoming, and
more.
Another agenda Levine has been pushing for is the vaccination of
children. Just recently he was calling on parents to speak up and
defend vaccine requirements at schools, saying they need to be part of
back-to-school checklists of an emergency use vaccine that children do
not even need.

{time} 2015

Our mentally ill Assistant Secretary for Health is more concerned
with woke gender and vaccine agendas than serving the everyday health
and needs of the American people.
He deserves to be fired immediately. This man is a danger to all
children and should not be serving in our government.
Madam Chair, I urge all of my colleagues to vote ``yes'' to my
amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. DeLAURO. Madam Chair, I claim the time in opposition.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Connecticut is recognized for
5 minutes.
Ms. DeLAURO. Madam Chair, I rise in strong opposition to this
amendment. Public service should be commended and not demonized.
Our Federal Government needs talented, intelligent, hardworking
people who are willing to bring their skills, expertise, compassion,
and experience to public service.
Proposing to eliminate the salaries of hardworking public servants is
petty and beneath the dignity of this body, and it is not how we should
solve differences of opinion on policy.
Admiral Levine--I repeat--Admiral Levine is the head of the United
States Public Health Service Commissioned Corps. That is one of the
eight uniformed services in the United States.
A physician, she completed her training in pediatrics and adolescent
health at the Mount Sinai Medical Center in New York City.
The focus of her medical career has been the interaction between
mental and physical health, particularly for children and adolescents.
Imagine the knowledge, expertise, study, and commitment of Admiral
Levine.
Given the ongoing mental health crisis in this country, particularly
with children and adolescents, I am grateful and in awe of her
expertise and service.
Prior to joining the Biden administration, Admiral Levine served as
Pennsylvania physician general and secretary of health. My God, what a
background.
She is highly qualified for her position, and I say to her tonight
that I commend her efforts to improve the health of Americans across
this country.
Let's be honest. The Congresswoman from Georgia submitted this
amendment to target the salary of a transgender health official. It is
as simple as that.
It is ugly. It is disgraceful. I ask whoever is watching of the
American people and everyone in this body to note the date and time
when the Republicans in the House of Representatives have hit a new
low.
Madam Chair, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this vindictive
amendment offered to target the salary of a qualified transgender
health official who has the expertise and knowledge to address health
issues in a way that many in this body are unable to do.
Madam Chair, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this amendment,
and I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from Georgia (Ms. Greene).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
Ms. DeLAURO. Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Georgia
will be postponed.

Amendment No. 104 Offered by Ms. Greene of Georgia

The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 104
printed in part B of House Report 118-272.
Ms. GREENE of Georgia. Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the
following:
Sec. __. The salary of Miguel Cardona, Secretary of the
Department of Education, shall be reduced to $1.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 864, the gentlewoman
from Georgia (Ms. Greene) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Georgia.
Ms. GREENE of Georgia. Madam Chair, my amendment uses the Holman rule
to reduce the salary of Secretary of Education Miguel Cardona to $1.
Miguel Cardona is unfit to serve the American people as Secretary of
Education. He is complicit in allowing biological men to compete
against women, labeling parents as domestic terrorists, and
implementing critical race ideology in schools.
His Department of Education issued a proposed rule on Title IX to set
out a standard for how schools must adopt sex-related criteria that
would limit or deny a student's eligibility to participate on a male or
female athletic team consistent with their gender identity.
Under this proposed rule, schools would be prohibited from adopting a
policy that directly bans all transgender from participating on
athletic teams that correspond to the gender they identify as. If
schools were to implement such a ban, they would be subjected to
intense litigation.
This Department's proposed rule not only makes a mockery of women's
sports. It also perpetuates the radical agenda that biological
differences should not be weighed against the emotions of confused men.
This proposed rule will destroy women's sports.

[[Page H5825]]

He has stated that sports do ``more than just put ribbons on the
first-, second-, and third-place winner,'' fully acknowledging that
biological men will dominate women's sports when they are put on the
same playing field as women.
Miguel Cardona is also complicit in Merrick Garland's memo directing
the FBI and DOJ to target parents who were considered domestic
terrorists for speaking out at school board meetings.
Internal emails between the National School Boards Association's
secretary-treasurer and a member of a school board in a Washington
school district revealed that Secretary Cardona requested the NSBA to
write a letter to the White House to provide supporting information for
why parents are domestic terrorists.
This letter, sent on September 29, 2021, from the NSBA to the White
House, said that disruptions by parents at school board meetings posed
a threat of domestic terrorism. Don't forget, these people are paid by
the parents, who are the taxpayers. The letter suggested that parents
who object to mask mandates and critical race theory are engaging in a
form of domestic terrorism.
A week later, Garland issued a memo directing the FBI and DOJ to
target parents, citing the contents of this letter as a reason for
such.
Miguel Cardona was one who requested that the National School Boards
Association write this letter to the White House.
Prior to serving as the Secretary of the Department of Education,
Miguel Cardona implemented the Nation's first mandated statewide CRT
curriculum in Connecticut. Critical race theory is a destructive,
racist ideology that promotes Black supremacy and teaches that America
is fundamentally racist. It is not.
He is now pushing the same CRT agenda across the Nation's school
system by attempting to implement CRT curriculum in schools and into
the grant-making process. After enough pushback, he said that the
Department will not dictate or recommend the curriculum to be taught in
classrooms. However, the Department is still encouraging projects that
incorporate racially, ethnically, culturally, and linguistically
diverse perspectives in classroom instruction.
While the Department claims it no longer requires grant recipients to
incorporate CRT into its curriculum, they are still explicitly pushing
for it in the grant application process.
Secretary Miguel Cardona's actions are destroying our Nation's school
systems. He should be fired immediately, and I urge all of my
colleagues to vote for this amendment. Protect our kids. This must be
done.
Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. DeLAURO. Madam Chair, I claim the time in opposition.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Connecticut is recognized for
5 minutes.
Ms. DeLAURO. Madam Chair, I rise in strong opposition to this
amendment. Again, public servants should be commended and not
demonized.
Our Federal Government needs talented, intelligent, hardworking
people who are willing to bring their skills to public service.
Proposing to eliminate the salaries of hardworking public servants is
petty, and it is, yes, beneath the dignity of this body. It is not how
we should solve differences of opinion on policy.
I suspect that folks could challenge Members of Congress on their
views and opinions, yet they don't have the ability to threaten our
livelihoods. Maybe they should have the ability to threaten our
livelihoods. Proposing to eliminate the salaries of hardworking public
servants is really a stain on this institution.

I know Secretary Cardona well. Secretary Cardona is well known for a
career as an educator with a passion and dedication to students and
teachers and a commitment that has now been on full display nationally.
When he first joined the Department, students and families were
facing unprecedented change and disruption to their education. With his
leadership and investments made by Congress over the past several
years, including the American Rescue Plan and the Bipartisan Safer
Communities Act, schools now have the resources to strengthen teaching
and learning in our classrooms.
Under his leadership, schools can better support student academic
recovery, address mental health needs, and tackle nationwide teacher
shortages. Those are the issues.
We need his steady leadership at the helm of a vital agency that
oversees our investments, our Federal investments, in public education.
Let me take a second to make a comment, Madam Chair. We are now less
than 4 days away from a government shutdown. Instead of focusing on
keeping our government open, we are working on a bill that is going
nowhere. This is a bridge to nowhere, for sure.
The harmful funding cuts proposed in this bill and the ugly
amendments that demean this body and this institution are on full view.
This is not regular order. What we should be doing now is to have the
allocations for each of the appropriations subcommittees. We should do
what was agreed to by the former Speaker of the House in a budget
agreement. We should be moving toward passing appropriations bills that
will provide the services and resources to the American public in
agriculture, education, health, and transportation.
We should be dealing with the issues of national security that face
us today. We should be dealing with the international crises that face
us today, which are going begging, about which we are doing nothing.
This is an unbelievable waste of time and an exercise in futility
with the overview of an ugliness that, once again, demeans this
institution. This is the Congress of the United States.

{time} 2030

We are here tonight introducing petty and vindictive amendments that
demean the individuals who hold these positions and once again demean
the dignity, the stature of the United States House of Representatives.
I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this vindictive amendment, and
I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. GREENE of Georgia. Madam Chair, my Democratic colleague across
the aisle, who is 80 years old and has been here over 30 years, just
said we are on the verge of a shutdown. She probably just forgot that a
few hours ago she voted for the continuing resolution that will extend
the budget, and we are not on the verge of a shutdown. So I just wanted
to note that for the Record.
I also urge my colleagues to vote for my amendment. We should pass
this Holman rule. We need to protect our kids. No males belong in
women's sports in schools, and parents are not terrorists and never
should be referred to that way.
Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. DeLAURO. Madam Chair, I rise to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Connecticut is recognized for
5 minutes.
Ms. DeLAURO. Madam Chair, I am very well aware of the vote that we
took earlier this evening. It may be that the gentlewoman doesn't know
that there is another body attached to the U.S. Congress called the
United States Senate, and they have to vote on the continuing
resolution. When they vote on it, we will find out what it is that they
do with regard to this continuing resolution passed by the House, which
quite frankly, is flawed to a fare-thee-well in meeting our
obligations, both domestic and international.
By the way, it isn't a law of the land until the President of the
United States signs it. That may be a basic lesson in civics. There is
the House, there is the Senate, and there is the President.
Quite frankly, the budget agreement that had been signed by the
President--for a basic primer in civics--is that the budget agreement
passed the House overwhelmingly, and it passed the Senate, and it was
signed by the President. It is the law of the land, which my colleagues
on the other side of the aisle have dismissed, walked away from, and
quite frankly, don't understand the process of government, an
unwillingness to govern and an inability to govern.
Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from Georgia (Ms. Greene).

[[Page H5826]]

The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
Ms. DeLAURO. Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Georgia
will be postponed.

Amendment No. 105 Offered by Ms. Hageman

The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 105
printed in part B of House Report 118-272.
Ms. HAGEMAN. Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the
following:
Sec. ___. None of the funds made available by this Act may
be used by the Secretary of Labor for the climate literacy
training described in the ``Climate Adaption Plan Program
Report'' published by the Department of Labor or
collaboration with other Federal agencies to provide such
training.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 864, the gentlewoman
from Wyoming (Ms. Hageman) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Wyoming.
Ms. HAGEMAN. Madam Chair, I rise today in support of my amendment No.
105, which prohibits the Department of Labor from providing so-called
climate literacy training.
In September 2022, the Department of Labor released a ``Climate
Adaptation Plan.'' This plan identifies the Department as the agency
that developed the climate training and discloses that it is exploring
collaboration with other agencies for the purpose of promoting climate
literacy training.
Madam Chair, this climate literacy training is yet another example of
the extent to which radical climate hysteria has permeated every agency
and subagency within the Biden administration.
The Department of Labor's mission statement actually says that it is
responsible ``To foster, promote, and develop the welfare of the wage
earners, jobseekers, and retirees of the United States; improve working
conditions; advance opportunities for profitable employment; and assure
work-related benefits and rights.''
Perhaps it would be a surprise to the Department of Labor, but
creating a Climate Adaptation Plan is not listed as either part of the
agency's mission or priorities, yet here we are.
It is time for the Biden administration to stop catering to a
politically radical agenda and actually focus on governing.
It is time for the Department of Labor to focus on its mission of
fostering, promoting, and developing the welfare of the wage earners,
jobseekers, and retirees.
The purpose of my amendment is to ensure that the Department of Labor
does just that, that it focuses on its true mission and leaves the
politics of global warming out of it.
I urge my colleagues to support my amendment to send a message to the
DOL that we will no longer tolerate its foray into this nonsense.
Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. DeLAURO. Madam Chair, I claim the time in opposition.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Connecticut is recognized for
5 minutes.
Ms. DeLAURO. Madam Chair, I rise in strong opposition to this
amendment.
This amendment blocks a critical aspect of the Biden administration's
whole-of-government strategy to build resilience at home and abroad
against the impacts of climate change.
Madam Chair, I oppose the amendment, and I yield back the balance of
my time.
Ms. HAGEMAN. Madam Chair, since President Biden took office, the
American worker has suffered a 3.1 percent pay cut caused in large part
by this administration's obsession with all things climate change and
its war on affordable energy. The dramatic increases in energy costs
have translated into higher costs for everything else, including food,
housing, clothing, entertainment, and travel.
This administration's war on affordable, domestic energy has thus
dramatically and negatively affected the very people that the DOL was
created to serve--the American worker.
In short, American energy independence is good for the American
worker, but the converse is also true; dependence on foreign-produced
energy is bad for the American worker. Yet, that is the very outcome of
these wrongheaded programs such as the DOL's climate literacy training.
Such training won't improve the lot of the American worker, it will
hurt it.
Last year, U.S. inflation-adjusted household income fell by the most
in over a decade. This reduction in income is the direct result of the
inflationary pressures caused by the Biden administration's energy and
climate policies.
These policies have also impacted our labor force participation rate,
which remains low and has never fully recovered since the pandemic.
There are serious labor issues to address in this country, and while
I would argue workforce development and job creation are not a role of
the Federal Government at all, so long as the Department of Labor
exists, it should be focused on how it will work with American
industries to foster a strong labor market.
Madam Chair, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment, and I
yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from Wyoming (Ms. Hageman).
The amendment was agreed to.

Amendment No. 106 Offered by Ms. Hageman

The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 106
printed in part B of House Report 118-272.
Ms. HAGEMAN. Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the
following:
Sec. __. None of the funds made available by this Act may
be used to carry out the environmental justice grant
activities described in the report issued by the Department
of Labor in September 2022, entitled ``Climate Adaptation
Plan''.

[[Page H5827]]

this amendment would prohibit--let me give an example. The agency
highlighted certain grants provided under the Workforce Opportunity for
Rural Communities and clean energy sector apprenticeships provided
through the bipartisan YouthBuild program, but that would be blocked.
It is wrong to block the Department of Labor from commonsense
grantmaking intended to build skills in the clean energy sector for
rural workers and for at-risk youth.
I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this amendment, and I yield
back the balance of my time.
Ms. HAGEMAN. Madam Chair, while the Workforce Opportunity for Rural
Communities does fund rural grant opportunities, this amendment would
simply prevent the Department of Labor from infusing environmental
justice priorities into the program and return its focus to building
economic opportunity for rural Americans. In other words, it uses the
money the way that it should.
My amendment would block using money for things that it should not be
using it for. While the YouthBuild program does on face value sound
like a beneficial program for development of vocational skills, the
2022 climate plan outlines how skills can be developed for demand in
industries, including the clean energy sector.
The reality is that it is a misapplication of funds, and it is being
used inappropriately. When outlining its so-called environmental
justice work, the DOL's climate plan references a strategic investment,
but such a waste of resources isn't an investment at all. It is a
colossal waste of taxpayer money.
Madam Chair, the Department of Labor is dedicating limited resources,
manpower, and money towards implementing the left's climate change
agenda while the very American citizens on whose behalf it is supposed
to be advocating--the working man--lose ground every day, with
inflation eating away at their buying power, individuals having to give
up on work, and intergenerational government dependency being some of
the fallout related to those policies.
A vote for my amendment is a vote for sending a message to the
Department of Labor and any Federal agency engaged in pushing radical
climate change initiatives. It is time for the DOL to focus on the job
the American people expect it to do.
Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from Wyoming (Ms. Hageman).
The amendment was agreed to.

Amendment No. 107 Offered by Ms. Hageman

The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 107
printed in part B of House Report 118-272.
Ms. HAGEMAN. Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the
following:
``Sec. __. None of the funds made available by this Act
may be used to implement or carry out the strategies
described in the report titled `Strategies for Increasing
Diversity and Opportunity in Higher Education' published by
the Department of Education in September 2023.''.

{time} 2045

As Justice Roberts has previously said: ``The way to stop
discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the
basis of race.'' I agree. That, however, is not the way that the Biden
administration sees it. The Biden administration and the Federal
Department of Education don't seem to care what the Supreme Court says
and have every intention to continue implementing programs that
directly violate the Fair Admissions decision.
The current Federal Department of Education has done what agencies
like this do best: They release a report that, while having no force or
effect of law, provides a roadmap for colleges and universities to
effectively continue their race-based admission practices. The Federal
Department of Education, in other words, is simply continuing with its
race-based discrimination, just calling it by another name.
My amendment is designed to block the Department of Education's
efforts in that regard, and I encourage my colleagues to vote in favor.
Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. DeLAURO. Madam Chair, I claim the time in opposition to the
amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Connecticut is recognized for
5 minutes.
Ms. DeLAURO. Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to this amendment.
This amendment blocks suggestions and recommendations from a report
by the Department of Education to ensure that college is available to
all Americans who wish to attend, not just the wealthy, not just the
privileged.
In this report, the Department has identified promising practices
based on evidence that institutions can consider. Many of these
interventions or practices have already been shown to be successful at
other institutions or States.
The types of strategies this amendment seeks to undermine are
essential to expanding diversity and opportunity in higher education
and enjoy broad, bipartisan support, strategies like supporting K-12
college counseling, providing emergency and need-based aid, and
supporting transfer and community college partnerships. Why not?
Instead of proposing amendments like this that would harm students, I
hope my colleagues across the aisle will join me and the Department of
Education in expanding educational opportunity for all Americans. Let's
have a literate, educated society.
Madam Chair, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this amendment,
and I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. HAGEMAN. Madam Chair, this report, released in September of 2023,
describes the strategies that colleges and universities may use to
continue their discriminatory diversity, equity, and inclusion agenda
by suggesting admission procedures including a holistic review of
student candidates emphasizing such factors related to their
experiences with hardship, including racial discrimination, sources of
inspiration or demonstration of resiliency, and other qualities with
clear racial undertones.
Let me be clear. Admission practices and professional recruiting
standards are areas in which merit should be the sole and primary focus
when selecting new candidates.
My amendment prohibits the Department of Education from carrying out
its strategies listed in the Department's report and ensures compliance
with the Supreme Court's decision.
Madam Chair, I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes,'' and I yield back
the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from Wyoming (Ms. Hageman).
The amendment was agreed to.

Amendment No. 108 Offered by Ms. Hageman

The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 108
printed in part B of House Report 118-272.
Ms. HAGEMAN. Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the
following:

[[Page H5828]]

Sec. __. None of the funds made available by this Act may
be used to carry out the educational priorities, including
invitational priorities, for the American History and Civics
Education programs proposed by the Department of Education in
the Federal Register on April 19, 2021 (86 Fed. Reg. 20348 et
seq.).

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 864, the gentlewoman
from Wyoming (Ms. Hageman) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Wyoming.
Ms. HAGEMAN. Madam Chair, I rise in support of my amendment 108 which
prevents the Department of Education from carrying out its ``American
History and Civics Education'' priorities referenced in the Federal
Register titled: ``Proposed Priorities-American History and Civics
Education.''
Under this 2021 proposed rule, the Department of Education sought to
institute a variety of priorities under the National Activities program
and within American History and Civics Academies seeking to promote a
divisive educational curriculum. The real agenda behind these
priorities is to attack our Nation's history and pursue an agenda to
allegedly address what it refers to as systemic marginalization,
biases, inequities, and discriminatory policy and practice to allegedly
help students understand their own biases when reviewing information.
What complete and total hogwash and drivel.
While the Department was forced to abandon its efforts to institute
its offensive agenda, it has also disclosed its intent to maintain what
it refers to as invitational priorities, meaning it will encourage
others to do what it cannot.
Madam Chair, our children deserve to be educated on history,
mathematics, English, science, and other programs that are accurate,
robust, educational, and that will prepare them to join the workforce
and be productive members of society. They do not deserve to be
indoctrinated into far-left hatred of America.
My amendment would block the Department of Education from instituting
these insidious priorities. I encourage my colleagues to vote in favor
of it, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. DeLAURO. Madam Chair, I claim the time in opposition to the
amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Connecticut is recognized for
5 minutes.
Ms. DeLAURO. Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to this amendment. It
seeks to block priorities for an out-of-date civics competition from
2021.
While my colleague seeks to gin up alarm over the prospect of Federal
funding being used to support priorities that alarm her, she failed to
mention how the Department ran an entirely new civics competition in
2023 that used different priorities from the 2021 competition. The
Department has no current plans to reuse the 2021 priorities that she
speaks about.
Let me just tell you: Our children need to know about civics. We have
children today who know nothing about government at the local level,
the State level, or the Federal level. They don't know how to interact
with one another with differences of opinion. The lack of knowledge
about civics has created more division in our society than almost
anything else.
We need to invest in civics, and I know that because I have
introduced legislation in a bipartisan way on having civics taught.
Let's not create a specter about what civics education is and define it
in your terms. It is good to have an educated society that understands
what our government is about and how we can interact with one another
and have agreements and disagree in an agreeable way with one another.
In the end, this amendment was drafted to conjure up unwarranted
fears and concerns. It will have no impact. It is another waste of our
time.
Madam Chair, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this amendment,
and I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. Members are reminded to direct their remarks to the
Chair.
Ms. HAGEMAN. Madam Chair, as I have said numerous times before,
critical race theory and related programs are simply a mechanism
utilized by the radical left to assert their control and to further
divide Americans.
Madam Chair, my amendment is one small effort in combating the left's
effort to turn our educational system into indoctrination camps,
pushing racist policies that are not grounded in reality.
Once again, my constituents are fed up with the failures of the
Department of Education in actually educating our children while using
our taxpayer dollars to destroy America from within.
Support for my amendment will send a message to the Department of
Education and other Federal agencies who pursue implementation of
critical race theory initiatives that their time is up; that we are no
longer going to allow them to use our educational system to implement
policies that are not only based on lies but that put Americans against
Americans.
Madam Chair, I urge my colleagues to vote for my amendment, and I
yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from Wyoming (Ms. Hageman).
The amendment was agreed to.

