The committee will please come to order. A quorum is present. The committee meets today pursuant to notice to consider five bills. The chair announces that requests for recorded votes may be postponed pursuant 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. Good morning and welcome to the committee on education and workforce. Today, the committee will mark up HR8736,
restoration of employment choice for adults with disabilities act, HR8705, Civics and History Advancement to Restore Learning Integrity and Education Act, HR 7362,
Form 5500, Filing Simplification Act, HR 7895, PBM Kickback Prohibition Act, and HR 8684 4 transparency in billing act which takes the prize for the shortest
title. HR8736 restoration of employment choice for adults with disabilities act introduced by Representative Glenn Gothman will increase employment opportunities for people with disabilities. In 2025,
nearly 80% of people with disabilities were unemployed according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. And the unemployment rate for people with disabilities was more than double that of those without disabilities. For people with intellectual and
developmental disabilities, some estimates place unemployment rates near 20%. At a time when we should be removing the barriers to work and promoting greater independence, outdated federal policy too often stands in the way. HR8736
helps reverse that trend by increasing access to employment opportunities and empowering more people with disabilities to participate in the workforce. HR8705, Civics and History Advancement to Restore Learning Integrity and Education
Act, introduced by Representative Burgess Owens, ensures that the American History and Civics program stays true to its purpose. educating students about America's rich civic inheritance and the importance of our founding and the value
of respectful civil dialogue through the free exchange of ideas. The Biden Harris administration attempted to radicalize this bipartisan program. Today's bill sends a clear message that it was wrong. Children should be educa educated in
civics, not indoctrinated. HR 7362, form 5500, Filing Simplification Act, introduced by Representative Grthman, streamlines the annual reporting requirement for employee benefit plans under the Employer Retirement Income
Security Act of 1974 or Orisa. This bill reduces unnecessary red tape while maintaining strong reporting standards and transparency for employment benefit plans or employee benefit plans. The bill also eliminates
outdated and duplic duplicative requirements including the need to file certain extensions and in some cases manually sign or initial schedules that are part of form 5500. HR7895
PBM kickback prohibition act introduced by Rick Allen cracks down on kickbacks and helps ensure health care decisions are made in the best interest of patients and employers, not pharmacy benefit manager middlemen. This
committee is focused on lowering health care costs and bringing accountability and transparency to a system that has become too powerful and too secretive. HR8684, Transparency in Billing Act of 2026,
introduced by Representative Virginia Fox and ranking member Bobby Scott, uh, protects workers and families from predatory pricing practices and reaffirms a simple premise. You should pay for the care you receive, not inflated charges. Increasingly,
hospitals buy up outpatient clinics, then turn around and charge hospital facility fees and higher rates as though the care was provided at the hospital. Patients are left without clear information about where services were delivered or why they are being build at
significantly higher rates. This legislation promotes greater transparency, encourages honest billing practices, and helps lower health care costs for workers and families. Taken together, these bills are focused on real concerns facing American families
from finding meaningful work to access assessing uh affordable health care and highquality education. They reflect uh practical common sense reforms that will expand opportunity and improve everyday life for the people we serve. I thank
the members who have worked diligently on these reforms in some cases for multiple congresses and I hope and I look forward to the committee considering these bills today um and and these measures having a positive
outcome. With that, I yield to the ranking member for an opening statement. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, this committee has a responsibility to pass legislation that ensures that students will receive a quality education that uh protects workers,
expands access to affordable quality care. And while I appreciate the bipartisan work reflected in some of the measures before us, several of these bills unfortunately continue a pattern of advancing divisive political priorities and weakening protections that workers, students, and families
rely on. First bill we will consider is HR 8 8736 the restoration of employment choice for adults with disabilities act. Under present law section 511 of the rehabilitation act is amended by the workforce innovation and opportunity act
establishes safeguards for workers particularly for workers under the age of 24. It prevents workers operating under section 14C certificates from paying subminimum wage to disabled workers until certain conditions have been met. This bill would weaken those
requirements by allowing younger disabled workers to be paid subminimum wages without first completing all existing transition and vocational rehabilitation steps. Legislation also creates an additional exception to the counseling and referring requirements of
individuals already working at subminimum wage employment. 14C employment wage is a relic of the past where employants where employers are legally permitted to discriminate against individuals with disabilities in the workplace and workers with
disabilities did not have access do not have access to federal protections. It is a pastime that we phase out this harmful provision that denies equal opportunities for workers. And one strategy to facilitate that transition would be to adopt legislation that I've
introduced, the transformation to competitive integrated employment act, which would support workers as they transition from 14C subminimum wage to regular employment. So instead of making it easier for employers to pay disabled workers less money, Congress should be
working to fully integrate disabled workers into the general workforce so we can fulfill the core goals of the Americans with Disabilities Act. And that is equal opportunity, full participation, independent living, and economic self-sufficiency.
And so for those reasons, I'll be recommending a no vote. Next, we'll consider HR 8705, the Charlie Act. Under current law, title two of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, promotes history and civics education are funding
grants for teacher training, student resources, and innovative instruction in history, civics, government, and geography. This legislation would prohibit federal funds from being used for what the bill defines as discriminatory equity ideology or gender
ideology and would also prevent the Department of Education from prioritizing race, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or immigration status when awarding grants in this program. Moreover, the bill is named to honor Charlie Kirk, who is known for regressive politics and
hateful rel rhetoric, including statements such as quote, "We made a huge mistake when we passed the Civil Rights Act in the mid 1960s or quote,"Large dedicated Islamic areas are a threat to America." Referred to
trans individuals as quote the th a throbbing middle finger to God and an abomination. I strongly condemn the manner in which Charlie Kirk's life was taken, but he is not a role model for our children, and we should not be advancing legislation
inspired by his legacy. This bill is in part a broader political agenda targeting how history and identity are discussed in educational settings. Students should learn accurate and comprehensive American history, including the civil rights movement,
immigration history, and other foundational movements in our nation's history. This bill does not advance those objectives and for those reasons I'll be recommending a no vote. Form 5500 filing simplification act is the um
subject of the third bill that we'll consider. HR 7362. The form 5500 is an important source of information on the funding, investment, fees, and operation of pensions and other employee benefit plans. Congress
and federal agencies and researchers and many private sector stakeholders use and rely on form 5500 data. Hundreds of thousands of pension plans and tens of thousands of other employee benefit plans meet the current form 5500 filing
deadline. And for those plans that need a little extra time to file, particularly large ones that must complete an annual audit, there's already an easy way for plans to obtain an automatic automatic extension for up to two and a half months. It doesn't
appear to be a problem that needs to be solved here. Yet 7362 would automatically extend the statutory deadline for all 5,500 filers, even those meeting the current deadline. So, as my colleagues may know, there's already a multi- multi-year lag in
compiling and st in publishing form 5500 data. I worry that this bill would cause further delays. Further, the U bill is drafted in a way that at best leaves it unclear whether plans would also receive
an additional extension on the top of the already delayed statutory deadline provided under the bill. It's regrettable that committee Republicans needlessly rushed this bill to markup, believing that the legislation hearing box was checked after one member
mentioned the bill during questions in a recent help subcommittee. Um the um HR 63 7362 deserves far more attention and scrutiny than it is received and I plan to oppose the bill and urge my colleagues to do
the same. Last two bills before us relate to healthcare. They address important issues impacting both consumers and employers alike. Pharmacy benefit managers, PVMs, play an important role in negotiating prescriptive drug prices and administering pharmacy benefits. While
we've made progress and important in improving transparency regarding PBMs, concerns remain about their business practices and potential conflicts of interest. Currently, PBMs pay referral fees to brokers, consultants, or other
similar entities and may believe that many believe influence their recommendations to healthcare plan sponsors regarding which PBM they should choose. under the bill, the PBM kickback prohibition act that would amend the
employee retirement uh income security act or Orisa to prohibit PBMs from playing paying such referral fees to brokers and consultants. I support the goal of the legislation. I regret that we were not given the opportunity to engage in a bipartisan process during
the creation of the legislation, nor an opportunity to strengthen the bill to ensure that it achieves its intended policy objectives. And finally, we'll consider HR8684, the Transparency and Billing Act of 2062. Under changes enacted by the
Consolidated Appropriations Act in 2026, Medicare will soon require hospitals to obtain unique national provider a unique national provider identifier to allow payers to accurately determine the setting where the care care was
delivered. This will address the often opaque and exorbitant fees charged by hospital outpatient departments that contribute to higher health care costs. However, those same transparency requirements will not apply to the private insurance market, including
Orisa covered health plans. This bill is bipartisan legislation that I introduced with Dr. Fox last Congress. It would amend Orisa to extend similar transparenc transparency standards to the private sector by requiring hospitals to include the unique
identifier for hospital outpatient departments before billing consumers or health plans. This is an important bipartisan effort to improve transparency and accountability in healthcare billing and I support the legislation. That Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
I thank the gentleman. Without objection, all other members who wish to be uh 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 House or committee rules. Without objection, members who have more than one amendment to the bills and wish to offer their amendments on block may do so. The committee will now proceed to
consideration of bill HR8736 for the for amendment. The bill was circulated in advance and printed copies are available. The clerk shall designate the bill. >> HR 8736, a bill to amend the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 to ensure
workplace choice and opportunity for young adults with disabilities. 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? Mr. Gothman, well, for what purpose do you seek recognition? >> I have an amendment at the desk. Uh, amendment ANS 8736_01. >> The clerk shall designate the amendment in the nature of a substitute. Amendment
in the nature of a substitute to HR 8736 offered by Mr. Gothman of Wisconsin identifier ANS 8736_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. Gothman for five minutes to explain the amendment in the nature of a substitute. >> Sure. Uh what we're doing here is we're amending out some damage that was done under the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act, the WEOA act uh in
2014. Um in order to understand this bill and the discussion that's going to follow, one has to familiarize yourself with 14C certificates. I hope most congressmen uh on this committee at some point in their
life have two facilities that use 14C certificates. These are facilities which have employees which have certain what used to be referred to as disabilities. They might have Down syndrome. They might have spobipida. They might have
severe autism. And for these reasons, it is when you tour them obvious that most of these uh employees would not be capable of making a regular minimum wage. These employees also are
frequently or almost always on some sort of social security disability. So that's what their their primary form of income is. Nevertheless, it provides a great deal of self-esteem uh to provide these people employees
frequently light manufacturing, packaging, that sort of thing. Uh there are some people who philosophically um don't feel uh people should be able to make 450 or $5 an hour even with
severe disabilities. And um as the result, they inserted things uh a few years ago in uh in 2014 saying that
you uh had to try and fail at three jobs in the community before they allowed you to work for below minimum wage. First of all, you're taking freedom away from these people, but in addition, you're creating a very, very difficult, arduous
process in which people have to somehow get hired uh to jobs that they obviously are not qualified for and then fired from jobs they are obviously uh not capable of doing. a horrible thing to do
to people who already were dealt a tough lot in life. And in order to take the job that you want, you have to find a way to get hired three times and fired three times. Okay? Uh so um this bill uh
gets rid of these changes that were made in 2014 and goes back to the time when people can freely work at subminimum wage jobs if it can be shown they cannot work for uh
for an average average income. Uh, I'll repeat. My bill lowers the age from 25 to 18, allowing people to make the choice that works best for them while finding a fulfilling job opportunity they might not get otherwise. 14C is
about choice. Nobody is forcing people to work here, but I strongly beg all members of the committee, by the way, we're in election season. I think a a good thing to do would be to tour uh one of these facilities and it will make you feel very good about people who are
smiling and very happy and have been dealt a diff a difficult lot in life. If we wind up getting rid of these 14C jobs, we wind up in a situation in which these folks will not be working. They will wind up in what they call day
services in which they do puzzles or watch TV. and uh don't get the satisfaction that you get when you are working and getting a paycheck. So, it will we're rooting
these people's lives. I recently talked to a facility that the current burden uh caused them to get rid of their 14C jobs. They found none of their employees who had been making subminimum wage found another job uh for
30 hours in a week. None. So in other words, it was back to the day services. Um and uh I urge all members to vote yes on ANS which makes a technical change to the bill and support HR 8736.
