[Music] [Music] The committee will please come to order. A quorum is present. The committee meets today pursuant to notice to consider seven bills. The chair announces that requests for
recorded votes may be postponed to clause two of rule 11 of the rules of the House of Representatives and committee rule 14B. Without objection, the chair may recess the committee at any point. Before we go
any further, I think it'd be a wonderful opportunity to welcome back uh one of our members that we've been thinking about, praying for, and hoping for your return, represent Norcross. It's great to see you again in in good health and progressing.
Good morning and welcome uh to the committee on education and workforce. Chairman, yield for a second. I would yield. I'd like to join your welcome of Representative Norcross. We've missed him and very happy to see him back. Thank you. We back.
Agreed. Together, that's for sure. Uh welcome to the committee on education and workforce. In today's markup, we will tackle several bills de designed to empower parents with more options for their children, create more accountability in higher education, and
make it easier for workers to get and keep the benefits they need. We'll start today with HR 3453, the Empower Charter School Educators to Lead Act, a critical bill introduced by Representative Julia Lllo. Charter
schools have been enormously successful and they've become a popular choice for many families. In some areas, demand for charter schools outpaces the number of spots available, leaving students to depend on a lottery system to escape underperforming school systems.
Unfortunately, the charter school application process can be extraordinarily lengthy, complex, and costly. Representative Lello's bipartisan bill will help remedy this problem by providing the option to repurpose a modest amount of funding to
support potential charter school leaders at the pre-planning stage. By offering support to new charter school applicants, we can help increase the number of charter schools to meet the educational demands of families. Next, there are two bills that would
enact muchneeded accredititation reforms to ensure accredititation uses oriented outcomes to properly determine which institutions should be eligible for federal student aid. The first is HR 2516,
the Accreditation for College Excellent Act or ACE Act, introduced by chairman of the Higher Education and Workforce Development Subcommittee, Burgess Owens. The ACE Act stops accredititors from using political viewpoints such as
diversity, equity, and inclusion as a quality standard for institutions. Accredititors should be focused on producing workforce ready graduates, not injecting woke ideology into our institutions.
The second is HR 4054, the Accreditation Choice and Innovation Act, introduced by Representative Randy Fine. This bill requires accredititors to use measurable student success outcomes, provides an on-ramp for
capable new accredititors, and streamlines the accredititation process. I also want to highlight the protections both bills have for religious institutions so they can continue to carry out their religious missions free from discrimination by their
accredititor. Additionally, the committee will be marking up four important pieces of legislation in the workforce space. HR 2528, the Association Health Plans Act, which I introduced with help will help small
businesses offer quality, affordable health care coverage to their employees by allowing them to band together and have a access to the same regulatory and economic benefits as large group plans because they have fewer employees. small
businesses have limited bargaining power, have fewer uh when it comes to negotiating lower insurance costs for their workers. The Association Health Plans Act will expand the availability of highquality care with cost savings
and level the playing fields uh for small businesses. We'll also consider HR 2571, the Self- Insurance Protection Act, introduced by Representative Bob Ander. This bill reaffirms long-standing
policies and practices supporting employers right to self-insure and purchase stop-loss insurance to mitigate the financial risk uh the self- insurance uh carries. Unfortunately, many states are prohibiting small
employers from accessing stop-loss insurance by erroneously reclassifying stop-loss insurance as health insurance. Stop-loss insurance is not health insurance, which this bill makes clear. By preserving the availability of
stop-loss insurance, HR2571 prevents uh bureaucratic overreach and clarifies once and for all that small businesses have just as much of a right to self-insure as large businesses.
The next bill is HR 2988, the Protecting Prudent Investment of Retirement Savings Act, introduced by the chairman of the Subcommittee on Health, Employment, Labor, and Pensions, Representative Rick Allen. It restores integrity to the management of
retirement plan assets by reinforcing the obligation that Orisa imposes on fiduciaries to manage assets which complete and undivided loyalty to the workers's financial interests, not their own political or social interests. The
bill also clarifies that selecting, monitoring, or retaining plan service providers must comply with Orisa's prudence and loyalty duties and must be done without regard to race, color,
religion, sex, or national origin. In addition, HR 2988 imposes brokerage window notice requirements on the participant directed defined contribution plans. We must protect Americans financial futures and promote
promote retirees interest in a secure retirement, not play politics with their finances. Last but not least, we'll consider HR 3170, the Improving Access to Workers Compensation for Injured Federal Workers
Act, which I introduced with Representative Joe Kourtney. This bill updates federal law to allow injured federal workers to receive treatment for workrelated injuries from statelicicensed physician assistants and nurse practitioners. Under the current
system, many feder workers face long delays in receiving care for their injuries because an approved provider may not be within a reasonable distance. Delay in care means delays in injured workers returning to their jobs. Nurse
practitioners and physician assistants are a critical component to filling this provider gap. The bill would increase access to care for federal workers, especially in rural areas, so that they can receive treatment and get back to work faster.
With that, I yield to the ranking member for an opening statement. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Mr. Chairman, today we will consider seven bills, six of which I'm concerned are at odds with the priorities of America's students, workers, and families. When I'm at home
in my district, I speak to constituents and they tell me that they want better public education for their children, access to affordable quality health care, and the ability to work and retire with dignity and security. Not only do these bills fail to accomplish these
goals, many take us in the opposite direction. First, we'll consider HR 3453, the Empower Charter School Educators to Lead Act, which builds on school choice effort, similar to the ones included in
the House Republicans Big Ugly Bill. The HR 3453 expands pre-planning grants for charter schools which are already permitted under current law. But the bill does not require grantees to have already applied to a charter authorizer
whose role it is to assess the quality of potential and existing charter schools. This will leave lead to even less transparency and accountability exposing our nation's students to lowquality educational experiences. I cannot understand why it would be the
good idea to undermine go guard rails for charter schools despite numerous nonpartisan audits identifying accountability and transparency issues that lead to clear and identifiable instances of waste, fraud, and abuse of taxpayers dollars. I oppose this bill
because it undermines the already limited oversight of charter schools to the detriment of school of students. Next, HR 2516 and HR454 would weaken the accreditation process for institutions of higher education
would open the floodgates for colleges to evade federal oversight. Specifically, the bills undermine the ability of accredititors to assess quality and could result in a limitation of academic freedom in college curricula.
HR 1516, excuse me, 2516 prohibits accredititors from developing standards regarding specific partisan political ide ideological viewpoints or beliefs by using vague un undefined terms. The bill
sponsors claim that HR 2516 will prevent accredititors from evaluating schools on their diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility practices. However, due to its vagueness, the bill would unnecessarily politicize accountability measures for C colleges and
universities. This bill could call into question whether an accredititor could even ask if an environmental studies program had a class on climate change or whether a history department faculty could teach that pro that President Joe
Biden won the 2020 election. and HR 4054 would make it easier for lowquality programs to to evade accountability by shopping around for accredititors. This end result of both bills would wink an accreditation process that could lead students uh could mislead students about
the quality of the colleges or their programs. Next, two health bills under consideration today would continue the Republicans request to repeal or undermine the Affordable Care Act and make it harder for working families to access
affordable highquality insurance. HR 2528, the Association Health Plans Act, recycles past attempts to sab sabotage the ACA. Association health plans might might lower premiums for some enroles,
but they do so by skimping on benefits and increasing costs for others. Association plans enroll young, healthy people to form a separate pool that charges lower premiums. And I oppose the bill because it leaves everybody else behind to pay on average higher premiums
while the privileged few get to sneak out the back door and play pay less. And if too many of the lowcost a AHP in the lowcost health plan get sick, they have to charge higher premiums and
the AHP can collapse and that group just rejoins the ACA marketplace which in effect has provided backup care coverage for those paying lower lower rates. That's unfair to everyone else who had ping higher premiums all along.
Similarly, HR271, the Self- Insurance Protection Act, attempts to unravel the ACA by allowing companies through the use of stop-loss insurance to evade critical consumer protections in their healthcare plans. When subject to appropriate guardrails,
stop-loss plans can mitigate risk for self-insured group plans. However, stop-loss plans are now increasingly designed to mimic health insurance while not adhering to rules that apply to everybody else. I oppose the bill because it would make it virtually impossible for both states and the
federal government to protect consumers who will end up in these plans. Uh these bills need to be considered in light of the Congress's action uh that action that Congress is actually considering such as a refusal to extend
the enhanced t premium tax credits under the inflation reduction act which has lowered the ACA premiums, the Medicaid cuts, and the big ugly bill that will result in 11 million fewer Americans on Medicaid in order to fund tax breaks for
the wealthy. and to the Trump administration's recent ACA marketplace rule, which makes it harder to get coverage. And we should be eternally vigilant because the ACA is always in serious danger of being totally repealed. So, I encourage my colleagues
to vote no on both of those health proposals. Next bill, the so-called protecting prudent investment of retirement savings act is premised on the Republicans's mistaken view that politicians know best when it comes to investing workers retirement savings. The bill codifies
two rules from the first Trump administration that imposed first of their kind restrictions on retirement plan fiduciaries ability to consider environmental, social, and governance ESG factors when making investments and
exercising their shareholder rights. Both rules also imposed needless paperwork and rec and recordkeeping restrictions on these professionals. Considering the ESG factors should not be controversial because they because
they cannot be considered if investment returns would be reduced. We should be trusting the retirement plan professionals who are bound by law to make prudent investment decisions on behalf of plan participants. The bill also undermines efforts to increase
diversity among asset managers. According to the GAO, only 1.4% 4% of the $82 trillion in global assets under management is managed by women or minorityowned firms. So I oppose the bill and hope I encourage my colleagues
to do the same. Final bill we'll consider HR 3170, the improving access to workers compensation for injured federal workers act led by you Mr. Chairman and the gentleman from Connecticut, Mr. Courtourtney. This bill was reported out of committee in the
last two congresses and actually passed the floor in the 117th Congress. This bill will amend the federal employees compensation act FICA to ensure that federal injured federal workers particularly in rural areas get the care they need from state licensed physician
physician assistants and nurse practitioners for their work rellated injuries. It is important to note that this does not override state laws. They can only provide services within the scope of practice provided under state law. However, in many areas, physician
assistants and nurse practition practitioners are already providing care under state compensation laws. Those services should also be available to federal employees seeking care. This bill is an important step to f to modernize federal workers compensation
without compromising the rights of injured workers to receive an adequate remedy for their injury. Unfortunately, it comes at a time when the Trump administration's efforts to shrink the Department of Labor have actually shut down injured federal workers ability to
have their hearings when their services or benefits are denied. But this bill is clearly a step in the right direction. For these reasons, I oppose the majority of the bills we're considering today, but I support the Wahberg Courtney bill and encourage my colleagues to do so as
well. Mr. gentlemen, I yield back. I thank the gentleman. Without objection, all other members who wish to insert written opening statements into the record may do so by submitting them to the committee clerk electronically by the end of the day today.
Pursuant to the House rules, a copy of the text to be marked up was made available to members and the public at least 24 hours in advance. The bills being marked up today shall be open to amendment at any point, and the chair will allow members to offer amendments
in a manner not prohibited by the House or committee rules. Without objection, members who have more than one amendment to the bills and wish to offer their amendments unblock may do so. The committee will now proceed to
consideration of the bill HR 3453 for amendment. The bill was circulated in advance and printed copies are available. The clerk shall designate the bill. HR 3453, a bill to modify the program of grants to support highquality charter
schools. Without objection, the first reading of the bill is dispensed with. Without objection, the bill will be considered as read and open for amendment at any point. and any amendment shall offered shall be considered as read. Does anyone seek to
be recognized? Representative Lllo, for what purpose do you seek recognition? Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment in the nature of a substitute for HR 3453. The clerk shall designate the amendment in the nature of a substitute. Amendment
in the nature of a substitute to HR 3453 offered by Miss Llo of Louisiana, identifier 3453s_01. Without objection, the amendment shall be considered original text for purposes of further amendment. The amendment in the nature of a substitute has already
been distributed. I now recognize Miss Leello for 5 minutes to explain the amendment in the nature of a substitute. Thank you, Chairman Wahlberg. I am proud to offer this ANS for HR 3453, the empower charter school educa educators
to lead act. This ANS makes technical changes to the underlying bill. Since joining Congress four years ago, I've been a strong supporter of the charter school program or the CSP at the US Department of Education. This program has played a vital role in Louisiana
expanding critical school choice options for families and students. As I've toured charter schools in my home state and met with advocates across the country, a recurring concern I've heard is how difficult, timeconsuming, and complex the process is for starting new
charter schools. While appropriate guidelines must be in place, the process shouldn't be so burdensome that it discourages passionate, qualified educators from applying. We must ensure these educators have the support and tools they need to navigate the
application and planning stages effectively. To address these concerns, I introduced HR 3453 last month, which is a bipartisan bill. My bill authorizes states who receive grants through the CSP to use a modest portion of their
funding to support completing the application process and development of new charter schools. Specifically, the bill authorizes planning awards for educators with at least 4.5 years of school-based experience who have developed an initial plan to open a
public charter school and have demonstrated leadership and a track record of success with students. These small planning grants would allow prospective applicants to study successful charter charter school models and learn best practices in operations and administration. In turn, this will
help strengthen their applications and result in stronger charter schools. The bill also increases the share of CSP grant funds that state entities can use for technical assistance from 7% to 10%. This additional flexibility could help
address common challenges like securing a school facility, which often presents a major obstacle for new charter applicants. Importantly, HR 3453 does not create a new pro program or authorize new spending. It does not
require states to implement planning grants. Rather, it gives states the option to use a slightly larger share of existing funds to better support highquality charter school development. Thank you to Chairman Wahlberg and the committee for considering this bill. I
believe HR 3453 is another step forward in empowering parents with meaningful choices and supporting educators who want to create more opportunities for students. I urge my colleagues to support this common sense measure. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
I thank the gentle lady. Are there any members who wish to be recognized for further discussion on the bill? Mr. Chairman, uh the gentle lady from uh North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I move to strike the last word, speak in opposition to the bill.
You're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. uh HR 3453 claims to empower charter school educators, but what it really does is is funnel public dollars into a system that too often lacks oversight, accountability, and
transparency. And so this bill would would change current law to let federal taxpayer dollars fund pre-planning PL grants for charter schools that don't even exist yet. schools that could be started by teachers with with just 54 months of
experience. It feels arbitrary with with no clear rationale provided to me. It also sets aside 3% for a revolving fund for so-called flexible expenses, but the language is broad and the guard rails are weak. And notably, it changes the
current requirement that that 90% of charter school programs funds go to grantees, lowering it to to 80%. And that's not empowering students. To me, it looks like more for consultants and less for classrooms. And now, I know
what my colleagues on the other side will say that it's about choice. Well, that is it's about innovation. But let me tell you what we're seeing in in North Carolina. We have charter schools like like Children's Village Academy
ordered to to repay over $160,000 in misused state and federal funds. We see conflicts of interest and loans to to board members, taxpayer dollars spent on furniture for private homes. We have
Triniditus Academy, a classical charter school backed by highranking Republican officials now being fasttracked uh without ever going through the standard state review process. No interviews, no curriculum review, no financial vetting,
just a backdoor budget provision slipped into the general assembly. And that's not accountability. That's not public service. That's simply privilege. And and it's not just trrenitus. The charter sector in North Carolina is
riddled with these off one de deals. Schools that that that serve fewer students that cherrypick their enrollment and still receive public funds with little oversight. Meanwhile, our traditional public schools, especially in rural and and lowincome
communities, are stretched thin, and they're left to to pick up the pieces. So, let me be clear here. I'm not against charter schools. I've visited some that are doing pretty well. They're doing right. But we should never be in the business of subsidizing inequity,
especially now when the administration's budget request is already proposing cuts to to everything else. And because while private and and charter schools may operate outside certain public mandates, our public schools serve every child.
Every child who walks through their doors, regardless of disability, regardless of background, regardless of immigration status or zip code, they're bound by IDA, IDA, they're bound by civil rights laws. And they're
accountable to parents, to local school boards, and to the public. And so when we divert dollars away from those schools without safeguards, we are starving the very system that serves the majority of of our kids. And this bill doesn't add new oversight either. It
doesn't close loopholes. It doesn't address existing problems in the charter schools program. But what it does is weaken funding rules and redirect resources in a way that that benefits those already who are well connected.