Amendment No. 109 Offered by Mr. McCormick

The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 109
printed in part B of House Report 118-272.
Mr. McCORMICK. Madam Chair, as the designee of the gentleman from
Maryland (Mr. Harris), I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the
following:
Sec. __. None of the funds made available by this Act to
the National Institutes of Health may be used for facilities
and administrative costs that exceed 30 percent of any award.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 864, the gentleman
from Georgia (Mr. McCormick) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Georgia.
Mr. McCORMICK. Mr. Chair, I rise to offer amendment No. 109, limiting
indirect costs paid by the National Institutes of Health to a maximum
of 30 percent of the total grant awarded.
Indirect costs are simply known as overhead costs. These costs are
not directly attributable to the specific research project or function.
These costs include facilities operation and maintenance, depreciation
of buildings, and administrative expenses.
In 2021, the National Institutes of Health spent $6.7 billion on
indirect costs racked up by grant recipients. Meanwhile, the top grant
recipients were universities sitting on multibillion-dollar endowments.
Nonprofit organizations that provide research funding, such as the
Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, the Alzheimer's Association, and the
American Heart Association, cap indirect costs at 10 percent.
Congress has historically limited indirect costs for agricultural
research to a maximum of 30 percent, which is included in the
Agriculture appropriations bill.
I propose that we apply this limitation to the National Institutes of
Health research to ensure taxpayer dollars are being spent responsibly.
I urge all Members to consider supporting this commonsense amendment,
which would dedicate more research dollars to direct research costs.
Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. DeLAURO. Madam Chair, I claim the time in opposition to this
amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Connecticut is recognized for
5 minutes.
Ms. DeLAURO. Madam Chair, I rise to claim the time in opposition to
this amendment.
This amendment would cap the facilities and administrative costs for
NIH awards at 30 percent of the cost of the award.
About 6 years ago, in October of 2017, the Labor-HHS subcommittee
held a hearing on this topic. In a bipartisan way, we invited four
experts who represented research institutions across the country, in
Connecticut, Oklahoma, San Francisco, and Seattle.
The consensus from our expert panel that morning was that a proposal
by the Trump administration to place a

[[Page H5829]]

cap on indirect costs for NIH awards would have a sharply negative
impact on research.
Our expert panel outlined the critical importance of indirect costs
to their world-renowned research programs and the harsh consequences of
establishing an arbitrary cap on indirect costs.
Dr. Bruce Liang, dean of the University of Connecticut School of
Medicine, outlined the many research-related costs that are covered
under the guise of facilities and expenses, or indirect costs. He
described the facilities and administrations cost as the shared
expenses related to the building and use of research facilities and the
administrative backbone functions that make such places run.
Dr. Liang noted that the facilities and administrative reimbursements
pay for building depreciation and maintenance, shared equipment,
academic library materials, departmental administration, office
supplies, and grant oversight activities, such as preaward applications
and hopefully post-award work.
He concluded by saying that F&A costs are absolutely critical funding
to keep academic medical centers and research facilities operating
efficiently.
Our expert panel noted that the Association of American Medical
Colleges, the Association of Public and Land Grant Universities, and
the Association of American Universities all oppose the proposal to
place an arbitrary cap on indirect costs for NIH awards.
Madam Chair, I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment, and I
yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. McCORMICK. Madam Chair, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the
amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman
from Georgia?
There was no objection.
The Acting CHAIR. The amendment is withdrawn.

Amendment No. 110 Offered by Mr. Hern

The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 110
printed in part B of House Report 118-272.
Mr. HERN. Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the
following:
Sec. ___. None of the funds made available by this Act may
be used to fund a Confucius Classroom.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 864, the gentleman
from Oklahoma (Mr. Hern) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Oklahoma.

{time} 2100

Mr. HERN. Madam Chair, through the Belt and Road Initiative, the BRI,
the Chinese Communist Party has been spreading its malign influence
over the last decade. This initiative has one goal: to increase China's
economic and political dominance over the United States and the world.
Disguised as harmless global infrastructure, transportation, and
production networks, the Belt and Road Initiative, or the BRI, is
anything but harmless.
Education is one of the primary targets of the BRI. They are
succeeding in their mission to indoctrinate American students with
their Communist ideals. Chinese state media even brags about the
success of Confucius Institutes and other educational initiatives in
spreading the CCP's influence.
This doesn't stop on our college campuses. Right now, China is
invading our K-12 schools through Confucius Classrooms. Over the last
decade or more, the CCP has infiltrated our public school system,
setting up Chinese language and cultural programs in primary and
secondary schools.
These Confucius Classrooms are funded by the Chinese Government, both
directly and through Confucius Institutes and other third parties. Make
no mistake, this is not through the kindness of their hearts. The CCP
is not interested at all in helping American students learn Mandarin.
They want to brainwash our children, plain and simple.
Since 2013, the authoritarian Government of the People's Republic of
China has sent curriculum and PRC-trained teachers into hundreds of K-
12 schools across America as an unofficial component of its global
influence campaign.
The CCP has committed countless violations of human rights, and its
authoritarian agenda is antithetical to the democratic principles our
country was founded on. Chinese propaganda has no place in our
education system.
We have taken important steps toward mitigating Chinese influence at
American universities by cracking down on Confucius Institutes. Now
that the Chinese Government has directed its attention toward
elementary and secondary schools, it is time we do the same and protect
our children from the malign influence of the CCP.
My amendment would prevent Federal funding for these Confucius
Classrooms.
Madam Chair, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment, and I
reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. DeLAURO. Madam Chair, I claim the time in opposition.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Connecticut is recognized for
5 minutes.
Ms. DeLAURO. Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to this amendment.
In the past few years, most of the institutes targeted, as I
understand it, by this amendment, or Confucius Classrooms that are
affiliated with them, have closed down. According to the data from the
Congressional Research Service and the National Academy of Scholars, we
know that compared to 2019, when there were over 100 Confucius
Institutes nationwide, there are only a handful that operate in the
United States--between 7 and 10. They are not still operating. Given
the rate, they may continue to plummet.
I am struck by this amendment. By exaggerating the threat and
proliferation of these kinds of classrooms, it seems to be spreading
misleading information that creates fear. Fear that is caused by these
exaggerations leads to harm toward Asian-American students and
teachers.
To be honest, I don't know, and I would like to examine this. Were
they teaching the Chinese language and Chinese culture? Maybe it was a
learning experience. I don't know the answer to that. I just know that
this does not appear to be a difficulty.
I worry about spreading misleading information that creates fear. We
have all seen in these areas what happens when fear and misinformation
is spread. It has resulted in violence against Asian-American students
and Asian-American teachers, which is not something I believe my
colleague would foster.
Based on available data, I think we can conclude that this amendment
does not address any measurable threat to our system of public
education and, quite honestly, is not being offered in good faith.
Madam Chair, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this amendment,
and I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HERN. Madam Chair, I appreciate the gentlewoman recognizing that
these institutions are closing down in record numbers. It must be that
the school systems are so successful at identifying these that States
have cleansed out a lot of their higher education Confucius Institutes.
That tells you right there that the Chinese Government has been very
persistent in getting after educating our younger students across
America.
We should have more love for our students at our secondary and
elementary schools. Again, higher education across America has
understood the influence that the Chinese Government has tried to do in
making their impact on the American economy.

When you see what they have done across the world, it doesn't take a
whole lot of research--look at Wikipedia, if you would like, to see
what they have done in nations across the world as they try to express
their influence and take over the world.
It would be very naive of us--and I know the chairwoman knows this--
to sit back and allow this to happen one school at a time. We have a
lot of other issues in America that we need to address in our education
system, and not allowing the Chinese Government to take over our
elementary schools will simply be a very easy fix for us. That is what
my amendment does.
Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. DeLAURO. Madam Chair, I really am quite troubled with this, and I

[[Page H5830]]

need to express this. It seems to me that what is happening here with
the amendment is that it seems to incite misinformation and fear.
I don't know, quite frankly, if there is any evaluation or tangible
results of what the effect of the institute or the classrooms were and
are. They seem to have gone away.
I think of it in these terms. My family members are immigrants from
Italy. If they were teaching about Italian culture, teaching the
Italian language--again, I don't know. This has really piqued an
interest in me in trying to look at and investigate what we are talking
about.
Would there be this view that somehow the Italian Government was
taking over and somehow brainwashing our kids or taking our kids down a
wrong path?
We seem to be casting aspersions with this amendment on Chinese
culture and education in the guise of the Chinese Government. I suspect
that that has a chilling effect. Quite frankly, you could say this
about any cultural group or ethnic group that was working with
youngsters in our community.
Madam Chair, I find this amendment to be very troubling, more so than
I ever thought. We have discerned no measurable threat to our system of
public education.
Madam Chair, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this amendment.

{time} 2110

Mr. HERN. With all due respect, Madam Chair, Italy is not trying to
conquer our Nation.
The Department of Education and the Department of State have sent a
letter to schools urging them not to participate in these programs.
Confucius Classrooms have been set up in several countries, including
Australia and Canada, where state and local governments have canceled
their contracts over concern about Chinese propaganda.
With all due respect to the ranking member on the other side, we are
not talking about simply teaching language. We are talking about
teaching the Chinese way of how to take over a government from the
inside out.
We see enough of what is coming across the southern border and not
knowing who is here. When we have the ability to control these issues
through the legislative process, we should take our time to do that.
Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Hern).
The amendment was agreed to.

Amendment No. 111 Offered by Mr. Hern

The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 111
printed in part B of House Report 118-272.
Mr. HERN. Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Page 76, line 20, after the dollar amount, insert
``(reduced by $1,000,000) (increased by $1,000,000)''.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 864, the gentleman
from Oklahoma (Mr. Hern) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Oklahoma.
Mr. HERN. Madam Chair, I rise in support of my amendment No. 111.
Almost 3 years ago, Congress passed the No Surprises Act to protect
patients from surprise medical bills. A key provision in the No
Surprises Act is to provide patients with an advanced explanation of
their benefits. It is straightforward. It is a cost estimate. If a
patient books a healthcare appointment with adequate notice, then they
deserve to know a cost estimate for their services before they get
care.
This amendment reinforces the need for the Biden administration to
implement this provision. We are going on 3 years here, and no progress
has been made.
Last week, all of my Republican colleagues on the Ways and Means
Committee and I sent the third--third--oversight letter to the Biden
administration demanding that they follow the law.
It is an absolute failure of this administration to delay
implementation of this technology. Considering American families'
current economic struggles, anything to help with financial planning
should be a priority.
Knowing how much health services will cost removes some anxiety
patients face when seeking medical care. Patients are nervous about
their test results. There is no reason for the added anxiety of not
knowing how much a service will cost them, too.
Madam Chair, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment, and I
yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Hern).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
Ms. DeLAURO. Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Oklahoma
will be postponed.

Amendment No. 112 Offered by Mr. Higgins of Louisiana

The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 112
printed in part B of House Report 118-272.
Mr. HIGGINS of Louisiana. Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the
desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the
following:
Sec. __. The salary of Christopher Williamson, Assistant
Secretary of the Mine Safety and Health Administration, shall
be reduced to $1.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 864, the gentleman
from Louisiana (Mr. Higgins) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Louisiana.
Mr. HIGGINS of Louisiana. Madam Chair, I rise in support of amendment
No. 112, which reduces the salary of Mr. Christopher Williamson,
Assistant Secretary for Mine Safety and Health Administration, to $1.
This measure reflects our concern over the leadership under which
questionable enforcement actions occurred. This is a call for
accountability at the highest levels.
Madam Chair, I encourage my passionate and brilliant colleague from
Connecticut to consider my words.
This Chamber was built to reflect the highest ideals of individual
rights and freedoms. The birth of our Nation, as envisioned by our
Founders, included the balance of powers built throughout our
government. This Chamber where we stand in the people's House is one-
half of a bicameral Congress. We are the legislative branch. We are
held accountable by elections and, in extreme cases, by censure or
ejection from Congress.
Our judicial branch is filled with judges who are appointed,
reviewed, and confirmed by our Senate and held to the highest
standards. Our executive branch at the highest levels is accountable by
election and, in egregious or extreme circumstances, by impeachment.
However, the bureaucrats, Madam Chair, and I say it to my colleague
across the aisle respectfully, the bureaucrats of the executive branch
are hardly accountable, save for by action through the power of the
purse by Congress.
We have the right to exercise the power of the purse to do things
like contract the salary of a rogue executive employee who has abused
their authority and thwarted the will of the people. We have not only
the right to do so, but we have the obligation to do so.
Reducing the salary of a bureaucrat regulator who has abused their
authority is a shot across the bow of oppression.
I have listened respectfully to my colleague oppose every amendment
of the Republican majority, and I ask her to respectfully consider how
else, Madam Chair, we might control oppressive actions of rogue and
abusive bureaucrats from within the executive branch.
They are implanted within our government. They are an army of
bureaucrats who are virtually unreachable by standard business
procedures. They are very difficult to fire or dismiss. They are
insulated by many layers and levels

[[Page H5831]]

of civil protection. Reducing the salary of a regulatory agent employee
of the executive branch is an effective and constitutionally sound
mechanism to control oppression.
Madam Chair, I rise in support of amendment No. 112, and I ask my
colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support it.
Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. DeLAURO. Madam Chair, I claim the time in opposition.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Connecticut is recognized for
5 minutes.
Ms. DeLAURO. Madam Chair, I rise in strong opposition to this
amendment. This amendment, once again, demonstrates the lack of
seriousness of this process and the lack of seriousness by my
Republican colleagues.
Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. HIGGINS of Louisiana. Madam Chair, may I inquire as to how much
time I have remaining.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman has 45 seconds remaining.
Mr. HIGGINS of Louisiana. Madam Chair, do I appear to be anything
less than very serious? This is a serious body. I come from a humble
background. I know what it is to earn a dollar or not. I rise in
support of this action because it is the right thing to do.
Madam Chair, I encourage my colleagues to support my amendment, and I
yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Higgins).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
Ms. DeLAURO. Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Louisiana
will be postponed.

{time} 2120

Amendment No. 113 Offered by Mr. Higgins of Louisiana

The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 113
printed in part B of House Report 118-272.
Mr. HIGGINS of Louisiana. Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the
desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the
following:
Sec. __. The salary of William O'Dell, District Manager in
Dallas, Texas, of the Mine Safety and Health Administration,
shall be reduced to $1.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 864, the gentleman
from Louisiana (Mr. Higgins) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Louisiana.
Mr. HIGGINS of Louisiana. Madam Chair, I rise to speak in favor of
amendment 113 of House Rules Committee Print of H.R. 5894.
Amendment 113 reduces the salary of Mr. William O'Dell, the district
manager in Dallas, Texas of the Mine Safety and Health Administration.
This action is in direct response to his failure to address the
conflict-of-interest concern raised by my constituent, Morton Salt,
demonstrating a significant lapse in supervisory responsibility and a
willful neglect to perform his duty.
Madam Chair, as I stated earlier, it is our obligation as sworn
servants to we the people to protect the individual rights and freedoms
of our citizens, and when an executive abuses his authority in our
government, he must be held accountable.
This obligation sometimes falls upon the shoulders of Congress and
the legal and constitutional mechanism that we have devised in this
body, the people's House, to hold a rogue, executive employee,
bureaucrat, regulatory agent accountable for actions beyond the pale of
defense. The mechanism that we have at our disposal and readily
available is the power of the purse.
Every effort by the Republican majority and conservatives amongst our
party and our Conference, every effort to employ the Holman rule to
contract the salary of an executive employee that has betrayed their
oath and abused their authority, every single effort has been thwarted
in this House.
It is good, Madam Chair, that the people take note and that the
historical record documents the votes of the Members of this body
because we, too, shall be held accountable.
The Founders hold us accountable every 2 years by design where a
servant in this body could be quickly removed if we do not comply with
the will of the people, if we do not always strive to protect the
individual rights and freedoms of the people, if we do not uphold the
oath that we have sworn.
Madam Chair, I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to
support amendment 113, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. DeLAURO. Madam Chair, I claim the time in opposition to the
amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Connecticut is recognized for
5 minutes.
Ms. DeLAURO. Madam Chair, just to note, this Federal employee is a
nonpolitical civil servant, but I will say what I said before: I
believe what this amendment demonstrates is a lack of seriousness of
this process that we are engaged in here tonight and a lack of
seriousness of my Republican colleagues in this House.
Madam Chair, I oppose the amendment, and I yield back the balance of
my time.
Mr. HIGGINS of Louisiana. Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my
time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Higgins).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
Ms. DeLAURO. Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Louisiana
will be postponed.

Amendment No. 114 Offered by Mr. Lawler

The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 114
printed in part B of House Report 118-272.
Mr. LAWLER. Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the
following:
Sec. __. None of the funds made available by this Act may
be made available to an institution of higher education that
authorizes, facilitates, provides funding for, or otherwise
supports any event promoting antisemitism (as such term is
defined by the working definition of antisemitism adopted by
the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance on May 26,
2016, including the contemporary examples of antisemitism
cited by the Alliance.) on the campus of such institution.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 864, the gentleman
from New York (Mr. Lawler) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York.
Mr. LAWLER. Madam Chair, today, I rise to urge the House to adopt my
amendment, which would strip colleges and universities of Federal
funding if they authorize, facilitate, provide funding for, or
otherwise support any event promoting anti-Semitism on their campuses.
In the wake of the horrific October 7 attack on Israel, we have seen
a startling rise of anti-Semitism in our country and across the globe.
On college campuses, we have seen students carrying signs, pins, or
flags supporting Israel be violently attacked. This kind of behavior,
and colleges and universities condoning it, is abhorrent.
As I have said before, the U.S. Constitution grants people the right
to say what they want, but that doesn't mean that the taxpayers should
be paying for it, especially not at a time when the scourge of anti-
Semitism is yet again on the rise.
From 2020 to 2021, anti-Semitic hate crimes increased by 20 percent.
From 2021 to 2022, anti-Semitic incidents in the United States rose by
36 percent. This year, anti-Semitic incidents have skyrocketed.
I have people living in my district who are scared to go to their
synagogues on the weekend for fear of being attacked. It is wholly and
totally unacceptable.

[[Page H5832]]

This disturbing trend cannot be allowed to continue, and it is
incumbent upon each of us to speak out and denounce anti-Semitism
wherever it rears its ugly head. That starts by refusing to subsidize
this hate on college campuses.
It is a simple concept: If you want to maintain your Federal funding
or student aid, don't hold events that peddle in the same anti-Semitic
tropes embraced by the enemies of Israel and America throughout the
world who want nothing short of the destruction of both.
People chanting ``glory to the martyrs'' and praising the resistance
of Hamas are objectively partaking in horrific anti-Semitism, praising
the largest slaughter of Jews since the Holocaust. Chanting ``from the
river to the sea'' is calling for the eradication of Israel. It is
vile. It is wrong. It is unacceptable. This amendment serves colleges
and universities notice that it will not be tolerated.
Madam Chair, this morning we watched a video that was the raw footage
of the terrorist attack on October 7--women, children, babies were
slaughtered. Hamas terrorists were joyful with glee. One terrorist
called their parents to brag about slaughtering 10 Jews with their bare
hands.
Why?
Because at a young age in Gaza, in the West Bank, they are taught to
hate Jews, taught that killing Jews is acceptable.
Here in the United States of America, college campuses, universities
are teaching that anti-Semitism is okay, that calling for the
eradication of Israel is okay.