and one more time give these people who've been dealt a lot in life the freedom to work under a 14C certificate. Thank you. Gentleman yields. Are there any members
who wish to be recognized for further discussion on amendment and nature of substitute? The gentle lady from Georgia. >> Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman. >> Recognized. >> Thank you very much. I mean, I really do appreciate my colleague from Wisconsin's
stated intent to make it easier for Americans with disabilities because I most definitely have the same sentiments. We want them to help. We want to help them to find meaningful employment. But I don't see why employees should be able to legally pay
those workers below the federal minimum wage of $7.25 25 cents an hour just because they have a disability, especially when the minimum wage is as low as it already is today. A recent study from the Government Accountability Office found that the average wage for
14C employees was just $3.50. $3.50 won't even get someone a a gallon of gas today. And some employers are legally paying people just 25 cents an hour. That's a quarter for an hour of work.
That's not fair. That's not right. This is a direct quote from the Department of Labor where they say the wage must be proportional to the workers's productivity compared to a non-disabled worker doing the same job. End quote. You know, that is a demeaning process
that people without disabilities aren't even subjected to. At every job site, workers in the same positions are more productive than others. they still get the minimum wage and they have the same base pay. It's a totally different standard that only disabled workers have
to deal with and that's just not fair. Also, who is deciding that their work is so worth so little? I don't believe that there are any situations where someone's time and their effort are worth less than the minimum wage and certainly not
for 25 cents an hour. Just as I believe there is dignity in work, I believe there is more dignity in being paid your worth for the work that you do. I would like to submit for the record a a deeply disturbing story that I had a
chance to read from the New York Times about a group of subminimum wage employees found living in a bug and ratinfested house in rural Iowa in 2009 where they worked at a turkey processing plant in return for food, a place to stay, and $65 a month for over 30 years.
>> Without objection, it'll be >> Thank you very much. $65 a month to get up before dawn and work at a poultry plant. Pulling gizzards by hand on an assembly line, doing the jobs no one else wants to do because the work is
hard and the pay is low and gutting turkeys is messy. They were abused and treated like children. They had their wages and their personal property taken away from them and were physically beaten for perceived infractions on the job and at the house. They were kept in
these conditions for decades until someone did something about it. It led to the largest jury verdict in the history of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Over $240 million they were awarded in damages, but no amount of money in the world can
give these men back the years that were taken from them. Many of them went on to live better lives, getting a pay raise, and using their newfound freedom to work where they want to and do the things that they want to do, like go on a date, garden, or watch NASCAR. Simple things
that these men were denied for decades. This is exactly why these guard rails were put in the pro program. For every story shared where we heard about how good these programs are, I want to respectfully remind everyone that there are also stories like this, and this is
just one that we know of. These are the stories Congress should be trying to stop before they eat up people's entire lives. States across the political spectrum have outlawed or are phasing out the subminimum wage, including my
home state of Georgia, as well as South Carolina, Tennessee, Alaska, California, Illinois, Washington, and many others. We should spend this time getting more people with disabilities employed with decent wages in integrated settings. But
this does just the opposite. It removes important guardrails on a highly controversial program and will make situations like what I just described more likely to happen again in the future. So, I do encourage my colleagues to vote no, especially those of us that are representing states that are already
getting rid of these programs and I yield. >> I thank the gentle lady. Does the gentleman from Pennsylvania seek recognition? >> I do. >> You're recognized for five minutes. >> Thank you, chairman. I'm speaking in favor of of this uh of this bill. Um
it's incredibly important. You know, 14C program comes with oversight and so I appreciate what the the gentle lady from from uh Georgia um talked about what happened in Iowa, but the fact is that the um the system failed. whoever was
responsible in that state for regulating um if those individuals were employed under 14C I'm not sure I don't know if they were but let's just speculate and say that they were the fact that u to work all those years under 14C and not
be um uh the the reg the over it was the folks that uh that provide oversight that failed that should have never occurred um the fact is HR um well the fact is this amendment makes sure that no individuals with especially severe
disabilities are left behind. And that's what's happening. I've spent my entire uh adult working career um prior to coming to Congress working with individuals who were living with life-changing disease and disability. And HR 8736 is about it's not so much
about the amount of pay. It's about the dignity of work. And individuals with disabilities deserve work options that meet their needs and interests. But more importantly, they need they they want to be just like their friends and families and have a job. And I would say where you artificially push somebody into
competitive wages, you take away opportunities for dignity, um, and they're not able to sustain that that that extra income that may be temporary because of their performance, you're going to threaten any financial
assistance that that they rely on to live on. You know, they have an income. uh if they have disabilities and significant disabilities uh they have support systems. So, but according to the Bureau of Labor and Statistics data
in 2025, nearly 80% of people with disabilities were unemployed. Uh the unemployment rate for people with disabilities was more than double that of people with disabilities. At a time when we should be doing everything we can to provide more work opportunities for people with disabilities, current
federal law does the opposite. And section 511 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 was written with good intentions, but it is not working as intended. Some states require individuals with disabilities to be fired multiple times from competitive integrated employment
before accepting 14C employment. Some states are also failing to fulfill their obligations under section 511 to provide ongoing services to individuals with disabilities, further placing roadblocks in front of these workers and their families. This bill fixes those problems. Democrats argue that some
Democrats argue that section 14C amounts to discrimination, but they shy away from the impact on real people when section 14C opportunities are are taken away. The um the Government Accounting Office, Accountability Office reported last year
on outcomes for former 14C workers in Colorado, Oregon, two states that have eliminated 14C employment options. the um of the individuals in those two states were able to track, less than half of the former 14C workers found
other employment. The data is clear. Without these opportunities, many of those with disabilities would be forced to sit at home all day. Uh they would be forced to separate from their from their peers, their their friends, uh the the
the uh the family that they develop in these work settings. The reality is that for some workers with disabilities, those employment opportunities are life-saving. Many families have told me how 14C has given individuals and their families the opportunity to socialize,
make friends, learning valuable skills, and take home a paycheck in the process. If you have never been in one of these settings on payday, um I strongly encourage you to do that. Uh it doesn't matter what the size of
the of the check is or the number. uh the uh there there's something just human about the dignity of work and the celebration that occurs on payday. It it it's a great experience actually uh for individuals with disabilities and their families who want access to 14C
employment options. We should eliminate the barrier that section 511 has created. HR 8736 does just that. and and I'm appreciative to my good friend from Wisconsin and I urge my colleagues to support uh this bill and I yield back.
>> I thank the gentleman and now recognize the gentleman from Virginia, the ranking member, Mr. Scott, for five minutes. >> Thank you, M. Thank you, Mr. Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, under section 14C, the Fair Labor Standards Act, employers have a special certificate may
pay workers with disabilities less than the federal minimum wage of 725 an hour. As my colleague from Georgia has pointed out, the GAO is estimated the average wage in a 14C is approximately $3.50.
14C is antithetical to the Americans with Disabilities Act, which seeks to ensure equality of opportunity, full participation, independent living, and economic self-sufficiency for people with disabilities. In contrast, the subminimum wage employment consigns
people with disabilities to a lifetime of poverty and segregation. Section 511 of the Rehabilitation Act limits the use of 14C by requiring individuals with disabilities who are 24 years or younger to complete
requirements designed to improve their access to competitive integrated employment, including transition services, vocational rehabilitation, and career counseling services before they are employed at a subminimum wage. Section 511 also requires that all
workers with disabilities of any age who are paid under 14C certificate receive regular career counseling and information about self-sufficiency, self-determination, and peer mentoring training opportunities in their local area. This bill would weaken these sensible
provisions that support the goal of making investments in competitive integrated employment for people with disabilities. Um, and that were enshrin enshrined in the 2014 reauthorization of the workforce innovation and
opportunities act ora. Section 511 ensures that individuals will not be employed at subminimum wage unless they have explored other avenues of competitive integrated employment and then voluntarily make an informed uh choice to engage in subminimum wage
employment. This bill eliminates the necessity of all of those safeguards. And so then what we need to so they lets them work at the minimum wage and it's so-called choice um to work at the
minimum wage. That's an interesting use of the word choice. They get relegated to the minimum wage without all of those safeguards. For those reasons, Mr. Chairman, I will ask people to vote no on the bill unless it's amended to
provide significant um uh transformational services. I yield back. >> The gentleman yields. I recognize the vice chairman of the committee, the gentleman from Utah, Mr. Owens. >> Thank Thank you so much. Um, first of
all, my highest recommendation is to visit one of these facilities before we make a a decision that it's not working. Uh, we're not now in 2009. We're now in 2026. Uh, we have uh good people. Well, first of all, there are bad people in every
industry. Let's not look at those who take advantage of people to say that no one else have these opportunities. Um there are good people who who who actually look not don't look at the return on investment just want to give people the dignity of work. The vic I I
I I visited in Wisconsin um I remember one particular person um mental disability blind. He's putting a pig in a hole. He's getting paid. Later on I had a chance to ask him what his dreams were. He had dreams. This is something
John Deere could do by robots if they wanted to. But they're trying to give back to community. These folks, the opportunity that many of us take for granted to be able to go out there and work and and overcome and have communities, have people we can that we can relate to instead of staying at home
or looking at TV or just taking trips, day trips, doing absolutely nothing with other than that. So, I will say this, experiencing it, seeing it firsthand, uh, is one of the things that I think will be a really good job for for a good deal for everyone to hear. The bill is simple. that gets federal government out
of the way so individuals can make opportunities to work for themselves. Uh, by the way, these are folks that we're asking to go out and compete in a business where they know they're not going to get a job. They're not going to get the job because they can't do the job. So, they're supposed to fail get a
job, fail three times, and then all of a sudden they can be part of something that will allow them to have the the the self-esteem they needed. By cutting through the red regular red tape, we help these workers find jobs early in their lives and get them building up their skill set and dignity that comes with having meaningful employment.