And we should be talking about how to strengthen our public school system. We should be investing in in teacher pay and and school counselors and classroom materials and facilities upgrades in the communities that have long been
underfunded. That's what real equity looks like. In Charlotte and across North Carolina, families are asking for schools that they can trust, for educators who are supported, and for transparency in in how their tax dollars are used. HR 3453
does not deliver on on any of those promises. Does not deliver on any of those promises and basically just defunds our public schools. Uh I I I urge my colleagues to oppose this bill. And with that, Mr. Chairman, I I yield
back. I thank the gentle lady. Are there any others who wish to speak? uh recognize the uh chairman of the early childhood elementary secondary education subcommittee, the gentleman from California, Mr. Kylie. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Uh I'm proud to sponsor uh this
bill which is part of a tremendous paradigm shift that we are seeing right now uh in American education policy where we are moving towards a paradigm of excellence after years of a paradigm of failure uh prevailing at the level of policy. Uh just look at what the Biden
administration did uh as soon as uh President Biden assumed office. One of the first acts of education policy was to try to severely limit the charter school grant program. This provoked bipartisan opposition. You had Democrat governors across the country who came
out against it. And fortunately, we won that battle to stop that very harmful action from happening. Uh but then throughout the Biden administration, as the education department, seemingly without limit, uh increased its budget requests year after year after year, the one thing they never increased was the
charter school uh grant program. Uh meanwhile, you have uh governors like Gavin Newsome in California uh and others uh throughout the country uh who have declared war on charter schools uh and other forms of school choice and
seem uh intent on assuring that students remain trapped in failing schools, that every child has one choice for where to go to school, their neighborhood school. And if it's a good school, that's great for them, but if it's a bad school, uh that they're out of luck. So we are now trying to shift that paradigm because
the results speak for themselves. The nation's report card at the beginning of this year showed that our students continue to fail uh and lag behind uh other countries that we have not even returned to the uh precoid level of student achievement and that in fact
there is an inverse relationship we've seen between the amount of money we've spent and the level uh of student achievement and that's because we have had uh the wrong policies. Fortunately, there are some bright spots that exist in the American education landscape and charter schools are probably the
foremost among them. Uh study after study after study has validated uh the premise of this bill uh which is that the charter sector uh outperforms the traditional public school sector. And when you look at truly outstanding charter school networks like uh Kip or
like success academy, they get truly amazing results. So, this bill uh would do something very simple, which is to say it would assist those who want to start excellent charter schools and give them the resources they need to make that happen. Because the thing with
charter schools is that your funding is dependent on upon being able to attract students. But, of course, you don't have students until the school opens. And so, that can make it very difficult to actually uh get the funds you need in order to start the school. Uh and that's why the charter school grant program exists. And this bill gives you the
ability to uh have the resources you need earlier in the process. It also provides for the use of those resources for things like site selection which states like California in their attacks on charter schools uh make very difficult. There are also other bills,
for example, the highquality charter school act, uh, which is, uh, a very important tool that will assist in in the process of replicating successful charters that I'm a sponsor of. And fortunately, the administration, very much unlike the Biden administration, has proposed increasing uh, funding for
the charter school grant program. I did want to address a few of the points raised by the last speaker as well. She mentioned that this bill would funnel public dollars into some other system. I would remind her that charter schools are public schools. They are open to all free of charge. She also said that this
bill would provide funding for schools that don't even exist yet. I guess by that logic, she is in she is not in favor of using public funds to ever open a new school uh of any kind. Uh she also said that this sounds like more money for consultants and less for classrooms. Uh, I would suggest she take a look at,
for example, the Los Angeles Unified School District and see how much money is going to the massive district bureaucracy there and not going to classrooms. She claimed that charter schools cherrypick enrollment, which is blatantly false. By law, charter schools must uh be uh are open to all and if
there are more applicants than there are seats, then they have to do uh a blind lottery. Claims that IDEA and civil rights laws don't apply are completely false. Of course, these federal laws apply to the charter sector as well as the traditional public school sector. And the notion that there's no
accountability is a particularly curious suggestion given that that's the entire point of charter schools is that you provide a greater measure of flexibility in how the school is run in return for accountability in two forms. Number one, you only end up getting ongoing funding if you actually attract students. You
don't get assigned students like by default like a traditional public school does. And then you also periodically have to renew your charter uh by presenting evidence that the school is doing a good job. That's the entire point of the charter school system. So I uh commend my colleague from uh Louisiana for introducing this
legislation. I'm very happy to join uh as a sponsor and I hope to see it get bipartisan support this time around and get signed into law this Congress. I yield back. I thank the gentleman. I recognize a gentle lady from Oregon, Miss Madameichi. Uh thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I move to strike the last
word and speak in opposition to HR 3453 and the uh amendment nature of the substitute. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I don't question the intent of the legislation's co-sponsors and sponsors, but it would funnel taxpayer dollars into developing charter schools that do not yet exist
and may never come to fruition without meaningful transparency or accountability provisions. The challenges in our public education system are not caused by a lack of schools, but by a lack of appropriate and adequate support for the schools we already have. If our shared goal is to
create the best educational opportunities for all students, let's focus on programs that fund evidence-based innovations and improvements in traditional public schools, not in ambiguous pre-planning grants for prospective developers who have not yet even received a charter.
And I'll note, uh, Mr. chairman and colleagues, I was on a 10-year charter review committee in when I was in the state legislature and there remained even after a decade of implementation a lot of questions about transparency, accountability, what happened when the school closes. Now, my Republican
colleagues have cited charter school enrollment increases as a as a a justification for this unprecedented expansion of the law. And I question how much of this growth in enrollment can be attributed to virtual and online charter schools which have consistently shown
abysmal academic outcomes for their students. Also tremendous equity issues. I support the broader goal of giving families a choice in their children's educational experience. Magnet schools for example can be a highly effective al alternative within the public school
system. My daughter chose to attend a public school arts uh arts magnet uh school and I fully supported that. We have other magnet schools within the public school system that are open to all. And what concerns me about charter schools is that they tend to attract the
students with the more involved parents. But our responsibility should be for all of the students, not just those who have involved parents. funneling taxpayer money into untested, undeveloped ideas for charter schools of instead of investing in all of the traditional
schools that serve the vast majority of our nation's students is not how we should be spending our time and our money. And although I'm encouraged that the majority appears to support new investments in public education, I hope they were will consider bills and future markups that will strengthen and protect
our public education system for all students, including the American Teacher Act, the IDA full funding act, my bipartisan arts education for all act or the Safe Schools Improvement Act. So, Mr. Chairman, this uh I I oppose this
bill, although I support choice within our traditional public school system. Let's spend our time uh caring for all of our students. Uh and I yield back the balance of my time. I thank the gentle lady. Now I recognize the gentleman from
Missouri, Mr. Ander. Uh thank you, Mr. Chairman. I commend my colleague from Louisiana to for bringing forward this bill. I'm proud to support it. I just wanted very briefly and she and my colleagues and Representative Kylie uh defended the bill very very well, but I
just wanted to say in Missouri we I served in the legislature for a decade. Time and again I heard these arguments for the opponent from opponents of choice that we were going to number one defund public schools and number two that somehow charter schools are not accountable.
Right now, under the ESSA, charter schools receive 44 $440 million of federal dollars. We're talking in a $7 trillion budget. Um, and that's less than 1% of federal spending on K
through2 education. It is a minuscule amount. You know, this bill authorizes state entities authorizes not require state entities to use up to 5% of their grants on pre-planning awards. I think a very modest investment in school choice.
But my Democrat colleagues always cite examples of failed charter schools, but I think the fact that they can cite those examples make our point. First of all, these charter schools that fail, they close. Whereas children who are
trapped in failing public schools are trapped there forever, sentencing them to a to generations of poverty and potentially even even imprisonment. Um the you know finally as as uh Representative Kylie pointed out the
ultimate count accountability is that charter schools success or failure depends on their ability to attract students and parents. And I think what my Democratic colleagues unfortunately and I had many Democratic colleagues in the Missouri Senate who supported school choice, but
too many of my colleagues failed to see or just fear the value of competition in our public school system. Many studies have shown that competition within our public school system makes the public schools, traditional public schools, as well as the public charter
schools better. So, thank you for bringing forward this bill. I'm proud to support it. I yield back. I thank the gentleman. I now recognize the ranking member, the gentleman from Virginia, Mr. I change that recognition and I recognize the gentleman from
Connecticut, Mr. Courtourtney. Thank you, Mr. W. You had me all excited there for a minute. That's so um I I rise in opposition and and really it's um it's because of just the in my opinion just rank hypocrisy of the uh new department
of education and the majority in this committee who you know give a lot of lip service to things like uh choice um you know having um investment in in alternative uh pathways for families and children. At the same time, they are
suffocating magnet schools both in their budget, which they zeroed out the funding for magnet schools. Um, and again, there's just no recognition in this bill of the fact that if you really believe in parental choice, you should recognize the fact that there's 4,300
magnet schools um in America with uh 3.5 million students uh whose whose families have chosen uh that alternative, which again in past congresses uh we have funded not even to the same extent as as uh charter schools. The gentleman from
Missouri talked about a $400 million appropriation for for charter schools. Last year's FY25 budget, um it was $139 million for for magnet schools. But despite that disparity, uh and this I I would just point out to to Mr. Kylie is
that if you want to really look at um performance of magnet schools uh in my state uh the number one ranked magnet uh number one ranked high school p you know traditional public charter school magnet school was a magnet school the
international balor academy in east Harford Connecticut the number three high school is the marine uh magnet school in Graten Connecticut which um and and that's just you know just a couple examples in terms of if you look at the actual um NAPE scores the um
analysis magnet schools outperform charter schools over and over again. And what they also do is that they allow a pathway for communities to um break down uh barriers in terms of minorities who
um can take advantage of highquality education. uh the the the track record for charter schools, frankly, is that they they actually um deepen racial isolation and and certainly in the city of New York that there's been a number of um uh analysis that that actually
shows that. But, you know, the I'm not even arguing to cut charter schools. Uh what I'm just simply saying is that you know at the same time this administration with not a you know bit of um uh push back or protest out of out
of this committee which has jurisdiction over the department of education is snuffing out magnet schools in terms of their budget. Secretary McMahon when she was here claimed that well we're we're folding it into 11 other uh programs that's there. But if you look at the the pot of money
that they're getting folded into, um it is a huge cut um in terms of what's available to them. And it basically says, you know, you're going to have to live in the hunger games in terms of competing against really good other programs like afterchool programs that were lumped together uh with this
really, I think, anti-education budget. And I'm not saying anti-public education budget. This budget just hurts kids across the boards. So, you know, the lack again of any recognition about the fact that school choice is actually being taken away by this administration
uh with its policies and its budget um at the time at the same time we're giving lip service to somehow promoting choice uh with a with a piece of legislation like this which just relaxes and loosens um you know um accounting for public funds going into the into the
education system. uh again I just think is just too much to swallow in terms of uh supporting this bill and until we get some real balance and real parity and real recognition about what real choices for families in this country in terms of education um then I think you know we
we've got to really start to talk to each other and go back to the drawing board for really um useful and uh positive legislation that's going to promote real school choice and real quality education. I yield back. I thank the gentleman. I now recognize
the uh ranking member, the gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Scott. Thank you, M. Mr. Chairman. I think um most of what I had to say has already been said, but just to review what we're talking about. Under present law, their planning grants are available for those who have applied
for a charter to plan for opening to make sure that everything is going well. and they work with the authorizers who will review as the progress and make sure things are going well. This bill expands money for pre-planning, that's
charter school proposals that are in some pre-application status getting money to plan for an application without any oversight of what they're doing with the money or any guarantee that the application will ever be made. It's hard
to imagine who these applicants would be for the money other than they have four and a half years of education experience and have decided it would be nice to imagine a charter school. Uh that the requirement under present law that
you've at least applied for a charter and have 18 months to um get things together uh just doesn't seem like that much of a barrier. And um uh it would seem to me that expanding it to people
who are just imagining themselves, it it just is open to fraud, waste of money. And I would hope that this um um uh amendment in nature of a substitute would not pass.
You back. I thank the gentleman. Uh there being no further discussion uh on the amendment and nature of substitute, the committee will move to consideration of amendments. Uh are there any members who would like to
offer amendments? I recognize the gentle lady from Oregon, Miss Bonamichi. Uh thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have an amendment at the desk, Bonamichi 036. The clerk will designate the amendment. Amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute to HR 3453 offered by
Miss Bonamichi of Oregon identifier Bana me_036. I recognize the gentleman from Utah, Mr. Rowand. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order. A point of order is reserved. I now recognize the gentle lady from Oregon for the purpose of five minutes
in support of the amendment. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And before I address the amendment, I I want to respond, it's it's relevant to the amendment, to a couple of comments that my colleagues have made about um students being tra quote trapped in failing public schools close quote. A school is a building. So
instead of labeling a building as failing and plucking out some students to go to charter schools or giving a voucher to some students to go to a private school, why don't we ask why students aren't doing well? Why are people labeling schools as failing? We
don't just represent the parents who think they want their kids in a charter school or the voucher proponents. We we ought to be on the education committee uh considering all students. Why is a school being labeled as failing? Are the classes too big? Is there lead in the
water? Are there are the students hungry? Are they homeless? There are so many questions we need to ask and issues we need to address. Are there behavioral health needs that aren't being met? So, we need to ask those questions before we start saying we're going to focus on the
few uh parents who want to put their students in a different building because then we are ignoring the needs of the majority uh of students who are in these so-called failing public schools. Um I I I I hope we can have that discussion and
not forget it. Uh Mr. Chairman, state entities current receive currently receive federal funding under the charter school program authorized by ESA to provide funds to eligible entities to support the development, implementation, and replication of highquality charter
schools as well as to provide technical assistance to carry out the state's charter school program that already exists. Planning grants are already permitted for developers that have applied to charter authorizers to open a charter school. But this bill would significantly expand current law by
providing grants to developers who have not yet even applied to a charter authorizer. Charter authorizers play an important role. Authorizers determine which charter schools can open. They establish operational and academic expectations. They oversee our charter
schools performance. They determine which charter agreements to renew and which charter schools should close. And I also note there was a comment about charter schools closing. That raises a whole host of issues. What if they close in the middle of the school year? What happens to the students? Where do they go? Providing pre-planning grants to
developers that have not even submitted an application hands out federal funds without any requirements for transparency or accountability. And sometimes these grants go to programs that already had uh transparency and accountability challenges and issues
according to a GAO office audit. So, my amendment places some guard rails on our taxpayer dollars. We know that virtual charter schools are not doing a good job educating our nation's students. In fact, in 2021, the Washington Post called them the worst performing schools
in the charter sector. And then in 2022, a USGO repo report found that virtual scar charter schools had significantly lower proficiency rates on state tests compared to other school types. and the GAO report found that virtual charter
schools pose increased financial risks for both state and federal funds. Despite this, there has been an increase in virtual charter school enrollment since the start of the CO 19 pandemic. My amendment prohibits states from using charter school grant funds under this
bill for virtual charter schools, including pre-planning, development, or technical assistance for virtual charter schools. This is one step toward creating more transparency and accountability in the charter school sector and providing all children with a quality public education. And I want to
note uh Mr. Chairman and colleagues uh we had a proliferation of online charter schools in Oregon for a period of time. Their performance was in fact abysmal. uh and they they created huge issues of uh equity and safety because if a child
is at home, they have to have somebody with them and for for students who have a working parents or or one pair and they're in a single family household. Um it there are just uh tremendous equity and safety issues about virtual charter schools. So I urge my uh colleagues to
support this amendment and I yield back the balance of my time. I thank the gentle lady. Does the gentleman from Utah assists assist on a point of order? I I withdraw my point of order. Point of order is withdrawn. Does anyone else seek recognition on the amendment? Mr.