{time} 2130

Anti-Semitic hate is at the root of the terrorism that we are seeing,
and it must stop. People have the right to free speech. They have the
right to voice their opinions, but we do not have to pay for it. If
colleges and universities don't have the courage to crack down on this
crap, then they should be defunded.
Frankly, I question the judgment of anybody who would vote against
this. Taxpayer money should never be used to fund hate.
Madam Chair, I encourage all of my colleagues to support this
amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from New York (Mr. Lawler).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
Mr. LAWLER. Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York
will be postponed.

Amendment No. 115 Offered by Mr. Massie

The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 115
printed in part B of House Report 118-272.
Mr. MASSIE. Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the
following:
Sec. __. None of the funds made available by this Act may
be used to fund any grant related to any transgenic edible
vaccine.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 864, the gentleman
from Kentucky (Mr. Massie) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Kentucky.
Mr. MASSIE. Madam Chair, I rise in support of my amendment, which
states: ``None of the funds made available by this Act may be used to
fund any grant related to any transgenic edible vaccine.''
Madam Chair, does the term transgenic edible vaccine sound like
something out of a science fiction dystopian novel? Does the term
transgenic edible vaccine sound like something out of a horror film?
Well, it is not.
It is the scientific term that is used for research that we are
funding with U.S. taxpayer dollars. This concept that we would inject
RNA or DNA into our food supply, that we would encourage plants to grow
vaccines within them, and that we would then encourage animals or
people to consume these vaccines by consuming the food. Yes, we are
funding this, but we should not, and there are several reasons that we
should not be funding this.
One is, you can't control where the pollen goes from a plant. Many of
these experiments happen outside of a greenhouse, outside of controlled
facilities. In fact, we saw an incident where a transgenic edible
vaccine was being grown in corn many years ago. What happened the next
year when they grew soybeans on the same plot where this transgenic
edible vaccine was grown?
By the way, this vaccine was for pigs. It was to keep them from
getting diarrhea. It was never meant for humans. The next year they
grew soybeans on that same plot of land, and some of the corn sprouted
on its own and was mixed with these soybeans. Five hundred bushels of
soybeans were harvested that had to be destroyed because they were
commingled. This transgenic edible vaccine that was meant for pigs was
commingled with soybeans that could have gone into human food
consumption.
The offending researchers had to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars
in fines. However, do we know if we caught all of the instances of
these escapes of this pollen? In fact, this happened not just once, but
it happened again and in a different way. The pollen wafted over to a
different field, and it pollinated corn in a different field. Over 150
acres of corn had to be destroyed in that instance because they were
experimenting with transgenic edible vaccines. In that case, those
vaccines were meant for animals.
Here recently, however, we have been funding transgenic plant
vaccines, edible plant vaccines for human research at University of
California, Riverside. They are right now trying to grow spinach and
lettuce with the idea that humans would then consume this at a salad
bar or something.
How do you know the dosage? What does it mean to have informed
consent when you don't know what is in your food? What does it mean to
have informed consent when you don't know when you are being served
medication for dinner?
This is such a ridiculous concept that we shouldn't even have to
debate it, but here we are. We funded it through the National
Institutes of Health, the USDA, and NSF.
I will close by saying this: I offered this amendment on the
Agriculture appropriations bill to prevent the USDA from funding this
type of research. I am offering it on this appropriations bill to
prevent it being funded in this appropriations bill, as well.
This amendment passed by a voice vote on the Agriculture
appropriations bill. I hope that we will see the wisdom in this
amendment today and pass this also with unanimous support.
Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Massie).
The amendment was agreed to.

Amendment No. 116 Offered by Mr. Massie

The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 116
printed in part B of House Report 118-272.
Mr. MASSIE. Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Page 190, beginning on line 16, strike ``by any country''
and all that follows through ``Maduro Moros''.

[[Page H5833]]

Madam Chair, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Iowa
(Mrs. Miller-Meeks).
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Iowa is recognized for 1\1/2\
minutes.
Mrs. MILLER-MEEKS. Madam Chair, I rise in support of amendment No.
116 with Mr. Massie to ban the funding of gain-of-function research.
For decades, scientists have been warning that gain-of-function
research with potential pandemic pathogens could cause an outbreak.
From 2014 to 2017, we had paused funding for gain-of-function research
after a series of lab accidents and due to fear of a lab-caused
pandemic.
However, Dr. Fauci and others recommended that the prohibition be
removed, and unfortunately our worst fears came true. Among many
others, the FBI, Department of Energy, and a majority of Americans now
believe that a laboratory in Wuhan, China, that was conducting NIH-
funded gain-of-function research on bat coronaviruses caused the COVID-
19 pandemic. This was a wake-up call.
Last month, during a Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic
hearing, Dr. Gerald Parker, former commander of the United States Army
Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases and the current head
of the Federal committee that oversees gain-of-function and biosecurity
testified to Congress that gain-of-function research with potential
pandemic pathogens has not contributed significantly to biodefense and
that its benefits have been exaggerated. Dr. Parker also stated there
are safer alternatives available.
Fortunately, last year Congress passed and enacted commonsense
language in the Labor-HHS bill to prohibit gain-of-function research
with pathogens in hostile foreign nations, including Russia and China.
We must now expand that effort and prohibit taxpayer funding for this
dangerous research on U.S. soil and other nations where oversight is
lacking. Prohibiting taxpayer funding of dangerous gain-of-function
research with potential pandemic pathogens is a commonsense solution to
protect public health and national security.
Madam Chair, I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this amendment.

{time} 2140

Mr. MASSIE. Madam Chair, I think it would be useful at this point to
define gain-of-function research. I will use the written testimony of
Richard Ebright, Board of Governors Professor of Chemistry and Chemical
Biology at Rutgers University and laboratory director of Waksman
Institute of Microbiology.
In his testimony in a Senate hearing, he said that gain-of-function
research is defined as ``research activities reasonably anticipated to
increase a potential pandemic pathogen's transmissibility,
pathogenesis, ability to overcome immune response, or ability to
overcome a vaccine or drug.''
Why would you want to do this? Why would you want to do gain-of-
function research? It is a seductive idea that you can take one of
hundreds of thousands of viruses that exist in the animal kingdom
outside of humans and try to predict, poke and prod on the virus,
encourage it to be transmissible among humans so that you could then
predict the next virus that might come into existence among humans, and
then come up with a vaccine for it.
Statistically, there is no way you are going to predict what the next
natural virus is going to be. What you will do, though, in the process
of this research is create a cookbook, a blueprint for the next
pandemic.
Part of the danger in this research lies in the fact that you are
uncovering secrets that will then be published and that can be used to
create a pandemic of existential proportions.
It creates new health threats, health threats through 10,000 years of
evolution that may never come into existence but in 10 days of research
could come into existence in a lab, threats that don't exist in nature.
Why are we still doing this research right now? In 2014, this
research was put on pause, from 2014 to 2017--wisely, I would say. The
pause was suspended in 2018.
By the way, the projects that were paused did not include the
projects at the Wuhan Institute of Virology, unfortunately.
When the pause was removed, this research began again in earnest,
creating tremendous risk for the human race.
Why would we do this to ourselves? We shouldn't be doing this to
ourselves, and we shouldn't be doing it with taxpayer dollars.
There is no practical application of this outside of the curiosity of
a government lab. This research will not continue in private labs
because it is just not profitable. We should stop it here.
Madam Chair, I urge adoption of the amendment. I think it is common
sense. Let's protect America by not funding this research.
Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Massie).
The amendment was agreed to.

Amendment No. 117 Offered by Mr. McCormick

The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 117
printed in part B of House Report 118-272.
Mr. McCORMICK. Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the
following:
Sec. __. The salary of Xavier Becerra, Secretary of Health
and Human Services, shall be reduced to $1.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 864, the gentleman
from Georgia (Mr. McCormick) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Georgia.
Mr. McCORMICK. Madam Chair, I rise to offer my amendment No. 117 to
H.R. 5894, the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and
Education, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2024.
My amendment No. 117 reduces the salary of Xavier Becerra, the
Secretary of Health and Human Services, to $1.
Secretary Becerra has chosen special interest groups over the
American people and blatantly undermined congressional legislative
intent with his implementation of the No Surprises Act.
The No Surprises Act, passed in 2021, was a bipartisan legislative
effort to prevent unexpected medical bills from crushing Americans
across the country, which over 50 percent of all Americans have
experienced.
Unfortunately, the Biden administration and Secretary Becerra have
not implemented the bill as Congress intended, leading to huge
backlogs, unpaid claims to healthcare providers, and patients having
less access to quality healthcare.
This is unacceptable, but it shouldn't be a surprise that the Biden
administration appointed a lawyer to take on healthcare challenges,
resulting in dismal failure.
There have been four court cases in Texas alone to address the
abysmal implementation of this law, and Secretary Becerra and the Biden
administration have lost all four court cases.
Patients' protection from surprise medical bills should not
compromise their access to hospitals and the doctors they need. They
shouldn't have the worst experience of their lives to add to the worst
experience of their lives.
The solution to this is simple: Align the Federal Government
regulations with what Congress intended for the bill to do and make the
process for resolving disputes fair for all parties.
The solution is not only the right thing but will also avoid all the
negative consequences that Congress sought to prevent for patients in
the first place.
I have personally discussed this with Secretary Becerra to no avail.
He continues to choose profiteers rather than patients.
America's hospitals and doctors worked hard with Congress to ensure
the dispute resolution process was fair and avoided these negative
consequences.
Secretary Becerra and his Federal bureaucrats have failed to honor
those promises to patients and caregivers and have instead continued to
ignore Congress' legislative intent.
The reason I originally ran for Congress was because of the issue of
surprise billing. My first taste in politics

[[Page H5834]]

was going down to the State capitol with the Medical Association of
Georgia, a bipartisan group of doctors, trying to resolve this problem.
I brought the fight here to D.C. to push the Federal Government to
begin prioritizing and doing the right thing for patients instead of
prioritizing the profit of special interest groups.
My amendment is not about political cheap shots or agendas. It is
about protecting the people from a public servant who is no longer
keeping their best interests at heart.
Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. DeLAURO. Madam Chair, I claim the time in opposition.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Connecticut is recognized for
5 minutes.
Ms. DeLAURO. Madam Chair, I rise in strong opposition to this
amendment.
Secretary Xavier Becerra is a lifelong public servant. He is also a
very dear friend, and I suspect he is a personal friend of many Members
here today on both sides of the aisle.
Xavier Becerra spent 24 years in the U.S. House of Representatives,
including as a senior member of the Ways and Means Committee and as a
member of the House leadership, serving as assistant to the Speaker and
as chairman of the House Democratic Caucus.
As Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services, Xavier
Becerra leads one of the most important departments in the Federal
Government, including world-leading biomedical research, public health,
and drug development.
Health and Human Services is responsible for mental health, substance
use prevention and treatment, community health centers, LIHEAP, Head
Start, childcare and development block grants, and emergency
preparedness and response.
As Secretary of HHS, he is responsible for Medicare, Medicaid, and
the Affordable Care Act's health insurance marketplace, which together
provide healthcare coverage to 160 million Americans, or nearly half of
our country.
During his tenure at HHS, Secretary Becerra has overseen record-
breaking enrollment in health coverage under the Affordable Care Act,
as more than 16 million people selected a marketplace health plan in
2023.
Secretary Becerra's accomplishments are too numerous to list here. He
has served his country honorably for more than 30 years, and he
deserves better than this deplorable amendment.
Madam Chair, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this vindictive
amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

{time} 2150

Mr. McCORMICK. Madam Chair, obviously I am not a lawyer. I am a
doctor. With all the experience that Mr. Becerra has, you would think
he would know better.
You would think that as a Member of the House, supposedly serving the
American people, who has watched bipartisan bills pass with almost
unanimous consent, that he would know better. You would think as a
lawyer he would know how to carry on a case and win a case when it has
to do with serving the people.
Clearly, he has misrepresented something that we passed as a body,
something that we agreed to as a body to serve the people. That is why
he should be ashamed, and that is why the Secretary of Health and Human
Services, Xavier Becerra's salary should be reduced to $1 for being
derelict in his duty and failing the American people.
I ask my colleagues for their support in passing this amendment.
Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. DeLAURO. Madam Chair, I oppose this amendment, and I yield back
the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. McCormick).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
Ms. DeLAURO. Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Georgia will
be postponed.

Amendment No. 118 Offered by Mrs. Miller of Illinois

The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 118
printed in part B of House Report 118-272.
Mrs. MILLER of Illinois. Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the
desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the
following:
Sec. __. The salary of Catherine E. Lhamon, Assistant
Secretary for Civil Rights at the U.S. Department of
Education, shall be reduced to $1.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 864, the gentlewoman
from Illinois (Mrs. Miller) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Illinois.
Mrs. MILLER of Illinois. Madam Chair, I rise today in support of my
amendment to cut the salary of Assistant Secretary for the Office of
Civil Rights at the Department of Education to $1.
The Assistant Secretary has continually refused to enforce current
Title IX law, which puts our young girls in danger. Under current
statute, the Department of Education is required to protect young women
and girls from being forced to compete against biological men in
athletics, but the Biden administration's Department of Education is
ignoring the law to impose their radical political agenda on our
daughters by forcing them to compete against biological males.
The Assistant Secretary's office has proposed two Title IX rules that
violate congressional intent for Title IX.
Title IX was created to protect girls' sports and girls' spaces,
including bathrooms and locker rooms, not to promote a radical leftwing
political ideology.
The Assistant Secretary for the Office of Civil Rights at the
Department of Education is not following congressional intent.
Please join me in standing up for our daughters and all female
athletes by supporting this amendment.
Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. DeLAURO. Madam Chair, I claim the time in opposition.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Connecticut is recognized for
5 minutes.
Ms. DeLAURO. Madam Chair, I rise in strong opposition to this
amendment. Proposing to eliminate the salaries of the hardworking
public servants, as I have said earlier, is really petty. It is very,
very petty, and it is beneath the dignity of this body. It demonstrates
a lack of seriousness in the process that we are now engaged in and the
road on which we should be traveling to really put together
appropriations bills that meet the needs of the American people and our
international obligations. This is really not how we should solve
differences of opinion.
The mission of the Department of Education's Office of Civil Rights
is to ensure equal access to education and to promote educational
excellence throughout the Nation through vigorous enforcement of civil
rights.
OCR's mission includes areas of concern that the Labor-HHS-Education
Committee has prioritized, again, over the years on a bipartisan basis,
including stronger enforcement to protect the rights of students with
disabilities.
Currently, there is bipartisan support for continuing OCR's
enforcement of civil rights laws as outlined in President Biden's and
the Biden administration's U.S. National Strategy to Counter Anti-
Semitism, something that we are--just the flood of anti-Semitism today,
and on a bipartisan basis we are supporting OCR's enforcement of the
civil rights laws to counter anti-Semitism.
At a time when so many student populations are feeling vulnerable and
in need of support, it really is irresponsible, and it is reckless to
take out the Department of Education's top civil rights official. Once
again, it demonstrates a lack of seriousness in the process that we are
engaged in here on this floor at 10 o'clock at night.
I believe again, as I said earlier, it demonstrates a lack of
seriousness on behalf of my Republican colleagues in the House of
Representatives.

[[Page H5835]]

Vote ``no'' on what is a vindictive amendment.
Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mrs. MILLER of Illinois. Madam Chair, I am being very serious, and
this is not petty. We want to reduce her salary to what she is worth.
Title IX was specifically established to give girls and women
opportunities in education and athletics, and ``sex'' in Title IX
clearly was meant to be biologic and genetic, not sexual identity.
This is dangerous for our girls both emotionally and physically to
have biological men participating in their athletics and entering their
locker rooms and bathrooms.
Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. DeLAURO. I am opposed to the amendment, and I yield back the
balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from Illinois (Mrs. Miller).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
Ms. DeLAURO. Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Illinois
will be postponed.

Amendment No. 119 Offered by Mrs. Miller of Illinois

The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 119
printed in part B of House Report 118-272.
Mrs. MILLER of Illinois. Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the
desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the
following:
Sec. __. The salary of Douglas L. Parker, Assistant
Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health, shall
be reduced to $1.

{time} 2200

Ms. DeLAURO. Madam Chair, I claim the time in opposition to the
amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Connecticut is recognized for
5 minutes.
Ms. DeLAURO. Madam Chair, I rise in strong opposition to this
amendment. This is really pretty extraordinary.
What is the mission of the Department of Labor's Occupational Safety
and Health Administration? It is to assure safe and healthful working
conditions for working men and women by setting and enforcing standards
and by providing training, outreach, education, and assistance.
OSHA is responsible for making sure employers provide safe
workplaces. This is really just consistent with an earlier amendment
that the gentlewoman offered which was to eliminate all funding for
OSHA. Clearly, she doesn't have very much concern about creating a safe
workplace for employees.
Since OSHA was created in 1971, the number of workplace deaths and
the rate of on-the-job injuries has declined by 65 percent, with a
workforce twice as large.
Why do we not want to protect workers on the job? What is wrong with
that concept?
My mother worked in the garment industry, and all those years ago,
she was not protected. None of the women in that sweatshop were
protected. We have moved forward to protect our workers. That is what
OSHA does.
Madam Chair, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this misplaced
amendment.
Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mrs. MILLER of Illinois. Madam Chair, I urge support of this
amendment to hold the Biden administration accountable for their
illegal and unconstitutional COVID vaccine mandate, and I yield back
the balance of my time.
Ms. DeLAURO. Madam Chair, there isn't a COVID vaccine mandate. I
think we have established that over and over and over again.
Apparently, it just doesn't come through.
The long and the short of it, what this amendment would do is really
hurt a public servant at the Occupational Safety and Health
Administration.
Madam Chair, I am opposed to the amendment, and I yield back the
balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from Illinois (Mrs. Miller).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
Ms. DeLAURO. Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Illinois
will be postponed.

Amendment No. 120 Offered by Mrs. Miller of Illinois

The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Mast). It is now in order to consider amendment
No. 120 printed in part B of House Report 118-272.
Mrs. MILLER of Illinois. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

At the end of the bill (before the short title) insert the
following:
Sec. __. None of the funds made available by this Act may
be made available to the World Health Organization.

[[Page H5836]]

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition to the
amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Connecticut is recognized for
5 minutes.
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition to the
amendment.
The amendment would prohibit funding to the World Health
Organization.
This prohibition would remove the United States from an indispensable
partner in protecting America against everyday public health concerns,
as well as crises and public health emergencies.
Disease does not recognize borders. The United States is not an
island. If you have an outbreak of Ebola in West Africa, you can bet
that that is a plane ride away from the United States. Understand that
this is the world that we function in and that we need to have partners
in what we are doing to be able to control public health emergencies
overseas and in the United States.
This amendment is unnecessary. It opens the door for other countries
to replace us in our seat at the table. We cannot tolerate any effort
to stymie American leadership on global health.
Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment, and I
reserve the balance of my time.
Mrs. MILLER of Illinois. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my
time.
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chair, there is nothing more to do but continue to
oppose this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from Illinois (Mrs. Miller).
The amendment was agreed to.

Amendment No. 121 Offered by Mrs. Miller of Illinois

The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 121
printed in part B of House Report 118-272.
Mrs. MILLER of Illinois. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

At the end of the bill (before the short title) insert the
following:
Sec. __. None of the funds made available by this Act may
be made available to the Office of Population Affairs in the
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Health.