Having spoken to families who love uh their whose loved ones utilize the 14 city employment, I know the impact of this work is having. Anyone who goes and visits these facilities can see the excitement, the the pride, the idea that they're respected, they're with their friends. Let's not take that away from
folks uh just because uh we think we know better. So with that, I'd like to uh to yield back. >> Thank the gentlemen. Does the gentle lady from Oregon wish to be recognized? >> Yes. Uh thank you, Mr. Chairman. I wish to speak in opposition to the bill. >> You're recognized for five minutes.
>> Uh thank you. I I I first want to say that um I align myself with the the comments that have been made about the importance of the dignity of work and the recognition that people with disabilities deserve that opportunity without a doubt. And I want to align myself with the comments of my colleague
from Georgia, Representative McBath. uh my state of Oregon because also because it was mentioned uh here today has phased out sheltered workshops in part because of uh decadel long litigation but also because of a recognition that to send somebody the message of you
deserve the dignity of work but you don't deserve to even make minimum wage is inconsistent and wrong. So, I just want to note that my state of Oregon does support uh job search and helping people work, find an appropriate job for
them, and they are paid at least a minimum wage. And I and I just wanted to to to quote the director of disability rights Oregon who said at the end of the day what really really matters is knowing that there are thousands of Oregonians who now see themselves in their work as having value having equal
value and that level of confidence and dignity and sense of self-worth. So that's what this is about. We absolutely agree that people should have opportunities to participate in work. But I don't agree and I seriously uh dispute the the message that that
dignity is arrived by saying you are less than and we were going to pay you less than even minimum wage which as uh representative McBath uh uh noted for states without a state minimum wage is only $7.25 an hour. So uh I encourage uh
my colleagues to vote no on the bill and I yield back the balance of my time. >> I thank the gentle lady. Does the gentleman from South Carolina seek recognition, Mr. Wilson? >> Yes, I do. >> I do.
>> You are recognized for five minutes. >> Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, for your leadership on this very important issue, and I'm very grateful to uh provide my time to the distinguished congressman from Wisconsin, the author of the bill, Congressman Growthman. Uh first I'd like to enter into the records
uh 16 letters of support for HR8736. They come from project CU Inc. uh can do industries inc Blackhawk technical college remarkable Chipua Valley Chipoa River Industries 18 Arkansas 18 USA and over 130 parents and guardians and loved
ones who signed a letter urging this bill be passed out of committee >> without objection. Hearing none there entered. Um it's all fine and good to say that these people are going to find a job in the community. The um
facility I'm most familiar with because of the current burdensome regulations shut down. They had at that time 30 employees working at subminimum wage. Not one found a job of at least 30 hours
a week in the community, which should be obvious if you tour these. You know, there not a lot of things that we do here in Congress that really make you feel good, really make you feel good about great things going on in America. And maybe the one of the few things that
really makes me feel good is when I tour these facilities in my district. We have eight in my district. They are all wonderful facilities. The employees there are very happy to be working there
and really their whole life uh to a degree is built around their job uh particularly because they get to know all sorts of new people. If I had a handicapped child, one of my concerns would be, you know, does they have any friends outside the home? These
facilities provide situations with friends and the dignity of work, the chance to earn some money, buy your own gifts for your parents, buy your own clothes for yourself. These people all have are all virtually all have separate
sources of income on social security disability. But in any event, I suppose this debate is going to go on. I beg members on the other side of the aisle to tour some of these facilities and see how happy these folks are and
see how obvious it is you are not going to find uh genuine minimum wage jobs unless it's a very short-term thing more in the nature of charity. So, uh, I beg members on the other side of the aisle rather than recount talking points that
somebody gave you, see these facilities. Uh, Mr. Owens over there, he saw a facility in Wisconsin. It's tremendous. Whenever I see my facilities like this, it makes my makes my week to see so many people who've been dealt a difficult lot
in life so wildly happy because they can now go to work just like everyone else. And like I said, if you get rid of these 14 C certificates, they're not going to find a job for 15 15,000 a year. They'll get no job at all. They'll be restricted
to putting together puzzles and watching TV. What a horrible mean thing to do to these people who've been dealt a difficult lot in life. But in any event, thank you, Mr. Chairman. >> I thank the gentleman. >> I I yield back.
Gentleman yields. Are there any others who wish to speak on amendment and nature of a substitute? There being no further discussion on amendment and the nature of a substitute, the committee will move to consideration of amendments. Are there
any members who would like to offer amendments? I recognize the gentleman, the ranking member from Virginia, Mr. Scott, for the purpose of amendment. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have an amendment at the desk. Scott VA_063. >> The uh the clerk will identify the
>> the clerk will identify the amendment. >> Amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute to HR 8736 offered by Mr. Scott of Virginia identifier Scott VA_063. >> This gentleman from Utah wish to reserve a point of order. >> I reserve a point of order. >> A point of order is reserved. I now
recognize the gentleman from Virginia, the ranking member, Mr. Scott, for five minutes in support of his amendment. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, before I begin my remarks, I just like to let the gentleman from Wisconsin know that I've been visiting these facilities
for at least four decades. One of the um facilities is getting rid of 14C certificates altogether. And Virginia is phasing out um the 14C certificates. But in recent uh decades, subminimum wage employment for those
with disabilities has actually declined as rights, access to education and employment opportunities have expanded. The 2014 Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act, WEOA, the law governing public workforce system prioritized
competitive integrated employment referred to as CI CIE for those with disabilities. CIE is defined as a job where the worker earns the prevailing minimum wage, works alongside non-disabled workers, and receives the
same benefits as non-disabled workers, and has the opportunities for advancement. 17 states in the District of Columbia have laws and policies that phase out the use of 14C certificates. in these states, including my own state of Virginia, have moved beyond this
90-year-old exception to the Fair Labor Standards Act, and it's past time to update the federal policy. Uh this bill moves the country in the wrong direction. But my part bipartisan bill the transformation competitive integration integrated employment act
which I'm which I'll be offering as an amendment provides for federal grants to enable states and 14C employers to transform their services and business models to foster opportunities for competitive integrated employment. This legislation phases out the use of 14C in
the remaining states that have not already done so over roughly four roughly 5-year timeline, bringing the entire country into the 21st century where disability employment policy is concerned. There are many challenges
facing workers with disabilities. Uh many need home and community based services to remain in their communities. For example, Medicaid home and community based services provide the critical supports that many individuals need to live safely in their homes, participate
in the life of their communities, and succeed in competitive integrated employment. However, the draconian cuts to Medicaid and the big ugly bill passed last year threatened these services across the country, slashing Medicaid funding by about a trillion dollars over
the coming decade, even as many states are already struggling with rising costs and shortages of direct care workers, job coaches, and others who provide these services. At the same time, Health and Human Services Secretary Kennedy and others in the Trump administration have
without offering any evidence asserted that Medicaid home and community based services are rife with fraud and abuse and raise questions whether the government should pay family caregivers at all. Instead of making it easier for 18 to 24 year olds to begin their
working lives in sheltered workshops, we should be providing funding so that states and current 14C employers can create greater opportunities for competitive integrated employment, including by providing wraparound services that help individuals succeed
in real jobs at real wages in their communities. The Transformation to Competitive Integrated Employment Act does that. I'm offering it as an amendment to the bill and it does a much better approach than the underlying bill and so I urge support of my amendment.
>> Yield back. >> The gentleman yields. Does the gentleman from Utah insist on >> withdraw my board order? >> Point of vote. Reservation is withdrawn. >> Does anyone else seek recognition on the amendment? >> Mr. Chairman,
>> does a gentle lady from North Carolina, Miss Adams, seek recognition? >> Yes, Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word in support. >> You're recognized for five minutes. >> Thank you. I I want to speak in support of Ranking Member Scott's amendment. Uh $3.50.
Uh that's the average hourly wage for disabled workers operating under 14C vouchers and sheltered workshops. In this economy, eight hours of work at that wage would would barely cover uh a day's worth of food. Regardless of ability, every working person in this
country deserves to be treated with dignity, respect, and and fairness in the workplace. And while I understand the value that the sheltered workshops have provided to to workers with disabilities and their families, the 14C
program has failed to provide disabled workers with the dignity they deserve. Employment in sheltered workshops is designed to be temporary. Disabled workers are meant to learn valuable skills and transition into competitive integrated employment. But that's not
what's happening. Less than 5% of those making subminimum wage will will transition to competitive integrated employment in their lifetime. and the underlying bill would only make the pathway to integrated employment more
difficult for disabled workers. We should be working toward phasing out, not expanding 14C. Opponents of this amendment will claim that that phasing out 14C will will take opportunities from disabled adults. That couldn't be further from the truth. And
and frankly, I find the idea that disabled adults are only employable at starvation wages to be patronizing and and dehumanizing. Mr. Chairman, I would like to insert into the record a 2024 study published in the JAMA Health Forum
titled repeal of subminimal wages and social determinance of health among people with disabilities. >> Without objection, it'll be inserted. uh this finds no decrease in employment outcomes for workers with cognitive disabilities following the repeal of 14C
waiverss. I think that the most important part of any plan to phase out 14C is a gradual transition and investment in wraparound services to ensure that that no one is left behind. And this amendment does that. Uh over a
5-year period, the subminimal wage would would be eliminated. current 14C certificate holders would be given the resources they need to to transition to an integrated employment model. This amendment takes a careful approach that
ensures disabled workers and and current 14C employers are participants in not subjects of the transition to competitive integrated employment. And rather than expanding a program that has failed to deliver for disabled workers,
I encourage all of my colleagues to work toward a system that that respects the dignity of disabled workers uh labor to support uh this amendment. Mr. Chairman, uh I yield back. >> I thank the gentle lady. Does the gentleman from Utah seek to be
recognized? >> Mr. Chairman, on further consideration, I insist on the point of order. >> Point of order is re-reserved. Does the gentleman from Wisconsin, Mr. Growthman, seek to be recognized? >> Yeah, I'd like to speak to the amendment.