Chairman, recognize the gentle lady from North Carolina. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I I I move strike the last word in support of this amendment. Um but let me just um sort of recap some of what um represents
Bonamichi has just said in terms of accountability. Uh I do know that when students if if they leave a charter school uh and go back to a public school or wherever the money stays with that school. So, you
know, I think we really when when I said earlier that um the funding is taken from public schools and given to private schools, that's one way that that it happens. But but let me just speak to this amendment because it's pretty straightforward and it says that that federal taxpayer dollars from the
charter schools program should not be used to fund virtual charter schools. Why? Because the track record speaks for itself. Virtual charter schools have some of the worst outcomes of any publicly funded schools in this country, lower graduation rates, poor academic
performance, high student turnover, and a stunning lack of accountability. In North Carolina, we've seen this firsthand. We have had virtual charter schools that have been allowed to operate year after year despite consistently failing uh to meet academic
growth uh targets. In fact, one of them has failed to meet the expectations for seven years in a row and yet it still receives public funding. Now, Mr. Raleigh talked about uh researching and that you might want to do some research in terms of of what happens uh at least
what happened in my state, but but but that's not innovation. It's negligence. And these schools often uh overpromise and overd deliver. They advertise flexibility, but what really happens is that they offer often too often uh it's
isolation. And for students who who need more support, not less, they are a dangerous detour from quality education. So, let me just be clear, this amendment, it's a good amendment, and it doesn't ban uh virtual schools, but it simply says that the federal government
should not be in the business of subsidizing models that consistently fail our students. public dollars should go to proven strategies, not risky experiments. And so we owe it to our students, especially our most vulnerable
students, to fund what works. So I I support the uh Bonamichi amendment, and I certainly would urge my colleagues to do so. And with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back. I thank the gentle lady. Does anyone else seek recognition on the amendment? The gentleman from uh
Virginia. Thank you. Move a second. Last word. Uh, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, it's obvious that research has shown that student outcomes at virtual charter schools is worse than other schools. Gentle lady from Oregon
mentioned the GAO study from 2022 uh that uh showed this. In addition, a research article published last month by Sage Publishing compared student outcomes at virtual charter high schools with students in brick and mortar charter high schools in Indiana found
that students in the virtual charter high schools experienced large negative outcomes when looking at graduation dropout and college enrollment rates. We ought to be putting our money in things that improve quality education and not put money into schools that consistently
have poor outcomes for our students. And so I would hope that this amendment would be adopted. You back. Thanks, gentlemen. Does anyone else seek recognition on the amendment? If not, I recognize myself in opposition
to the amendment. I appreciate my colleagues amendment, but it has several fundamental flaws. Most significantly, it's outside the scope of this debate. As drafted, this amendment would apply to the existing state e entity grants under the charter
schools program CSP, not just the new authority to create a pre-planning grant. That's a much broader discussion than what we are here for today. This debate is focused on whether to create a pre-planning grant to aid in starting up
new charters. This debate is not about rethinking the entire CSP as this amendment would do. I would encourage our colleagues to submit amendments that are about the proposal under consideration reforming the entire CSP which has been wildly successful should
only be done with tremendous care, consideration, and research. It certainly should not be done through a single amendment during a markup of a different bill. For those reasons, I urge my colleagues to reject this amendment and vote in favor of the
underlying bill, and I yield back. Does anyone else seek recognition? If there's no further debate on the amendment, uh the question is on the amendment by the gentle lady uh from
uh from Louisiana, uh from Oregon, excuse me. All in favor say I. I. All oppose, no. No. In the opinion of the chair, the nos have it and the amendment is not agreed to.
A roll call vote is ordered. Pursuant to the chair's previous announcement, this vote will be postponed. Are there any further amendments to the amendment in the nature of a substitute to HR 3453? I recognize a gentleman from Virginia, the ranking member, Mr. Scott. Thank
you, Mr. Mr. Chairman. I have an amendment to the desk, Scott, VA 029. The clerk will identify the amendment. Amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute to HR 3453 offered by Mr. Scott of Virginia, identifier Scott,
VA_029. I I recognize a gentleman from Utah. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order. A point of order is reserved. I now recognize the gentleman from Virginia, the ranking member, to speak to his amendment. Thank you, Mr.
Chairman. My my amendment would simply require that an initial plan completed by a developer in these new pre-planning grants include an assessment of segregation in the community in which the proposed charter school will be located, a strategy for how the proposed
charter school will effectively address desegregation in the community and an assurance that this strategy would be carried out. The civil rights project first found in 2003 that charter schools were more segregated than traditional public schools. Findings that were
confirmed again in 2010 and 2024. According to the 2024 report, segregation in suburban charter schools is increasing such that in 2019, approximately 27% of suburban charter schools were
comprised of 90 to 100% black and and Latino students. Moreover, many charter schools are segregated by more than one factor, such as race, socioeconomic status, class, English language learners. Mr. Chairman, according to the
GAO, America's public schools are more segregated today than at any time since the late 1960s. Segregation of students by race and income has dramatically increased over the last two two decades. The share of K through 12 public schools
that were high poverty and comprised mostly of black and Hispanic students nearly doubled between 2000 and and 2013. most vigorous study in segregated schools, Mr. Chairman, means segregated opportunities. The most
rigorous report to date on school integration showed that black students who attended desegregated schools throughout their K through2 career were more likely to graduate from high school, attend college, attend a more selective college, and complete college. The benefits not merely limited to
academics. Five years after attending a court-ordered desegregation, schools significantly increased the black workers earnings and significantly reduced their likelihood of experiencing poverty. School desegregation brings us one step closer to fulfilling the
promise of Broad Brown v. Board of Education. The federal government should support those efforts and all of its public schools, including charter schools. All students should be provided with a quality public education that enables them to reach their full
potential. So I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. Yield back. I thank the gentleman. Does this gentleman from Utah insist on a point of order? I withdraw my point of order. Uh the reservation is withdrawn. I now recognize the gentle lady from
North Carolina to speak to the amendment. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I move to strike the last word support of the amendment. Um, I I I do want to uh speak in favor of this amendment. It's been it's been over 71 years uh since the Supreme Court in Brown versus the
Board of Education made illegal the unjust practice of segregation. But today, segre school segregation is on the rise. According to a study from the Educational Opportunity Project at Stanford University, black white segregation increased by three and a
half% between 1991 and 2019. Multiple research projects have found that the charter school expansion is associated with rising segregation rates in communities uh across the United States. Given this concerning
statistical evidence, our schools, our our nation's continued support for fully integrated classrooms, it's only reasonable that we require charter school projects to include strategies to effectively address any potential risks
of segregation posed by a planned charter school. I find it hard to believe that that anyone in this committee today would oppose additional safeguards against the disturbing rise in segregation that we're seeing uh throughout the country. I grew up in a
world of segregation. I know all about Jim Crow. I know from experience that we cannot go back. Mr. Chairman, um I I support this a this amendment and uh I yield back. I thank the gentle lady. Uh does anyone
else seek to speak on this amendment? I recognize I recognize the gentleman from Florida, Mr. Fine. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just want to speak to challenge the entire premise of the notion that charter schools do
anything to promote segregation. And I I'm privileged to come from Florida, which I think is generally considered the leader in school choice in the United States. Um, in the district that I used to represent in the Florida House, I had I had nine different charter schools. Charter schools that
were that had a problem. They had a huge problem. They had more kids that wanted to go to them than could. And when I would tour these schools, the schools were overwhelmingly full of minority students. Why? because the government
school that was available to them failed to meet the needs of the kid. Now, it wasn't the child that made the decision to send themselves to that charter school. It was their parent who, desperate to live the American dream and find the opportunities that are only
available through education, put their child in one of these extraordinary charter schools. So I I speak less about the amendment per se but but more to defend the ide the entire idea of charter schools. The
education is a miracle which allows you to live the American dream where you are not measured by where you start but by where you want to go. And education is what can take a kid of any background and give them the chance to do those to live their dreams. It certainly was the
case for me and I grew up in a place in a time when there was an educational school choice unless you unless you were rich which my parents were not. I often think what would have happened to me if I would have had school choice which by the way my children do but we need to be
doing everything we can to be fostering public charter schools. reminder, Representative Kylie talked about the fact that charter schools are public schools. And I don't think that we can say that enough because by focusing on these things, by helping to give these parents and these children the
opportunity to save their kids, which is what we are doing, we are giving them the greatest chance that they have to pursue the American dream. Charter schools do not foster segregation. and charter schools give those who are faced by the segregation of failing schools
the opportunity to make their lives better and to live the American dream. So I oppose the amendment and I strongly support the underlying bill. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I yield back. I thank the gentleman. I recognize gentle lady from Oregon, Miss Bonabichi. Uh thank you, Mr. Chairman. I I want to speak in
favor of the ranking members uh amendment, but I but I also, Mr. Chairman, with all due respect, want to respond to the comment suggesting that my amendment uh was somehow outside of the scope of the bill. Uh I I went back and read the actual amendment and it talks about uh the the section uh on in
the bill uh under this section and I looked at the the actual bill and the section is grants to support high quality charter schools. So I just respectfully disagree, Mr. Chairman, that that uh this amendment is outside of the scope of the bill. I I I also um
want to respond to the comments that that my colleague just made about um charter schools. If charter schools are are public schools, then I words matter. Uh Mr. Chairman and colleagues and to to refer to traditional public schools in in a pjorative term as government
schools, but still acknowledging that charter schools are are are public schools. I think we need to be careful about language. Uh if they're public schools, let's call them public schools. um and and not blur that line. So I again want to support the ranking members uh important amendment and I
yield back the balance of my time. Gentlemen to you. I I would yield to the ranking member. Yes. Thank you. And I' I'd like to add that the idea of school segregation is not a notion. And it's a finding by by research that segregation in public school including the GAO that
segregation in public schools is um increasing as bad as it's been since the late late 1960s and getting worse. Um and that's not a notion that's a research finding. I yield back to the gentle lady. I yield
back, Mr. Chairman. I thank the gentle lady. Does anyone else seek recognition on the amendment? If not, I recognized myself to speak in opposition to the amendment. We can all agree that legally mandated
racial segregation is wrong. It's illegal under the Civil Rights Act and it violates fundamental American values of fairness, equal opportunity, and equality before the law. However, there's a drastic difference between legally mandated racial
segregation and parents of different races simply making different choices for their students. If a minority parents choose a public charter school that will best serve their family, racial diversity in a given school may
increase or decrease. But that's not an example of legally mandated segregation. Instead, it's an example of parents, regardless of their race, exercising their agency, which the education bureaucracy constantly seeks to rob them
of. In fact, many minority parents desperately want more charter schools. Just think of what's going on here in the District of Colombia. Because charters generally do better at serving disadvantaged populations
than traditional public schools. For example, many charters have narrowed the achievement gap between black and white students. 7% of charter schools even reverse the achievement gap, which black students performing with black
students performing equal to or better than their white peers. According to a Stanford University study, students in poverty achieve an additional 23 days of learning in reading and 17 days in math. In urban
charter schools, students gain an additional 29 days of growth per year in in reading and 28 additional days in math. These kinds of choices should be available to all parents, regardless of race. If aspiring charter school
operators don't open a school because of extraneous paperwork requirements, as might happen under this Democrat amendment, many of the students who would suffer most are minority students. Finally, civil rights law already
applies to all federal funds under the charter schools program. State entities receiving CSP grants are legally required to work with charter schools on recruitment and enrollment practices that promote opportunities for
all students and ensure students have their educational needs met. Charter schools also cannot hand select their students. They must take the students who apply and if more students apply than there are available seats. The
charter school must hold a lottery. All these existing school laws are safeguards against racial discrimination in schools. Any charter school that violates civil rights law should be held accountable.
However, mandating that aspiring charter school operators do a study of how parents of each race might choose their child's school when the charter school does not even exist would be extraordinarily costly, difficult,
burdensome, and probably defined as impossible. The charter sector doesn't need more red tape. It needs less. One way to encourage the creation of more charter schools and to help more
minority students is to make it easier and not harder for aspiring operators to start a school. That's what this bill does, which is why I urge my colleagues to vote against this amendment and in favor of the underlying bill. And I
yield back. For what purpose does a gentle lady from Georgia seek to speak? Thank you, uh, Mr. Chair. I move to strike the last word. You're recognized. Thank you so much. I've been patiently just listening to all of the
discussion this morning and I just have to briefly say that I know within my own community um I have seen time and time again the charter schools that have been created of course as we talk about uh giving our students and the families
better options for children to be uh educated in our public schools but what I have began to notice is that there definitely is a division and that there is segre segregation in in these charter schools. There are charter schools that are set up specifically for minority
children. They're not diverse. And so I would just say that um I would hope that we would be looking for ways to make sure that we are integrating our schools, not not segregating our schools, that we're making sure that each and every child has equal opportunities. And with the rest of my
time, I'd like to yield to the ranking member, um Mr. Scott. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'd just like to point out that Virginia was the jurisdiction where the freedom of choice case and school um segregation came about. The courts found
that when you have a freedom of choice um regimen that you tend to have segregated schools. Blacks will choose the black schools. Whites will choose the white schools. And if you intend to desegregate the schools,
you've got to do more than just freedom of choice. And so it's not blaming anybody, but it's just a fact of life. And if you um support segregated schools, the findings have been that uh charter
schools add to segregation. And if you're going to start a se a charter school, all this amendment does is says just have a statement in there as to what the expectation is on school integration and segregation
in the context of the fact that the school segregation is getting worse every year. So um we're not blaming anybody, but it's just a fact of life. If you want to integrate the schools, you got to do more than just the freedom of choice. I yield back to the gentle
lady from Georgia. And I yield. The gentle lady yields back. Is there any further debate on the amendment? If not, uh
the question is on the amendment by the gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Scott. All in favor say I. I. All oppose? No. No. In the opinion of the chair, the nose have it and the amendment is not agreed
to. A roll call vote is ordered. Pursuant to the chair's previous announcement, this vote will be postponed. Are there any further amendments to the amendment and the nature of a substitute to HR 3453? We'll now move uh to consider uh to
consider the next bill. The committee will now proceed to consideration of the bill HR216 for amendment. The bill was circulated in advance and printed copies are available. The clerk shall designate the bill.
HR 2516, a bill to amend the Higher Education Act of 1965 to prohibit political litmus test and accreditation of institutions of higher education and for other purposes. Without objection, the first reading of the bill is dispensed with. Without objection, the
bill will be considered as read and open for amendment at any point and any amendment offered shall be considered as read. Does anyone seek to be recognized? Representative Owens. Yes. I reserve a point of order. Mr. Owen, do you have an amendment to
offer? I have amendment at the desk. The clerk shall designate the amendment in the nature of a substitute. Amendment in the nature of a substitute to HR 2516 offered by Mr. Owens of Utah identifier HR2516
ANS_01. Without objection, the amendment shall be considered original text for purposes of further amendment. The amendment in the nature of a substitute has already been distributed. I now recognize Mr. Owens for five minutes to explain the amendment in the nature of a substitute.