{time} 2210

My amendment to the HHS appropriations bill would defund this deeply
political office.
Mr. Chair, I urge everyone to support this amendment, and I reserve
the balance of my time.
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Connecticut is recognized for
5 minutes.
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chair, I rise in strong opposition to the amendment.
This amendment would block funding to the Office of Population
Affairs at the Department of Health and Human Services.
The two most significant grant programs administered by the Office of
Population Affairs are the Title X Family Planning program and the Teen
Pregnancy Prevention Program.
I might add that the Republican Labor-HHS bill introduced today
already eliminates both of these programs.
In 2022, 2.6 million people in the United States received healthcare
services through Title X health clinics, including in all 50 States,
the District of Columbia, and eight territories. The majority of
patients live at or below the Federal poverty line.
More than a million people rely on Title X-funded providers as their
sole or primary source of healthcare. This healthcare includes access
to contraception, cancer screenings, sexually transmitted infections,
testing, and treatment, and other preventive services.
In 2022, Title X-funded providers administered close to 500,000
cervical cancer screenings and more than 3.5 million STI and HIV tests.
Let us take those healthcare opportunities away from people who use
these clinics as their primary source of care.
Given the push by Republicans to ban abortion, since the overturning
of Roe v. Wade, it is more important now than it has ever been in 50
years for people to have access to birth control.
In addition, the Teen Pregnancy Prevention Program supports evidence-
based comprehensive sex education programs, which have been proven to
reduce pregnancies and sexually transmitted infections among teens.
The Teen Pregnancy Prevention Program is vital--now more than ever.
Young people need access to honest and accurate sex education programs
that give them the knowledge to prevent unintended pregnancies, avoid
sexually transmitted infections, and the ability to develop healthy
relationships.
But again, the Labor-HHS bill introduced today eliminates funding for
both Title X Family Planning and the Teen Pregnancy Prevention Program.
It is appalling.
The Republican majority will stop at nothing to attack women's
reproductive health at all levels.
As we have seen across the States, Republicans will continue their
efforts to ban abortion.
As this amendment shows, their preoccupation with women's
reproductive health is not limited to abortion but extends to
eliminating access to contraception and comprehensive sex education.
Mr. Chair, I will give a note about cervical cancer, if I can. Every
year almost 4,000 women die from cervical cancer in this country. The
ability to get people screened--and a lot happens with young women--
their ability to get screened and to be diagnosed and get the treatment
that they need is essential for them to survive.
Why in God's name would we deny them the opportunity for a screening
and treatment in order to be able to survive? Why?
I don't understand my Republican colleagues' preoccupation with
women's reproductive health. It is not limited to abortion. You would
eliminate contraception, comprehensive sex education, and the ability
for people to get screenings and treatment that they need in order to
be able to survive.
Again, saving lives is the most important effort that we can make as
Members of Congress. That is our job.
Let us oppose this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my
time.
Mrs. MILLER of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, the American taxpayer is weary
of their money being squandered on programs like this.
The Office of Population Affairs is a complete waste of taxpayer
dollars. Parents should be deciding what is best for their children,
not the Federal Government.
Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from Illinois (Mrs. Miller).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Illinois
will be postponed.

Amendment No. 122 Offered by Mr. Murphy

The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 122
printed part B of House Report 118-272.
Mr. MURPHY. Mr. Chair, I rise as the designee for the gentlewoman
from

[[Page H5837]]

West Virginia (Mrs. Miller), and I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the
following:
Sec. __. None of the funds made available by this Act may
be used to finalize, implement, or enforce the proposed rule
published by the Department of Health and Human Services
entitled ``Medicaid Program; Misclassification of Drugs,
Program Administration and Program Integrity Updates Under
the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program'' (88 Fed. Reg. 34238 (May,
26, 2023)).

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 864, the gentleman
from North Carolina (Mr. Murphy) and a Member opposed each will control
5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from North Carolina.
Mr. MURPHY. Mr. Chair, I rise today in support of amendment No. 122,
which will prevent funds from being used to finalize or implement the
proposed HHS Medicaid Drug Rebate Program rule.
This rule makes unnecessary changes to the MDRP that have been in
place for decades.
If implemented, the proposed MDRP rule will discourage research and
the development of medicines while jeopardizing Medicaid beneficiaries'
access to affordable drugs. This change would be bad for patients, bad
for doctors, and bad for manufacturers.
This rule is yet another overreach by unelected bureaucrats trying to
make health decisions for our constituents without any statutory
authority to do so.
Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment and stop
this rule from taking effect, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Connecticut is recognized for
5 minutes.
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
The amendment would block the Biden-Harris administration's proposed
rule that would ensure the Federal Government and States get the most
bang for their buck from the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program by closing
loopholes that drug manufacturers were taking advantage of--and we do
know that drug manufacturers can take advantage of individuals.
By opposing this rule, Republicans just want to hand money to their
drug manufacturer friends to take advantage of taxpayers' dollars.
The proposed rule would help States more effectively operate their
Medicaid pharmacy programs and approve access to necessary prescription
drugs for people covered by Medicaid.
In particular, the proposed rule would help States obtain drug
rebates required under the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program. The proposed
rule would enhance the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program integrity by
assuring greater consistency and accuracy of drug information
reporting, strengthen data collection, and efficient operation of the
program.
This amendment would make it more difficult to understand
manufacturers' pricing--a big issue today is the cost of the
prescription drugs, the manufacturers' pricing. What a sop to the
industry. It tells you where the majority's priorities are--so a State
is unable to increase its leverage in negotiating larger supplemental
rebates for high-cost drugs.
This amendment would increase costs for the Federal Government and
for the States.
Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment, and I yield
back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Murphy).
The amendment was agreed to.

Amendment No. 123 Offered by Mrs. Miller-Meeks

The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 123
printed in part B of House Report 118-272.
Mrs. MILLER-MEEKS. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the
following:
Sec. __. None of the funds made available by this Act may
be used by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to
conduct or support any firearm injury and mortality
prevention research.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 864, the gentlewoman
from Iowa (Mrs. Miller-Meeks) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Iowa.
Mrs. MILLER-MEEKS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of my amendment
No. 123, which seeks to ban funding from going towards funding the
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's firearm injury and
mortality prevention research.
President Biden requested $35 million for this program in his fiscal
year 2024 budget request, which is a $22.5 million increase from fiscal
year 2023.

{time} 2220

Mr. Chair, I was the director of public health in the great State of
Iowa before coming to Congress and was a practicing physician for
decades. Not only have I served in public health, but I also value
public health and believe that robust public health infrastructure
nationwide is crucial to the health and well-being or our country.
That is why I released a request for information earlier this year on
how to strengthen and reform the CDC to ensure that our Nation's
leading public health agency is performing as it should.
Part of evaluating our public health departments is realizing when
there are programs that do not add value or belong in the public health
landscape.
The CDC was originally created in 1946 as the Communicable Disease
Center with the mission of preventing the spread of malaria or other
communicable diseases. Since then, the agency has grown into a massive
bureaucracy, and it now is the Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention with a $9 billion budget that supports research and
initiatives that are not within the communicable diseases landscape.
As we saw, there were failures of this institution in both the
initial testing for COVID-19 and the response to COVID-19.
My amendment is an important first step in eliminating costly
programs at the CDC and urges the CDC to get back to its main mission
to help prevent a pandemic in the future.
Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Connecticut is recognized for
5 minutes.
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to this amendment.
The amendment would prohibit the Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention from conducting or supporting any firearm injury and
mortality prevention research.
Firearm injury is among the five leading causes of death for people
aged 1 through 44 in the United States and the leading cause of death
among children and teens aged 1 through 19.
I have to repeat the last statement: Firearm injury is the leading
cause of death among children and teens aged 1 through 19.
The gentlewoman said that this is not about public health. It is the
leading cause of death among children and teens aged 1 through 19. This
is all about public health unless we don't believe that causes of death
are a part of public health. Maybe that is true.
This amendment to prohibit the CDC from conducting research on the
leading cause of death of our young people would be added to a bill
that already removed the funding for this research.
This amendment is absurd.
Mr. Chair, read the bill. Collecting timely data, addressing the gaps
in knowledge around this issue, and identifying effective prevention
strategies are needed to keep individuals, families, schools, and
communities safe from firearm injury and death and to enhance safe
firearm practices.
The CDC is supporting a diverse portfolio of research projects to
advance our understanding of the characteristics, risks, and protective
factors of firearm violence, suicide, and unintentional injury, and the
effectiveness of interventions to prevent firearm-related injuries and
death--injuries and death, public health.

[[Page H5838]]

Many funded research projects focus specifically on youth or will
have implications for youth while others are relevant for specific
populations at elevated risk for firearm violence and suicide like our
veterans and those who have been victims of violence.
I fought to establish this funding line in fiscal year 2020, and I
will continue to fight to ensure that this funding is included.
We should be united in finding ways to save lives and end gun
violence, not play partisan games with this critical research.
Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment, and I
reserve the balance of my time.
Mrs. MILLER-MEEKS. Mr. Chair, again, let me say that the mission of
the CDC should be to combat communicable diseases.
As we saw during the COVID-19 pandemic, the agency lost part of its
focus and has been distracted. There are multiple agencies that collect
data on gun violence and also intervention strategy and research. I
think that we can refocus the CDC on its true mission so that another 1
million American lives are not lost in the next pandemic.
Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chair, let me make one point. I am opposed to this
amendment, obviously, because it is an absurd amendment.
Firearm injury is the leading cause of death among children and teens
aged 1 through 19. This is all about public health. Let us not turn it
into a debate or a discussion on anything else.
What this says to me is there really isn't a desire or the
understanding of what we try to do to save the lives of teens, adults,
veterans, or anything else that falls into the litany of amendments
that we have seen here tonight that would put people's lives in danger
and don't use the resources we have through this Labor-HHS bill that we
have used on a bipartisan basis in prior years to save lives.
This is one more example of how we believe that maybe the lives are
not worth saving.
Mr. Chair, I oppose this amendment, and I yield back the balance of
my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from Iowa (Mrs. Miller-Meeks).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Iowa will
be postponed.

Amendment No. 124 Offered by Mr. Moore of Utah

The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 124
printed in part B of House Report 118-272.
Mr. MOORE of Utah. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Page 55, line 18, after the first dollar amount, insert
``(reduced by $215,088,000) (increased by $215,088,000)''.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 864, the gentleman
from Utah (Mr. Moore) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Utah.
Mr. MOORE of Utah. Mr. Chair, I rise today in support of my
bipartisan amendment urging the Health Resources and Services
Administration, or HRSA, to provide a complete accounting of unpaid and
partially paid claims by the COVID-19 Uninsured Program, as well as an
accounting of how funding from various pandemic-era laws have been used
to pay claims generated by providers under this program since it began.
The amendment also presses HRSA to provide a plan for the payment of
remaining legitimate claims that were made under this program.
The COVID-19 Uninsured Program provided reimbursement for claims
submitted by healthcare providers who provided testing, treatment, and
vaccination services for uninsured individuals during the COVID-19
pandemic.
In the spring of 2022, HRSA closed the program and provided little
notice or time to submit claims for services already provided under
that program.
I have heard from providers in my home State of Utah who are owed
funds by the administration for services performed prior to the
program's closure. Providers that submitted legitimate claims should be
compensated for these medical services.
I also believe that Congress must continue to provide robust
oversight on this program and other pandemic-era laws to ensure funds
were used appropriately and in line with congressional intent.
For example, a July 2023 HHS OIG report estimated that nearly 19
percent of the uninsured program payments made on behalf of 3.7 million
patients were improper.
A full accounting of HHS' use of pandemic funding will ensure
Congress has the tools and information necessary to be good stewards of
taxpayer dollars.
I have been supportive of efforts to address improper payments by
Federal agencies more broadly and to ensure that our government
operates efficiently and effectively. Understanding how these dollars
have been utilized by the Department would build on these efforts.
The administration has continued to provide funding for other
testing, treatment, and vaccination initiatives following the program's
closure. In addition, the Fiscal Responsibility Act rescinded billions
in funding for the provider relief fund because that money sat unused
for well over a year following HRSA's closure of the uninsured program.
PRF funds had been intended, in part, to reimburse providers for
services provided to uninsured patients.
I strongly encourage the administration and HSRA to work with
Congress and provide an accounting of the funding for the uninsured
program. The American people deserve accountability and cooperation
from the executive branch.
Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment, and I
yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Utah (Mr. Moore).
The amendment was agreed to.
The Chair understands that amendment No. 125 will not be offered.

{time} 2230

Amendment No. 126 Offered by Mr. Murphy

The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 126
printed in part B of House Report 118-272.
Mr. MURPHY. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the
following:
Sec. __. None of the funds made available by this Act may
be used to implement, enforce, or otherwise give effect to
the proposed rule issued by the Centers for Medicare &
Medicaid Services titled ``Medicare and Medicaid Programs:
Minimum Staffing Standards for Long-Term Care Facilities and
Medicaid Institutional Payment Transparency Reporting'' (88
Fed. Reg. 61352 (September 6, 2023)).

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 864, the gentleman
from North Carolina (Mr. Murphy) and a Member opposed each will control
5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from North Carolina.
Mr. MURPHY. Mr. Chair, I rise this evening to try to correct a grave
error made by CMS.
My amendment would prohibit funds from being used to finalize,
implement, or enforce CMS's proposed nursing home staffing mandate
rule.
It is insane.
The proposed rule would require nursing homes to provide 24/7 onsite
registered nurse coverage and a minimum of 0.55 RN and 2.45 nurse aide
hours per resident day.
As CMS noted in the proposed rule, the proposed NA and RN
requirements exceed those in nearly all States, and if finalized, these
new floors would increase staffing in more than 75 percent of nursing
homes nationwide.
In other words, more than three-quarters of nursing homes in America
today would not be compliant if the proposal went into effect.
To comply with the hours per resident day requirement, urban
facilities would be required to hire an additional

[[Page H5839]]

10,495 RNs and 61,348 NAs, while rural facilities would be required to
hire an additional 2,100 RNs, 15,000 NAs.
Likewise, to comply with the 24/7 RN requirement, an additional 1,900
RNs would be needed in urban areas, 1,300 in rural areas.
Collectively, the nationwide compliance cost for nursing homes is
estimated to be $40 billion over the next 10 years. Those are CMS's own
estimates.
Additionally, the rule requires States to collect and report on
compensation for workers as a percentage of Medicaid payments for those
working in nursing homes and intermediate care facilities, but for
providers alone, implementation costs would be $9 million per year for
4 years, or $36 million over 4 years, and once the rule goes into
effect in year 5, an additional $18 million per year for 6 years,
totaling $144 million over the decade.
Mr. Chairman, I recognize the need to ensure that patients receive
high-quality healthcare service. I have been doing it for 35 years.
However, this rule as proposed would exacerbate existing workforce
constraints throughout the Nation, particularly in rural communities,
increase burdensome reporting requirements, and substantially impact
the finances of nursing homes, ultimately limiting seniors' access to
critical healthcare services.
It is an unfunded mandate on under-resourced facilities, and it is
absolutely out of touch with reality.
In a study released just last week, more than 60 percent of nursing
students today in nursing school don't even plan to treat patients
after graduation.
We have a massive shortage now. We are not going to have ones coming
in the future. How in the hell are we going to implement this going
forward? Where are the nurses going to come from?
The ranking member of Connecticut said earlier today during general
debate that we have a shortage of nurses today. I absolutely agree.
This is not a partisan issue.
I would encourage CMS to work with Congress on reforms needed to
ensure seniors receive the highest quality care. I encourage Members to
vote ``yes'' on this amendment.
Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition to the
amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Connecticut is recognized for
5 minutes.
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chair, I rise in strong opposition to the amendment.
The amendment would block the Department of Health and Human Services
from requiring minimum staffing levels at long-term care facilities.
Understaffing in nursing homes is in a full-blown crisis.
To address the staffing crisis, the proposed rule would require a
minimum number of certified nursing assistants, who provide the bulk of
personalized care for our loved ones, as well as registered nurses.
Staffing minimums will ensure that high-quality care and patient
safety are prioritized, as decades of research demonstrate a clear
association between higher staffing levels and a higher quality of
care.
In contrast, low staffing levels have been linked to increased cases
of abuse and the overuse of antipsychotics and psychotropic drugs.
In addition, minimum staffing levels are needed to support a long-
term care workforce that has relied for too long on the sacrifice of
underpaid caregivers who often earn below 200 percent of the poverty
level.
This workforce is disproportionately comprised of women, particularly
women of color, whose hard work, dedication, and skill has never been
properly valued.
Underpaid long-term care workers face physical and emotional burnout,
which also leads to high turnover rates which further exacerbates
staffing shortages.
Furthermore, let us be clear: The long-term care industry is making
record profits in Medicare. Billions of taxpayer dollars are being
diverted from patient care to profits. Private equity firms are buying
nursing homes because of their potential for profit.
If the majority was serious about supporting the nursing workforce,
they would have provided increased investments in the Nursing Workforce
Development program at the Health Resources Services Administration,
which helps to develop the pipeline of nurses.
Instead, the majority has cut nearly $20 million from this program
and has the audacity to then include report language that says that the
committee remains concerned over workforce shortages among healthcare
professionals, including the nursing workforce.
Concerned would be great without cutting $20 million from the
program.
I strongly support the Biden administration's proposed rule to
strengthen minimum staffing levels at our long-term care facilities.

Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment, and I
reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. MURPHY. Mr. Chair, even the ranking member said earlier today--
let's roll back the film--there is a nursing shortage. There is a
nursing shortage in our country.
While the rule may be well-intentioned and it makes you feel good,
the nurses aren't there. They can't just come out of the middle of
nowhere. They just can't. I would love for there to be more nurses. We
could open up more beds at our hospitals and take care of more
patients.
They are not there. They are not there, and this is where the
Democrats are just so out of touch. I get that it makes them feel
great. I am happy, but when reality strikes, it is hard. We don't have
the nurses. Then you mandate these nursing homes to have nurses that
they don't have, so guess what? They close.
Now, where are your parents going to stay? Where are your
grandparents going to stay? Nowhere. It is absolutely out of mind that
this is being proposed because CMS is absolutely out of touch with
reality for the day.
Mr. Chairman, I ask my colleagues to vote for this amendment. It
actually makes sense where the rule does not, and I yield back the
balance of my time.
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chair, I oppose this amendment, and I would just say
to the gentleman that if you really cared about the nursing shortage--
and we have a serious nursing shortage--there wouldn't be this $20
million cut that is there. There wouldn't be less pay for nurses. There
wouldn't be the cutting of the programs that recruit and train nurses.
We would have a program that dealt with the cancellation of student
debt for nurses. We would make investment in nurses so they would want
to be on the job, but no. You cut every piece that, in fact, assists
nurses in being recruited, trained, get better wages, get better hours,
get better opportunity to get their training and get indemnity on their
student debt in that regard.
No. This is a profit motive. This is a profit motive for nursing
homes and the industry that protects them. There are private equity
firms that are buying the nursing homes because of their potential for
profit.
Mr. Chair, I oppose the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my
time.

{time} 2240

The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Murphy).
The amendment was agreed to.

Amendment No. 127 Offered by Mr. Ogles

The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 127
printed in part B of House Report 118-272.
Mr. OGLES. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the
following:
Sec. __. None of the funds made available by this Act may
be used to enforce any COVID-19 mask mandates.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 864, the gentleman
from Tennessee (Mr. Ogles) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Tennessee.
Mr. OGLES. Mr. Chair, my amendment prohibits the funds appropriated
by this act from being used to enforce any COVID-19 mask mandates.
I have been proud to introduce this amendment in previous
appropriations

[[Page H5840]]

bills where they passed on a voice vote, and I am happy to do so here
again.
Policies involving mandatory mask implementation are about control,
not about science. Tom Jefferson, not to be confused with Thomas
Jefferson, is a leading epidemiologist who coauthored what The New York
Times opinion section called--and again this is The New York Times--the
``most rigorous and comprehensive analysis of scientific studies
conducted on the efficacy of masks for reducing the spread of
respiratory illnesses--including COVID-19,'' and found there was no
evidence that masks made any difference. It found that wearing masks in
public places ``probably makes little or no difference'' in the number
of infections.
It should be noted that mask mandates included any and all masks.
This study looked at the gold standard of masks, the N-95, and even
they didn't make a difference. When you paired masks with preventative
measures, there was no difference.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Connecticut is recognized for
5 minutes.
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to this amendment. This
amendment prohibits the use of funds to enforce any COVID-19 mask
mandate. I don't know how many times I have said it here this evening,
there is currently no Federal mask requirement in place.
What is it that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle don't
understand? No Federal mask requirement in place. Is that not the
Queen's English? It is there.
I will just say that masks have been used in medical settings to
prevent respiratory infections for decades. Healthcare professionals
wear masks for a simple reason: They work.
Let me repeat one more time: There currently is no Federal mask
requirement in place, so let's not continue to waste more time when we
need to proceed with getting appropriations bills funded.
Mr. Chair, I oppose this amendment, and I yield back the balance of
my time.
Mr. OGLES. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate my colleague's comments. I
would agree to her point that there currently is no mask mandate and
the fact that the COVID-19 emergency is over. However, what this does
is prevent future administrations, Republican or Democrat, from taking
and impinging on the freedom and liberty of individuals.
Going back to Dr. Jefferson and his study that was quoted by the New
York Times, it noted that the so-called science that infringed on the
liberty by forcing masks was based off of nonscientific, nonrandomized
trials, that the data was flawed.
We allowed ourselves and our freedoms and our liberties to be
infringed. Our Founding Fathers warned us that it is in times of crisis
that the Constitution and the rule of law are most in jeopardy. I lost
friends to COVID. I am not saying that COVID wasn't serious, but what I
am saying is this does not give the government the right to infringe on
your liberty. You have a choice. It is up to you to make it.
Mr. Chairman, I urge adoption of my amendment. I thank my colleagues,
and I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Ogles).
The amendment was agreed to.