>> You're recognized for five minutes. >> Again, I wish the folks on the other side of the aisle and I I know Bobby Scott has I don't know how you can not see these thing and not tour these things and feel good about them. These people are not starving. they are almost
uniformly on some sort of SSI. So, this supplements their other income. Um, one thing that hits you about touring these facilities is how happy people are in part because they have a satisfaction of
finding a job. There have been studies done and very few of these people find jobs in the community at regular minimum wage. I talked to a one of these facilities that did close in the last year. It breaks
the heart of the people who ran the facility, but they tell me none, not one person of the 30 people who were left on the floor when they closed found a job for over 30 hours a week. You can sometimes find a charity job in which
some employer makes themselves feel good by hiring somebody for five or six hours a week. But these people are not going to find another job right now. These places provide uh socialization for people who've been dealt a difficult lot
in life. And nobody is forcing them to be there. They've got themselves, they've got their guardians, they've got their parents, and they are making this choice because it's what they like the best. And the fact that the law that we
passed in what was 2014 um takes away this option from people is just so horrible. I mean, we do all sorts of stupid things here in Washington, but the idea I mean, I think one of the dumbest things is to take
away an option from people who belt who've been dealt this difficult lot in life and saying you cannot have the happiness that comes with having a real job with real fellow employees. Um, in any event, I I encourage people to vote
against the amendment. I thank the gentleman. Does the gentleman from Utah insist on his point of order? >> Yes, Mr. Chairman. I insist on my point of order. >> The gentle lady from Oregon is recognized for five minutes. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I don't
know procedurally where this is in the point of order. Uh but I I just wanted to speak in favor of Mr. Scott's amendment. Uh and and again reiterate that that um everyone in this room I'm sure understands the importance of the
dignity of work and having people have opportunities to get that dignity from a job. But what does not give dignity is saying to someone that you do not deserve to be adequately paid for the work that you're doing. And I and I just want to note according to the organization New America, they ranked
states overall on subminimum wage and employment policies and I'm proud that my state of Oregon has a high score of 88. I'll note that the state of Wisconsin has the 36 score. We have done a lot of work to make sure that people have uh employment and that they are
paid at least minimum wage. Um and I I just I think this is an important conversation to have about that dignity of work and it is not dignified to say someone you you work but you do not deserve to be paid even minimum wage. Uh that is to me seems like exploitation.
There are better ways to address this by doing all we can to place people in employment that's appropriate for them and for which they are paid uh for the work that they are doing. So I support the amendment and I yield back the balance on my time.
Gentle lady yields. >> I recognize a gentleman from Virginia, the ranking member. >> Did um gentleman insist on his point of order? >> The gentleman from Utah. Do you still insist on your point of order? >> Mr. >> He insists on his point of order.
>> Mr. Chairman, I understand the um technical problems with the amendment and so I won't object to the um ruling that it's um not in order and I'll be supporting M. McBTH's amendment. It does much of what's in this amendment. I
would point out however that it's the um ruling is a little late. So if it happens subsequently, we don't want to use this as a precedence. >> The gentleman withdraws his amendment. with withdraw.
>> The gentleman withdraws his amendment. Does anyone else seek recognition to offer an amendment? I recognize the gentle lady from Georgia, Miss McMath. >> Thank you, Mr. Chair. I do have an
amendment at the desk, McBath AMD_MPTA. >> The clerk will report the amendment. Amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute to HR8736 offered by Miss Mcbath of Georgia identifier McBath AMD EMPTA.
>> Does a gentleman from Utah reserve a point of order? >> Yes, I reserve a point of order. >> A point of order is reserved. I now recognize the gentle lady from Georgia, Miss McBath, for five minutes in support of her amendment. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. You know, we've heard a lot this morning about the dignity of work and making sure that
individuals with disabilities have the opportunities that should be afforded to them for equity. We've heard a lot about that this morning. But there again, to reiterate, let's make sure there's equity and let's enhance that opportunity of the dignity of work for
them because they do at least deserve a minimum wage. Um, I'm going to kind of go off script here. I actually have a family member that has processing disabilities. I have a family member. He, you know, has was born a preeie and
we recognized very early on that, you know, he was having processing learning disabilities, all those kinds of things and some to some extent a physical disability. But I assure you, he is working uh a full-time job and he is
working in an environment that they are paying him a fair wage, the minimum wage. So, I don't want us to discredit people because of their disabilities and say that they don't deserve a fair minimum wage. If we're talking about the dignity of their ability to be able to
work and be a a a thriving part of society, that is their right. So, let's enhance that. And so, as I said before, the underlying bill rolls back progress towards equal opportunity for people with disabilities that was made in the 2014
uh WEOA. And we not only codified competitive integrated employment or CIE as the appropriate goal of vocational rehabilitation services for disabled job seekers. Section 511 ensured that young adults who were aged 18 through 24
receive appropriate services to help them successfully transition to adulthood with the necessary tools and experiences to succeed in competitive integrated employment before they receive subminimum wages and work in
segregated environments. This amendment builds on the success of those bipartisan efforts and the path was charted by the states and employers across the country that have stopped allowing the payment of subminimum wages
to disabled workers. This language is taken from the bipartisan version of WEOA that had been negotiated and agreed to by Republicans and Democrats on this committee. Similar language can also be found in the version of WEOA that was
voted out of committee just a few weeks ago with the unanimous support of my Republican colleagues. It would support the creation of a technical assistance center with the Office of Disability Employment Policy, ODP, at the
Department of Labor that would provide technical assistance to employers and states who have chosen to or want to phase out the use of 14C certificates and instead provide a real path to opportunities for competitive integrated
employment. I encourage my colleagues to support this amendment because truly, as I said, I have someone in my family that has both physical and
emotional mental disabilities. And I assure you, he has deserved every ounce of responsibility that he gets in the work that he does every single day. And yes, he is very much integrated into the
community and he is very well loved and received and is an integral part of the work that he does in his community and on his job. But that business saw fit to make sure that he was equally and equitably cared for and treated and he
receives a fair wage and I think that everyone everyone deserves a fair wage for the work that they do. So I encourage my colleagues to support this amendment and I yield back the balance of my time. >> The gentle lady yields. Does the
gentleman from Utah insist on a point of order? >> I reserve I withdraw my point of order. >> The reservation is withdrawn. Is there further discussion on the amendment? I recognize the gentleman from Virginia, the ranking member.
>> Mr. Chairman, without going in more detail, the gentle lady from Georgia has outlined the amendment. I just point out that the amendment was based on language that was agreed upon by both Democrats and Republicans and the um we owe a bill we negotiated in the last Congress and
that the same language was part of the bipartisan um um the WEO bill that the committee um considered a few weeks ago. So hopefully it can be adopted in this bill. Yield back. >> The gentleman yields.
Does the gentleman from Wisconsin speak wish to speak on this amendment? Uh no. I think I've I've kind of made the major points here. Uh I I guess the one thing I'll add is they think by hiring a bunch of bureaucrats to go in and meet with
these people, you're going to take somebody with obvious disabilities and change what you have. You're not going to I just one more time beg all the other members of the committee to tour one of these facilities to see how happy
these folks are and to see at least in some cases how obvious it is that um you're not going to find an employer in the community give people a 40hour a week job at a minimum wage. But and again I beg people on the other side of
the aisle because it'll come up to tour these facilities. Thanks. The gentleman yields. Are there any others who wish to speak on this amendment? Seeing no other members wish to speak on the amendment.
The question is on the amendment by the gentle lady from Georgia. All in favor say I. >> All oppose, no. >> No. >> In the opinion of the chair, the nos have it and the amendment is not agreed to. >> A recorded vote is requested.
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 nature of substitute to HR 8736? There being no further amendments, the question now occurs on amendment um
further action on HR 8736 is postponed. We'll now move to the cons to consider the next bill. The committee will now proceed to consideration of bill HR8705 for amendment.
The bill was circulated in advance and printed copies are available. The clerk shall designate the bill >> HR 8705, a bill to amend the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 to prevent the American History and Civics
Program from funding radical indoctrination 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? Mr. Mr. Owens. Yes. >> For what purpose do you seek recognition? >> I have an amendment at the desk. I have the amendment in the nature of a substitute at the desk. >> The clerk shall designate the amendment in the nature of a substitute. >> Amendment in the nature of a substitute to HR8705
offered by Mr. Owens of Utah identifier MUNs 8705_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 and the nature of a substitute. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Uh the NSA to Charlie Act uh simply makes a technical change to the bill. I'm proud to champion this bill named after my friend Charlie Kurt who dedicated his life to
encouraging civil discourse and political engagement. This common sense legislation prohibits ideological capture of the ESA history and civics program. ensures that there's no prior prior prioritiz prioritization of funding on the basis of race, sex,
gender ideology, uh, or immigration status. Currently, American students are woefully ignorant of basic civics and history. A 2024 survey of over 3,000 undergraduates conducted by the American Council of Trustees, Alumni, and College
Pulse Pulse found that 40% of students believe that senators served four terms. 75% of students did not know that the Constitution does not specify the number of justice on the Supreme Court. Half of the students surveyed believe that the Constitution was written in 1776.
Clearly, students are not well informed of the fundamental civics and history concepts. Unfortunately, the previous administration attempted to weaponize the program to prioritize funding for projects that incorporate racially um ethnically, culturally, and logistically
diverse p perspectives into into teaching and learning. After receiving criticism from then ranking member Virginia Fox, the Department of Education decided against officially prioritizing funds based on bias uh criteria described in their
proposed priorities. However, in 2023, the department again announced that it would prioritize funds on project promoting equity and student access for underserved students. That includes categories as non-white English learning uh LGBTQ
students uh and illegal aliens. Um, federal federal federal education dollars should help students learn how American government works and prepare them for to be responsible citizens, not steer children toward radical political agendas. At the time when political
violence is on the rise, we should be strengthening shared values and and national unity. I urge my colleagues to vote yes on the Charlie Act, which restores sanity and fairness to the ESA civics and his history programs. With that, I yield back.
I thank the gentleman. Are there any members who wish to be recognized for further discussion on the amendment and nature of substitute? Does gentle lady from Oregon, Miss Bonamichi, seek to be recognized? >> Yes. Uh, Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word and speak in opposition to the >> for five minutes.
>> Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I'm a strong supporter of history and civics education, and it was interesting to hear my colleague uh talk about how little students know. I just had an amazing visit with Abernathy Elementary School in Portland. If their fifth graders knew how many members of
Congress there are, they knew the separate branches of government. They were in fifth grade and they knew that. And then the same week I visited with a high school uh class at Lincoln High School, also in Portland, Oregon public high school, and they just came in sixth in the nation in a civics competition.
They can discuss const the history of the constitution all of the amendments and apply contemporary issues to the constitution and they are at a public high school. So I am a strong supporter of civics's education and we have a lot to be proud of. Yes, we have work to do.