Thank you. Uh Mr. Chairman, uh our American system of high education is built on a promise. is that promise to families that they will experience a good return on investment for sending their child their legacy to a college of the choice. That good return is a a productive, optimistic and better
prepared citizen ready to dream and work hard toward the ful fulfillment of their dreams. Moving forward, we are talking about the accreditation. Moving forward, the accreditation process will establish parameters that ensure institutions of their choice
supports this mission. accreditation was designed to uh evaluate the worthiness of institutions to access big access billions of dollars of taxpayer federal student aid. Unfortunately, too many accredititors have failed in their stewardship. Instead of focusing on real
world outcomes, too many have instead promoted divisive and toxic ideologies under the name of so-called diversity, equity, and inclusion or DEI. Accredititors throughout our country have not only adopted these woke standards, but have turned and have in
turn full forced institutions they oversee to prejudge their students based on their race, creed, color, or degrees of victimhood. Any uh any disscent of these racist perceptions is is punished with a loss of accreditation or by
extension the loss of federal funding. Thankfully, my bill HR 2516, the Accreditation for College Excellence, ACE Act, stops this abuse of power. The ACE Act ensures accredititors can no longer push partisan or political
beliefs on onto institutions. I'm extremely excited to finally have an administration that will adhere to the key components of our American culture to judge each other by the character of our content, not by the color of our skin. Bureaucratic racism will not be
tolerated by the Trump administration. The ACE Act codifies accreditation policies pl put in place by executive order issued by President Trump in April of this year. For those accredititors who have not yet gotten a memo and think
that you'll simply pause or camoufl camouflage your DEI standards for another day, the codifying of ASAC will ensure the weeds of DEI are pulled out from its roots. My amendment protects religious accredititors uh make uh makes clarifying changes to the underlying
bill. I urge my colleagues to adopt the amendment and support the underlying bill uh yield back. I thank the gentlemen. Are there any members who wish to be recognized for further discussion on the amendment and the nature of a substitute? Uh for what purposes the does the gentle lady from
Oregon, Miss Bonamichi recognition? Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I I move to strike the last word and speak in opposition to HR 2516. You're recognized. Uh thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. This bill um prohibits what looks like a political litmus test in the accreditation of institutions of
higher education, but there is no evidence that such litmus tests currently exist. Uh unfortunately, this is yet another attempt by my colleagues to attack diversity, equity, and inclusion policies instead of addressing higher education, affordability, and
accessibility. As a result of this bill, accredititors will be discouraged from examining any stated views of a school, even if these views have a direct bearing on the school's educational offerings and academic quality. For example, under this bill, it appears that religious institutions would be
allowed to require all students and employees to adhere to a statement of faith or religious code of conduct in violation of their First Amendment rights. And my colleagues on the other side of the aisle claim to be strong supporters of academic freedom when reality uh that applies only to the
content and rhetoric they seem to agree with. They claim to support deregulation, but seeking to regulate problems that don't exist is inconsistent with that. They attack uh so-called radical institutions of higher education when the real radical policies are those that strip universities and
their students of their fundamental academic liberty. I oppose the bill being considered today and urge my colleagues to be the same. I wonder Mr. Chairman if I if I could ask a question of the sponsor of the bill, Mr. Owen, would you yield for a question during my time? Yes. Thank you. You in when you
were discussing the bill um you use the term woke standards, but I don't see that defined in the bill. So to understand your intent in with this bill, could you please define what woke standards mean? Woke is the leftist um I I think we've over the last couple years
figured out what woke is and it's kind of a a conversation that many of us understand and it's it's when you take um DEI programs and apply to people and um u and then in the process we're we're we're creating a racist uh uh
environment. So, I I I I submit that that's very subjective and if you're using that to def to to to establish the record for a a bill that you want to support, I I think it's it's critical for us to understand the legislative intent of this. Uh and so I I I really
question that uh that uh know it when we see it definition. And and again uh Mr. chairman and colleagues. Uh this really looks like something that's designed to strip universities and students of fundamental academic liberty. Uh I and I again oppose the the bill and urge my
colleagues to do the same. I yield back. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I thank the gentle lady. For what purposes the gentle lady from Georgia seek recognition? Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um I like to speak in opposition to the amendment in the nature nature of substitute.
Get you are recognized. Thank you so much. Uh just in listening to once again, you know, this this chats going on and talking about what woke means and de and I, I just say once again, the Republicans have consistently shown an
interest in politicizing and injecting culture wars into higher education policy. And I think that does a great disservice to our students. But Mr. Chair, the bills being considered today are poorly disguised attempts by the majority to abandon one of the most
important principles of our democracy, which is free speech. House Republicans and President Trump have made it clear that they prefer to silence or punish voices they disagree with instead of debating ideas on their merit. Instead
of respecting that others may have a different opinion, they claim that schools must have been infiltrated. They claim that because someone doesn't agree with their points of view that they must be uh indoctrinated. That's what's happening to them. Instead of trying to
understand why House Republicans and President Trump have convinced themselves that the only reason that someone could believe something different than they do is that because that person has been brainwashed in some way. Instead of accepting that someone
may have come to a different conclusion based on that person's lived and relative experience, an experience that may be entirely different than your own, or considering that maybe they themselves could be the ones that are wrong, Republicans choose to make
disrespectful insinuations about how and why someone may think differently than they do. That is a dangerous level of arrogance and one that has no real place in spaces meant to encourage true critical thinking. If you spend some
time in high school or on a college campus, which I do quite a bit, you'll see that ethnic studies continue to be attacked by far-right Republicans and their allies. institutions, organizations, states, and cities are being attacked and losing funding for
acknowledging just simply the past for simply telling our history as it is actually happened instead of how some conservatives want them to frame it. The American people should know that Republicans claiming to defriend speech
are the very same ones who are banning our books and censoring cons conservations about slavery, which is actually history, American history, the Jim Crow era, which is history, American history, and even the Holocaust in
classrooms, which is history, American history, and our classrooms all around the country. There are the ones who are debating unpopular bills in the middle of the night to avoid having to defend their positions while most Americans are
awake and paying attention. You can't have it both ways. You can't claim to be the protectors of free speech while you go out of your way to hide the stories that make us all who we are as a nation. stories like my father's who was the
Illinois branch president of the IND NAACP for over 25 years at the height of the civil rights movement. This refusal to have difficult discussions to just sweep what makes some people uncomfortable under the rug is a
disservice to our students. It's a disservice to those who came before us, to those who really lived these experiences and the heroes like my mom and my dad and so many civil rights leaders who put their lives, their businesses, and reputations on the line to help this country live up to the
promise of liberty and justice for all. The majority's goal with these bills is not to uplift free speech or variety of thought. It's to ensure that the only acceptable viewpoints in our society are their own. I encourage all of my
colleagues to vote against these bills and I yield back my time. I thank the gentle lady and I recognize the gentleman from Florida, Mr. Fine. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to I want to commend um Chairman Owens for bringing this bill forward. Sometimes I
sit here and I wonder if I'm sitting in an alternative universe. This bill is not about the behavior of universities. It's not about what they can and cannot teach. It's not about what they can and cannot say. It's not about what folks can or cannot believe. It's not about that. This bill is about accredititors.
And if you were focused on the concerns of free speech, we should be focused on what accredititors do. Because frankly, what much of the accredititors do actually does exactly what the minority would say they are worried about. It would censure speech. They talk about injecting culture wars. That is what
these accredititors are doing. They say there's no evidence of this. The only accredititor for medical schools requires DEI as part of their accreditation process. The only
accredititor of law schools require DEI as part of their accreditation process. In fact, let me read it that one. It says they must demonstrate by concrete action a commitment to diversity and inclusion abiding by committing to having a student body that is diverse
etc etc etc. They're requiring a viewpoint as part of their accreditation standards and by the way one that is quite amorphous which we've also heard concerns about things not being clear as to what it means. What chairman Owen's
bill does is it simply says get the ideology out of the accreditation process. Focus on things as my bill will talk about metrics that measure student success because that's what universities should actually be focused on. But if we
want universities to be these flourishing places where views can be expressed, as we heard so noly articulated by the other side, the best way to do that is get accredititors to stop censoring the speech, which is what these accreditation processes do. This
is a good bill, a good amendment, and I'm I'm proud to support it. I yield back the balance of my time, Mr. Chairman. I thank I thank the gentleman and I recognize Representative from Missouri, Mr. Ander. Uh, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am proud to support this bill. You
know, I'd like to anchor the sentiments of my colleague, Representative Fine from Florida. The idea that a third of law schools require DEI as part of the accreditation process is abhorent to our constitutional republic. This amounts to
a political litmus test in legal education. You know, I will tell you further in Missouri as a member of the bar, every year we have to take an hour of continuing education in DEI as condition of retaining our lensure. So,
I'm proud to support this bill. I think it's an excellent one. And Mr. Chairman, I yield the remainder of my time to Mr. Owens. I I won't uh take so much just a couple minutes because it's pretty much highlighted. Thank you so much, Randy. Appreciate that. Um,
this says ACE Act ensures accredititors accredititors can no longer push partisan or political beliefs onto institutions. Um, this has nothing to do with free speech of students and teachers. It has to do with uh pushing ideologies
uh in a sense of power from people who have that power to pull back funds. I think the idea that we're now having we're having this this conversation based on what's been going on with these accredititors for the last few years. We have black Americans thinking they are victims because they are black
Americans. Uh we have now anti-semitism on the rise because of this devious ideology in which people are judged by their skin color, their culture. So no, this is this is to stop uh this process of getting away from the American way. The American way has become a more
perfect union and that is by looking at each other from inside out not outside in. Uh we have seen the evidence my friends of the last four years of what happens with this this devious concept in which we're judging other people based on everything else. So it's it's our time and I think
the American people thank goodness we're ready for change and we're going to hold these colleges accounts accountable. uh if they can't do the job right, then uh they need to do something else. But um not not push this ideology down on our kids and our and our c and change our culture. With that, I yield back. Thank
you. Does the gentleman from Missouri yield? I yield. I thank the gentleman. Now I recognize the ranking member, gentleman from Virginia. Thank you, M. Mr. Speaker, speak in opposition to the ANS.
For decades, federally recognized accredititors have served as one of the three parts of the oversight triad of the US higher education system that states, federal government, and federally recognized accredititors. Accreditation is meant to
be the gold standard for college quality and performance, and it is the gateway to billions of dollars of federal student aid. can't get into the student federal student aid program unless you are accredited. We know that the accreditation system needs reform, but
HR 2516 does not make the right reforms. Rather, it's a baseless attempt to inject culture wars into an ever important accreditation process. This is one of two proposals we'll consider today that harm the accreditation process. will
shortly consider HR454, the Accreditation Choice and Innovation Act, which includes additional harmful language undermining accreditation process for institutions of higher education. HR 2516 adds a requirement to
the Higher Education Act concerning the accreditation agency's treatment of religious institutions. It allows religious institutions to require students and employees to adhere to a statement of faith and code of conduct which could sweep so broadly as to
violate civil rights laws and undermine ca campus safety. The first amendment protects religious institutions and their identity, but there are limits. The seminal Supreme Court case involves Bob Jones University and addresses the code of conduct which prohibit
interracial dating and marriage. Such racial segregation should be illegal but it and it is not a viewpoint that has to be respected. Currently, the law and regulations already afford significant deference to religious institutions to
ensure that the religious missions are respected and that they can maintain religious missionbased policies while still meeting core components required by accredititors for their programs of study. In addition, HR 202516 has a
litmus pro prohibition that would prohibit accreditation agencies from requiring encouraging or coercing schools to support or commit to supporting disparit disparit treatment
of in individuals or groups. This prohibition reinforces the narratives that DEI initiatives meant to support colleges which are really meant to support all students are equivalent to disparit impact or disparit treatment.
This uh bill's provision barring accreditation agencies from assessing ideological viewpoints, beliefs or viewpoints on social cultural issues of institutions could have really disturbing results. For example, an
accredititor could be unable to take into account whether the environmental science program banned the teaching of the consensus scientific belief that man-made climate change is real or a geology program that teaches that the earth is 6,000 years old in spite of
that not being supported by any science. In the end, this proposal short changes our students who will not be sure if the program of study truly meets the standards set forth by accredititors. The proposal represents a solution in search of a problem and fundamentally seeks to undermine our accreditation
system. So I strongly urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment in nature of a substitute and the underlying bill and I yield back. I thank the gentleman. I recognize myself to speak in favor of the amendment.
Um again this is dealing with accreditation. This is dealing with an entity, a system, an idea that has the capability of chilling, if not destroying
educational opportunities and true freedom of speech, freedom of belief, all that this America and idealists set upon. I can think of one very well-noted educational institution in my district that takes no federal
funds, no state funds, and yet the one thing that they fear that could put them out of operation because of espersions that could be made based upon accreditation. is the accredititation opportunity
that could bring them down. Our concern that DEI has really become something of division, exclusion and inequity. We believe on this side of the aisle and
I don't cast this dispersion on the viewpoints of my colleagues on the other side, but I disagree with them strongly. We have lived with division, inequity, exclusion being pushed upon us, pushed upon institutions that offer diversity,
that offer a full history, good, bad, and indifferent. And for accredit accrediting institutions or agencies to be able to chill that is just wrong. And so I appreciate so much the
representative you from Utah who understands clearly what he's doing here to promote freedom of opportunity and make sure that accredititation deals with the realities and the necessities.
So I stand in strong support of this uh this ANS and u hope that you understand my position Mr. Owen. Thank you. Are there any others that wish to speak? If not, uh are there any members who
would like to offer amendments to the NS? There being no amendments to be offered, the question now occurs on the amendment and the nature of a substitute to HR 2516. All in favor say I.
I. All opposed? No. No. In the opinion of the chair, the eyes have it and the amendment and the nature of the substitute is agreed to. We'll now move to consider the next bill. Okay.
Where's it at? Moving through multiple pages here. Now I see the committee will now proceed to consideration of the bill HR 4054. Wait a second. The bill was circulated in advance and printed copies are available. The clerk
will designate the bill. HR454, a bill to amend the Higher Education Act of 1965 to reform accreditation. Without objection, the first reading of the bill is dispensed with. Without objection, the bill will be considered as read and open for amendment at any point and any amendment offered shall be considered as
read. Does anyone seek to be recognized? Representative Fine, for what purpose do you seek recognition? Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk. Amendment HR454s_01. The clerk shall designate the amendment and nature of a substitute.
Amendment in the nature of a substitute to HR 4054 offered by Mr. Fine of Florida identifier HR4054s_01 without objection the amendment shall be considered original text for purposes of further amendment the amendment in the nature of a substitute has already been
distributed I now recognize Mr. Fine for five minutes for to explain the amendment in the nature of a substitute thank Mr. chairman and thank you for this opportunity today. You know, the purpose of accredititors is to make sure that our universities generate,
well-informed, well-educated students who can add value to their society. And in that effort, they have failed. These accredititors have overseen a system where only 60% of
students attending an institution graduate in not four years, but six years. Just think about that. 40% of people going to these institutions don't graduate in six years, approaching half. But even among those that graduate, 25%
getting bachelor's degrees have a negative return on investment of their time and their treasure, including ours. 40% of master's degrees. What are they focused on? Well, we heard a lot about that when we discussed the last bill. In
2022, I worked on this issue in Florida um to create flexibility in accreditation where outofstate national groups that were infiltrated by special interests could not regulate what was and is the number one higher education
system in the United States. The Biden Harris administration didn't like it that much. And in 2022, they sent out guidance specifically targeting Florida to undermine our state studentdriven accreditation reforms. They shut down innovation by blocking
new accredititors, no matter how qualified, just to preserve their politically motivated monopoly. Well, as he has done in many things since he got elected five months ago or since he took office 5 months ago, President Trump has taken action and written and signed an
executive order that would deal with this accreditation problem. And today in hearing HR454054, my student oriented bill, the accreditation choice innovation act, we seek to put his executive order into force. There's only a handful of
powerful accreditation agencies that control which colleges get access to billions in federal funding. They create a bureaucratic monopoly with no accountability. This legislation shifts the focus of what helps students succeed and puts more control back in the hands of the states. Taxpayer dollars,
billions of taxpayer dollars shouldn't be handed out based on woke nonsense. They should be tied to real results. graduation rates, loan repayment, how students earn, what students earn after they graduate. That's how we ensure a
real return for both these young people and the taxpayers that are funding their education. This bill also cuts through the red tape for schools that are stuck in accreditation purgatory. It allows colleges in good standing to switch accredititors more easily, clearly defines which changes require a full
review and which don't, and it eliminates unnecessary paperwork for schools. juggling multiple accredititors. It also ensures importantly that faith-based institutions aren't discriminated against. My amendment strengthens this bill, the bill, the amendment that
underlying bill by clarifying important timelines and definitions. It also makes accredititors pass along student complaints to institutions and gives states the options to include public input in their accreditation plans. This is a good bill, a good amendment that's going to make our higher education
system work better. And I urge my colleagues to support this amendment and the underlying bill. I yield back. I thank the gentleman. Representative Scott, for what purpose do you seek recognition? Motorcycle. Last word. You're recognized. Thank you, Mr.