Amendment No. 128 Offered by Mr. Ogles

The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 128
printed in part B of House Report 118-272.
Mr. OGLES. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

At the end of the bill (before the short title), add the
following:
Sec. ___. None of the funds made available by this Act may
be made available to carry out the provisions of the guidance
``Gender Identity Non-Discrimination and Inclusion Policy for
Employees and Applicants'', signed by the Secretary of Health
and Human Services, Xavier Becerra, on October 11, 2023.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 864, the gentleman
from Tennessee (Mr. Ogles) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Tennessee.
Mr. OGLES. Mr. Chairman, I rise to offer an amendment that prohibits
funds for the enforcement of the recommendation, the guidance regarding
mandated use of preferred pronouns.
On October 11, the Secretary of HHS issued guidance that would, among
other things, compel employees to call other people by their so-called
preferred pronouns.
I think I speak for most Americans when I say that the concept of
choosing your own pronouns, which is based on biological sex, just
doesn't make sense.
That is not what this amendment is about. This amendment is about a
clear and present danger to the principle of free speech. Mr. Chairman,
you have a right to be you. I have a right to be me. However, your
choices should not infringe on my rights.
Not only does the First Amendment protect against censorship, it also
has been long understood to protect against compelled speech. Perhaps
one of the most egregious forms of infringement and violation of the
First Amendment is compelled speech, and I rise to stand against said
egregious guidance in trying to get Federal employees to buy into this
nonsense.
Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Connecticut is recognized for
5 minutes.
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chair, I rise in strong opposition to this
amendment. This amendment would block implementation of guidance issued
by Health and Human Services Secretary Xavier Becerra in October to
apply to all employees and applicants of HHS agencies.
The guidance simply says that HHS is a workplace that does not allow
for discrimination against employees based on gender, including gender
identity. It is the policy of the Federal Government to treat all of
its applicants and employees with dignity and respect and to provide a
workplace that is free from discrimination and intolerance. Title VII
of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits employment discrimination on
the basis of gender identity and sexual orientation.
The HHS guidance issued in October follows guidance issued by the
Office of Personnel Management, OPM, in March of this year.
The Federal Government needs to set an example. We have a
responsibility to ensure that all employees are able to work in a safe
environment free from discrimination, from intolerance, from bullying,
all of those things, and I would add that all Federal employees should
be guaranteed a respectful environment. This is basic human decency.
We cannot--and we should not--stand for discrimination in any form,
and this amendment would seek to promote discrimination. Please, I
strongly urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this amendment, and I
reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. OGLES. Mr. Chairman, guidance. I think Ronald Reagan--and I will
paraphrase--said the scariest phrase in the American language is, ``I
am from the government and I am here to help.'' The last thing I want
is more guidance from the Federal Government.
Mr. Chairman, you can bark like a dog, but I am not going to call you
Fido. I am going to call you Mr. Chairman. That is what this is about.
This is about infringement of speech.
This is about the Federal Government trying to compel employees to
buy into the fantasies of other employees, and that is not the role of
government. Bark like a dog if you want, but you are still Mr.
Chairman.
Writing for the majority in the West Virginia State Board of
Education v. Barnette, Justice Robert Jackson affirmed this basic idea.
He wrote, ``No official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be
orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of
opinion or force citizens to confess by word or act their faith
therein.''
Forcing employees to call people by their preferred pronouns compels
those employees to affirm that it is possible for a person to change
his or her gender, to buy into this fantasy even if it

[[Page H5841]]

does contradict science and/or their faith.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chair, again, basic human decency. Let's embrace
people wherever they are, whoever they are. Let's not allow for a
workplace, particularly at the Federal level, that allows
discrimination, intolerance, bullying or making people feel they are
less than a human being, less than an individual who deserves love and
respect. That has to be starting from the top at the Federal level. We
need to set an example.
Mr. Chair, I oppose this amendment, and I yield back the balance of
my time.

{time} 2250

Mr. OGLES. Mr. Chairman, people have a right to practice their
religion fully. They are not told to confine their faith to an hour on
Sunday mornings.
In fact, most major religions in the United States hold as a matter
of doctrine that a person cannot change his or her gender.
I go back to George Washington before the Constitutional Convention
in 1789 pointedly attending a Catholic mass. He reached out to the
Jewish community and proclaimed religious freedom, the choices of
blessings, that unwavering commitment to religious liberty, to freedom,
is what we should be honoring.
Our word as a Member of Congress should mean something. If we will
not stand up for the Constitution, for your right to freedom of speech,
for the rights of Americans, we have no business being here.
Compelling speech, Mr. Chairman, is an infringement of the most
egregious nature. It must not be tolerated.
This idea of not having a hostile workplace goes both ways, Mr.
Chairman. Again, bark like a dog if you want to. You are still Mr.
Chairman.
Mr. Chair, I urge adoption of my amendment, and I yield back the
balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Ogles).
The amendment was agreed to.

Amendment No. 129 Offered by Mr. Perry

The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 129
printed in part B of House Report 118-272.
Mr. PERRY. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the
following:
Sec. __. None of the funds made available by this Act may
be used to finalize, implement, or enforce the proposed rule
entitled ``Lowering Miners' Exposure to Respirable
Crystalline Silica and Improving Respiratory Protection''
published by the Mine Safety and Health Administration on
July 13, 2023 (88 Fed. Reg. 44852).

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 864, the gentleman
from Pennsylvania (Mr. Perry) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
Mr. PERRY. Mr. Chairman, this amendment prohibits the use of funds
for the Mine Safety and Health Administration to finalize, implement,
or enforce its proposed silica rule.
The Mine Safety and Health Administration's proposed silica rule is
overly broad and fails to account for the differences among facilities
that fall within MSHA's jurisdiction. It is the old one size does all,
fits all, whether you like it or not.
While this silica rule may make sense for certain types of mines, the
across-the-board application of this proposed rule threatens to impose
significant regulatory burdens on an industry that is vital to our
Nation's economic health.
Companies throughout the industry have worked proactively to address
these issues through various measures that ensure employee safety while
limiting the cost to producers. Unfortunately, the one-size-fits-all
approach taken by MSHA fails to include an applicability threshold,
which would ensure it only applies where it is necessary to improve
safety. It fails to ensure that the medical surveillance provisions are
employed on a risk-based basis.
These drafting failures by MSHA ensure maximum regulatory burdens
while minimizing the safety impact of the rule, something one would
expect from an administration that is hell-bent on ending mining in
America.
Let's leave no doubt among anybody who is listening or viewing: That
is exactly what the administration wants to do.
We call them rare earth minerals. Mr. Chairman, they are not rare.
They are from the earth, but they are not rare. We are just not allowed
to go get them in America. We have to import them from China or let
China use slave labor in the Congo to bring them to the United States
of America because we won't get them ourselves. We are then bound by
China.
Most concerning, MSHA's reported economic analysis falsely claims
that it will not have a significant economic impact--as usual, the
normal lies from the Federal Government.
The cost estimate so vastly understates or underestimates the cost to
operators that it calls into question the abilities and motives of
those doing MSHA's economic analysis.
According to the National Sandstone and Gravel Association, MSHA's
estimates of exposure control costs in particular are vastly
inaccurate. Significantly, one member company's 2023 budget for
exposure controls is approximately equal to the MSHA annual estimate
for all metal/nonmetal operators. Based on communications with 13
member companies, costs for exposure controls will vary widely but on
average are $920,000 annually, with a median of $225,000.
Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Connecticut is recognized for
5 minutes.
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chair, I rise in strong opposition to this
amendment.
The Department of Labor first started working to prevent silica-
related diseases in the 1930s. The Secretary of Labor, Frances Perkins,
the first woman Secretary of Labor in the United States, launched a
major campaign to stop silicosis deaths in this country.
In 2016, the Department issued a long-needed standard to protect
workers against deadly silica dust, which causes silicosis and leads to
a very painful death. Silica dust causes silicosis and lung cancer.
Unfortunately, the exposures, deaths, and diseases continue, which is
why the Mine Safety and Health Administration proposed new rules to
strengthen miners' protection from silica.
Once again, this is about workers' lives, but it would appear that:
Who cares? The miners are expendable.
The new rule lowers exposure limits from breathable crystalline
silica in coal, metal, and nonmetal mines. In addition, the rule would
provide the same medical surveillance protection that coal miners
receive to all miners in metal and nonmetal mines.
Unfortunately, this amendment would halt our country's steady
progress in combating silicosis and other fatal health conditions by
blocking the Department of Labor's efforts to save miners' lives--
again, a theme throughout the amendments that we have heard on this
floor tonight. All put at risk the lives of men, women, and children in
this country. Hard to believe that my colleagues would not be
interested in saving lives rather than making these lives expendable.
Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this amendment, and
I reserve the balance of my time.

{time} 2300

Mr. PERRY. Mr. Chairman, I talked to you about the true cost of the
rule. Given the true cost of the proposed rule, it will put mines out
of business, which is really the intent of this rulemaking by the MSHA.
The absurdity of this cost estimate necessitates that MSHA stop its
rulemaking process until it gets it right. This amendment would do this
and prevent MSHA's assault on American mining.
The gentlewoman, my colleague, says it is about workers' lives. It is
also about their livelihoods, which are going to be taken from them.
People in America have the right to make a choice. They have a right
to

[[Page H5842]]

make a choice, and when faced with the facts, the fact is that this
rulemaking underestimates the cost vastly and is intended to put mines
out of business--put mines out of business. We don't mine much coal in
America anymore.
I come from Pennsylvania. It used to be a great coal mining State,
but not only is that happening, the opposition--my friends on the other
side of the aisle--is demanding everybody electrify their lives,
electric vehicles only. That is what is coming. They are shutting down
copper mines in the United States of America.
When was the last time a new mine opened up? They are not going to
allow it, Mr. Chairman. They are not going to allow it, which is why
this amendment is necessary.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chair, I continue to oppose this amendment. I think
one of the pieces of information I just found out is that miners will
die a lot younger from silicosis.
I have to think about the logic that my colleague mentioned, that if
we put this rule into effect that the mines will close, but having dead
miners will somehow keep the mines open? The miners are not there. It
would just seem to me that it is a cost-benefit analysis here.
Let's put the rule into place, let's save miners, and let's let the
mine thrive, instead of no rule, no miners, closed mines. There's no
logic.
Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. PERRY. Mr. Chairman, my friend from the other side would like you
to believe that mining companies want to kill all their employees. I
assure you they do not. I also assure you that we won't go to a
position where there will be no regulations. We will have appropriate
regulations with the appropriate costs assigned to them. That is why
this amendment is necessary. That is why it is needed.
I urge Members to vote in favor of this amendment, and I yield back
the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Perry).
The amendment was agreed to.

Amendment No. 130 Offered by Mr. Perry

The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 130
printed in part B of House Report 118-272.
Mr. PERRY. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the
following:
Sec. ___. None of the funds made available by this Act may
be used to implement, administer, or enforce the final rule
entitled ``Representation-Case Procedures'' published by the
National Labor Relations Board in the Federal Register on
August 25, 2023 (88 Fed Reg. 58076).

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 864, the gentleman
from Pennsylvania (Mr. Perry) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
Mr. PERRY. Mr. Chairman, this amendment prohibits the use of funds
for the National Labor Relations Board to implement, administer, or
enforce its representation case procedures rule, which imposes ambush
elections for unionization.
This rule imposes ambush elections, which significantly shorten the
times between the filing of a petition for a union election and the
election itself.
This limits the ability of the employer to spread the truth about
what unionization truly means and prevents employees from going into
the election with enough time to truly consider their vote.
This rule was attempted by the NLRB in 2014 under the Obama
administration, which was litigated for years before being remedied by
the Trump administration in 2019.
This rule seeks to return to the 2014 election schedule along with
other concerning provisions. Among the concerning provisions that would
return is a requirement that within 2 days of the issuance of a
direction of election, employers provide personal contact information
of prospective voters to the unions.
This requirement that employers provide employee information to the
union subjects the employees and their families to intimidation,
coercion, and threats. What if the employees don't want their
information given out? Well, too bad. The unions are going to get it.
They will be visiting your home.
These provisions were also included in the PRO Act, a bill that
failed legislatively when Democrats had the White House and control of
both Chambers, and like the Obama administration, this administration
seeks an end around, to end around the legislative branch and impose an
agenda too unpopular to become law. They want to just do it by
executive fiat. We don't have a king in this country. That is why we
have a legislature.
More fundamentally, this is yet another example and a disturbing
trend of the NLRB--the activist, the leftwing, radical activist NLRB--
trying to remove the rights of employees to determine their own fate by
rigging the game in favor of leftist Democrat special interests.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Connecticut is recognized for
5 minutes.
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chair, I rise in strong opposition to this
amendment.
This amendment is yet another effort by the House Republican majority
to curtail the rights of workers, many of whom are living paycheck-to-
paycheck in order to enrich the big businesses and corporations that
they serve.
The amendment blocks the National Labor Relations Board's new
election rules, which will reduce unnecessary delays in the union
election process. This allows employees to realize their free choice of
representation more quickly, and if a majority supports the union, get
parties to the bargaining table, and it does not subject employees to
intimidation by employers.
The previous board, which answered to their allies at big
corporations, drafted election rules in 2019 that were struck down by
the D.C. circuit. So those unlawful rules were already struck down
under the current board.
This amendment would prevent the board from finishing the process of
restoring the prior rules that have already been held up by the Federal
courts.
A point to be made: It is the unions who created the middle class in
this country. It is the unions that have provided a work week, a safe
workplace, increased wages, and I might add that unions benefit
nonunion workers, as well. It has been demonstrated in the auto
industry in terms of salary.
This is just another attempt to deny people the ability to form a
union, to have collective bargaining rights, and to be able to
determine what kind of representation they need and that they want in
the workplace. It is about getting to the bargaining table and making
sure that workers' rights are respected and honored in this country.
I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this amendment, and I reserve
the balance of my time.
Mr. PERRY. Mr. Chairman, as I said, the ambush election simply
shortens the time between the filing of a petition for a union election
and the election itself.
Nobody on this side of the aisle has any issue or problem with
collective bargaining or the ability to unionize, but unfortunately, my
friends on the other side of the aisle just want to move more quickly.
I would characterize it this way: You have to vote for it to find out
what is in it. We are used to that from my friends on the other side.
We want people to understand and have the time to understand and to
know what the election is about. There is no reason to rush into it.
There is no reason.
What is the reason to rush into it? Learn the facts, and then decide
what is best for yourself. The people should decide, not the union
bosses, and certainly not this place jamming it down their throat.
Unions are associated with creating the middle class, and they have
done a great job at doing that. Unfortunately, in some cases, the NLRB
has outlived its usefulness, and this is one of them. This is one of
them. People have every right in the United States of America

[[Page H5843]]

to unionize. They don't have to do it in 2 days, though, and that is
what my friends on the other side of the aisle wish they could force
and impose upon us. We are Americans. We can figure it out.
We are Americans. We can figure it out. We are not dummies. We don't
need to vote for it to find out what is in it.
Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

{time} 2310

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chair, I think it was the National Labor Relations
Act, and I think it may have been Franklin Roosevelt who dealt with the
National Labor Relations Board.
Do you know how many union elections--I will tell you about one in
the city of New Haven. The graduate students at Yale University, who I
worked with for several years, were shot down by the NLRB year after
year after year, maybe for 6 or 7 years, until finally last year, they
were able to be able to form the union. Now the issue is how are they
going to be able to deal with the first contract and bargaining.
It has been a slow walk to get unions recognized and give people the
opportunity to be represented by a labor union. It only takes grit and
tenacity to get through it in order to be able to get the opportunity
to be represented by a union.
Mr. Chair, I oppose this amendment, and I yield back the balance of
my time.
Mr. PERRY. Mr. Chair, maybe, just maybe, I don't know--this might be
a foreign concept to my friends on the other side of the aisle, but
maybe employees are pretty darn happy with the work environment they
are in. If they are not, they have a choice to go somewhere else and be
treated better. Maybe the market is working, and maybe that is why
unionization is at one of the lowest levels in history.
But because they want those union dues--let's get right down to it.
Because my friends on the other side of the aisle want those union dues
so they can funnel them into campaigns for elections, they are going to
try and force these elections, these ambush elections, on our employers
to increase union participation where it is not needed, it is not
wanted, and it is not helping anything.
Mr. Chair, it is an easy vote to vote ``yes'' for this, and I yield
back the balance of my time.

The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Perry).
The amendment was agreed to.

Amendment No. 131 Offered by Mr. Perry

The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 131
printed in part B of House Report 118-272.
Mr. PERRY. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the
following:
Sec. __. None of the funds made available by this Act may
be used to implement or enforce the decision entitled ``Cemex
Construction Materials Pacific, LLC'' issued by the National
Labor Relations Board on August 25, 2023 (372 NLRB No. 130).