Uh but again as we say in this committee many times curriculum decisions are up to states and local uh uh governments not uh not Congress. But this bill is counterproductive and frankly absurd. And it seems like once again my Republican colleagues are more
interested in cultivating some kind of hysteria and demonizing teachers than in actually legislating. The grants under this program are intended to improve the quality of teaching and instruction and American history and civics education. If that's what they actually did, that would be great. But my colleagues have
provided absolutely no substantive evidence that funds are being used to quote radically indoctrinate close quote children or perpetuate quote discriminatory equity ideology close quote. Instead, they cite heck second site secondhand anecdotes and use
sweeping generalizations about what they imagine is going on in schools to justify what appears to be a political witch hunt. The hypocrisy is truly staggering here. The majority repeatedly and rightfully asserts that the federal government should have no role in setting school curricula. Then they turn
around and introduce yet another book banning bill to tell teachers what they can and can't teach. What happened to local control? What happened to returning education to the states? This administration's obsession with so-called gender ideology is also disgusting and frankly harmful. It's
reprehensible to attack transgender individuals, especially transgender youth. This came up on the floor yesterday as well. As I've said before, the goal here is not an elimination of ideology, but of people. People who are just as deserving of dignity, respect,
and love as you are. So if my colleagues are truly interested in strengthening the American history and civics education program, I encourage them to look into the bipartisan constitution and civics education is valuable in community schools or civics act which is
uh pending in the Senate. Representative Bacon and I will soon be introducing a bipartisan House companion of this bill to promote hands-on civic engagement activities that actually educate students about the history and principles of the US Constitution, including the Bill of Rights. This is
what we should be focused on. Let's leave the local issues to local districts. Let's not mark up polarizing bills that make no difference in the lives of students except to be harmful and educators and families. and let's think about what side of American history we all want to be on. Thank you,
Mr. Chairman. I yield back. >> Does the gentleman from North Carolina, Mr. Harris, seek to be recognized? >> Yes, sir. Mr. Chairman, I seek recognition to speak on the bill. >> You're recognized for five minutes. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm proud to support the Civic and History
Advancement to Restore Learning Integrity and Education Act, also known as the Charlie Act, and express my gratitude to Representative Owens for leading out in this. I want to take just a moment to highlight one aspect of this bill that should be important to every
member of this committee, and that is restoring civics to the classroom. This bill would ensure that federal civics funding focuses on teaching the constitution, American history, and principles of self-government. When you
look at the alarming number of students and adults who cannot identify basic civics, this is what you will find. In one survey with the Annenburgg Public Policy Center in 2023, it found that 33% of respondents, of whom six and 10, had
taken a high school civics course focusing on the Constitution or judicial system, could not name all three branches of government, while 17% of respondents could not name a single branch. In another survey from the US
Chamber of Commerce Foundation in 2024, it found that 70% of the 2,000 registered voters surveyed failed a civic literacy quiz on basic questions of American government. Half of respondents could not, and I quote,
correctly name the branch of government where bills become laws. In one last survey from the American Bar Association in 2024, it was found that only 41% of the respondents could correctly identify the Constitution as the document that
begins with the words, "We the people." Now, these findings are alarming and raise questions about the state of civics's education in schools across this country. Every American should be able to correctly answer basic questions
about our system of government, the unique history of the United States, and the civic structures that are essential to our democratic republic. It's long past time that we address this problem and ensure that schools do a better job
of teaching students about the blessings of American liberty and the responsibilities of citizenship. And so with that, I urge all my colleagues to support the Charlie Act. And Mr. Chairman, with that, I yield back. >> I thank the gentleman. Are there any others who wish to be identified? This
gentle lady from Georgia, Miss McBth, do you wish to be recognized? >> Thank you, Mr. Chair. I wish to speak in opposition to the amendment and the nature of substitute. >> You're recognized for five minutes. >> Thank you. Naming a sens censorship bill the
Charlie Act is a level of irony that should not be lost on my colleagues. This is another bill about pressuring schools and teachers into conforming to this Republican majority's specific world view. While Republicans want to
say that they are fighting to preserve the free exchange of ideas and diversity of thought, they regularly do just the opposite. Schools and teachers are being targeted with funding cuts and personal attacks just for having different
opinions than the president. Just for disagreeing with the administration about highly controversial topics, topics that are meant to be discussed and debated freely in academic settings at the appropriate time. This majority claims to be protecting diversity of
thought while they actively go out of their way to get people fired and punish schools for using simply just using the word diversity. While they fail to see the irony in getting rid of viewpoints that they only
view as bias due to their own personal biases. Time and time again, Republicans in Congress say one thing, but they then do the other. The American people are not naive. They know that the Republicans
claiming to be warriors for freedom of thought are the very same ones stopping conversations and banning books and classrooms around the country at both universities and high schools. They are the same ones who will call you
unAmerican for trying to push this country to live up to its founding ideals that all men are created equal. You can't have it both ways. It is not possible to defend free speech
while preventing discussions because you disagree with them and don't want them happening. That is hypocrisy. This refusal to have difficult conversations, to refuse to discuss history just because it makes someone
uncomfortable, to attack people's character and ideals directly instead of debating these things so people can decide what they think for themselves is a disservice to our students. It is a
disservice to those who lived this re these realities and to the people who put their lives and reputations on the line to help our country live up to its promise. I can assure you I spent many years with
my family on the front lines fighting for the civil and human rights of all Americans so that everyone would be able to be engaged in the diversity of thought and ideas whether they agreed with mine or not. I
engage with my Republican colleagues all the time whether we agree or not. But it is that diversity. It is that interfacing. It is that interaction. It is the freedom of thought and opinions and ideals that make this country great.
So we shouldn't be hampering the ability for people to directly debate ideas and talk about things that they believe are important, especially our students. So I'm opposed to this bill and I yield.
I recognize the gentle lady from Illinois, Miss Miller, for five minutes. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and a special thanks to Representative Owens, for leading this important bill. America is the greatest nation on earth. We have a wonderful history filled with rich
stories and enduring legacy. But for decades, Democrats have hijacked our schools and turned them into indoctrination stations, misrepresenting our history and manipulating it to serve their own political ends. In my home
state of Illinois, the Chicago Public School District has fully embraced the 1619 project, a curriculum that distorts historical facts and perpetrates lies about our history to push a political
agenda. Let me remind my colleagues, President Lincoln was from Illinois. He healed the nation and ended slavery. And that is a history worth celebrating. The Charlie Act doesn't ban the teaching of American history. Instead, it
safeguards hard-earned taxpayer dollars from being used to indoctrinate our children. And I do want to say to my colleague on the other side of the aisle in light of funding cuts um under Joe Biden, Joe Biden threatened to cut
school lunch programs if we didn't if the public schools didn't push radical transgender policies. And we want to protect our children. We are not banning appropriate books. We want perverted, indecent, and inappropriate curriculum
out of our schools. They're wasting this students time and hypersexualizing our students. That's what we want removed from our public schools. The Charlie Act cottifies two of President Trump's executive orders. It acknowledges the biological reality of male and female
and ensures K through2 students are shielded from radical leftist ideology such as these radical transgender policies and perverted indecent and inappropriate curriculum. The bill also prohibits selecting federal grant
recipients based on DEI curric criteria making school districts compete for federal money based on merit meritocracy and not diversity status. I am proud that this legislation is named after
Illinois native Charlie Kirk, a national hero who, as many know was a lover of American history and wanted civil discourse. It has been said that the more a society drifts from the truth, the more they will hate those who speak
it. The Charlie Act is an appropriate way to remember our friend and to ensure radical leftist ideologies are removed from our schools. I am proud to stand beside Congressman Owens and I urge all
my colleagues to support HR 8705. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I yield back. Gentle lady yields. There's a gentleman from California, Mr. Tanos, seek recognition. >> I I do. Yes. You're recognized for five minutes. >> I move to strike the last word and rise
in opposition to the amendment. >> Um we do have a great and glorious history um as Americans. Um but I I always put that in the context of uh the first the opening words of the
Constitution. we the people of the United States in order to form a more perfect union. Uh there were debates during the constitutional convention over the original sin of our country uh
which was slavery. And um and in fact uh parts of the constitution uh pay uh homage uh to uh the institution of slavery um by the
mere fact that um uh uh slaves were counted as three-fifths of a person. Um, it took a bloody war a bloody civil war uh and a great president like Lincoln from a great state of Illinois
uh to be a part of uh of reconciling the contradictions between uh our our founding principles of freedom and equality um against the contradiction of slavery.
So uh in order to form a more perfect union implies that we were not a perfect union and the greatness of our country uh is the consequence of uh generations and generations of Americans fighting to make the country
more perfect than when it began. Um along these lines, let me talk about uh my parents and grandparents who spent four years as prisoners in American concentration camps during World War II. They were forced from their homes by the government. My mother and father spent
their childhoods in tar paper barracks in the deserts of Wyoming and California before starting over from nothing once the war ended. And by the way, these camps were not uh, you know, were not uh meeting OSHA
safety standards. My father suffered very serious burns on his legs after falling into a burn pit. Uh, years later, President Ronald Reagan formally apologized for Japanese American incarceration, acknowledged that it was a grave mistake, quote,
based solely on race, unquote. This is a conservative president who also, I think, came from Illinois. But today, one on one such incarceration camp, the Trump administration had posted signs making visitors uh report quote any signs or any information that
are negative about either past or living Americans end quote. Japanese Americans like my family fought to preserve those incarceration sites so that they would teach future generations about the dangers of prejudice and racism. This administration has put up signs
warning dosent and park rangers not to make America look bad. I tell this story because that is what this bill does. It prohibits the leading government funded history and civics programs from discussing racism, systemic discrimination, the existence of
transgender people, or any other history the administration doesn't agree with. This isn't civic's history. This is censorship. And no matter how this administration and this majority may try, you cannot erase the facts of American history. As a former teacher, I
ask, how can we accurately talk about the realities of the American experience if teachers can't discuss how slavery and the Jim Crow era shaped American life today? How can we talk about Japanese American incarceration without talking about the racism and moral
failures that led to American prison camps? or discuss the uh state violence that led to Stonewall without being without being to quote the administration too negative. This bill seeks to erase transgender Americans entirely from American history and
civics's curriculum. This is not only harmful, it's it's inaccurate. Transgender people have existed throughout American history, and we need more education about their stories, not less. And while the majority is busy policing what teachers say, they are ignoring the actual crisis in the
classroom. The administration has already canceled $600 million in teacher training grants. One in eight teaching positions are unfilled or filled by a teacher who is not certified for the role. It's estimated that six million students are impacted by this shortage nationwide.
This bill doesn't offer any support for that crisis. This bill does not authorize a single dollar toward educa uh toward educator professional development. It just executes on the administration's orders to clean up any history it doesn't like. Like Joseph McCarthy before them, the authors of
this bill give politicians the unilateral power to censor the ideas they don't understand or don't agree with. It doesn't take long before politicians ideologies begin to creep further and further into our children's freedom to learn. I yield back, Mr.