Chairman. I'd like to speak in opposition to the ANS. This is an attempt to reform the accreditation process, but there are problems with the accreditation process that should be addressed, but this bill does not improve the situation. In April, President Trump signed Executive Order
14279, which calls for the realignment of accreditation with a student focused principles. The Council on Regional Accreditation Accrediting Commissions, which represents a country's seven largest federally recognized college
accredititors, has expressed concern with the president's politicization of accreditation, saying in a re recent statement, quote, we firmly reject President Trump's mischaracterization of accredit accredititor's role in a
nation's postsecary education system. If enacted, this bill will build on the recent executive order by establishing several alarming precedents and policies for the Department of Education, accredititors, and colleges. First, the bill will fasttrack federal recognition
of untested accredititors, opening the doors for new accredititors without a record of success to oversee shoddy colleges colleges. Now, to make matters worse, the legislation would make it easier for colleges to leave their current accredititor and switch to one of these new untested accrediting
bodies. That HR HR 4054 will also allow states to serve as accredititors or designate their own accredititors, which would create severe disparities and quality assurance across states and weaken the Department of Education's
role in higher education oversight. The legislation also undermines accreditation by allowing religious institutions to bypass accreditation standards for their academic curriculara and mislead students about the integrity of their programs. There are a couple of
policies that are a step in the right direction. I'm pleased to see some progress around transparency in the accreditation process, specifically through the creation of guardrails to curb conflicts of interest within the accrediting agencies and development of
common terminology. also appreciate the development of student achievement standards, although I disagree with how they've been structured. And yet overall the proposal falls short of truly improve improving the accreditation process for colleges or accredititors
and in fact goes backwards on institutional accountability in conjunction with HR 2516 the accreditation for college excellent excellence act which we just debated and President Trump's executive order
weaponizing the accreditation process have deep reservations about how this bill could be implemented without causing causing harm to students, colleges, and taxpayers. I am proud to announce that as part of the de committee democrats roadmap to college
um student success campaign, we'll soon be introducing our own legislation to reform the accreditation process that will put students first by measuring student outcomes, increasing transparency, and improving oversight of lowquality accredititors. strongly urge
my colleagues to oppose the Republican amendment nature sub nature of a substitute and the underlying bill and I yield back. I thank the gentleman. Are there any members who wish to be recognized to
speak? Mr. Chairman, Mr. Chair, for what purposes does gentle lady from Oregon seek to be recognized? Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I move to strike the last word and speak in opposition to the bill. You're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I I I oppose the the amendment in the nature of a substitute and I just
want to agree with what uh ranking member Scott said about yes there are issues that we should be addressing with accreditation but this is the wrong approach. I'm a particularly alarmed with the uh the the notion that uh an institution can switch accredititors easily which the sponsor of the bill
said that just looks like uh if somebody did something we don't like we're going to try try to find somebody else to to get around the requirements. I I also have a a concern uh that was suggested that somehow we as a member of the higher education committee and someone working on these issues for a long time
that we somehow measure return on investment by what students earn and and and I I tell you Mr. Chairman we had a a good hearing in here yesterday about child care and the importance of good people providing early childhood education. you know what, they don't make a lot of money. Uh but that doesn't
mean that they didn't get a good education in early uh childhood education program or or someone who wants to open up a business that might not be profitable for a while or someone who wants to join the Peace Corps assuming it still exists. There are lots of uh of benefits to higher education that aren't measure measured in dollars
and I I I can get concerned about that uh implication. And then uh once again, Mr. Chairman, if the I have a a question for the sponsor of the bill, if you'll yield, Mr. fine to a question. I'd be happy to. Uh, thank you, Representative Fine. And and in
promoting this this uh uh legislation, and again, we established legislative intent by these hearings, you use the term woke nonsense, but I didn't see that defined in the bill. So, could you please explain what you mean by that? Um, thank you for the question. I think
the n the last bill really dealt with that. What my bill talks about is the metrics that they should be focused on. The last bill dealt with what they shouldn't be focused on. And this bill talks about the nature of measurable objectives. I actually gave a couple examples. I can read them again of
amorphous non-defined DEI criteria that are used in approving jud um law degrees and medical degrees that have no real definition other than throwing out um woke buzzwords. But what we're talking about here is the notion of graduation rates, which I would hope
we could all agree is important. And it doesn't do someone much good to go to school and not get a degree. And it focuses on what people do make. And I do think that matters because if you're going to spend four years of your life going to school, taking the time off, getting into debt to do it, there should
be a return on your on your time for doing that. And so it says, I'll reclaim my time. I appreciate it, Representative Fine. And and and Mr. Chairman, in this committee, we have heard again and again the term woke used without being defined. And if as we're establishing legislative record, uh I submit that
it's important for people to define that term because it is very ambiguous and and I know it when I see it is is not acceptable. And I I uh again oppose the legislation and yield back the balance of my time. I thank the gentle lady. I recognize the
gentleman from Utah, Mr. Owens. Let me go ahead and define what woke is. Um it is everything that our country stands against. We are faith, family, free market, education. Woke is a Marxist ideology that stands against that. And I
think American people have finally figured that out. And that's why they're standing up against woke um uh ideologies and and um and legislation. So that's the definition of mine for woke. I thank you, gentlemen. Uh for what purpose does the representative from
North Carolina, Miss Adams, speak? Thank Thank you. Uh thank you, Mr. Mr. Chair. Um uh I move to strike the last word and I'll recognize the bill. Uh let me just say before I get into this woke for me is simply being alert. Uh understanding
what's going on, not being asleep. So that's simple. You can look in the dictionary. You can ask Siri. I just did. Uh but let me just start by saying that uh as a former retired college professor and administrator, I I support efforts to make higher education more
accountable and more transparent. But HR 40 50554 doesn't get it here. Uh instead it covers uh gives cover to politically motivated attacks on higher education while weakening the very standards that students and families rely on to ensure
quality. And so this bill undermines one of those core pillars of higher education, the accreditation process. I've been involved with many of those. a process that may not be perfect, but but it has for decades helped uphold academic integrity, safeguard federal
dollars, and it ensures institutions are are serving students, not just stakeholders or or ideologies. And first, this bill inserts language into the Higher Education Act that would prohibit accredititors from recognizing diversity, equity, and inclusion as a
standard of institutional quality. Now, I don't have time to go into those three words, but I support those three words. I don't think there's anything bad about them. So, let me get this straight. Under this bill, if an accredititor evaluates a college on how it supports underrepresented students or ensures
diverse perspectives in the classroom, that accredited accredititor could lose its its federal recognition. Well, well, that's not transparency. Second, this bill requires all accredititors to evaluate schools based on student outcomes. Outcomes like
graduation rates and job placements. Now, that sounds reasonable on the surface, but it isn't. Accredititors already use these metrics. What this bill does is centralize that process under federal direction, essentially uh
uh tying a school's accreditation to whatever outcome measures the department or or frankly the majority finds politically convenient. It's not hard to to see where this goes. Punishing schools that serve higher numbers of lowincome first generation or
non-traditional student uh students, schools like community college, schools like H.B.CU, CUS and Hispanic serving institutions, schools where we know students face greater barriers to completion, not because the the education quality, but because the
resources have never been equitable. Third, that this one is is really troubling. Uh the bill opens the floodgates for new accredititors with only one year one year of experience. And so we're talking about multi-billion
dollar decisions, Title 4 eligibility, federal aid, and students futures, all potentially overseen by fly by night accredititors with virtually no track record. Why? To create competition. In
North Carolina, I'm already seeing the warning signs. A new law now requires public colleges to change accredititors every 10 years. And under this bill, that requirement would just complicate everything. It's it's not innovation.
It's instability. So, let me remind my colleagues that accreditation isn't just a box to check. It's the gatekeeper. It's the gatekeeper for federal financial aid. And so, if we're serious about quality in higher education, then
we need to keep that gate strong, not swing it open for political convenience. And lastly, let me just say that this bill is part of a broader pattern, a pattern where longstanding higher education norms are being dismantled
under the guise of reform. But make no mistake, the goal here isn't to protect students. It it's to punish schools that don't fit a certain political mold. And so I want to urge my colleagues to vote no on this bill to protect the integrity
of our higher education system and to stand with students stand with students who depend on that system to work for them. Um uh thank you Mr. Chairman and and and I yield back. I thank the gentle lady. Are there any other members who
wish to speak on this ANS? There being no further members who wish to speak on it, are there u any amendments that wish to be offered? There being no amendments, the question now occurs on the amendment in the
nature of a substitute to HR 4054. All in favor say I. I. All oppose, no. In the opinion of the chair, the eyes have it. And the amendment and the nature of a substitute is agreed to.
We'll now move to the next bill. Committee will now proceed to consideration of the bill HR 2528 for amendment. The bill was circulated in in advance and printed copies are available. The clerk shall designate the
bill. HR 2528, a bill to amend the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 to clarify the treatment of certain association health plans as employers and for other purposes. Without objection, the bill will be considered
as read and open for amendment at any point and any amendment offered shall be considered as read. I now recognize myself to offer an amendment in the nature of a substitute. The clerk will designate the amendment in the nature of a substitute. Amendment in the nature of a substitute to HR2528
offered by Mr. Wahberg of Michigan identifier HR2528_A. Without objection, the amendment shall be considered original text for purposes of further amendment. The amendment and nature of a substitute has already been distributed. I now recognize myself for
five minutes to explain the amendment in the nature of a substitute. HR 2528, the association health plans act, will make it easier for small businesses to offer highquality affordable health care coverage to their
employees by allowing them to band together to have access to the same regulatory and economic benefits as larger group plans. When I meet with small business owners, one of their biggest concerns is the cost of health care. With the inflation caused by
Bidenomics, owning a small business is challenging enough without having to worry about finding health care coverage that doesn't break the bank. The Association Health Plans Act is the solution. It allows small businesses and
self-employed individuals to join together in a single association health plan. Health care plans that large companies enjoy will now be under this bill within reach for working Americans and job creators on Main Street. That
means access to lower premiums and lower costs of America's overall health care spending by giving individuals an alternative to the Obamacare marketplace. In 2023, US healthc care spending grew 7.5%
reaching 14,570 per person for a whopping 17.6% of gross domestic product. That's a 32% increase from the 13.3% of GDP expended on health care in 2000.
Clearly, Obamacare has failed. America and its workers. This is not sustainable. Workers and small businesses deserve better health care options. Now more than ever, we need the Association Health uh Plans
Act. This innovative bill cuts health insurance costs, evens the playing field for small businesses, and offers self-employed individuals and independent workers a better pathway uh than Obamacare.
We can give small businesses the tools they need to continue providing highquality affordable coverage to their employees. Coverage that their employees want. The amendment in the nature of a substitute makes technical changes to the bill and
I urge the committee to adopt it and report the association health plans act. I yield back. Are there any members who wish to be recognized for further discussion on the amendment and the nature of the substitute?
I recognize the gentleman from California, Mr. Donier. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I move to strike the last word and speak in opposition to HR 2528. You're recognized. Thanks again, Mr. Chairman. As a former small business owner, I understand the importance of
being able to offer competitive benefits to employees, including affordable health insurance. Unfortunately, the Association Health Plans Act is not an effective way to advance the goal of increased access to health care. The Affordable Care Act established a
hard-fought consumer protections in the health insurance market that ensure coverage for essential health benefits, ban discrimination against people with pre-existing conditions, prevent insurers from imposing lifetime limits on coverage, and other common sense
policies. While the prolifer proliferation of association health plans or HAPS might sound like a good idea, these plans lack the consumer protections established by the ACA and can undermine
the health of the traditional insurance market. Though this bill pays lip service to consumer protections, in reality it would allow small employers participating in an H AHP to face discriminatorily high premiums based on
the health profiles of their employees. Given these bill this bill's flaws, it is no wonder that 27 27 patient organizations put out a statement in opposition to it. As we de debate this bill, Mr. Chairman, I must also point
out the backdrop against which we are here today. The administration and the congressional Republicans are hard at work on their budget reconciliation bill that would strip health insurance for 16 million Americans by undermining the
Affordable Care Act and cutting Medicaid funding by $73 billion. Unfortunately, Mr. Chairman, my Republican colleagues changed their minds after they said that they were not planning to cut Medicaid during our April 7th Health, Employment, Labor, and
Pension Subcommittee hearing. I still hope that this is not the case. The reason for these draconian cuts is not to restore fiscal responsibility, but rather to provide exorbitant budget busting tax cuts for the ultra wealthy
and very large corporations. According to the Congressional Budget Office, the Republican budget bill would increase the deficit by $2.8 billion dollar over the next 10 years while reducing household resources for the poorest
Americans by about $1600 per year. Instead of prioritizing misguided legislation like the Association Health Plan Act and the Budget Reconciliation Bill, we should we could be working together on ways to expand access to health coverage by further lowering
prescription drug costs, strengthening me mental health parity law, addressing high rates of insurance claim denials, and other priorities that would actually reduce costs and improve consumer experience in the healthcare marketplace. I urge my colleagues to
oppose this bill and I yield back. I thank the gentleman. I recognize the gentleman from North Carolina, Mr. Harris. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. For too long, Washington has made it harder for small business owners to provide the health coverage their employees earn.
Under current law, big corporations get to pull together to neg to negotiate better health plans while our small businesses are stuck with expensive options. Today, we consider the Association Health Plans Act, a bill that puts power back in the hands of
America's small businesses and workers by expanding access to affordable, flexible, and highquality healthcare. I'm a proud co-sponsor of this important legislation. And let me be clear, this legislation is about freedom. It's about
giving families, farmers, and small business owners the same opportunities that large companies and unions already enjoy. It's about restoring competition and choice in the marketplace, not man mandates and bureaucracy from Washington. This bill levels the playing
field by allowing small businesses, sole proprietors, and self-employed individuals to join together across state lines and negotiate as a group. A bigger group has more power to broker with an insurance company to purchase health plans. More neg more negotiating
power means lower cost, more choices, and yes, greater freedom. In his first administration, President Trump led the charge to expand association health plans because he understood that economic freedom and health freedom go hand in hand. Estimates show that
association health plans can reduce cost by 50%. Who would oppose that? Proponents of the singlepayer health care system. That's who. Unfortunately, the Biden administration did everything it could to block these plans in court and tie them up in red tape because they
want government-run health care, not patient centered care. You see, smaller groups are subject to more rigorous regulations under Obamacare. If they become like large employers, Washington has less control. I trust Americans will make the best health care decisions for
their families. and I think the individuals represented by my colleagues on the other side of the aisle would want the same. I thank the chairman for leading on this important bill and urge my colleagues to support its passage. Thank you. And with that, I yield back.
I thank the gentleman. I now recognize gentle lady from Oregon, Miss Bonamichi. Uh thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I move to strike the last word and speak in opposition. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Uh, I oppose the Association Health Plans Act because association health plans simply do not
work as intended and are often detrimental to vulnerable populations who end up with higher health costs. I'm the daughter of a small business owner and the mother of a small business owner, so I understand the importance of small businesses and the ability of small businesses to have insurance. But
we're fighting an old fight that we know will fail. Associated Health Association Health Plans cherrypick healthier, younger people to join their plan. Then they charge individuals with pre-existing conditions higher premiums. AHPs that operate as large employers are
also exempt from many of the consumer protections, including covering the Affordable Care Act's essential health benefits. These are vital protections for patients that provide coverage for hospital care, maternity and newborn care, mental health services, prescription drugs, and more.
protections that the overwhelming majority of our constituents want and expect to be included when they get insurance. We all understand again the importance of small employers and self-employed individuals being able to find affordable health insurance with
robust benefits. So, I'm disappointed that this committee is focused on policies that benefit the few who can take advantage of them rather than initiatives to provide all small business owners and employees with better access to affordable health insurance. I know plenty of small
business owners who have no trouble finding affordable health care with consumer protections on the ACA website. And once again, Republicans have failed in their attempts to repeal the Affordable Care Act because people might not like the name of the law, but they like what's in it. Much like the House
Republicans reconciliation bill, which would strip about 16 million people of health care under Medicaid and the ACA, people are standing up and fighting back and asking Congress to stop repealing health benefits. This bill is opposed by 27 patient advocacy groups including the
American Cancer Society, the Cancer Action Network, the American Heart Association, the Cystic Fibros Fibrosis Foundation, the AIDS Institute, the Immune Deficiency Foundation, and Susan G. Coleman. So, I urge all of my colleagues to stand with their
constituents and oppose the Association Health Plans Act. And Mr. Uh, chairman, I request unanimous consent to enter into the record two letters from numerous patient and consumer advocates, including Families USA, the Leukemia and Lymphoma Society, urging this committee
to reject both HR2528 and HR2571 because these policies will raise Americans health care costs and lower the quality of their care. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I yield back the balance. Without objection and hearing none, uh, they will submit be entered.