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 864, the gentleman
from Pennsylvania (Mr. Perry) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
Mr. PERRY. Mr. Chair, this amendment prohibits the use of funds for
the National Labor Relations Board to implement or enforce the Cemex
decision, which imposes a backdoor card-check scheme. This ruling
threatens to take away secret ballot elections for unionization,
including requiring an employer to recognize a union if the NLRB
alleges unfair labor practices in the lead-up to the election.
Just think about that, because I am sure there are a bunch of
antiunion people working at the NLRB. Card check allows for a union to
be certified once a certain number of employees sign cards in favor of
petitioning for a union election.
Rarely do unions garner as much support in secret ballot elections as
they do with signature cards. Part of the difference in support is that
the employers hear competing arguments about the merits of
unionization. More concerning, the signature card process exposes
workers to mob-like tactics to pressure employees into signing
unionization cards.
During an organization drive at the Volkswagen plant in Chattanooga,
Tennessee, employees alleged that the UAW used misrepresentation,
coercion, threats, and promises to get card signatures. Say it isn't
so. It never happens, of course not, because there is no money
involved.
Secret ballots insulate employees from these despicable tactics and
allow them to express their true desire regarding the union question
without concerns for the safety of themselves and their families.
Fundamentally, we all understand the importance of secret ballots and
protecting elections from coercion, threats, and corruption. That is
why we hold secret ballot elections for public office. For whatever
reason, the minority feels it is important to exempt their special
interests in the unions from this fundamental truth to rig the game in
their favor to make up for plummeting unionization rates around the
country.
Moreover, this move by the NLRB is a usurpation of legislative power
under both the Obama administration and the Biden administration.
Democrats have attempted and failed to pursue card check legislatively
because they can't win it.
Rejected by the elected representatives, the unions and their lackeys
on the NLRB are attempting to pursue this by executive fiat. Again, we
don't have a king in this country.
Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition to the
amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Connecticut is recognized for
5 minutes.
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chair, I was surprised. The gentleman earlier said
he was for unions and collective bargaining, and all of a sudden we are
talking about union lackeys.
The Cemex decision blocked by this amendment has already been
implemented and is now the legal framework that determines when and why
employers may be required to recognize and bargain with unions.
Cemex preserves the employer's discretion to voluntarily recognize
unions based on a demonstration of majority support. Many employers are
doing so, but employers are always free instead to timely request an
election to test a union's support.
The NLRB is already conducting these elections, and parties are
seeking remedies where there is election interference.
Blocking enforcement of the rule would create legal uncertainty for
employees, employers, and unions. Since the board decided Cemex,
employers--this is not just workers--but employers have filed almost
100 petitions for such elections. This amendment would put many of
those employer-filed petitions in limbo.
The amendment would also block the board's current standard for when
an employer's illegal conduct prevents a fair election and necessitates
a bargaining order.
Employees would lose clear protections for their right to have a free
and fair choice on union representation.
Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this amendment, and
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. PERRY. Mr. Chair, allowing for secret ballot union elections free
of coercion, intimidation, and threats should be a pretty easy concept
to support, regardless of your party or union status.
Now, my good friend from the other side says blocking enforcement
will equal uncertainty. No, it will not equal uncertainty. We will keep
going just like we are going right now. Unions are sometimes being
elected in businesses and sometimes are not. That is what is occurring
right now.
What won't be happening is that there won't be the coercion and the
intimidation and the showing up at the home and the showing up when you
pull into the place of business demanding that you fill out the card
because they know who you are and they just demand you do it by card as
opposed to secret ballot.
Americans understand secret ballot, because it preserves the
anonymity and

[[Page H5844]]

saves them from the coercive tactics that we saw in the unions back in
the 1970s. I remember it. I remember watching it on TV, the murders and
the coercion. I watched it and so did she.
There is no reason that we can't use a secret ballot. It has worked
for this long. It continues to work well, and that is what we should
stick with.
Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

{time} 2320

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I oppose this amendment.
I think one has to try to take a look at the labor history in our
country in a very serious way to understand that the birthing of the
unions, the struggle for workers' rights, and the violence against
workers who have tried to form unions in this country. It has been not
an acceptance of the collective bargaining rights of workers in this
Nation.
Workers have sacrificed. Some sacrificed their lives to get the
creation of a union in this Nation.
What are we talking about?
The delays and the delays and the delays to recognize workers'
rights; to study labor history in this Nation and what a difficult time
it has been for workers to be able to be represented by a union of
their choice and not have to fight over and over and over again for
their rights.
It can't be that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle don't
understand the labor history and what has happened, and the forces that
have tried to keep labor unions from forming.
I think we have a point of agreement. Labor unions created the middle
class of this Nation. Thank God, once again, they are on the rise. They
are winning elections against some of the major corporations in this
Nation who have tried to trodden down on them for many, many years.
Mr. Chair, I oppose this amendment, and I yield back the balance of
my time.
Mr. PERRY. Mr. Chair, the chairwoman talks about the violence against
workers from trying to form unions. Of course, we know the labor
history, but this isn't the 1800s. It is not 1910. It is not the
Pinkertons and the Vanderbilts and the Carnegies. It is 2023.
Mr. Chairman, for goodness' sake, do all the States that have right-
to-work laws--are all those people so miserable that they are leaving
those States for States that force almost unionization unilaterally?
No, it is the other way around. Oh, by the way, if you know labor
law, you know that labor unions are actually allowed to break the law
with impunity. That is the reality. That is the truth. Read the law.
They are allowed to do it.
There is no reason that we can't have a secret ballot to unionize.
Mr. Chair, I urge adoption, and I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Perry).
The amendment was agreed to.

Amendment No. 132 Offered by Mr. Pfluger

The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 132
printed in part B of House Report 118-272.
Mr. PFLUGER. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the
following:
Sec. __. None of the funds made available by this Act may
be used to finalize, implement, enforce, or otherwise give
effect to--
(1) the policies included in the informational bulletin
issued by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services
entitled ``Health Care-Related Taxes and Hold Harmless
Arrangements Involving the Redistribution of Medicaid
Payments'' (February 17, 2023); or
(2) any limit on expenditures with respect to State-
directed payments as proposed in the preamble to the proposed
rule, issued by the Department of Health and Human Services
entitled ``Medicaid Program; Medicaid and Children's Health
Insurance Program (CHIP) Managed Care Access, Finance, and
Quality'' (88 Fed. Reg. 28092 (May 3, 2023)) insofar as such
rule makes changes to paragraphs (G) and (H) of section
438.6(c)(2)(ii) of title 42, Code of Federal Regulations.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 864, the gentleman
from Texas (Mr. Pfluger) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas.
Mr. PFLUGER. Mr. Chair, thank you for joining me today as I bring
forth a matter of great concern and shed light on recently proposed
regulatory changes that will severely impact Medicaid programs across
the country, including Texas, and have profound consequences on the 90
million Americans who rely on Medicaid to access healthcare.
This year, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, CMS,
introduced materials that challenge the statutory language governing
States' longstanding methods to fund the non-Federal share of the
Medicaid payments.
Two documents, in particular, have raised significant concerns: the
information bulletin on healthcare-related taxes and hold-harmless
arrangements and specific provisions of CMS's proposed rule titled
``Medicaid and CHIP Managed Care Access, Finance, and Quality.''
The amendment I am proposing to the fiscal year 2024 Labor, Health,
and Human Services, and Education appropriations bill will protect the
safety net in Texas and many other States and ensure that Medicaid
beneficiaries continue to receive the essential care by prohibiting
Federal funds from being used to finalize, implement, and enforce
harmful policies that will severely limit States' ability to draw down
critical Federal Medicaid payments.
For the most part, I applaud CMS for pushing forward with a
comprehensive regulation to overhaul the structure of Medicaid-managed
care programs.
I acknowledge the potential positive impact of certain provisions
that could enhance access to coverage and care, if implemented.
However, there are legitimate concerns that specific policies within
this framework will compromise States' access to vital financial
resources, undermining the intended improvements.
Firstly, CMS's recently proposed changes directly contradict the
understanding that Texas and other States have relied on for years to
operate their Medicaid programs.
As Judge Kernodle recently stated in his ruling enjoining CMS from
using their unsupported interpretation: ``CMS may not rewrite clear
statutory terms to suit its own sense of how the statute should
operate.''
Secondly, the proposed rule expands CMS's authority over State-
directed payments by granting the agency the power to withhold approval
or retroactively deny already approved State directed payments if it
believes they are financed with impermissible non-Federal dollars.
This newfound discretion may introduce uncertainties into States'
Medicaid financing structures, potentially hindering their ability to
implement and maintain State-directed payments that contribute to the
welfare of Medicaid beneficiaries.
To sum it up, these proposed policies are an overreach and the latest
efforts in a series of Federal actions seeking to erode States'
flexibility, increase oversight, and curtail arrangements that help
hospitals draw down Federal funds and provide much-needed access to
care for not only Texas patients but patients in many other States.
If enacted, policies of this kind would accelerate hospital closures,
limit access to care for low-income Americans, and leave States with a
more significant financial Medicaid burden.
Mr. Chair, I urge each of my colleagues to support this amendment and
recognize the gravity of this situation. My amendment aims to safeguard
consistent, predictable, and adequate funding, ensuring access to care
for all Americans, especially those in vulnerable situations.
Your support is crucial in protecting the stability of our hospitals
and ensuring that Medicaid beneficiaries continue to receive the care
that they deserve.
Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Connecticut is recognized for
5 minutes.
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

[[Page H5845]]

This amendment would prevent millions of Medicaid and CHIP
beneficiaries from accessing critically necessary care.
The Biden-Harris administration's proposed rule seeks to strengthen
access to coverage for children and adults covered by Medicaid and
CHIP. To access the healthcare providers and services they not only
need but that they are entitled to.
The proposed rule would set a national standard for maximum wait
times for routine medical appointments for primary care and obstetrics/
gynecology. An appointment would need to be provided within 15 days,
and for outpatient behavioral health services, 10 days.

{time} 2330

The proposed rule would require greater transparency on provider
rates. The rule would require rate transparency to, once again, ensure
an adequate network of providers. The proposed rule would require home
care agencies to allocate at least 80 percent of the Medicaid payment
to direct care workers' compensation.
Once again, this Republican amendment would hurt our economy's
children, seniors, people with disabilities, and the most vulnerable.
Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment, and I
reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. PFLUGER. Mr. Chair, I appreciate my colleague from Connecticut,
and I think we probably have the same aim, which is to have care and
access to that care.
For States like Texas that chose not to expand Medicaid, this rule is
particularly damaging. Again, I can't stress enough how the risk of the
overreach of the Federal Government will hurt those who want to access
care.
The proposed rule expands the authority of our State directed
payments and has the ability to withhold the approval or retroactively
deny already approved State directed payments. In reality, the access
to care really is at stake.
I agree. We are both probably talking about a similar level of
access. This rule will negatively impact that.
Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this amendment,
and I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chair, I oppose this amendment.
I will make a suggestion to the gentleman that Texas ought to expand
Medicaid.
Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Pfluger).
The amendment was agreed to.

Amendment No. 133 Offered by Mr. Rosendale

The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 133
printed in part B of House Report 118-272.
Mr. ROSENDALE. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the
following:
Sec. __. None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made
available by this Act may be made available to conduct or
support any gain-of-function research involving a potential
pandemic pathogen by Rocky Mountain Laboratories.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 864, the gentleman
from Montana (Mr. Rosendale) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Montana.
Mr. ROSENDALE. Mr. Chairman, my amendment No. 133 would prohibit
funds made available by this act from conducting or supporting any
gain-of-function research involving a potential pandemic pathogen by
the Rocky Mountain Laboratories.
We have heard a lot of conversations and debate about gain-of-
function research as we went through the pandemic, and we are going to
hear a little bit more about it this evening.
I am pleased that the base text of this legislation has a provision
that prevents dangerous gain-of-function research in any country
determined to be a foreign adversary. However, gain-of-function
research can potentially be dangerous no matter where the research is
conducted.
My amendment would ensure that this dangerous research does not take
place at the laboratory located in Hamilton, Montana.
Evidence points out that the COVID-19 pandemic was likely caused by
gain-of-function research that took place at the Wuhan Institute of
Virology.
During his tenure as the director of the National Institute of
Allergy and Infectious Diseases, Anthony Fauci expanded Rocky Mountain
Laboratories to include a biosafety level 4 laboratory for research and
experiments on deadly pathogens with pandemic potential.
The laboratory spent millions to infect bats with a coronavirus
obtained directly from the Wuhan lab 1 year before COVID. Specifically,
under Dr. Fauci's tenure, Rocky Mountain Laboratories infected Egyptian
fruit bats with coronavirus obtained from China's Wuhan Institute of
Virology.
Gain-of-function research is a broad area of scientific inquiry where
an organism gains a new property or an existing property is altered.
Many experts warn these practices could lead to widespread community
infections and death, which is exactly what we saw during the 2020
pandemic.
Taxpayers in Montana and across the Nation should not be funding
unnecessarily dangerous animal research that can spark another
pandemic.
My amendment would undo some of the damage done by Anthony Fauci by
defunding NIH research programs he supported that put public health and
national security at risk.
Mr. Chair, I appreciate everyone supporting this amendment, and I
yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Montana (Mr. Rosendale).
The amendment was agreed to.

Amendment No. 134 Offered by Mr. Rosendale

The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 134
printed in part B of House Report 118-272.
Mr. ROSENDALE. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

At the end of the bill (before the short title) insert the
following:
Sec. __. The salary of Vincent Munster, Chief, Virus
Ecology Section, National Institute of Allergy and Infectious
Diseases, shall be reduced to $1.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 864, the gentleman
from Montana (Mr. Rosendale) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Montana.
Mr. ROSENDALE. Mr. Chairman, my amendment No. 134 reduces the salary
of Vincent Munster, chief of the Virus Ecology Section of the National
Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, to $1.
This is going to be on the same subject matter and, actually, in the
same location, unfortunately. Specifically, he was the lead researcher
on the 2018 project to infect Egyptian fruit bats with a coronavirus
obtained from China's Wuhan Institute of Virology. He also actively
collaborates on projects with the disgraced EcoHealth Alliance.
I am pleased that the base text of this legislation prohibits any
funds from going toward the EcoHealth Alliance. EcoHealth was first
investigated for its involvement in mismanaging NIH-funded gain-of-
function research. The Department of Health and Human Services
inspector general confirmed that EcoHealth mismanaged the grant to the
Wuhan laboratory, didn't properly report the gain-of-function
experiments, and misspent taxpayer funds.
Furthermore, Munster is trying to help EcoHealth establish a new bat
lab in the United States with bats shipped from Asia. Specifically, on
April 1, 2020, Munster wrote a letter of support for the Colorado State
University bat research center.
Munster showed a major lack of judgment in endorsing an EcoHealth-led
project to import and experiment on bats when the entire world was
learning that a bat virus from Asia caused COVID-19.
Additionally, Vincent Munster has collaborated with the Wuhan
Institute of Virology and Shi Zhengli, commonly known as the bat lady.
She led the

[[Page H5846]]

team of researchers where the COVID-19 virus most likely emerged from.
It is unacceptable that shoddy research practices by deep state
bureaucrats shut down our country, closed our schools, forced
businesses to close, and caused deaths and despair. Accountability is
absolutely needed and demanded.
While the vast majority of the employees at the Rocky Mountain
Laboratories are committed to excellence, tax dollars should not go to
an employee who was negligent and irresponsible in his duties.
Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Connecticut is recognized for
5 minutes.
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chair, I rise in strong opposition to this
amendment.
Mr. Chair, our Federal Government needs brilliant and talented
scientists who are willing to bring their skills to public service.
Dr. Munster is chief of the Viral Ecology Section at the National
Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, NIAID, an important
component of the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Munster is a
leading expert in how viruses emerge and infect human populations and
how we can best address these public health threats.
Dr. Munster's laboratory aims to understand how emerging viral
pathogens cross the species barrier so we can identify risks to humans
and prevent disease outbreaks. He and his colleagues, in collaboration
with the University of Oxford, helped to pioneer a vaccine approach
that was used to develop a COVID-19 vaccine in partnership with
AstraZeneca. The vaccine was widely used in the United Kingdom to
combat the COVID-19 pandemic.
Nevertheless, Mr. Chair, apparently no good deed goes unpunished. Dr.
Munster should be celebrated for his contributions to science and his
dedication to protecting people from deadly public health threats.
This is another amendment that really just demonstrates the lack of
seriousness in this process and a lack of seriousness on behalf of my
House Republican colleagues.
Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this amendment, and
I reserve the balance of my time.

{time} 2340

Mr. ROSENDALE. Mr. Chairman, no good deed goes unpunished.
I will tell you; I have held the hands of crying widows when their
husbands passed away and they were not allowed to visit them in the
hospital because of all the mandates from COVID-19 that bureaucrats had
put in place.
Our public health experts, Mr. Chair, have been wrong about
everything from the beginning on COVID-19. They told us that masks
would work. They told us that vaccines would prevent transmission. They
told us that shutting down our country was necessary in order to keep
COVID-19 from spreading. They were all wrong.
They were wrong for bringing the virus to our country and
experimenting on gain of function anyway, so excuse me if I don't take
the recommendations of the experts.
Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chair, this lack of pursuing scientific knowledge,
scientific research--and the gentleman earlier spoke about Dr. Anthony
Fauci.
Dr. Fauci, his contributions to HIV/AIDS research for over 50 years
and other immunodeficiency diseases is heralded in the annals of
Discovery to Cure. This basic view that the pursuit of the answers to
chronic illnesses, to diseases, to pandemics somehow is not understood
for what its potential is and what it can do to save lives.
I get the impression that some of my colleagues would shut down the
NIH and the basic research, the scientific research that we do, the
biomedical research that we do, collapse the Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention, not allow them to function, to deal with
illness and disease and pandemics.
It is really kind of staggering that we would just see this
unbelievable denial of science, pioneering vaccines in partnership with
AstraZeneca used in the United Kingdom to combat the COVID-19 pandemic,
expertise in how viruses emerge, which we are looking at, how they
infect human populations. Why don't we want to know that?
Why? Why don't we want to understand that?
Then what we can do, if we understand it, is figure out how to treat
these public health threats. What do we need to do to deal with the
public health threats?
It is stunning to me that we would retreat to a backwater in science
and research if my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have their
way.
Mr. Chair, I oppose this amendment, and I yield back the balance of
my time.
Mr. ROSENDALE. Mr. Chair, the Representative from Connecticut spends
a lot of time giving accolades to Anthony Fauci. I would like to tell
you that we gladly would reduce his compensation to zero and I would
have tens of millions of Americans join me in making sure that that
happens, but he was smart enough to get out of town while the getting
was good.
He resigned. He retired. Unfortunately, we are going to be paying
compensation to him for quite some time, but the subject this evening
is the compensation of Vincent Munster, who acted in a negligent and
reckless manner, and I would request the right to reduce his salary to
zero with this amendment.
Mr. Chair, I ask all my colleagues to support the amendment, and I
yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Montana (Mr. Rosendale).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Montana will
be postponed.

Amendment No. 135 Offered by Mr. Rosendale

The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Duarte). It is now in order to consider
amendment No. 135 printed in part B of House Report 118-272.
Mr. ROSENDALE. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

At the end of the bill (before the short title) insert the
following:
Sec. __. None of the funds made available by this Act may
be used to finalize, implement, or enforce the rule titled
``Unaccompanied Children Program Foundational Rule''
published in the Federal Register on October 4, 2023 (88 Fed.
Reg. 68908).

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 864, the gentleman
from Montana (Mr. Rosendale) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Montana.
Mr. ROSENDALE. Mr. Chair, my amendment No. 135 would prohibit funds
from being used to implement the Office of Refugee Resettlement's
proposed rule which allows for the use of taxpayer dollars to fund
abortions for unaccompanied minors.
This proposed rule is a flagrant violation of the Hyde amendment,
which prohibits the use of Federal tax dollars from paying for
abortions and completely ignores the crisis at our border.
The southern border, under the Biden administration, is wide-open,
with up to 10 million illegal aliens encountered at our borders in
fiscal year 2023.
Due to these failed policies, fentanyl deaths are up a staggering
1,425 percent from just 6 years ago in my home State of Montana.
It is appalling that Joe Biden and his Department of Health and Human
Services are demanding Americans fund abortions for migrant children.
These are the kinds of policies being pushed by the Biden
administration, instead of closing our border and providing relief to
the countless communities ravaged by these disastrous open border
policies.
Regrettably, this President is far more concerned with advancing a
far-left abortion agenda instead of securing our border and saving
American lives.
Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition to the
amendment.

[[Page H5847]]

The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Connecticut is recognized for
5 minutes.
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chair, I am unclear because it says that the
amendment offered by Mr. Rosendale of Montana: None of the funds made
available by this act may be used to finalize, implement, or enforce
the rule titled, ``Unaccompanied Children Program Foundational Rule,''
published in the Federal Register on October 4.
I think what the gentleman is speaking about, if there is another
amendment that he is making reference to, that what he is talking about
is providing abortions to unaccompanied children. That isn't the basis
of his amendment at all here.
Mr. Chair, can we get some clarity on the gentleman's amendments? My
understanding is that it is about the Unaccompanied Children Program
Foundational Rule. Is that what this amendment is about?

{time} 2350

Mr. ROSENDALE. Mr. Chair, this is for Labor-HHS amendment No. 135,
abortions for unaccompanied minors, disallowing taxpayer dollars to be
used for abortions on unaccompanied minors.
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chair, it says amendment No. 135, and I think we
need to--do you have an amendment that deals with the unaccompanied
children program foundational rule?
I yield time to the gentleman to talk about what amendment we are
speaking about. I yield time to the gentleman on his amendment.
Mr. ROSENDALE. Mr. Chair, what we are saying is that none of the
funds that are going to be allocated to the Office of Refugee
Resettlement proposed rule would allow any of those dollars to be used
for abortions for unaccompanied minors.
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chair, one more time, I yield time to the gentleman
to clarify, but the amendment that was submitted, confirmed by the
majority, is ``none of the funds made available by this act may be used
to finalize, implement, or enforce the rule titled Unaccompanied
Children Program Foundational Rule.'' The gentleman is speaking about
something else altogether different than the proposed amendment. I
reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. ROSENDALE. Mr. Chair, apparently, we don't have good
clarification here. Rather than to go on through this debate this
evening, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw this amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman
from Montana?
There was no objection.
The Acting CHAIR. The amendment is withdrawn.