Chairman. >> I thank the gentleman. I now recognize gentleman from Guam, Mr. Moan, for five minutes. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. and not wanting to throw the baby out with the bathwater, I request a point of clarity on the bill and scope of how history can
be taught uh which a definition that includes the United States is fundamentally racist, sexist or otherwise discriminatory. So I have a question on how if at all the bill might impact teaching constitutional law,
specifically the insular cases. Uh Mr. Chairman, I'd like to enter into record a letter from members of Congress, 43 of them, a bipartisan le letter to the attorney general uh regarding the justice department should similarly
recognize the racist logic uh that insular cases doctrine of territorial incorporation represents and expressly rejects this case law. Mr. Chairman, >> without objection. >> Uh Mr. Chairman, I also uh like to enter into the record that the Department of
Justice reply uh when the department to this letter uh that the department emphatically agrees with the letter. >> Without objection. >> And finally, Mr. Chairman, I also wish to enter into the record uh Justice Gorsuch uh his decision on the Supreme
Court decision regarding the insular cases. >> Without objection, it will be inserted. >> Okay. And Mr. Chairman, all all these letters and uh decisions all all agreed with the insular case were based on racist ideologies to include, Mr.
Chairman, a final uh enter into the record the um justice manual uh that regards the applicable and constitutional provisions of the US territories. >> Without objection. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And because the
insular cases are now uh law of the land and the interpretation of constitution or fundamental law, I want to know if this will be how this would impact and what can be taught on it. And my understanding
and the staff's decision in staff's discussion is that nothing in this bill would prohibit teaching about the flaws in our past. So my question is for my good friend, Mr. Owens. Would you mind kindly elaborating on how your bill
might affect teaching about our complex history and some of the current issues Americans in the territories might face. >> Thank thank you so much for this opportunity to to clarify this. First of all, uh this has nothing to do with covering past mistakes. Matter of fact,
the beauty of our country is the fact that our history shows our past mistakes. Uh we start off with the concept of becoming more perfect union. I can't say how powerful that is to have humble uh founders who realize that we're not perfect but in time we can be much much better and that's exactly what
our country has become. Uh it's important that as we move forward that we not only tell the history of our country uh tell the history of my my history of of segregation of coming through that process of of how my race dealt with that. Uh all that's important
and the most important thing from that is how far we've come. I'm sitting here now with my friend from uh from Guam from territory of Guan and I'm from Utah with a history if you go back far enough that would say we would never be here. But here in this country because we believe in more perfect union because we
believe that all men are created equal because we believe that we the people become one in time with history then we can truly give our kids a great much much greater opportunity to have a vision ahead of us. So, it's important that we do not teach our past history as
if it's our pre present path. And that's what this is all about. Let's be honest. Yes, we made mistakes, but look how far we've come. Look at what we're doing together as we the people today. And if we have teachers, we have uh uh folks who understand that process. We give our
kids more hope, more vision, more opportunity, and they can become even more perfect than we are today if given the opportunity that they see our past for what it what it is. So, uh, thank you for that question. Just know, um, this is to give our kids, no matter where they are in this great nation, a
chance to see that they can truly have even something better to pass on to their kids. >> I thank my colleague very much for that clear explanation. Mr. Chairman, I support this measure and I thank you very much. I yield.
>> Gentleman yields. Does the gentle lady from North Carolina wish to be recognized? Miss Adam. >> Yes, Mr. Chair. I I move like the strike the last words we can >> recognize for five minutes. >> Thank you. Um Mr. Chairman, let me first of all say uh that I support strong civics education. I support teaching our
students American history, government, geography, and the ongoing work of democracy in this country. But this bill does not meet the moment our schools are facing right now. Schools need stability. They need clear guidance. They need resources. and they need
teachers, counselors, and and civil rights enforcement and a department of education that can actually answer the phone when states, districts, students, and families need help. Instead, this bill gives them another political fight. The American History and Civics programs
were created to to help teachers teach history well and and prepare students to understand our democracy. These programs support teacher training, student resources, and and academics uh that that help young people better understand
our institutions and their responsibilities as citizens. Rather than strengthen that work, this bill would restrict those grants by using vague and politically loaded terms from President Trump's executive orders. This
bill can limit what history can be taught in classrooms and and may cause schools to to pull back from from certain instructional materials or or teach preparation because they are worried about keeping access to to federal funds. Well, that's not helping
schools. That's putting one more burden on schools already dealing with too much. At the same time, this administration has has cut the Department of Education's workforce dramatically. Committee staff noted that the administration's reduction in in
force cut the department staff in half, reducing the staff available to answer questions from state and local education leaders. And so we know these cuts have real consequences. When the Office of Civil Rights is weakened, students and
families are left waiting. Students with disabilities, students facing harassment, students experiencing discrimination, and families trying to get help are left wondering whether anyone at the federal level is still there to protect them. The Government
Accountability Office reported that the administration announced a reduction in force and and reorganization that would cut OCR's work by work workforce by about half and that from March to September 2025,
OCR received more than 9,000 complaints of alleged discrimination and resolved more than 7,000, about 90% through dismissals. Well, that should concern every member of this committee because civil rights enforcement is not
paperwork. I It is not bureaucracy. It's how we make sure that a child with a disability gets the services they're entitled to. It's how we make sure that a student is is not denied opportunity because of race, sex, disability,
religion, or national origin. It is how we make sure that schools are safe and fair places for for every child. So I have to ask, why are we spending time on this bill when OCR needs support? Why
are we debating another culture war bill when schools are are asking for help with with staffing shortages and learning loss and chronic absenteeism and student mental health and special education services and funding
uncertainty? Why are we telling teachers what not to say instead of giving them the tools to do their jobs? My colleagues on the other side of the aisle often say that they want to return education to the states, but this bill
does the opposite. It inserts Washington politics into teacher training and civics institution while schools are already trying to navigate the chaos created by federal cuts and uncertainty. And so if we truly care about civics's
education, then we should invest in it. We should support teachers. We should protect the office for civil rights and we should make sure that the department of education has the staff and the capacity to serve students and families
and schools. And what we should not do is pass a bill that creates confusion, chills honest instruction, and distracts from the real problems that schools are facing. So for those reasons, I urge my colleagues to vote no on this bill. And
with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back. >> I thank the gentle lady and now recognize the gentle lady from Connecticut, Mrs. Hayes, for five minutes. >> Thank you, Mr. Chair. I move to strike the last word. >> You're recognized.
>> As I sit here and hear debate on this piece of legislation, this does not do anything that it says it is supposed to do. As a history and social studies teacher, I taught civics and government
and many of the things that we're discussing here for close to 15 years, 2,700 days in the classroom, not counting before and after school work or any of my summer work. And I can tell you that this committee talks more about
about sexual orientation and ideology and and gender ideology than I ever heard in all of those years in the classroom. That's just not what teachers do. That's not what teachers talk about. That's not
what teachers focus on. But what I will say when we're talking about the teaching of these things, many of my colleagues have referenced our founding documents and what our founding fathers uh may have put in these documents. But
over those 250 years, we didn't just evolve to be the more perfect union that we are striving to be. People challenged those ideas. People showed up and asked questions. So the idea that young people today can't do that is just
not what education is supposed to do. Teachers operate under as a social studies teacher I had to work under the social studies framework um our standards the C3 framework which you teach children how to recognize bias uh
write persuasively uh examine critical ideas. You don't tell them what to think. You give them the tools in order to evaluate the information that they're receiving. So this what we're hearing today is that
people are afraid of students having all of the information. And it's really hard to defend this piece of legislation at a time where we're seeing the gutting of the Voting Rights Act, a piece of landmark legislation that was borne out
over time and and challenge and sacrifice and civil rights movements. Kids should learn all of those things in the classroom. And then I think probably the most egregious of all of this is the
naming of the bill. the the person that this bill is meant to uplift while he was entitled to his own ideas. There are many people who do not feel the same way as my Republican colleagues
and that's just not the work that we should be engaged in on this committee. If you want to make sure if we want to, as my colleague, Miss Adams said, there are many ways that we can support teachers and the education of students and making sure that they have the resources that they need, making sure
that I remember as a a first year teacher photocopying and making copies of primary source information to give to my students because my I I didn't have it in the classroom. taking money out of my pocket to make sure that students had
all of these things and we can have robust conversations subscribing to, you know, different mediums just so that my my students in my class could have access to all of these things that weren't provided by the district. Those are some of the things that we could work on in order to improve civic
education. But limiting access to information is not how we do that. And it is it is remarkable. It is remarkable that in the same sentence that we talk about how far we've come as a nation that this
piece of legislation is being put forth that takes us decades back. Um I I respect uh the author of this bill who is submitting this, but I have to say that I disagree because I guess my
experience has been a lot different a lot different than than Mr. Owens, my experience has been a lot different different. It doesn't mean I I love this country any less. It doesn't mean that um I I am not proud of the work and the progress that that we have done. It
means that I am honest about our history and I know that I cannot take it for granted and I know that the work and the sacrifices of others before me requires requires my participation in our civic society so that we can continue to move
forward towards the idea of a more perfect union. We are not there yet. We have work to do. We have come a long way. But this is not the piece of legislation that does this. And I think that it really it really dismisses the hard work of
teachers and educators every day by thinking they can be reduced to just indoctrinating students and not really investing in the profession and the future that they believe in and they love and care about and the students who they know deserve it. I will be voting no. And with that, I yield back.
>> I thank the gentle lady. Does a gentleman from Virginia wish to be recognized? >> Yes, Mr. Chairman. >> Recognized for five minutes. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Chairman, this bill would prohibit federal teacher training um and preparation funds for American history and civics education provided
through the Elementary and Secondary Education Act from being used to teach discriminatory equity ideology and gender ideology. I think it should be said that federal government should want children
to be taught the full breadth of our country's history, including the parts that are hard to talk about, and our teachers should be able to access training that helped them do just that. But this bill is just another example of the majority promoting its view of
history and frankly why the federal government needs to stay out of the curriculum. um diverse discrim discriminatory equity ideology means different things to different people. The gentleman from
Guam went to great went to great lengths to talk about um discrimination in um in in in our history. The gentleman from Utah talked about slavery. I don't know how you can talk about those without talking about discriminatory equity
ideology. The gentleman from Utah said, "Well, you that's in the past. Let's talk about the present." Well, how do you talk about the recent Louisiana versus Klay case uh on redistricting where the Supreme Court said you could have discriminatory districts and prove
it? Prove the district plan discriminates against African has the effect of discriminating against African-Americans. But you have no recourse unless you can show it wasn't partisan as well as racial.