I now recognize the uh I now recognize the gentleman from Missouri, Mr. Ander. Uh thank you, Mr. Chairman. You know, I think there's one thing that Republicans and Democrats can agree on is that there is much that is dysfunctional about the American health care system, although we disagree about
what it is that's dysfunctional. But I would say that we can summarize it by this that Obamacare for sure, but generations of bad health policy have moved Americans away from choice and
competition and quality and in the direction of consolidation and yes in the direction of singlepayer health care. All of this has dramatically increased health care costs. But there are a few bright spots
in the American health care marketplace. Among those are employer sponsor health sponsored health plans that we'll be talking about more in a few minutes, health savings accounts, direct primary care and yes associated health plans. I was happy to say that after years of
working on this in Missouri, the Farm Bureau was able to get a associated health plan bill through the legislature. So I think this is a terrific bill. I thank the chairman for bringing it forward. I'm a proud co-sponsor of this bill and I yield
back. I thank the gentleman. I now recognize the ranking member, Mr. Scott. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, HR 2528, the Association Health Plans Act, is part of a continued partisan effort
to destroy the ACA and increase cost to most consumers to benefit a select few. Um, I think we have to put this bill into con in the context of where we are. We have the lowest percentage of Americans without insurance in the
history of the United States. We ought to look back at what the world was before the Affordable Care Act when most people couldn't if you didn't have job related insurance, you just didn't have insurance. The costs were going up um
with the great rates every year. If you had a pre-existing condition, you didn't have any insurance, your insurance, your your your your plan was don't get sick or if you got sick, you just declare bankruptcy. Uh women and other group women paid higher insurance
premiums uh than men. Now, under the Affordable Care Act, everybody can get health insurance. Uh the most you would be paying is about 8 and a half% of your income. most a lot less than that. Um,
everyone has access to insurance. Um, and it's and again lowest percentage of uninsured in the history of the United States. Over the last six months, um, healthc care has come under threat at a level we haven't seen in years through
legislation uh, pushed by the other side of the aisle. Last month, the partisan big ugly bill passed by one vote and it um included cuts of over $800 billion for Medicaid and additional problems
inflicted on the Affordable Care Act, ripping away insurance coverage for 16 million Americans to fund tax cuts and tax um tax breaks primarily benefiting the wealthy and
corporations. Just a few days ago, the Trump administration finalized a rule that would drown consumers in paperwork and kick millions of eligible people off their ACA coverage. The Association Health Plans Act continues these efforts
through a flawed approach to health insurance. It creates a two-tiered insurance market that would primarily benefit a small number of younger, healthier people while leaving everybody else behind with higher average costs. The ACA relies on the fundamental
principle that everybody should pay a fair rate based on a modified form of community rating where essentially everybody pays the average. This ensures that premiums are reasonable across the entire market including for people who are more than likely to have higher
health care costs and if they can't pay what the average is, there are tax credits to bring the cost down and on when you buy the insurance through over them through the marketplace. If you let people who are younger, healthier and overall
uh cheaper to ensure form their own plans, they might have lower costs for themselves, but the people who are left behind will pay more. That is simple arithmetic. And add insult to injury. If the association plan uh starts um
incurring higher and higher costs, then everybody can bail and get back into the Affordable Care Act marketplace where essentially everybody else paying higher premiums, it's providing backup coverage and that's just not uh that's just not
fair. Mr. Chairman, just this morning, the Senate Help Committee uh released a report on what the Republican reconciliation bill would do. It made two major points. Um one that the number
of uninsured people in some states including Florida, Louisiana, Massachusetts, and Washington State would nearly double. The number of uninsured would nearly double. and another figure that for every millionaire household that gets a tax
break under the bill, 19 people will lose their health insurance. I'd ask that this report be made part of the record. Without objection, it'll be entered. Hearing no objection. Like similar proposals that Republicans have offered during their failed attempt to
repeal the ACA during the first Trump administration, HR 2528 would shift more costs onto workers, particularly those who are older and sicker. while undermining key consumer protections. The bill will allow small employer groups and individuals to join
associations that would be subject to far fewer regulations and traditional health plans. This would harm Americans across the entire insurance market. These associations would be exempt from many consumer protections that apply to individual and small group markets. For
example, these plans would not be required to cover the 10 essential health benefits under the ACA such as emergency services, behavioral health care, prescriptive drugs and maternity and newborn care. The bill would also explicit explicitly permit associations
to set premiums based on specific risk profile of each participating employer. Since the employer joining the association could have as few as two or few employees, this invites price discrimination based on otherwise
impermissible reasons such as gender, age, um health status of employees. This would make it easier for associations to cherrypick small employers with younger and healthier employers employees. Gentleman, I have more to say.
Gentleman's time is expired and I know you have more to say but we have more to do. Okay, the gentleman yields back. Are there any other members who would like to Lucy? There being no further discussion on the
amendment wants to be recognized. For what purpose does the gentle lady from Georgia seek recognition? Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'd like to speak in opposition to the amendment. you're recognized. Thank you so much.
Um, when I talk to my neighbors, my friends, and community members back home, there's no issue that families in this country are more concerned about than the rising costs of their health care. As we work to stabilize costs for both employers and employees, it's
important to consider how this legislation will ultimately impact our workers and their families. Provisions in this bill threaten to break down existing and future guard rails that are intended to preserve affordable health
coverage for hardworking Americans. Like so many in this country, health care is very personal to me. Uh I know it's very personal to me because I'm a two-time breast cancer survivor. I know how it feels to receive that lifethreatening,
life-changing diagnosis and all the questions that swirl in your head. Am I going to be able to survive? Can I pay for my care? What does my treatment look like? And so on. Uh can I take time off from work? And how am I going to provide for my family? And when I was uh
diagnosed both times, I was a single mom at that time. Twice I was diagnosed with breast cancer and twice I was very fortunate and blessed to call myself a survivor. I was able to access the preventive screenings
and the life saving care that I needed because I was lucky enough to have really good coverage and healthc care insurance. It meant that I could put all of my focus on getting well, being with my family, and just fighting my battle with cancer.
But nobody should ever just be lucky enough to be able to have that kind of insurance. Unfortunately, for too many in this country, a lifethreatening diagnosis such as what I had leads to financial debt, medical debt, and even
for those fortunate enough that even actually have insurance. They still end up being in debt. Regulations in the Affordable Care Act, such as essential health benefits, mandate coverage for vital services like emergency care,
maternal and newborn care, and cancer screenings. These essential health benefits protect our patients, their interests, and it reigns in the cost of health care for everyday Americans. This bill would make it easier to bypass
that ACA mandated coverage, would allow health plans to deny coverage, pushing affordable care further and further out of the reach of hardworking Americans. I worry that this bill provides an off-ramp for our health plans without
the necessary guard rails in place to protect patient access and patient care. I came to Congress because I know how expensive health care is for American families because I've been in the system
being cared for. I vowed that if I ever had a seat at the table here in Washington that I would fight tooth and nail to make hair mel make health care more affordable and accessible to everyone in this nation. And that will
always be my north star. I urge my colleagues to consider how the language in this bill will affect patient access and coverage to lifesaving and necessary services.
We must protect basic coverage. That is the American people's right to be healthy. So, no one has to pay higher out-of-pocket costs for necessary services like the life-saving care that I
received when I had breast cancer or the mammograms that I have every single year to prevent my breast cancer from returning. Although I do applaud the efforts to address the rising cost of health care,
we cannot do so at the expense of our patients and their famil family's health. And with that, I yield back the balance of my time. Yes. I'd like to yield to the ranking member. Thank you. Um Mr. um Mr. Mr.
Chairman, this bill would also, continuing my statement, this bill would also explicitly permit associations to set premiums based on specific risk profile of each participating employer since employers joining associations could have as few as two employees. That
could get out of hand. This would make it easier for associations to cherrypick small employers with younger, healthier workforces. So the right that might be a good deal for a select few but those workers uh for the but a bad
deal for those workers who are older sicker then they would remain in the traditional market where they would see the premium skyrocket. Gentleman's time is expired. Mr. Chairman, for what purposes the
gentle lady from North Carolina? I move to strike the last word. You're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And um I I do want to give u yield my time to Mr. Scott. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As I was saying before I was so rudely interrupted, even the first Trump
administration acknowledged as much in its 2018 rule to expand association plans, saying that it will necessarily lead to some favorable risk selection towards association health plans and adverse selection against individual and
small group markets. That means that a few may pay less but a lot will pay more. Additionally, the risks to consumers due to fraudulent and insolvent plans are are significant. Similar arrangements known as multi multiple employer welfare arrangements
or Miwas were frequently underfunded and far more likely to become insolvent than traditional plans. The association plans under the bill would similarly be at risk of fraud and insolvenies that would lead consumers, doctors, hospitals, and cl and health clinics holding the bag
with unpaid bills. In short, this bill is a misguided legislation that will rise costs for most of those left behind, those who cannot get into a plan or posing grave risk to the broader health care system even if they get into a plan because it undermines the
fundamental promise of the ACA and would leave most consumers worse off. I urge my consu I urge my colleagues to oppose the bill and now I yield back. Does the gentleman need any more time? Thank you. Uh are there any others who
wish to speak? There being no others who wish to um speak on this amendment. Are there amen any amendments to be offered? There being no amendments, the question now occurs on the amendment and the nature of a substitute to HR 2528. All in favor
say I. I. All opposed? No. No. In the opinion of chair, the eyes have it. An amendment and the nature of a substitute is agreed to. We'll now move to consider the next We'll now move to consider the next bill.
HR 2988. We will we will suspend for a moment. The committee will now proceed to consideration of the bill HR 2988 for amendment. The bill was circulated in
advance and printed copies are available. Will the clerk designate the bill? HR 2988 a bill to amend the employee retirement income security act of 1974 to specify requirements concerning concerning the consideration of pecunary
and non- pecunary f factors and for other purposes without objection the first reading of the bill is dispensed with without objection the bill will be considered as read and open for amendment at any point and any amendment offered shall be considered as read.
Does anyone seek to be recognized? Representative Allen, for what purpose do you seek recognition? Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk. The clerk shall designate the amendment in the nature of a substitute. Amendment in the nature of a substitute to HR 2988 offered by Mr. Allen of
Georgia, identifier H2988_s. Without objection, the amendment shall be considered original text for purposes of further amendment. The amendment and the nature of a substitute has already been distributed. I now recognize Mr. Ellen for five minutes to explain the amendment and the nature of a
substitute. Uh thank you, Mr. Chairman. HR 2988 will decisively safeguard the financial interest of hardworking American retirees by mandating that retirement savings decisions focused exclusively on economic factors, never ideological or
political agendas. It is time to put a clear stop to the leftist ESGdriven policies and woke activism invading our retirement system. This bill reaffirms Arisa's original intent that retirement plans operate exclusively with an eye to
retirement benefits by maximizing returns and minimizing risk, strictly prohibiting fidiciaries from jeopardizing workers life savings by pushing political or social agendas. Additionally, this legislation enforces protections introduced during the first
Trump administration, requiring fiduciaries to vote proxies associated with retirement savings solely in the financial interest of participants. This will protect retirey savings from being hijacked by external political pressures. This bill also firmly
prohibits discrimination in selecting fidiciaries, investment managers, and service providers based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. Instead, those who manage the retirement savings of others must be prudently selected for their expertise.
Furthermore, this legislation guarantees transparency by requiring plans offering brokerage windows to clearly disclose the risk, elevated fees, and diminished returns potentially associated with investments through a brokerage window. Participants must receive clear notices
detailing the difference between investments selected by a plan fidiciary and those available through brokerage windows. The brokerage window notice is educational and ensures that retirement investors may make make informed decisions that protect their financial
future. As we close the book on bodnomics and it's reckless spending, economic uncert uncertainty and soaring costs, we can we cannot afford to let woke ideology chip away at the retirement security of American workers.
Retirement funds should be uh should build wealth, not fund political agendas. I urge my colleagues to support HR2988, the protecting prudent investment of retirement savings act, and I stand with American workers and retirees against
political interference in their retirement savings. The amendment in the nature of a substitute is technical in nature and makes no substantive change to the legislation. With that, I yel back. I thank the gentlemen. Are there any members who wish to be recognized for
further discussion on the amendment and the nature of a substitute? I recognize the uh ranking member, gentleman from Virginia. Thank you, M. Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, ESG investing is about risk mitigation. It's accepted particularly among financial
services industry that retirement plans should be able to consider investments that account for companies downside risks such as fossil fuel dependent practices or poor treatment of workers. These are among the factors that would cause stocks to suffer over decades
which is precisely the time horizon that retirement uh accounts would be interested in. And to be clear, consideration of ESG factors is entirely consistent with the maximizing returns for retirement investors. Black Rockck,
which is the world's largest asset manager, has stated that it's in a quote investment conviction that incorporating sustainability related factors, which are often characterized and grouped into ESG categories, into investment
decisions can provide better risk adjustment returns to investors over the long term. unquote. I am not sure why it is so controversial for retirement plan professionals to appropriately consider ESG related investments. That's
precisely what the Biden era ESG rule does. It simply permits consideration of ESG related investments. It does not put its thumb on the scale. It does not mandate investments in ESG funds. As my colleagues know, the the bid era ESG
rule was upheld twice by a federal district court and the judge who upheld it was nominated by President Trump. Unfortunately, HR 2988 reflects a clear misunderstanding about ESG investing in retirement savings. First, it codifies
the first Trump administration's ESG rule. This rule required retirement plan fiduciaries to distinguish between so-called pecunary and non-punerary factors such as ESG when making investment decisions. If a non-precary
investment was chosen, the plan fiduciary would have to document the basis for selecting it. Such a paperwork requirement isn't necessary for other other retirement investments. This is an unworkable framework because all investments inherently include pecunary
and non-punerary features. For example, let's say a real estate fund that appears to have short-term pecunary value for its participants, but the properties are near the shoreline and subject to rising sea levels over the long term that should be considered
non-prepunary in in nature. The Trump era ESG rule puts a needless constraint on the fiduciary's ability to weigh to weigh the full scope of this kind of investment and that's not in the best interest of the retirement savers. For these reasons and others, many
retirement and financial industry professionals have expressed serious concerns with or outright opposition to the Trump era ESG rule when it was proposed. And let's consider this rule in light of the new Trump proposal that
greenlights crypto investments in retirement accounts. HR 98 2988 also codifies a rule for the first Trump administration related to proxy voting. Retirement savings plans covered
by Orisa likely have stocks as part of their investment portfolio. notice. Just like all shareholders, the plan fiduciaries are eligible to vote on matters pertaining to electing the board of directors, executive compensation, shareholder proposals, and ch such
voting often occurs by proxy. The labor department periodically issued guidance on proxy voting, but has remained consistent over the decades that voting proxy is pertinent to the plan's investment is a fiduciary duty. Among the stakeholders, this was clearly
understood. And when it came to proxy voting and retirement plans, there was no problem that needed to be solved. However, in 2020, uh the Trump administration issued a rule stating that fiduciaries were not required to vote all proxies established safe har
and established safe harbors permitting fiduciaries to limit or refrain from voting in certain situations. This rule also imposed honorous recordkeeping requirements and monitoring obligations regard regarding the exercise of
shareholder rights. The rule uh would have had a chilling effect disenfranchising retirement plan fiduciaries from exercising the shareholder rights uh on behalf of workers. So we should not be codifying it. HR 2988 also undermines efforts to
increase diversity among asset managers which is a worthwhile goal because only 1.4% 4% of the 82 trillion dollars in global assets under management is managed by the by women or minority owned firms according to the GAO. J redo
data from 1992 to 2009 and found no significant performance difference between female and male managed firms and also reviewed data from 1991 to 2019 and found no significant difference in the performance between white and
minority managers. Finally, 20 HR 2988 requires a notice each time a participant makes an investment into or out of brokerage window investments. As my colleagues know, a brokerage window is a feature of 401k uh 401k plans that
allows participants to invest in a broader array of investments that the designated investment alternative options selected by the plan fiduciaries. Does anyone wish to yield time to the ranking member? Um,
Mr. Chairman, I recognize the gentle lady from North Strike word the last word and I want to yield that time to Mr. Scott. Thank you. Thank you. And as I was saying, um, as
my colleagues know, brokerage window is a feature of 401k plans and allow participants to invest in a broader aware investments that the designated investment alternative options uh, selected by the plan fiduciaries. Clearly, there's a bipartisan interest in ensuring workers receive appropriate
notices and disclosures regarding their retirement savings. I agree that it's important for them to be informed, particularly about fees they're paying, about their investments. But this notice appears to be intended to discourage participants from using the brokerage window only to further the committee
Republicans anti-ESG agenda, not to solve a real problem. So I urge my colleagues to join me in opposing HR 2988 and enter the following items into the record. a letter uh opposition letter spearheaded by the American
Americans for Financial Reform and signed by over 30 organizations, an opposition letter from the nonprofit uh SE series and a statement of opposition from the US Sustainable Investment Forum. Without objection, the uh and and
another letter from the AFL CIO Legislative Alert. Without objection, the letters will be submitted. I yield back. I thank the gentleman. Are there any other members who wish to speak? I recognize gentle lady from Georgia, Miss
Mcmath. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I wish to speak in opposition to the amendment. You're recognized. Thank you. Instead of ensuring that every American have access to retirement, a retirement plan that actually works for them, our
House Republicans would rather push bills that have more to do with our culture wars than actually helping people save enough to live a dign dignified life after they retire. If Republicans wanted to support Americans in their retirement years,
they would protect Medicare and they protect Social Security and not call them entitlements. If they really wanted to protect Americans from having to unexpectedly go back to the work, go back to work in their 70s or the 80s,
they would protect and expand Social Security benefits, not blame these popular programs for their own party's financial mismanagement. Americans pay for Social Security and Medicare benefits in each of their
paychecks every month. They earn them every single day at work. And it is dishonest to say otherwise. Calling these programs entitlements is a Republican tactic to try to trick the American people into believing that your
social security isn't your social security at all. They are trying to convince you that the pay that you give up every single month really doesn't belong to you. It is an attempt by House Republicans to
break the promises made to you by your government for generations. These programs were never meant to be America's sole retirement plans, but that unfortunately is a reality for almost half of our population here in
the United States. The Congressional Research Service put out a report earlier this year showing that almost half of Americans have no savings at all in a retirement account, which I would like to submit digitally
for the record. There is so much that we could be doing to help Without objection, it'll be proceeded. Thank you. There's so much that we could be doing to help Americans reach retirement instead of what we're considering here today. We could and we
should be spending this time right now doing more to ensure that every full-time employee has access to a retirement plan, especially those who rely on wages instead of a set salary monthly. So many people in this country want to
set themselves up for a good retirement, me included, but have no access to a plan because their jobs simply don't offer them. Instead of taking up a bill that will do nothing to increase access to retirement plans, we should be
spending this time reducing barriers and making it easier for all employers to offer a plan that will help every American retire when and how they want to. I encourage my colleagues to oppose
this legislation and for all of us here to refocus our efforts on finding solutions that will truly make Americans lives easier. And I yield. I thank the gentle lady. Are there any
other members who wish to speak to the ANS? Are there any members who would like to offer amendments? There being no amendments, the question now occurs on the amendment and the nature of a substitute to HR 2988.