Amendment No. 136 Offered by Mr. Roy

The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 136
printed in part B of House Report 118-272.
Mr. ROY. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the
following:
Sec. __. None of the funds appropriated by this Act may be
used to implement any of the following executive orders:
(1) Executive Order 13990, relating to Protecting Public
Health and the Environment and Restoring Science To Tackle
the Climate Crisis.
(2) Executive Order 14008, relating to Tackling the Climate
Crisis at Home and Abroad.
(3) Section 6 of Executive Order 14013, relating to
Rebuilding and Enhancing Programs To Resettle Refugees and
Planning for the Impact of Climate Change on Migration.
(4) Executive Order 14030, relating to Climate-Related
Financial Risk.
(5) Executive Order 14057, relating to Catalyzing Clean
Energy Industries and Jobs Through Federal Sustainability.
(6) Executive Order 14082, relating to Implementation of
the Energy and Infrastructure Provisions of the Inflation
Reduction Act of 2022.
(7) Executive Order 14096, relating to Revitalizing Our
Nation's Commitment to Environmental Justice for All.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 864, the gentleman
from Texas (Mr. Roy) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas.
Mr. ROY. Mr. Chair, the amendment that I am offering here prohibits
any of the funds in the Labor-HHS appropriations bill from being used
to carry out President Biden's executive orders on climate change.
Now, I have been offering this amendment to each of the
appropriations bills. They have happily been accepted for virtually all
of them, either by voice vote or on a roll call vote, and I think it is
because particularly colleagues on my side of the aisle understand the
absurdity of the President's orders and its impact on the American
citizens, who are struggling to be able to make ends meet, be able to
afford their cars, be able to afford their energy.
In this instance, these executive orders were responsible for the
creation of the Office of Climate Change and Health Equity within HHS.
When we are sitting here with $2 trillion deficits each year and $34
trillion of debt, and we have created an Office of Climate Change and
Health Equity within HHS, it just tells you the absurdity of this
administration.
In September of 2021, I sent a letter in opposition to the creation
of this office highlighting how absurd it is, and among its
responsibilities were ``regulatory efforts to reduce greenhouse gas
emissions and criteria air pollution throughout the health sector,
including participating suppliers and providers.''
The vast majority of emissions in the healthcare sector stem from the
hospital electricity consumption. It seems to follow that where this
office would focus its regulatory efforts would be on that.
Does this administration want to make hospitals dependent on
intermittent wind and solar for their energy? Will it ban the backup
generators they depend on which run on diesel and natural gas? On a
windless, cloudy day, you still need to have a hospital function. That
is the whole point.
My colleagues on the other side of the aisle seem to dismiss the
whole notion of having reliable energy. Meanwhile, China has 1,100
coal-fired plants. America only has 250. China is building two coal-
fired plants a week. We are building none. We are building no nuclear
power, which would actually be reliable power so that we could actually
have zero-emission reliable power, but FERC, the regulators, and my
colleagues on the other side of the aisle want to stand in the way of
that.
Here we are wanting wind and solar to be the unicorn power of the
future, in which we can just live with hospitals not being able to
function. That is the whole point. We are more concerned about ``health
equity'' in an Office of Climate Change than ensuring that people don't
die because hospitals don't have the power that they need.
Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Connecticut is recognized for
5 minutes.
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment. I
think this amendment is a good example of the Republican approach to
appropriations bills. It is an overreaching effort to block seven
separate executive orders related to climate change. Many of these
executive orders have nothing to do with the Labor-HHS-Education
appropriations bill.
We are here to protect the welfare of the American public, and we
cannot close our eyes to the impacts of climate change, such as the
recurring drought, flooding, severe storms, and wildfire events that
have been pummeling our country and, for that matter, the world.
As of last month, the United States has experienced 24 confirmed
weather/climate disaster events exceeding $1 billion in damages each--
each one. That is $24 billion; a new record.
However, instead of addressing climate change, this amendment would
block funding to develop more resilient communities, mitigate the
impacts of climate change, and protect future generations.
This amendment would ensure that we continue to pay billions of
dollars more each year for disaster relief--though we don't seem to be
able to get a supplemental bill that includes disaster relief for
people who are struggling--rather than invest in strategies that
minimize and prevent the acceleration of climate change or mitigate
against its disastrous effects.
I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment, and I yield back the
balance of my time.

[[Page H5848]]

Mr. ROY. Mr. Chair, the gentlewoman and a number of my colleagues on
the other side of the aisle raise issues about the fact that we are
using appropriations bills to address some of these issues.
First of all, my constituents and most Americans I know of care how
taxpayer dollars are used. They want these dollars to be used
efficiently and effectively, particularly when we are running $2
trillion deficits. They don't want us to fund things like health equity
offices, when, in fact, we are bleeding money out of every pore of our
body, and we have got a diminishment of our debt.
We have Moody's last week saying, oh, wait, we are going to just
reduce America's debt rating. We have got the Treasury unable to carry
out an auction last week because our debt is so high that people are
starting to question investing in American debt.
Why? Because we are irresponsibly spending money we don't have for
utter nonsense and garbage. That is what the American people see every
single day, why are you spending money on these absurd things, these
absurd programs? That is the truth. The American people are sick of it.
How about we actually authorize something, by the way, instead of
just doing stuff in appropriations? We haven't even authorized DHS
since we created it 20 years ago. It is absolutely absurd.

{time} 0000

I can't even tell you the last time we authorized HHS. It is not even
clear-cut because there are so many programs in HHS.
The reality here is that we have programs the American people don't
want us to continue to fund. We are trying to put forward commonsense
ways to strip down and focus on the actual bare necessities of what the
American people need us to fund. That is the point. That is what we are
trying to accomplish.
Look, I have to say something. I appreciate in the underlying bill
that we defund the ESG rule and requirements.
Let me remind you, it is the President's executive orders and the
Department of Labor that allow ESG to creep into Americans' 401(k)'s,
which is undermining performance and undermining the ability of the
American people to earn a return on their investments because of all of
these ridiculous ESG requirements.
Meanwhile, we are making people suffer. The head of the Department of
Transportation, the Secretary of Transportation, literally was on
record this year saying the American people need to feel pain. I have
gotten the same answer from every Democratic colleague, that they want
the American people to suffer so they can push forward this radical,
nonsensical agenda.
Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to support the amendment to stop it,
and I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Roy).
The amendment was agreed to.

Amendment No. 137 Offered by Mr. Santos

The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 137
printed in part B of House Report 118-272.
Mr. SANTOS. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Insert at the end (before the short title) the following:
Sec. __. None of the funds made available by this Act may
be used to establish, implement, or enforce any vaccine
mandate.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 864, the gentleman
from New York (Mr. Santos) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York.
Mr. SANTOS. Mr. Chair, one of the biggest infringements on the
American people's rights happened shortly after the Chinese Communist
Party unleashed a genetically modified coronavirus across the globe,
infecting and killing millions.
To combat the virus and save the most vulnerable, President Trump
initiated Operation Warp Speed, which put on display American
exceptionalism when it successfully created a COVID-19 vaccine in under
a year. However, what ensued thereafter was far more un-American than
anything. It actually resembled more authoritarianism.
States and Federal agencies made continued employment contingent on
vaccine status. Businesses that did not comply were fined. Churches
that did not comply were shut down. People who did not comply were
fired.
Some States were freer than others, but the Federal Government was
the most draconian of them all. Federal workers, including over 8,400
United States servicemembers, lost their jobs because they refused to
take a novel vaccine with minimal testing.
I am not standing here before you today questioning the legitimacy of
the vaccine or calling the creation of the vaccine a net negative.
Actually, I am doing the complete opposite. In fact, it was a net
positive for society to give vulnerable individuals with autoimmune
diseases an extra layer of protection against COVID-19. However, I am
standing before you today raging against the government overreach that
is vaccine mandates.
The American people were given freedoms not guaranteed to other
populations across the globe. We have the freedom to choose what
vaccines we get. Millions of other Americans and I think it is immoral
and un-American to force a person to get a vaccine in order to pay
their rent or mortgage or feed their families, Mr. Chair.
What my amendment will do is ensure that the funds in the Departments
of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, and Related
Agencies Appropriations Act be barred from getting allocated to
establishing, implementing, or enforcing any vaccine mandate within
those agencies.
Mr. Chair, to be clear, I am not standing here spewing and spreading
anti-vax talking points. In fact, I am standing up for the working men
and women of this great country, giving power back to the people, and
taking it out of the clutches of government and government mandates.
Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Connecticut is recognized for
5 minutes.
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to this amendment.
Over and over again, I have said tonight there is no vaccine mandate.
Understand it. Get it into your head.
My only response is let's not waste any more time. Tutto finito.
Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. SANTOS. Mr. Chair, there might not be any vaccination mandates
today, but what is stopping my colleagues on the other side of the
aisle or the President of the United States from wanting to institute
those same draconian mandates tomorrow?
If we believe and take the word of my colleague that they don't exist
today, they didn't exist prior to 2020 but miraculously appeared and
destroyed lives and destroyed careers.
The reality is we need this to guarantee protection for the American
people so that they are not lambasted yet again with more draconian
rules coming out of the Federal Government.
Mr. Chair, I strongly ask my colleagues to support my amendment and
support the working class by never again forcing them to choose between
a vaccine they do not feel convicted to get and feeding their families.
Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from New York (Mr. Santos).
The amendment was agreed to.

Amendment No. 138 Offered by Mr. Schweikert

The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 138
printed in part B of House Report 118-272.
Mr. SCHWEIKERT. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Page 65, line 11, after the dollar amount, insert
``(increased by $5,000,000)''.
Page 94, line 14, after the first dollar amount, insert
``(reduced by $5,000,000)''.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 864, the gentleman
from Arizona (Mr. Schweikert) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.

[[Page H5849]]

The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arizona.
Mr. SCHWEIKERT. Mr. Chairman, to the chairman and ranking member,
their stamina is impressive while going through all of this. I still
think we should change the House rules and allow us to drink coffee on
the floor.
Mr. Chairman, the first amendment here is basically just shifting
some money to diabetic retinopathy. The reason for this is that we have
a fixation about diabetes and cures and procedures that are actually
now making a difference. In the last couple of years, there are now a
couple of drugs but also a laser procedure.
What is important about this is if you are 40 years old with
diabetes, one out of three people is going to start to suffer this
disease of the eye where the veins are being traumatized by the
diabetes.
All I am trying to do here is move some money because there is
progress being made, and I would like it to continue being made in this
category.
Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition to the
amendment, even though I am not opposed to it.
The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, the gentlewoman from Connecticut
is recognized for 5 minutes.
There was no objection.
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chair, I congratulate the gentleman on his
amendment. I think one of the places where we haven't really put in
resources for a while is the National Eye Institute, and I am always
interested in making sure that all the institutes are being plussed up.
I have tried to do that in the 4 years that I served as chair of this
committee because some of the smaller institutes do not get the
resources that they need.
Mr. Chair, I support my colleague's amendment, and I yield back the
balance of my time.
Mr. SCHWEIKERT. Mr. Chairman, to the gentlewoman, I am trying to be
just an honest actor on this one. It is something we have spent a lot
of time on.
The reality is that diabetes itself is something I wish as a body we
would actually have a much more honest and, in some ways, brutal
conversation.
We expect it to be about 33 percent of all healthcare spent, 31
percent of Medicare. It turns out if we were willing to talk about
diabetes and even the more difficult discussion of obesity and the
cursors, it could be the single biggest effect on U.S. debt but also in
labor force participation. Let's be honest. We are taking on misery.
Where this partially also came to us is the new procedures partially
pioneered and advocated by these is now a diabetic retinopathy eye
laser surgery and trying to get these more into the field.

{time} 0010

So this is a shift. We actually believe it is reasonably well-vetted.
Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Schweikert).
The amendment was agreed to.

Amendment No. 139 Offered by Mr. Schweikert

The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 139
printed in part B of House Report 118-272.
Mr. SCHWEIKERT. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Page 57, line 2, after the dollar amount, insert
``(increased by $2,000,000)''.
Page 94, line 14, after the first dollar amount, insert
``(reduced by $2,000,000)''.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 864, the gentleman
from Arizona (Mr. Schweikert) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arizona.
Mr. SCHWEIKERT. Mr. Chairman, this is actually one of the occasions
where we as Members of Congress actually should take a little bit of a
victory lap.
For those of us in the desert Southwest we have something called
Valley fever. It is a fungus in the soil. For most people it causes a
little bit of scarring in the lung, It may seem like you have a flu for
a few days. For some people--and I always mispronounce this--there is a
differentiated version where it breaks out of the lung. I have a
neighbor who is a former Vietnam helicopter pilot that within his hands
he has to have the Valley fever carved out of his bones. It is
horrible. I met someone at the National Institutes of Health a few
years ago, a young African-American male that was just traveling
through the Southwest, picked up these fungi, picked up a spore, and it
was dissolving his spine. They were wiring him back together.
Well, guess what has happened? Almost 8 years ago Kevin McCarthy, who
is also in one of the pandemic areas, as I am, myself, in the Maricopa
County area, we actually started to do this. We moved some resources
around. We are on the cusp of the vaccine. The canine vaccine is out,
we believe, this December, and it turns out they believe that basically
the same formulary will work with humans, and the phase I trials in
humans, I actually believe, begins this coming year.
What is miraculous about this is the concept of a vaccine for a
fungus, and it may actually cover much more than what we call Valley
fever. This is a big deal. This is actually in some ways a small amount
of money, considering the amounts that are spent on this particular
disease, but it is partially because as we are getting ready to head to
the human trials now, it just seemed rational to sort of keep the
progress going.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition, although I
am not opposed to it.
The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, the gentlewoman from Connecticut
is recognized for 5 minutes.
There was no objection.
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chair, I guess this is kind of kumbaya here. I rise
in support of the amendment.
The amendment would add $2 million to the funding already provided to
the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to address Valley fever.
CDC's Valley fever efforts received annual increases while I was
chair of this subcommittee, and the bill before us includes an
additional $10 million increase.
The intention of offering this amendment is to highlight that even
more should be done, given the growing impact of this fungus. To me,
this amendment highlights the significant need to support the Centers
for Disease Control and Prevention overall.
The CDC has a wide range of programs. Each one does not operate in a
vacuum. Core activities of public health data, infrastructure,
workforce, health statistics, laboratory science at CDC must be
supported to raise the tide for all programs.
The majority of CDC's funding is provided to State, local, Tribal,
and territorial public health partners. CDC is supporting efforts in
each of our communities, and this amendment highlights the needs of
public health efforts are growing.
I urge my colleagues to support the amendment, and I yield back the
balance of my time.
Mr. SCHWEIKERT. Mr. Chairman, should I be creeped out that we are
about to have a group hug? It is late at night.
Look, for those of us that refer to this often as cocci, this is more
than just the desert Southwest. Do you understand we are now actually
seeing versions of these fungi in northern Minnesota, Wisconsin, and
other parts as it moves through the country.
Why this one is important, instead of just plussing up something to
just continue to maintain services, this is actually moving some
resources around because we are on the cusp of the cure. For those of
us who have ever tolerated my evening diatribes, I believe the morality
is in the cure, in the misery, in the cost.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Schweikert).
The amendment was agreed to.

Amendment No. 140 Offered by Mr. Schweikert

The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 140
printed in part B of House Report 118-272.
Mr. SCHWEIKERT. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

[[Page H5850]]

The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the
following:
Sec. __. Each amount appropriated or otherwise made
available by this Act that is not required to be appropriated
or made by a provision of law is hereby reduced by 26.2
percent.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 864, the gentleman
from Arizona (Mr. Schweikert) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arizona.
Mr. SCHWEIKERT. Mr. Chairman, look, this is actually a just an
amendment I have introduced on a number of these bills to make a point.
I am not going to ask for a vote on it, but I do want us to
conceptually think about something, and I have been trying to find
forms to say it over and over and over.
We borrow every dime we as Members of Congress vote on. Every dime of
defense is now borrowed. Every dime of nondefense discretionary now is
borrowed. Last fiscal year we had, what, 300 billion, maybe 400 billion
of let's call it Medicare, but in mandatory, that was borrowed.
In this piece of legislation 26.2 percent is our best calculation of
the resources here--and many of them are really good programs, but we
are borrowing it to send it to entities that do have their own taxing
authority.
It is an uncomfortable conversation, but I do want us to think about
it as we get more and more of our financial stresses, as our borrowing
costs now--we saw Treasury yesterday basically released an update
saying gross interest this fiscal year will top a trillion dollars.
Do you know what that means? Social Security is our number one spend;
interest just became our number two spend; Medicare is our number three
spend; and defense now is our number four spend. We are not going to
balance the budget through discretionary, but somewhere here--I don't
know how to get it into our lexicon and our culture that everything we
now vote on as Members of Congress comes off of borrowed money.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Connecticut is recognized for
5 minutes.
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chair, our luck ran out. I rise in strong opposition
to the amendment.
This amendment would further cut funding by 26 percent for important
programs and services that provide opportunities for working families.
The underlying bill already cuts tens of billions of dollars from
programs that help families and low-income workers. This amendment
would cut an additional $38 billion from education, health, job
training, worker protection, and the Social Security Administration's
operating budget.
For instance, this amendment would cut Head Start by another $2.9
billion, almost $3.7 billion below this year 2023, leading to over
250,000 children losing access to high-quality early learning programs.
It would cut the Childcare and Development Block Grant by $2.1
billion. This is amidst a childcare crisis when parents want to work,
but they cannot find affordable childcare for their kids.

{time} 0020

It would cut the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program, LIHEAP,
which is a bipartisan priority, by more than $1 billion.
It would cut senior nutrition, including Meals on Wheels, by $277
million, resulting in more than 1 million low-income seniors losing
access to home-delivered or prepackaged meals.
It would cut biomedical research at the National Institutes of Health
by more than $11 billion, resulting in a reduction of more than 10,000
new grants for potentially lifesaving research.
It would cut nearly $2 billion from mental health and substance use
disorder services, when CDC data shows nearly 110,000 deaths in 2022
related to drug overdoses, the highest number ever.
It would cut title I funding for low-income public schools by $3.2
billion, reducing needed resources for 25 million low-income students.
It would cut special education grants to States by $3.8 billion,
reducing support for services for 7.5 million students with
disabilities.
It would cut Pell grants by $5.8 billion for students and families in
need.
Yes, it would cut the Social Security Administration's operating
budget by more than $3 billion. It would shutter field offices and
eliminate services for seniors.
It is interesting to me that when it comes to the programs that are
encompassed in the Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education
appropriations bills, that there is a great worry about a deficit,
there is a great worry about borrowing, but when we did $2 trillion for
the richest one-tenth of 1 percent of the people in this country and
the biggest corporations who pay no taxes, no one batted an eyelash.
We continue on that road of looking at the biggest corporations who
pay no taxes, and we will continue to make sure that they profit and
that working families, middle-class families, the most vulnerable
families, are at risk because someone has decided that it is no time to
borrow and it is no time to make public investments in their lives.
Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SCHWEIKERT. Mr. Chair, I am not going to go into correcting the
TCJA math, but I would point out Democrats functionally, through the
Biden administration, have borrowed $4.8 trillion in functionally 3
years. The 1.7, actually the multiplier, if you look at the tax
receipts, being on Ways and Means.
I do want to go to a point. The gentlewoman actually just made my
morality argument. These are important programs. They serve a purpose,
but yet our failure to actually address the debt, because the fact of
the matter is the primary driver of U.S. debt is our demographics,
something we don't like to say. We got old. Today, and the 30 years
forward, 100 percent of the growth of debt--and our office now is
calculating $130 billion to $140 billion during that time, particularly
if we start to calculate in the new interest rate regime. Medicare, and
if we backfill Social Security in 9 years when the trust fund is gone,
it is going to consume every available dollar. You are going to see
programs like this that we care about squeezed.
Actually, my point is, if these are moral, if they serve a purpose,
our inability to have an honest conversation about the debt is immoral.
I have come here today--and even last night, I spent 1 hour showing
Democrat tax hikes, fine, but the tax hikes that have been proposed for
every category on $400,000 and up only brought in about 1.5 percent of
GDP when adjusted. We borrowed 8.4 last year.
We have a math problem, and I am saddened because it will always
break down to Republican versus Democrat. It is demographics.
I think the reason I do this amendment is to force a little bit of
contemplation of the reality we are at, that if we don't do this, these
are the sort of cuts that are in our future.
Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chair, we have a revenue problem. We have a serious
revenue problem, and the majority looks for every excuse to cut back
the opportunity for increased revenues.
Why do I say that? We are told that we leave $1 trillion on the table
every year because we do not enforce our tax laws on the wealthiest,
the billionaires, the Amazons, the Hewlett-Packards, the corporations
who pay no tax. We cut the heart and soul out of the IRS when they are
collecting millions of dollars from tax cheats.
The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Schweikert).
The amendment was rejected.