There's no recourse to a racially discriminatory plan if um the people who did it claim that it was um partisan rather than racial. I don't know how you I mean it's just
different things to different people. This bill would prohibit teaching um that kind of discrimination and other subjects that uh I think most people think ought to be taught like how to teach discrimination and how to
teach uh diverse student bodies. Those are the kinds of things that teachers may need training in. This bill would prevent it. And while we should be addressing science, math, special education shortages, a majority is promoting anti-trans legislation that
does nothing to get highly trained, highly qualified professionals into our classrooms. It limits the training around history and civics that an educator can receive. And for those reasons, we should defeat the legislation. And I yield back.
>> I thank the gentlemen. Are there any others who wish to be recognized for further discussion on the amendment and nature of a substitute? There being no further discussion on the amendment and nature of a substitute, committee will move to consideration of amendments. Are there any members who
would like to offer amendments? >> I recognize the gentle lady from Oregon, Miss Bonamichi. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have an amendment at the desk to the underlying text. The clerk will report the amendment. >> Amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute to HR8705 offered by
Miss Bonamichi of Oregon identifier Bami_1000. >> Does a gentleman from Utah reserve a point of order? >> Reserve a point of order. >> A point of order is reserved. I now recognize the gentle lady from Oregon, Miss Bonamichi, for five minutes in support of her amendment. >> Uh, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I
agree and I know all of my colleagues here agree with the need for accurate civics and history uh education. But this bill uh is about censorship. It's not about accurate history and civics education. It seeks to define what history is taught and how and it seeks
to limit what history is is taught and how it is taught. Uh and and Mr. Chairman, should this bill pass, I would expect to see legal challenges, chilling of free speech, and also some chaos and confusion in classrooms across the country. What can you say? What can you
talk about? Um, but I'm I'm going to try uh to make it a little bit better. It's not going to fix the bill, but I'm going to try to make it a little bit better with this amendment that would guarantee that no funds under this bill would be used to promote hate or discrimination, both of which we are seeing uh a lot
these days. when people say things like, "Black women do not have the brain processing power to otherwise be taken really seriously," end quote, or quote, "The transgender thing happening in America is a throbbing middle finger to God." close quote. Statements like that
add to the division in our nation. And although viewpoint diversity is important, there is no place for hate speech in our schools and in our society. And recently, we've even heard someone say, "We need more Islamophobia." end quote, "Fear of Islam is rational." Close quote. These
statements send a message that discriminating against someone for their religious beliefs is acceptable. And let me be clear, it is not. Just this week, we saw a violent attack at an Islamic center in San Diego that left three people dead. Hateful rhetoric, like the
remarks above, emboldened these kinds of attacks. Political violence is unacceptable, period. And hatred is unacceptable, period. So my amendment would ensure that funds used to support our public schools do not go to those who support hate against any
historically marginalized communities. So I urge my colleagues to support this amendment and I yield back the balance of my time. >> Gentle lady yields. Does the gentleman insist on a point of order? >> I withdraw my point of order. >> Reservation is withdrawn. Does anyone
else seek recognition on the amendment? Uh the gentleman from North Carolina, Mr. Mr. Harris, do you wish to be recognized? >> Yes, Mr. Chairman, I'd like to speak in opposition to this amendment. >> You're recognized for 5 minutes. >> Mr. Chairman, I I rise to speak against this amendment primarily because it is
totally unnecessary. The the core implication of this amendment is that the bill that's been introduced without this amendment would somehow otherwise ban teaching about racism, ban teaching about misogyny, or ban treatment about
mistreatment of minorities. But the facts are nothing could be further from the truth. Instead, this bill prohibits civics's funding from being used to teach that the United States is fundamentally racist, sexist,
or otherwise discriminatory. Listen, critical race theory as espoused, for example, in the 1619 project holds that the entire system of American self-government is irreparably shot through with racism or systemic
discrimination. Critical race theory attacks actually colorblind and raceneutral such as the constitution as being inherently inequitable. It assumes that every element of government was established to benefit the privileged.
That's very different from teaching that slavery is real, that racism is real, and that misogyny is real. America has had, as as the uh lead on this bill already, Mr. Owens pointed out, America
has had and still has many flaws. And this bill would do nothing to prohibit teaching that. However, America's story is one of progress. The American experiment in self-government is unique in world history. American
self-government combined with capitalism has been maybe the greatest engine in world history for expanding opportunity and lifting marginalized communities out of poverty. I just think again the core implication of the amendment is that
without it that somehow we're going to ban teaching on these important issues. That that is just not the truth. And so I rise in opposition uh to this amendment and urge my colleagues to vote it down. With that I yield back. >> The gentleman yields. Are there any
others who wish to speak on this amendment? >> Seeing none, >> Mr. Chairman. Uh, does the gentleman from Virginia, the ranking member, wish to be recognized? >> Yes, Mr. Chairman, speak to the amendment. >> You're recognized for five minutes.
>> Mr. Chairman, I just want to read the amendment. It says that u you're adding a provision that says no funds may be used for anti-trans, anti-Arab, anti-immigrant, or racism, including anti-lack hate, anti-semitism, and
misogyny, or hate against other historically marginalized populations. Um, if it doesn't pass, that would I guess funds could be used for that. So, I guess we have a choice. Yield back.
Gentleman yields. Are there any others that wish to speak on the amendment? Seeing none, uh, the question is on the amendment by the gentle lady from Oregon, Miss Banamichi. All in favor say I. I. All oppose. No.
>> No. >> In the opinion of the chair, the nos have it. An amendment is not agreed to. >> Mr. Chairman, I request >> 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 8705? Gentle lady from North Carolina, Miss Adams. Do you wish to be recognized for an amendment? I >> I wish to be recognized, Mr. Chairman. I have an amendment at the desk. AMD D_587. >> The uh clerk will identify the amendment.
>> Amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute to HR8705 offered by Miss Adams of North Carolina. Identifier AdamNC_587. >> Does a gentleman from uh from Utah wish to reserve a point of order? >> Reserve point of order, please. >> Point of order is reserved. I now
recognize gentle from North Carolina, Miss Adams, to speak for five minutes on her amendment. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Uh, I rise in support of my amendment, which makes one simple clarification. Nothing in this act shall be con construed to prevent the teaching of the
horrors of slavery in American history. That should not be controversial. Uh if we're going to talk about American history and civics, then we have to be willing to tell the truth about American history and civics. We cannot teach the founding of this country without
teaching the the contradiction that existed at the very beginning. We cannot teach freedom without teaching slavery. We cannot teach the Constitution without teaching the millions of people who were excluded from its promises. And we
cannot teach reconstruction, civil rights, voting rights, or the long struggle for equal justice without teaching what made those struggles necessary in the first place. And that's not in in contradiction. Uh that's
history and our students are are strong enough to to learn the truth. The concern with this bill is that its broad and politically charged language may create confusion for schools and teachers. Uh committee staff has already
warned that this bill may limit what history can be taught in classrooms and and may influence local decisions about instructional materials and teacher preparation because schools do not want to risk federal funding. As a retired
educator for 40 years, I know what happens when politicians write vague restrictions and teachers are left to interpret them. Teachers start to avoid hardship, hard subjects, and districts start to pull back and lessons get
watered down and students lose access to the full story of this country. We should not put teachers in a position where they have to wonder whether an honest lesson about slavery, Jim Crow, segregation, redlinining, or the civil
rights movement could be labeled political or divisive. This amendment does not require any school to adopt a particular curriculum. It does not tell states or or local districts how to teach. It does not force one political
viewpoint into the classroom. It simply says that that nothing in this bill, nothing in this bill should be used to stop schools from teaching the horrors of slavery in American history. Slavery is not a side issue in American history.
It is central to American history. It is it shaped the nation's founding. It shaped our constitution. It shaped our economy and it shaped the fight for freedom that continued long after emancipation. Our students deserve to
learn that history honestly. They deserve to learn about the cruelty and the violence of slavery, but also about the resistance, the courage, the faith, the the family and and and humanity of enslaved people who fought to survive and be free. And they deserve to
understand that democracy is not something that we inherited perfectly. It's something generations of Americans had to fight to make real. If this bill is truly about strengthening civics and history education, then this amendment
should be easy to accept. Because civics is not just about memorizing the three branches of government. It's about understanding who had power, who was denied it, and how people organized, protested, legislated, and and
sacrificed to expand the promise of America. So again, my amendment is straightforward. It gives teachers and and and school districts clarity. It protects the the teaching of the horrors of slavery in American history. And it
it makes clear it makes clear that this act should not be used to erase, avoid, or sanitize one of the most important and painful chapters in our nation's story. I urge my colleagues to support
the amendment. With that, Mr. Chairman, uh I yield back. The gentle lady yields. Does the gentleman from Utah insist on his point of order? >> Yes. Thank Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Uh the Democrat amendment is totally unnecessary. >> Do you do you insist on your point of order?
>> Oh, yes. Sorry. Um >> point of order is withdrawn. >> Yes, I order reservation withdrawn. Now I recognize a gentleman from Utah. >> Thank you. >> Purpose of speaking to the amendment. >> Uh the democratic amendment is totally unnecessary. Uh the core imp implication
of this amendment is that our bill without this amendment would otherwise ban teaching slavery. Nothing could be further from the truth. No one I would suggest again no one is suggesting that slavery cannot be taught under this bill. Instead the bill prohibits civil
funds from being used to teach that the United States is fundamentally racist, sexist, or otherwise discriminatory. As I mentioned before, the rad uh critical race theory which was taught for decades says that America is systemically racist. Uh critical race theory attacks
colorblind and race neutral laws such as the constitution as being inherently inequitable. It assumes that every element of our government is established to benefit the privileged. That's very difficult. That's very different from the teaching that slavery is real. We
should be honest about America's history and acknowledge that we haven't lived up to all our values. That's one of the blessings of living in this country is we have rights and freedom to speak up when we see gross and and injustice such as slavery. Our country is under undergurted by fundamental values such
as inherent dignity of every person and we should teach that. That's very different from saying American values themselves are corrupt or sham or entrenched to the power entrench the powerful at the expense of the weak. That's the problem this this uh this bill would address. I urge my colleagues
to vote no on this amendment. I yield back. >> The gentleman yields. Are there any others who wish to speak on the amendment? I I recognize gentleman ranking member from Virginia for five minutes. >> Mr. Chairman, this this amendment does not mention critical race theory.
It just says that nothing in this act or the amendments made by this act may be construed to prohibit the teaching of the indignities of slavery, including with respect to rape, physical abuse, and mutilation of enslaved people and the subsequent harm that enslaved people
faced after slavery. Now, if the bill does not um prohibit the teaching as this amendment suggests, then okay. But there may be some that don't want that taught.
This amendment would make it clear that it can be taught. And so, again, we have a choice. We can let the uh teaching of slavery go forward accurately or we can use this bill to prohibit that teaching.