All in favor say I. I. All oppose? No. No. In the opinion of the chair, the eyes have it and the amendment and the nature of substitute is agreed to. Pursuant to the previous order, the chair declares the committee in recess. Subject to the call of the chair will
plan to reconvene promptly at 1:30 p.m. Thank you. The committee now stands in recess. We'll hereby call this committee back to order. The committee will now proceed with consideration of the bill HR2571
for amendment. The bill was circulated in advance and printed copies are available. The clerk clerk shall designate the bill. HR 2571, a bill to amend the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974
to exclude from the definition of health insurance coverage certain medical stop-loss insurance obtained by certain plan sponsors of group health plans and for other purposes. Without objection, the first reading of the bill will be dispensed with. Without objection, the bill will be
considered as read and open for amendment at any point, and any amendment offered shall be considered as read. I now recognize myself to offer an amendment in the nature of a substitute. The clerk shall designate the amendment in the nature of a substitute.
Amendment in the nature of a substitute to HR271, offered by Mr. Ander of Missouri, identifier HR2571_s. Without objection, the amendment shall be considered original text for purposes of further amendment. The amendment in the nature of a substitute has already
been distributed. I now recognize myself for five minutes to explain the amendment in the nature of a substitute. HR271 ensures that employers who self-insure have access to a critical financial tool, stop-loss insurance. Many
employers choose to self-insure because they can customize plans in their workforce and fit the unique needs of their employees. These plans, of course, are self-insured plans governed by federal law, the Orisa Act of 1974.
These are very popular plans among the insured with 75% of the insured reporting satisfaction with these plans. However, when employers choose to self-insure, they take on greater financial risk. That is why many
employers, large and small, also purchase stop-loss insurance to provide a financial backs stop and protect against catastrophic claims expenses. Unfortunately, in recent years, some states have taken action that could
regulate these plans out of existence. States such as New York New York have prohibited small employers from purchasing stop-loss plans. And for years, some have tried regulating these plans as traditional health insurance, which clearly they are not. HR271
makes it clear that stop-loss plans are not health insurance and reaffirms long-standing practices that allow self-insured small businesses to use this vital financial tool. Small businesses have a right to self-insure in the same way large employers do. By
approving this bill, we can give small businesses the security they need to continue to provide high quality quality affordable coverage to their employees. The amendment in the nature of a substitute makes technical changes to the bill. I urge the committee to adopt
it and report the bill. And with that, I um Are there any members who wish to be recognized for further discussion on the amendment in the nature of the substitute? Mr. Chairman, um I recognize
the ranking member, Mr. Scott, for five minutes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, like the Associated Health Plans Act, the Self- Insurance Protection Act is another effort to undermine the historic progress we've made under the Affordable Care Act. It would create loopholes that would leave
most Americans worse off, but it might help a select few. Most Americans would be left worse off and it would be it would create rising costs throughout the broader healthcare insurance market. When combined with the Trump administr with the actions
um the Trump administration is taking uh we will notice that millions of Americans will lose their um uh coverage through through their final rule and the majority's refusal to extend the inflation reduction act tax credits
uh will cost many millions their insurance coverage and a reconciliation bill that CBO has scored. is leaving 16 million consumers uninsured. It's not hard to see that these combined efforts are anything but an attempt to repeal
the ACA by another name. Stop-loss insurance is not inherently problematic. It's a form of insurance that self-funded group plans may wish to purchase in order to mitigate the financial risk of expensive health claims. When used appropriately for this
limited purpose, it's a reasonable insurance product that is subject to oversight by state insurance officials and consumer protection laws. However, experts have noted a rise in the so-called level funded health plans in recent years in which stop-loss mimics
traditional health care insurance without following the rules that would ordinarily apply. These arrangements allow an employer to have it both ways. they enjoy lacks regulation of being self-insured while transferring the financial risk to an insurance company. This means, for example, the plan does
not need to cover essential health benefits such as emergency services, maternity and newborn care, mental health and substance abuse disorder treatment and prescriptive drugs. I'm deeply concerned that this legislation would expand the prevalence
of abuse of liver funed plans and make it essentially impossible for state and federal regulators to take needed action to protect consumers. HR 2571 would preclude, for example, the Department of Labor from regulating stop
loss as insurance coverage, even when it is designed in a manner that would deliberately mimic health insurance coverage. While this would have little little immediate effect, the impact of this change could be felt in the future if the Department of Labor determines that
regulations are needed to rein in health insurance that masquerades a stop-loss. Second, the bill takes a dramatic step to undermine the authority of health insurance regulators who wish to re in abusive practices in the stop-loss market. It amends Orisa's preeemption
provision to impose a sweeping prohibition on states that wish to enact laws that could prevent the sale of stop-loss insurance. States such as New York, North Carolina, Delaware, and others have already applied reasonable requirements to make sure stop-loss uh
sold in their states serves its intended purpose in mitigating financial risk with not serving as a workaround from vital consumer protection laws. This bill will upend this regulatory framework and validate state laws while preventing other states from enacting
similar laws in the future. Moreover, this could call into question virtually any state regulation of state law of stop loss, potentially even blocking states from applying vital solveny requirements on stop-loss insurance so they don't go belly up after one large
claim. Should a stop-loss insurance become insolvent, consumers, health providers, and employers can all face devastating financial losses. Finally, as we as with the health association plans,
um the creating a system where plans could cherrypick healthier individuals and segment the insurance market could raise costs and leave behind older and sicker people. This would undermine the stability of the individual and small market small markets throughout the
country leaving individuals enrolled into traditional plans in the ACA marketplaces with higher premiums. So I urge my colleagues to oppose the bill. Are there any you back? Are there any members who wish
to be recognized for further discussion on the amendment in the nature of a substitute? The chair recognizes m uh the gentle lady from North Carolina, Miss Adams. Would anyone else uh like to speak on
this amendment? There being no further discussion on the amendment in the nature of a substitute, the committee will move to consideration of amendments. Are there any members who would like to offer amendments? There being no amendments, the question now occurs on the amendment in the
nature of a substitute to HR 2571. All in favor say I. I. All oppose? No. No. In the opinion of the chair, the eyes have it and the amendment in the nature of a substitute is agreed to.
We now move to cons to consider the next bill. Briefly suspend. Um we will now briefly suspend this hearing. The committee will now proceed to consideration of the bill HR 3170 for
amendment. The bill was circulated in advance and printed copies are available. The clerk shall designate the bill. HR 3170, a bill to amend chapter 81 of title 5 United States Code to cover for purposes of workers compensation under
such chapter services by physicians, physician assistants and nurse practitioners provided to injured federal federal workers and for other purposes. Without objection, the first reading of the bill is dispensed with. Without objection, the bill will be considered as read and open for amendment at any point and any amendment
offered shall be considered as read. I now recognize myself to offer an amendment in a nature of a substitute. The clerk will designate the amendment in a nature of a substitute. Amendment in the nature of a substitute to HR 3170 offered by Mr. Wahberg of Michigan
identifier HR 3170_s. Without objection, amendment shall be considered. Original text for purposes of further amendment. The amendment in the nature of a substitute has already been distributed. I now recognize myself for five minutes to explain the
amendment in the nature of a substitute to HR 3170, the Improving Access to Workers Compensation for Injured Federal Workers Act. I'd like to begin by thanking my friend and colleague, Congressman Joe Courtney,
for his partnership for a long time in this important bipartisan legislation. HR 3170 is about expanding health care providers options for injured workers who qualify for benefits under the Federal Employees Compensation Act,
FICA. When a worker is sick or injured, he or she should have the choice to see the health care provider that best fits his or her needs, including nurse practitioners and physic physician associates. Unfortunately, under current law,
injured workers under the FICA program do not have that option. Currently, only a physician can diagnose, certify, and oversee the treatment of an injured federal worker receiving benefits. Frankly, this requirement is out of touch with modern health care delivery.
Across the country, nurse practitioners, physician assistants have become lynchpins in providing access to timely health care. This is especially true in rural communities where an approved physician might not be within a reasonable distance. It's also true um
in more urban areas where there's there can be a long waiting times to see a physician and delay their time to recover. Our bill fixes this outdidated requirement by simply allowing NPs and PAs to care for injured federal employees under FICA so long as that
care is within their scope of practice under state law. Let me be clear, this bill is not Washington dictating a state's scope of practice laws. I would not support this bill if that were the case. Rather, HR 3170 promotes
federalism by deferring to state laws regarding the allowed scope of practice. A majority of states already allow NPs and PAs to diagnose and certify injuries and oversee patients treatments and care under their state workers compensation
programs. So, it's time that federal government allow injured federal workers in these states to be treated by MPs and PAs within the scope of practice under state law. I've heard many stories over the years about why this legislation is necessary. I've heard the story of an
individual who sustained a back injury, was unable to travel, and could not find an OWCP approved physician. that individual ended up taking on large amounts of debt because he or she could only get care from nonOWCP providers.
I've heard another story of an individual in Washington state who suffered a minuscule tear. The claim was denied by OWCP because the initial medical report was signed by a PA. that worker had to wait nearly 10 months for the report to be co-signed by a
physician without any changes. And there are many more stories of injured workers having to drive over a 100 miles or have care delayed because there are no DO approved doctors in the area or the doctors who have registered with DO are
no longer accepting FICA patients. This is also a concern for our military veterans who make up a large percentage of the federal workforce. Making it harder for them to find a medical provider is unacceptable. Again, HR 3170
is about increasing choice and access to care. when it was scored by the Congressional Budget Office last Congress. Not only did CBO state the bill would have no impact on the federal budget, but CBO also noted that some people may receive treatment more
quickly under the bill and may return to work more quickly, reducing costs in some cases. I would like to thank Congressman Courtney again for his co co-leership on this bill, as well as the many members of this committee who have supported it. I urge all members to
support this bipartisan common sense bill and I yield back my time. Are there any members who wish to be recognized for further discussion on the amendment in the nature of a substitute? Mr. Chairman, I recognize my uh co-sponsor and colleague, the
representative from Connecticut, Mr. Courtney. Thank you uh Mr. Chairman. I move to strike the last word. And um again, I want to thank you uh for again your really persistent, diligent um leadership on this bill and also for
bringing the bill out early in the 119th Congress. This is at least our third uh push in terms of getting this bill fast and we have actually gotten it passed through the house. But um you know, obviously time gets to be the enemy sometimes in terms of getting the upper chamber to follow suit. So again,
getting this bill moving uh quickly, I think is really um helpful and important. Uh again, I think you've explained the the bill uh quite well. I mean, in its simplest terms, it it it's a straightforward uh bipartisan bill that will strike some of the barriers
federal workers face seeking treatment and care after they're injured on the job. We hear um from our districts about the real shortage of health care providers um and again not just in rural areas but uh even suburban and urban areas and that's really I think the the
driving force why it's important that Congress surgically and intelligently reform outdated antiquated policies in place that prevent qualified providers from treating patients who need their highquality care. This bill achieves that goal for federal employees who need
treatment for workplace injuries by allowing nurse practitioners and physician assistants to treat those patients and be reimbursed under the federal employees compensation act. Um again in 2025 uh there just the reality of um nurse practitioners and PAs is
something that all of us uh experience uh you know in in both primary care and even um more specialized care. So it it is really um well past time for for us to move forward uh on this uh legislation. And to footstep your point,
it's not going to expand the scope of practice. Um again, it's tailored so that uh nurse practitioners in and physician assistants would continue to practice under the existing parameters of their state license. But what it will do is remove a prohibition from participation in FICA and align
FICA's program um for for NPs and PAs in the way that they're treated today in other federal health programs from the Veterans Administration to Medicare to the Indian Health and Service. Medicare first allowed nurse practitioners to bill um the system directly in 1997. So,
uh I think again the the roof didn't fall in uh you know when that uh change took place and and I think u we we should all have you know strong confidence that um this this bill um is not going to in any um way um cause any
harm uh to the system. In fact, it's the opposite in terms of allowing patients um to to access health care after an injury. Again, like you said, we we have ample record in the committee uh from uh people from all across the country who
uh had to you know travel out of state um you know had delays in terms of you know critical appointments. I mean we're talking about workers compensation. We're talking about people accessing uh cash benefits uh as well as um getting evaluations and uh comp ratings. So you
know this is for a lot of people time is the enemy and time is money. So, it is really important to to make sure that people get timely care and that's exactly what this bill uh will achieve. It's endorsed by the American Association of Nurse Practitioners, the American Academy of Physician
Assistance, as well as a diverse coalition of unions representing federal employees such as the National Treasury Employees Union, National Postal Mail Handlers in the American Federation of Government Employees. As I said, it's one it's passed in the House with
bipartisan support in prior years and um hopefully we'll we'll move this bill quickly to achieve the same goal. Um Mr. Chairman, I'd like to submit a few letters of support for the record from uh AAPA and P and the National Rural Health Association.
