[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)''.

  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 halves the funding for the 
taxpayer-funded activists at the National Labor Relations Board.
  The National Labor Relations Board is supposed to act to prevent and 
remedy unfair labor practices committed by private-sector employers and 
unions. Unfortunately, under the Biden administration, the NLRB has 
been filled with labor activists who seek only to empower union bosses 
at the expense of employees, employers, and consumers.
  Moreover, their recent actions represent substantial executive 
overreach to implement a radical agenda so toxic that it could not be 
achieved by this administration when they had both Chambers of Congress 
or by the Obama administration with a filibuster-proof majority.
  The fact that this agenda is so radical and out of touch with the 
American people that it has been routinely rejected by the people's 
Representatives should be the end of this conversation, but it is not. 
Instead, the Biden administration seeks, through executive fiat, to 
impose the PRO Act that failed to pass legislatively.

                              {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''.

  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 106, 
which prevents the Department of Labor from carrying out the 
Environmental Justice grant activities described in its 2022 Climate 
Adaptation Plan.
  Similar to my previous amendment on climate literacy training, this 
is climate change political capture inside the agencies of the Federal 
Government.
  Since taking office, President Biden has issued several executive 
orders directing Federal agencies to address climate change and 
environmental justice--whatever that means.
  The DOL has been very busy in implementing that directive, and in the 
process it has deflected resources away from its mission and wasted 
taxpayer dollars on trying to implement the Green New Deal--with its 
Climate Adaptation Plan and Environmental Justice grant activities just 
being part of those efforts.
  The fact is that we don't need any such plan, and the justice that 
the DOL is peddling isn't justice at all. It is government-imposed 
wretchedness dressed up with nonsensical language, the very purpose of 
which is to pursue an agenda that has never been approved by this body.
  Madam Chair, I encourage my colleagues to vote for my 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 strong opposition to this 
amendment.
  This amendment blocks another critical aspect of the Biden 
administration's whole-of-government strategy to build resilience both 
at home and abroad against the impacts of climate change. It is my 
understanding that

[[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.''.

  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. 
107, which prohibits the Department of Education from carrying out 
strategies listed in the Department's report titled: ``Strategies for 
Increasing Diversity and Opportunity in Higher Education.''
  In June 2023, the Supreme Court through the decision in Students for 
Fair Admissions v. Harvard rightfully ended affirmative action and 
processes related to the admission of students into higher educational 
institutions based upon racial factors.
  This landmark case has finally ended affirmative action, an agenda 
that its supporters lauded for maintaining equity and inclusion, was 
actually founded upon, implemented, and pursued for the purpose of 
furthering racial discrimination.

                              {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''.

  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 
essentially prohibits funds from being made available to conduct or 
support gain-of-function research.
  Section 533 of the underlying bill says that none of the funds in the 
bill can be used for gain-of-function research in China or Cuba or 
North Korea or Russia. The problem is that it doesn't prohibit this 
dangerous type of research anywhere else in the world.
  Why should we be funding it in France or Great Britain? In fact, why 
should we be funding it here? I will argue later that we shouldn't, 
that the risks far outweigh the benefits and that we should have 
learned our lesson.

[[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.

  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 in support of my 
amendment to cut the salary of Assistant Secretary for Occupational 
Safety and Health Douglas Parker to $1.
  Under Joe Biden, OSHA attempted to fire 84 million Americans if they 
didn't take an experimental COVID vaccine or show their private medical 
documents to their employer.
  Assistant Secretary Parker is an unelected bureaucrat. He does not 
have the power to force 84 million people to take an experimental 
vaccine or lose their job.
  Thankfully, the Supreme Court stopped OSHA from implementing their 
rule because it was illegal and unconstitutional.
  It shouldn't take the Supreme Court to stop OSHA from attempting to 
force an experimental vaccine on 84 million Americans.
  When I questioned Assistant Secretary Parker during an Education and 
the Workforce Committee hearing, he refused to agree with the court 
decision and would not commit to never again attempting to force a 
vaccine mandate on the American people.
  We must rein in Assistant Secretary Parker and the entire bloated 
bureaucracy that is targeting the American people.
  Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

                              {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.

  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. Mr. Chair, I rise today in support of my 
amendment to cease all funding to the corrupt World Health Organization 
because they lied repeatedly about COVID's origin and then defended 
communist China after the outbreak.
  Last year alone, Congress approved $434 million for the WHO, and the 
Biden administration has been actively working to circumvent the 
Senate's constitutional authority to approve treaties that would give 
the WHO control over pandemic prevention, preparedness, and response.
  This would be a complete surrender of our national sovereignty to an 
unaccountable, unelected, and corrupt international bureaucracy. It 
would also supercharge the WHO's power and authority to promote leftist 
agendas like abortion, gender identity ideology, climate change, and 
more.
  The nightmare scenario is the Biden administration surrendering our 
sovereignty to the WHO to institute global vaccine mandates.
  The WHO has gone far beyond its initial purpose of being a health 
advisory organization and has transformed itself into a tyrannical 
governing body.
  We must cease funding to the WHO and not give in to this power grab.
  Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

[[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.

  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. Mr. Chair, I rise today in support of my 
amendment to prohibit funding of Biden's Office of Population Affairs 
at the Department of Health and Human Services.
  This office is used by Assistant Secretary for Health Rachel Levine 
to promote gender transition procedures for children and title X 
abortion resources with taxpayer dollars.
  The Office of Population Affairs released a guide called Gender-
Affirming Care and Young People to sidestep parents and provide 
children with information on chemical castration drugs and surgical 
castration procedures.
  Federal tax dollars are used by the Office of Population Affairs to 
run a website called Find a Family Planning Clinic that links to 
abortion providers, including Planned Parenthood.
  The Biden administration uses the Office of Population Affairs to 
promote the radical transgender agenda while preying on vulnerable 
children.

                              {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.

                          ____________________