Amendment No. 142 Offered by Mr. Smucker

The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 142
printed in part B of House Report 118-272.
Mr. SMUCKER. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

[[Page H5851]]

At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the
following:
Sec. __. None of the funds made available by this Act may
be used to implement, administer, or enforce section
668.14(b)(26)(ii) of title 34, Code of Federal Regulations,
(relating to limiting excessive GE program length), as
amended by the final regulations published by the Department
of Education in the Federal Register on October 31, 2023 (88
Fed. Reg. 74568 et seq.).

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 864, the gentleman
from Pennsylvania (Mr. Smucker) and a Member opposed each will control
5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
Mr. SMUCKER. Mr. Chair, I rise today to ask for my colleagues'
support for this amendment No. 142 which would protect students' access
to programs that prepare them for the workforce, for a great career.
Specifically, this amendment would prohibit the Department of
Education from implementing, administering, or enforcing one narrow
provision of the newly finalized rule on financial responsibility
regulations which unfairly limits Federal financial aid from being
accessed by clock-hour programs.
What are clock-hour programs? Career-oriented programs in some
community colleges use clock hours to measure a student's progress
rather than the credit-based system that traditional colleges use.
Each State establishes their own licensure requirements and minimum
number of clock hours for programs like cosmetology, massage therapy,
barbering, nursing and allied health, trucking, and others before
students can apply for their State licenses.
Many programs at facilities and schools that offer these programs go
beyond the State's minimum number of clock hours. There are a number of
good reasons for that. They may allow students more time to practice
the trade to increase their speed and income when they get to the job
or it may be necessary to have more hours of instruction time because
of new techniques and practices in instruction to ensure that students
are prepared to pass the licensure exams.
The Department of Education has traditionally allowed career-oriented
programs and some community college programs to go above 150 percent of
a State's minimum number of clock hours and still be eligible for
Federal financial aid. That changes in their new rule.

{time} 0030

They would now eliminate from Federal financial aid any program that
goes above 150 percent of the minimum hours. That means that schools
will need to redesign and recertify their programs, which is a very
time-consuming process, or students will now have to pay cash or
private loans for the entire program rather than receiving the
financial aid.
It is estimated today that more than 3 million skilled trades jobs
remain open. At a time when our Nation is struggling to fill these
roles, and employers can't find skilled workers, this is not the time
for the Department to make it harder for a student to access programs
that prepare them for the workforce.
This amendment would ensure that the Department cannot fund the
provision regarding program length in its final rule and would allow
students to continue to use the Federal financial aid they are eligible
for to fund their studies.
Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Connecticut is recognized for
5 minutes.
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chair, I rise in strong opposition to this
amendment.
This amendment would block the Department of Education's commonsense
provision that prevents colleges from stretching out the length of
their postsecondary training programs just to rake in more of the
students' and taxpayers' money because the students will have to take
out more loans.
When a student goes to a higher education training program, they
shouldn't have to complete 1\1/2\ times the training the State requires
just to graduate and get a job, all so their college can make a few
extra bucks.
This provision of the Department's regulation rights a longstanding
wrong that allowed colleges to exploit students and abuse taxpayer
dollars by dragging out the time it takes to graduate from a program.
Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this amendment, and
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SMUCKER. Mr. Chairman, I have schools in my district that are
providing great instruction. These schools are working well, and the
students are taking advantage of them. They have great careers as a
result of the instruction.
As I mentioned, there are good reasons that these programs, in some
cases, need to go beyond the minimum hours. They may help a student to
qualify to do well on the exam.
Again, there is no mistaking that our workforce is in a dire state.
There are 9.6 million open jobs across the country right now and only
5.4 million individuals looking for jobs. There are not enough people
to fill all of these open positions.
Employers in my area are keenly aware of this. This is a message I
hear over and over again in my district.
This is a huge disservice to students. This will mean fewer students
will be able to use that pathway for a great career because they may
not have the resources to pay for it.
Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment, and I
yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chair, I continue to oppose this amendment, and I
yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Smucker).
The amendment was agreed to.

Amendment No. 143 Offered by Ms. Tenney

The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 143
printed in part B of House Report 118-272.
Ms. TENNEY. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the
following:
Sec. ___. None of the funds made available under this Act
may be used to implement Executive Order 14019 (86 Federal
Register 13623).

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 864, the gentlewoman
from New York (Ms. Tenney) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from New York.
Ms. TENNEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer my amendment to
prohibit funding for President Biden's Executive Order No. 14019,
titled: ``Executive Order on Promoting Access to Voting.''
This executive order requires Federal agencies to use their power,
influence, resources, and funding to enter into agreements with
nongovernmental organizations to conduct voter registration and other
questionable mobilization activities.
Mr. Chair, this executive order is nothing but a thinly veiled
attempt to transform the Federal Government into a partisan get-out-
the-vote machine for Democrats.
America's civil service should be nonpartisan, and Federal agencies
should not be using taxpayer funds to actively engage in get-out-the-
vote operations that have nothing to do with the agency's core
missions.
Mr. Chair, President Biden should not be weaponizing the Federal
Government by using American taxpayer dollars to manipulate our
elections.
To protect the integrity of our elections, this unilateral executive
action must be stopped.
As the founder and chair of the Election Integrity Caucus, it is my
privilege to introduce this amendment to restore transparency and
confidence in our democratic process while keeping Federal bureaucrats
and the swamp from deliberately tipping the balance at the ballot box.
While I wholeheartedly support the right of every American citizen to
vote, I do not support this blatantly partisan mobilization of the
Federal Government for political purposes. No citizen should have their
vote diluted by Federal bureaucrats.
Mr. Chair, let me highlight a few other amendments I submitted that I
was disappointed were not made in order that are worthy of mention.

[[Page H5852]]

First, my amendment No. 93 would insert the text of the Susan Muffley
Act into this bill. This amendment would have righted a grave injustice
against over 20,000 Delphi salaried retirees. While I am disappointed
it was not made in order, I will continue to push tirelessly to make my
constituents and all the Delphi salaried employees whole.
Second, my amendment No. 97 would have required the Secretary of
Labor to report on the efficacy of spending on technical and compliance
assistance to avoid heat-related illnesses. This report was first
proposed by the Timothy J. Barber Act, which I introduced in honor of
my late constituent, Timothy Barber, who passed away from heat-related
illnesses.
Finally, Representative Bishop's amendment No. 150, which I
cosponsored, to restore Job Corps funding--while I am very disappointed
that Job Corps was left unfunded in this bill, I hope that Congress can
find a way to restore Job Corps funding through conference committees.
Mr. Chair, I urge all of my colleagues to vote in support of my
election integrity amendment to stop the Biden administration from
turning our Federal Government into a get-out-the-vote machine for the
Democrats.
Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Connecticut is recognized for
5 minutes.
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this
amendment.
Let me highlight the first sentence of this executive order: ``The
right to vote is the foundation of American democracy.'' Amen. I agree.
I find it really pretty extraordinary to say that we are weaponizing
to protect the right to vote. The right to vote is enshrined. People
have died for the right to vote in this Nation.
This executive order recognizes that there are too many obstacles to
voting. Unfortunately, those obstacles disproportionately exist for
people of color, people with disabilities, and people who speak English
as a second language. Members of our military serving overseas as well
as other American citizens living abroad also face challenges to
exercising their fundamental right to vote.
Simply put, the Biden administration is trying to expand access to
voter registration and election information. This order directs
agencies to ensure that the online Federal voter registration form is
accessible to people with disabilities. They have a right to vote.
This order directs the Secretary of Defense to establish procedures
consistent with the applicable law to offer each member of the Armed
Forces the opportunity to register to vote in Federal elections.
Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment, and I
reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. TENNEY. Mr. Chairman, with all due respect to the gentlewoman
from Connecticut, none of the specious political falsities that she
just described have anything to do with enhancing the right of each
citizen to vote in each election.
This is an inappropriate and unconstitutional federalization of
elections, something that is prohibited by the Constitution that every
single person in this room has taken an oath to uphold.
Nothing has been more devastating to election integrity than the kind
of interference and mission creep that we are seeing by this weaponized
Biden administration to try to take our elections and try to manipulate
the vote.
One citizen, one vote is the most sacred honor that we have as
citizens. This needs to be protected under our Constitution. Election
integrity is definitely considered under the purview of the States.
Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

{time} 0040

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chair, it really is quite amazing that when the
States have their purview. We have just been through an extraordinary
time where States have legitimized the election of the President of the
United States, and we have a whole bunch of folks here who deny what
the States have said about the legitimate election of the President of
the United States.
Again, the right to vote is the foundation of American democracy.
That is what this is about. We need to continue to enshrine the
public's right to vote whether they are able, disabled, people of
color, everyone, a veteran overseas, and Americans who are abroad who
are allowed to vote. We need to make it possible for people to exercise
their right to vote in the United States and not continue to
circumscribe that right, as my colleagues on the other side have been
doing for a very long time, and oppressing and suppressing a vote.
Mr. Chair, I oppose this amendment, and I yield back the balance of
my time.
Ms. TENNEY. Mr. Chair, quickly, with all due respect, this amendment
has nothing to do with what the gentlewoman is talking about. It has
nothing to do with whether our military personnel, including my own
son, have the right to vote in elections.
This has to do with the weaponization and use of taxpayer dollars to
interfere with and manipulate elections. It should not be part of our
Federal spending. It should not be something that should be used by
partisans in the bureaucracy to try to prime the pump to get more
Democrats out to vote and to use it as a get-out-the-vote scheme. It is
totally inappropriate.
This amendment should be passed by my colleagues, and this executive
order should be stricken.
Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Tenney).
The amendment was agreed to.

Amendment No. 144 Offered by Ms. Van Duyne

The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 144
printed in part B of House Report 118-272.
Ms. VAN DUYNE. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the
following:
Sec. __. No funds appropriated under this Act may be used
to enforce the requirement for ambulatory surgical centers to
submit information with respect to the ASC-20 measure under
the ambulatory surgical center quality reporting program
established pursuant to section 1833(t)(17) of the Social
Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395l(t)(17)).

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 864, the gentlewoman
from Texas (Ms. Van Duyne) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Texas.
Ms. VAN DUYNE. Mr. Chair, my amendment No. 144 prohibits funds from
being used to enforce unnecessary reporting requirements from the
Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services on ambulatory surgical
centers.
I was first made aware of this requirement by my constituents when I
toured a local outpatient facility back home in north Texas. As they
pointed out, this forces ambulatory surgical centers to report the
COVID-19 vaccination status of each employee every quarter or punish
them with a payment reduction.
Mr. Chairman, I am sure my colleagues on both sides of the aisle hear
the same thing when we return to our districts. Healthcare facilities
are struggling to find workers at every single level, yet CMS does not
hold every facility to the same standard.
CMS removed COVID-19 vaccination and testing requirements for
hospitals on May 31, which was 20 days after the President declared the
public health emergency was over. Meanwhile, CMS continues to require
ambulatory surgery centers to report their workers' vaccination status
or face a sharp cut in payment.
To be clear, my amendment is not meant to dissuade individuals from
choosing to receive a vaccine. Rather, it will give them a choice
similar to every other healthcare worker who wants the freedom to
choose what is best for their health.
Mr. Chair, I urge all of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to
support this amendment and to support our healthcare workers who not
only serve our communities but also support thousands of small
ambulatory surgical center businesses.

[[Page H5853]]

Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Connecticut is recognized for
5 minutes.
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chair, the amendment would block a reporting
requirement related to COVID-19 vaccination coverage among healthcare
personnel, which is submitted quarterly via a web-based tool.
Mr. Chair, we know vaccines work. In the case of the COVID vaccine,
we know they help to prevent illness as well as mitigate the severity
of illness for those who get sick.
For healthcare workers, being vaccinated is not only a matter of
their own health. It is also good for the health of their patients.
When healthcare workers get sick, they can unknowingly infect their
patients, and patients who come to ambulatory surgical centers are
already recovering from an illness or injury and cannot afford
additional exposure or the risk of COVID.
Vaccines help to keep workers healthy. Higher vaccination rates for
healthcare workers mean fewer days of missed work because of illness,
which is good for healthcare facilities, particularly facilities
already struggling with staff shortages. It is good for patients, who
do not have to worry about canceled appointments because healthcare
workers are out sick.
That is why healthcare staff vaccination rates are a useful measure
in the quality reporting program.
Mr. Chair, I urge a ``no'' vote on the amendment, and I reserve the
balance of my time.
Ms. VAN DUYNE. Mr. Chairman, I urge the gentlewoman from Connecticut
to actually read the amendment. I am in no way saying that people
should not get a vaccine. What this does is it allows them the freedom
to choose.
If the gentlewoman believes that healthcare workers should all be
vaccinated, then tell me why that does not extend to hospital workers.
We know a lot of people go to an ER when they need help, yet this is
potentially calling out just workers at ambulatory surgical centers.
Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chair, I oppose this amendment for the reasons that
I have stated, and I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Van Duyne).
The amendment was agreed to.
The Acting CHAIR. The Chair understands that amendment No. 145 will
not be offered.

Amendment No. 146 Offered by Mr. Lawler

The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 146
printed in part B of House Report 118-272.
Mr. LAWLER. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Page 83, line 24, after the dollar amount, insert
``(increased by $100,000,000)''.
Page 84, line 5, after the dollar amount, insert
``(increased by $100,000,000)''.
Page 145, line 7 after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced
by $100,000,000)''.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 864, the gentleman
from New York (Mr. Lawler) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York.
Mr. LAWLER. Mr. Chair, today, I rise in support of my amendment No.
146 to the Labor-HHS-Education appropriations bill, which increases
funding for the Head Start program.
Head Start is a critical program that provides comprehensive early
childhood education, health nutrition, and parental involvement
services to low-income children and families.
My district alone has almost a dozen Head Start locations, each
providing crucial services to families in Rockland, Westchester,
Putnam, and Dutchess Counties, which is why it is so critical that we
continue to provide robust funding for Head Start.
My amendment does just that, increasing funding to the Head Start
program by $100 million and ensuring that this critical service has the
support that it needs.
As a father of a young daughter, I am seeing just how inquisitive and
curious she is, and I know that there are tens of thousands of children
like her in my district who would benefit from an early childhood
development program. That doesn't even include the tens of millions of
children who have benefited from the program's existence across the
Nation.
Mr. Chair, I ask my colleagues to support amendment No. 146 and show
the American people that we want to build on the successes of Head
Start.
Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Connecticut is recognized for
5 minutes.
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to this amendment even
though I strongly support the gentleman's interest in Head Start.
Frankly, I thank my colleague for his interest in Head Start and his
willingness to acknowledge the devastating cuts to the program in the
current bill. The Head Start program was cut by $750 million.

{time} 0050

In real terms, that means roughly 80,000 Head Start and early Head
Start children would no longer be able to receive services under the
proposed Republican House appropriations bill.
In Mr. Lawler's district alone, 1,400 low-income children and their
families are benefiting from the education, health, and nutrition
services provided by Head Start. Mr. Chair, 140 of these children, a
tenth of those in his district, will lose services and support with the
shameful cut in the bill that we are dealing with right now.
Do I appreciate and support a $100 million increase to the program?
Yes, but $750 million was cut. $100 million is a fraction of what is
necessary. The whole cut needs to be restored, and Head Start needs
additional resources so that none of the children currently lose their
opportunity for Head Start, not just in Mr. Lawler's district, but the
1,600 children in Mr. Aderholt's district, as well as the 1,300 kids in
my district, and the 1,000 children in Chair Granger's district.
Now, let's talk about the offset. The gentleman wants to take from
the Department of Education. Here we go again traveling down the road
of eliminating public education in the United States.
House Republicans don't support the Department of Education. We get
it, but the Departmental Management Account has already been cut 18
percent. This amendment would slash another $100 million from this
account, bringing the total cut to $177 million, or a stunning 41
percent.
The Program Administration account funds the Federal civil servants
who provide grants to States. You need a grant for your State, this is
where you go. School districts need a grant, this is where they go.
Institutes of higher education need a grant, this is where they go.
These staff answer the questions. They provide vital funding to
communities across the country. Head Start is critical for fostering
school readiness, family development, and creating lifelong learners,
and when these opportunities are taken from children, all of us in
every community suffer.
I appreciate my colleague's intent to increase Head Start, and I
appreciate that another colleague on the other side of the aisle is
willing to stand up and acknowledge how inadequate the funding level in
this bill is, but we cannot destroy the Department of Education by
decimating the nonpolitical career staff that administer its vital
programs.
Mr. Chair, I oppose this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my
time.
Mr. LAWLER. Mr. Chair, I would remind the gentlewoman from
Connecticut there is a reason she is the ranking member and not the
chair, and it is because when her party was in complete control of
Washington, they spent $5 trillion in new spending in just 2 years. The
American people elected a House Republican majority to govern, to rein
in much of the spending that occurred in the prior 2 years.
I believe the Head Start program is critical, which is why I have put
forth an amendment to increase the funding

[[Page H5854]]

by $100 million. According to the gentlewoman's statements, she is
opposed to taking $100 million from the management account of the
Department of Education because we need to make sure that we have
bureaucrats, rather than providing the funding for disadvantaged
children across this country.
My objective is to make sure that the money that we spend actually
goes into our communities rather than Washington, D.C., and the
bureaucracy that has been created here.
I think this amendment is important. I thank the gentlewoman for
acknowledging she does not believe we should increase the funding
further by opposing this amendment. She thinks we should spend the $100
million on bureaucrats rather than the children. I thank her for
acknowledging that.
Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chair, I think as chair of this committee for 4
years, in a bipartisan way, we increased Head Start funding in higher
numbers than had been dealt with in the recent past.
I applaud the bipartisanship of that effort to deal with Head Start
funding because of how critically important Head Start is, but it is
stunning to me that we could look at a $750 million cut in Head Start
with this bill.
You mentioned spending. I will get back to you on revenue. Let's
collect revenue, so we can make the public investments in Head Start
and in education and other areas that have been begging. Let me assure
the gentleman I will work along with all of my colleagues. I will fight
against cuts to Head Start. Head Start will always be a priority for
me.
The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
Mr. LAWLER. Mr. Chair, clearly the gentlewoman hasn't met a dollar
that she doesn't like to spend.
We don't have a revenue problem in Washington, D.C. In fact, our
revenue is at its highest levels ever.
This is not an issue of revenue; it is an issue of spending.
In the prior 2 years, in the prior Congress, the Democrat majority
increased spending by $5 trillion in 2 years in new spending. It is
unsustainable. It is why we have dealt with record inflation under this
administration. It is why energy costs have skyrocketed; grocery costs
have skyrocketed.
The gentlewoman would like to continue down that path and just keep
spending money we don't have. This appropriations process that we are
going through, we have to make decisions. We have to make cuts that
actually bring our government into size.
If it was up to her, not only would we spend everything they have
spent over the last 2 years, they would probably increase it another $5
trillion because who cares? It is not their money; it is the American
peoples' money. It is the taxpayers' money.
We have to make decisions. That is why we were elected, to govern.
I felt this amendment appropriate because I do think the Head Start
program is important. I do think it provides valuable opportunities for
underprivileged children across this country, and we need to continue
to fund it, but the gentlewoman would just like to spend money we don't
have, make it up out of thin air. It doesn't work that way.
Mr. Chair, I would encourage all of my colleagues to support this
amendment, to increase funding for this critical program, and pay for
it by eliminating funding for bureaucrats in Washington and spending
that money on the children.
Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from New York (Mr. Lawler).
The amendment was agreed to.

{time} 0100

Mr. ADERHOLT. Mr. Chair, I move that the Committee do now rise.
The motion was agreed to.
Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr.
Lawler) having assumed the chair, Mr. Duarte, Acting Chair of the
Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union, reported that
that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 5894)
making appropriations for the Departments of Labor, Health and Human
Services, and Education, and related agencies for the fiscal year
ending September 30, 2024, and for other purposes, had come to no
resolution thereon.

____________________