Without objection, they are received. Great. And again, I want to just thank you uh again as lead sponsor of this bill for your support and bringing this issue uh forward today in a timely fashion. And with that, I yield back. I thank the gentleman. Now recognize gentleman from Pennsylvania, Represent
McKenzie. Thank you, Chairman Wahberg. I appreciate the fact that you have not only introduced but also brought up this legislation today. The improving access to workers compensation for injured federal workers act will positively
impact the outcomes for injured federal workers all across our country. And we recently had a hearing in our workforce protection subcommittee which I chair where this particular problem was raised, the possible solution was talked about and stakeholders across the
spectrum recognized that this legislation could be one way that we can improve outcomes for injured workers. And so uh as we go through the process of reforming the Federal Employees Compensation Act, this is a great first step that we can actually uh actually
get into law. I believe this is something that we can actually get passed into law where we can actually again improve the outcomes for injured federal workers. We want to see them get access to the care that they need. And this unnecessary restraint by saying
that they can only visit a physician is passive for change. And so by introducing the opportunity for nurse practitioners and physicians assistance to participate in the care of injured workers provides and broadens that access that we're looking for. hopefully
getting them the care that they need and improving return to work time so that they can get back to a healthy productive life that they would like to lead and we would love to have them as a part of our workforce. So these are really positive reforms. I think the bipartisan support uh that we have seen
for this legislation not only since its introduction but here in committee today uh gives me great confidence that not only will we get it through the house but also uh the opportunity to get it passed through the Senate and get it into law. So, I would again like to thank the chairman for bringing up this legislation uh and advocate a yes vote
from all my colleagues uh for this legislation which will improve the access to healthcare for injured federal workers. Thank you again and I yield back. I thank the chairman of workforce protections. Now, I recognize the gentle lady from North Carolina, Miss Adams. Thank you, Mr. Mr. Chairman. I move to
strike the last word, speak in support of the bill. You're recognized. Uh, I do want to speak in favor of HR 3170, um, improving access to workers federal compensation act. First, I want to thank the chairman and my colleague from
Connecticut for coming together coming together to introduce this common sense bipartisan legislation. Uh, almost 8,000 federal workers live in North Carolina's 12th district, many of whom are postal workers. Uh, and I don't know if you've
been outside in the past few days, Mr. Chairman, uh, but it is dangerously hot. Uh, as summers get hotter, we we're going to see more and more federal workers, more and more postal employees injured on the job. And many of these workers live in rural areas, and they
don't have immediate access to a doctor. Uh, in many rural areas, nurse practitioners and physician assistants are the only accessible care providers. But under current law, when federal workers get injured on the job, they can only seek care from a doctor. Physician
assistants and nurse practitioners are are well qualified to treat injured federal workers. Uh Medicare has allowed nurse practitioners and physician assistants to build directly for for almost 30 years. the federal government
compensation acts exclusion of physician assistants and nurse practitioners is really outdated and and it's really cruel. So let's be honest about it. Federal workers have suffered long enough in the last few months. So when you're injured on the job, you should
not have to drive hundreds of miles to seek care when there is a qualified physician assistant or a nurse practitioner right in your own backyard. I just learned about a federal worker from Creedmore, North Carolina, who who would need to travel 150 miles just to
get a second opinion on on a medical exam. Many federal workers, primary care providers are physician assistants, which means that when they get injured on the job, a time when they should be resting and recovering, they have to go through the difficult process of finding
a new doctor. Federal workers uh dedicate their careers and their talents to serving their country. They are the backbone of of our nation and when they get injured serving our constituents, they deserve access to high quality care
without having to find a new care provider or travel across their state. Uh, in North Carolina, we have over 9,000 physician assistants, over a thousand who serve in rural areas, and they're ready to help. Federal workers
have our back, so we should have theirs as well. I urge my colleagues to support this common sense bill, and I certainly support it and appreciate uh the chair and the and the and my colleague from Connecticut for sponsoring it. I urge my colleagues to support this common sense
bill, and Mr. Chairman, I yield back. I thank the gentle lady and I recognize a gentle lady from Georgia, Miss McBath. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, I'm just really grateful and thankful. Um, first I'd like to speak in support of this piece of legislation, HR 3170.
And, uh, I'm just really grateful and thankful to both you and to Representative Courtney. It's a really good piece of legislation, which is really, really long overdue. Um, this bill will bridge a health care gap that patients face around the country. It
will ensure that public servants living in both rural and urban areas have access to the care that they need when they need it. We are facing a serious shortage of medical providers in my home state of Georgia. And outside of metro
Atlanta, the problems are getting even worse. Almost half of the counties in Georgia are currently without an emergency medicine physician and over 40 do not even have an intern internal
medical doctor. For people living in Webster, Montgomery, or Chattahuchi counties, or these six other counties in my state that have no physicians at all, the current restrictions on reimbursements for sick patients to travel long
distance to receive care that could be afforded by providers closer closer to home. Um we just need to make sure that this uh in particular in Georgia is an issue that is um directly um
directly addressed. It directly impacts a lot of people in my state, a lot of the citizens here, but it's not just an issue that's specific only to Georgia. As our country struggles with nationwide provider shortage, so many Americans,
especially those in our rural communities, they are really simply being left behind. But the area you live in should not actually dictate how long you live or the kind of care that you get. It should not determine how long
you have to drive for the necessary and routine treatments that you need. It should not control how long you have to wait for oftentimes life-saving care that you need. When you are sick, all you should worry about is getting well
and feeling better. Right now, our federal workers are experiencing delays in care because of an outdated rule, one that fails to account for the shortages that these patients are experiencing on the ground and in their communities.
This bill updates the language and it removes the red tape that limits access to health care for our public servants. This bill gives patients more options to access providers that are already
available in their communities. And this bill gives patients back their precious time. Time not spent driving for hours in a car. time not spent worrying about when they will be able to
see their health care provider next. It gives patients more time to recover in the comfort of their own home, more time with their families and more time in their communities. It means more independence and a better quality of
life for them. It means more peace of mind for our public servants who have spent their lives giving back to our country. I applaud Representatives Courtney and Wahberg for coming together to address this very, very critical and important
issue and I hope that we can get this passed into law this Congress and I look forward to supporting the bill not only here in committee today but eventually on the floor. Thank you for the good work and I yield back the balance of my time. I thank the gentle lady. Now I
recognize the gentle lady from Oregon, Miss Banabichi. Uh thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um I'm just want to speak in favor of HR 3170 uh in support of this bill, the improving access to workers compensation for injured federal workers act. And I
thank Chair Wahlberg, Representative Courtney, and all the other bipartisan co-sponsors of this important legislation. My home state of Oregon has long recognized the important role of nurse practitioners and physicians assistance in providing care within
their scope of practice uh in urban areas but also in suburban and rural areas where sometimes access is a challenge. uh and in Oregon and people with a workers's compensation claim have been able to see nurse practitioners and
physic physicians assistance assistance unless they were an injured federal worker. So this bill, this important bill will close those gaps and increase access so that federal workers with a workers's compensation claim can also have that access to health care. uh that
is uh very very important when we're talking about you know our our federal workforce and people who do uh great work for the country. They deserve to have that access to healthcare. So I get just again want to speak in support of this important bipartisan bill. Um I hope we can get it to the floor and I
look forward to voting for it and hope that we can have it signed into law. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and I yield back. I thank the gentle lady. Now I recognize the ranking member, Mr. Scott. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, Judge just want to reemphasize just a couple of points. First, in many
areas, especially rural and low-income areas, physicians assistants and nurse practitioners are the only ones the only available providers uh seeing patients and seeing a physician can involve long
distances and long waits. Uh second is this is the same service uh same same service available to patients treated pursuant to state workers compensation laws and many other programs and
insurance policies. And third, as you pointed out, we are not overriding state law on scope of practice. The physicians assistants and nurse practitioners can only provide services pursuant to the state law scope of practice. So, I want
to thank uh you, Mr. Chairman, and the gentleman from Connecticut for your leadership. We've got it passed before. Let's do it again. From your lips to God's ears. Are there any others that wish to speak on the on on the legislation?
Seeing none, are there any members who would like to offer amendments? There being no amendments, the question now occurs on the amendment in the nature of a substitute to HR 3170. All in favor say I. I. All oppose, no.
In the opinion of the chair, the eyes have it and the amendment in the nature of the substitute is agreed to. Pursuant to the previous order, the chair declares the committee in recess. Subject call of the chair. We expect to reconvene promptly at 2:30.
Uh thank you. So the committee now stands in recess. Hallelujah. Yeah. Yeah, I know. I'm working on it. Welcome. While we're uh waiting for a couple members to get here, I I don't
want to don't want to waste our our time. So, let's let's be proactive here. We have the privilege of having some uh good friends, constituents of our uh chairwoman Ammeritus
uh who are here from Ash County. Uh, we have the chairman of the board of education and his wife Holly and and help me Josh. I'm not uh Holly and Josh Roen. We
appreciate you being here. Also, Teresa Calhoun who's a member of the Ash County Board of Education. So, you're in the education workforce committee today and we thank you for being participants in
the great endeavor of educating our next generation and beyond. The committee will uh reconvene and come to order following our recess. We'll proceed to postpone requests for recorded votes. We will now be voting on two amendments
to the amendment in the nature of a substitute to HR 3453. The amendment offered by Miss Bonamichi titled Banamichi_036. A recorded vote is requested. Make sure that you turn on your voting
card or tool. So, it's ready to go. Device recording device. It's a tool in my hand, but it's a device in yours. Okay. A recorded vote is requested for Miss
Bonamichi SL36. Members will record their votes using the electronic voting system. The chairman intends to vote no. Thank you. Member intends to vote yes. The clerk will open the board.
I'm not the only one. There we go. I'm not expecting. Have all members been recorded who wish to be recorded? Do any members wish to change their vote? Hearing none, will the clerk please
close the vote and announce the tally? Mr. Chairman, on this vote there are 15 yays and 19 nays. The amendment is not adopted. We now move to the second amendment.
Scott of Virginia under slash 29. Recorded vote is requested. Members will record their votes using electronic voting system. The chairman intends to vote no. Ranking member vote yes. The
clerk will open the board. Have all members been recorded who wish to be recorded? Do any members wish to change their votes? Hearing none, will the clerk please close the vote and announce the tally? Mr. Chairman, on this vote, there are 15
yays and 20 nazs. The amendment is not adopted. The amendment is not adopted. The question now occurs on the amendment in the nature of a substitute to HR 3453.
All in favor say I. I. All oppose? No. No. In the opinion of the chair, the eyes have it and the amendment and the nature of a substitute is agreed to. I hereby move that the committee report the bill HR 3453 to the House of
Representatives with amendment and with the recommendation that the amendment be agreed to and the bill do pass. The question now occurs on the chair's motion. All in favor say I. I. All oppose. No. No. In the opinion of chair,
the eyes have it and the motion is agreed to. Recorder vote. A recorded vote is requested. Members will record their votes using the electronic voting system. The chairman intends to vote I. Ranking member tends to vote no.
The clerk will open the vote. Have all members been recorded who wish to be recorded? Do any members wish to change their vote? Hearing none, will the clerk please close the board and vote uh the vote announce the tally? Mr. Chairman, on
this vote, there are 20s and 15 nays. The eyes have it and the motion is agreed to. HR 3453 as amended and the accompanying material shall be transmitted to the House of Representatives. The chair notes for the record that a quorum is present.
I hereby move that the committee report the bill HR 2516 to the House of Representatives with amendment and with recommendation that the amendment be agreed to and the bill do pass. The question now occurs on the chair's motion. All in favor say I. I all
oppose. No. No. In the opinion of the chair, the eyes have it and the motion is agreed to. A record ro roll call is requested. Members will record their votes using the electronic voting system. The chairman intends to vote I. Thank you.
Member just vote no. The clerk will open the vote. Have all members been recorded who wish to be recorded? Do any members wish to change their vote? Hearing none, will the clerk please close the vote and announce the tally?
Mr. Chairman, on this vote, there are 21 yays and 15 naysay. The eyes have it and the motion is agreed to. HR 2516 as amended and the accompanying material shall be transmitted to the House of Representatives. The chair notes for the record that a quorum is present. I
hereby move that the committee report the bill HR 4054 to the House of Representatives with amendment and with the recommendation that the amendment be agreed to and the bill do pass. The question now occurs on the chair's motion. All in favor say I. I. All
oppose. No. No. In the opinion of the chair, the eyes have it and the motion is agreed to. Recorded vote. Recorded vote is requested. Uh members will record their votes using the electronic voting system. The chairman intends to vote I. Thank you. Member intends to
vote no. Please open the vote. Have all members been recorded who wish to be recorded? Do any members wish to change their vote? Hearing none, will the clerk please close the vote and announce the tally? Mr. Chairman, on this vote, there
are 21 yays and 15 nazs. The eyes have it and the motion is agreed to. HR 4054 as amended and the accompanying materials shall be transmitted to the House of Representatives. The chair notes for the record that a quorum is present. I hereby move that the
committee report the bill HR 2528 to the House of Representatives with amendment and with the recommendation that the amendment be agreed to and the bill do pass. The question now occurs on the chair's motion. All in favor say I. I.
All opposed. No. In the opinion the chairs of the chair the eyes have it and the motion is agreed to. Vote recorded vote is requested. Members will record their votes using the electronic voting system. The chairman intends to vote I.
Thank you. Member vote no. Please open the vote. Have all members been recorded who wish to be recorded? Do any members wish to change their vote? Hearing none, will the clerk please close the
the vote and announce the tally? Mr. Chairman, on this vote, there are 21 nays and 15 nazs. Thank you. The eyes have it and the motion is agreed to HR 2528 as amended and the accompanying material shall be transmitted to the House of Representatives. The chair
notes that the record for the record that the quorum is present. I hereby move that the committee report the bill HR 2988 to the House of Representatives with amendment and with the recommendation that the amendment be agreed to and the bill do pass. The question now occurs on the chair's
motion. All in favor say I. I. All oppose. No. No. In the opinion of chair, the eyes have it and the motion is agreed to. Vote. Recorded vote is requested. Members will record their votes using the electronic voting system. The chairman intends to vote I.
Thank you. Member vote now. Open the vote, please. Have all members recorded who wish to be recorded? Do any members wish to change their vote? Hearing none, will the clerk please close the vote and announce a tally? Mr.
Chairman, on this vote, there are 21 yays and 15 nazs. The eyes have it and the motion is agreed to HR 2988 as amended and the company materials shall be transmitted to the House of Representatives. The chair notes for the record that a quorum is present. I
hereby move that the committee report the bill HR271 to the House of Representatives with amendment and with recommendation that the amendment be agreed to and the bill do pass. The question now occurs on the chair's motion. All in favor say I. I.
All oppose, no. In the opinion of the chair, the eyes have it and the motion is agreed to. A vote. Recorded vote is requested. Members will record their votes using electronic voting system. The chairman intends to vote I. Thank you. No. Open the vote, please.
Have all the members who wish to be recorded been recorded? Do any members wish to change their vote? Hearing none, will the clerk please close the vote and announce the tally? Mr. Chairman, on this vote, there are 21
yays and 15 nazs. The eyes have it and the motion is agreed to. HR 2571 as as amended and the company material shall be transmitted to the House of Representatives. The chair notes for the record that a quorum is present.
I hereby move that the committee report the bill HR 3170 to the House of Representatives with amendment and with the recommendation that the amendment be agreed to and the bill do pass. The question now occurs on the chair's motion. All in favor say I. I. All
oppose. No. How sweet it is. In opinion of the chair, the eyes have it and the motion is agreed to. Record a vote. Record a vote is requested. Members will record their votes using the electronic voting system. The chairman intends to vote I. And the
ranking member intends to vote I. Thank you. Uh, please open the vote. Have all members been recorded who wish to be recorded? Do any members wish to change their vote? Hearing none, will the clerk please
close the vote and announce the tally? Mr. Chairman, on this vote there are 34 yays and zero nays. The eyes have it and the motion is agreed to. HR 3170 as amended and the company material shall be transmitted to the House of Representatives. The chair notes for the
record that a quorum is present. Privilege, Mr. Chairman. Yes. I just want to thank you for the wonderful barbecue. It was great. Well, I tell you what, the the committee moves on its stomach
many times. So, we're glad to be bipartisan there. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Yes. Uh, Mr. Scott, all of the bills we plan to um issue minority bills. That's so noted. I ask unanimous consent that staff be
authorized to make necessary technical and conforming changes to today's bills. Without objection, so ordered. Pursuant to House Rule 11, clause 2L. I give notice that all members have the requisite number of days to file supplemental minority additional or
desending views. Without objection, so ordered. Without objection, any members who wish to insert materials into the record may do so by submitting them to the committee clerk electronically by the end of the day today. If there is no further business before the committee
without objection the committee stands adjourned.