I would uh agree with the gentle lady from North Carolina and agree with our amendment. I yield back. >> Gentleman yields. Are there any others who wish to speak on this amendment? Since there are none, the question is on the amendment by the gentle lady from
North Carolina, Miss Adams. All in favor say I. >> All oppose, no. >> No. In in the opinion of the chair, the nose have it. An amendment is not agreed to. >> Chairman, I ask for a quarter of vote. >> 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 HR8705? I recognize the gentle lady from Arizona, Miss Grahalva, for the purposes of offering an amendment.
>> Um, Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk. >> The clerk will report the amendment. >> Amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute to HR 8705 offered by Miss Grahala of Arizona identifier GR I J Az_114.
Does the gentleman from Utah wish to reserve a point of order? >> A point of order is reserved. I now recognize the gentle lady from Arizona, Miss Grahova, for five minutes in support of her amendment. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like like to offer an amendment to the underlying text, but I have to say this
has been a surreal discussion in this committee um hearing room today. the fact that we are debating teaching the true history and present of this nation. We have to know where we have been to move forward together. My amendment
specifically would ensure that teaching about the history and contributions of immigrants to developing our country and the discrimination many immigrant communities have faced is protected. By adding this clarification, we prevent the bill from being used intentionally
or intentionally to suppress or exclude historical topics related to immigrant communities, including but not limited to the migration to Ellis Island in New York, Angel Island and San Francisco, the cultural and economic contributions
of migration from Latin America AC and community across the US southern border. Banning the teaching of immigrant contributions in school at a time when ICE enforcement is ripping students and teachers out of classrooms and is tearing families apart does nothing to
increase academic outcomes in American history and civics. It is an attempt to further silence an already marginalized community. Beyond the substance of the bill, the decision to name this bill after a polarizing political figure
unnecessarily injects partisanship into what should be a thoughtful and serious discussion about education policy. We have already seen in Arizona that efforts to commemorate Mr. Kirk through measures such as a highway renaming proposals or specialty license plates
generated more division than value for the public. Our focus should be on expanding educational opportunity and ensuring students receive a complete and honest understanding of American history, not in advancing political
symbolism that distracts from the mission. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment and I yield back. >> Gentle lady yields. Now I recognize a gentleman from North Carolina, Mr. Harris. Mr. Chairman, I'd like to speak in opposition to this amendment.
>> You're recognized for 5 minutes. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As mentioned with the other amendments previously, um this amendment is totally unnecessary. Again, like the others, the core implication of this amendment is that our bill without this amendment would
somehow ban the teaching about immigration. So, let me just say again, nothing could be further from the truth. Instead, as I've mentioned, this bill prohibits civic funds from being used to teach that the United States is
fundamentally racist, sexist, or otherwise discriminatory. And that's very different from acknowledging that immigration is a real issue and that there's benefits and there's flaws in our immigration system. So, let me be
clear once again. Our bill does not mean that civic funds have to be spent teaching that America is perfect. In fact, we all know our Constitution was written to form a more perfect union. Our founding fathers realized there was
much more work to do. And listen, frankly, we should aspire to the same goal today, making our country better. There's nothing in this bill that will prohibit teaching that America can improve. But what is here is this bill
prohibits teaching that America is shot through with oppression, that it's fundamentally racist, and that the American system of government is perpetually biased toward the rich and the powerful. Listen, if America were
such a systemically racist country, I don't think any immigrant would be trying to come here. But immigrants themselves, at least the ones I've spoken with throughout my district, will tell you that America, for all of its flaws, is the best hope of the free
world. No country in the world has ever been such an engine of economic opportunity, of liberty, and of hope for impoverished people. That's why so many people are wanting to get in. So again,
I come back to where I started. Um, this amendment is unnecessary and I stand in opposition to it. And with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back. >> Gentleman yields. Does the gentleman from Utah continue to reserve a point? >> Yes, I restore my point of order. >> Point of order is withdrawn. Are there
any others who wish to speak? I recognize a gentleman from Virginia, the ranking member, Mr. Scott. >> Mr. Chairman, thank you, Mr. Chairman. This is a very simple amendment. Just make sure that you can discuss the
teaching of the contributions of immigrants, including the discrimination they faced. And I don't know how you can do that without transgressing into quote discriminatory equity ideology.
This just makes it clear that you can talk about the discrimination immigrants faced without um violating the provisions of the bill. Very simple. And I
think history is history. We'll see um what happens to that history on this vote. The gentleman yields. Are there any others who seek recognition on the amendment? Seeing none, then the question is on the
amendment by the gentle lady from North Carolina or excuse me from Arizona, Miss Grahalova. All in favor say I. >> All oppose. No. No. In the opinion of the chair, the nose have it and the amendment is not agreed to. >> Ask for recorded vote, please.
>> 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 substitute HR8705? I recognize the gentleman from Virginia, the ranking member, Mr. Scott, for
purposes of amendment. >> Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk AMD_04. >> The clerk will report the amendment. >> Amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute to HR8705 offered by Mr. Scott of Virginia
identifier Scott_AMD_04. >> Does a gentleman from Utah reserve a point of order? >> Reserve a point of order. >> Um, >> excuse me. >> Um, we're we're having a little confusion about what's number four.
>> 404 AMD04. Um, just to make sure I'll ask I'll ask the gentleman to >> a AMD3 >> AMD3. Uh, and I'll ask the clerk to identify the amendment. >> Amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute to HR8705 offered by Mr.
Scott of Virginia, identifier Scott AMD_03. >> Good. Now, now does the gentleman from Utah reserve a point of order? >> Yes. I'd like to reserve a point of order. >> Point of order is reserved. I now recognize gentleman from Virginia, the ranking member, Mr. Scott for five
minutes in support of his amendment. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, this is a very simple rule of construction. Says nothing in this act of the amendments made by this act may be construed to prohibit the teaching of the role of LGBTQ people in the history
of the United States, including with respect to Harvey Mil, his contributions to the United States politics, and his assassination of Marshia P. Johnson, her work as a transgender rights activist in her role in the Stonewall
Rebellion. Um, amendment adds rule of construction, permitting the teaching of that history and historical figures when teaching American history. It's essential that when we teach LGBTQ history, it has
contributed to the growth of our nation rather than erase it. uh uh we er if we did that would be erasing a communities past and that's one of the most effective ways to marginalize them in the present.
Legislation that attacks marginalized communities only increases discrimination and harassment which leads to adverse mental health outcomes for members of the LGBTQ community. In 2021, 68% of all LGBTQI
plus students surveyed reported feeling unsafe in their school environment due to their perceived sexual orientation, gender identity, or expression. And in addition, more than 3/arters of LGBTQ students who attended
school in person during the surveyed period reported experiencing in-person verbal harassment based on their sexual orientation, gender expression or gender at some point in the past year. This amendment protects educators
ability to be trained in teaching methods and support uh of inclusion and acceptance of students regardless of their sexual orientation or gender identity. And for that reason, I support the amendment and hope it's adopted.
You back. >> Gentleman yields. Does the gentleman from Utah >> withdraw a point of order? >> Point of order is withdrawn. I now recognize the gentle lady from Illinois, Miss Miller, for purposes of speaking on the amendment.
>> Thank you. The Democrat amendment misses the point of the bill. This bill bans teaching for radical gender ideology, and that term is clearly defined. President Trump's executive order says gender ideology
replaces the biological category of sex with an evershifting concept of selfassessed gender identity, permitting the false claim that males can identify as and thus become women
and vice versa. and requiring all institutions of society to regard this false claim as true. Gender ideology includes the idea that there is a vast spectrum of genders that are
disconnected from one sex. Gender ideology is internally inconsistent in that it diminishes sex as an identifiable or useful category, but nevertheless maintains that it is possible for a person to be born in the
wrongsexed body. Prohibiting this teaching is good policy. Federal funds should support accurate biological information, not inaccurate teachings such as that a man can become a woman or that a man can
become pregnant. The Democrat amendment would directly contradict this goal. I oppose this amendment and urge my colleagues to vote no. >> And I yield back. >> General lady yields. Are there others who wish to speak to this amendment?
Uh seeing none hearing none uh the question is on the amendment by the gentleman from Virginia ranking member Mr. Scott. All in favor say I. >> I. >> All oppose. No. No. In the opinion of the chairs the nose have it. An
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 nature of a substitute to HR8705? I recognize the gentleman from Virginia, the ranking member, Mr. Scott, for
purpose of amendment. >> Uh, yes, Mr. Chairman. I have an amendment to desk AMD_04. >> The clerk >> I think they have it now. >> The clerk will report the amendment. >> Amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute to HR8705 offered by Mr. Scott of Virginia
identifier Scott AMD_04. Does a gentleman from Utah wish to reserve a point of order? A point of order is reserved. I now recognize the gentleman from Virginia for five minutes in support of his amendment. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, this amendment adds a simple but
essential clarification that the definition of discriminatory equity ideology does not include teaching about the January 6th attack on the US capital or the heroic actions of the Capitol police who defended this institution.
This clarification is necessary because under the bill's definition, teaching about January 6 could be mischaracterized as making white students feel blamed or stereotyped for actions committed in the past by other members of the same race, color, sex,
national origin in which the individual played no part since most of the rioters that day were white. We cannot allow this definition to be used to silence educators or to prevent students from learning about what happened on January 6th,
including the lies that fuel the attack and the bravery of the officers who protected the capital. It is well documented that President Trump was reluctant to condemn the actions of his supporters even as violence unfolded. and he has since claimed the riers posed
quote zero threat, saying some of them went in and they're hugging and kissing the police and the guards they had a great relationship. In reality, many riders violently clashed with police, smashing windows,
ramming doors, and assaulting officers. Dozens of officers were severely injured defending the capital and protecting the priestful transfer of power. And to add insult to injury, just a week, just this week, a spokesman for Trump's legal team
claimed that President Trump, his family, supporters, and countless other American first patriots were illegally targeted by law enforcement following the announcement that the administration had created a $ 1.8 billion lawfare fund
in exchange for Trump dropping a $10 billion IRS lawsuit. Two Capitol police officers who defended the capital in January have now filed suit to block that fund. Their lawsuit states plainly that the January 6 riers engaged in an
insurrection by attacking the capital to prevent the lawful certification of a presidential election. These officers put their lives on the line to protect democracy. Students deserve to learn the truth about what happened that day and nothing in this
bill should be twisted to prevent that. This amendment ensures that teaching factual history is not treated as discrimination and that courage of the Capitol police is not erased erased from the classroom to urge my colleagues to support the amendment and yield back the
balance of my time. >> The gentleman yields. Does the gentleman from Utah insist on a point of order? Point of order is withdrawn. >> Does anyone else seek recognition on the amendment?
>> No. I I recognize myself to speak to the amendment for five minutes. Um, I hate to say this, but I I I think this amendment is a solution in search of a
problem. Discriminatory equity ideology is clearly defined and there's no need to further define what this means. The definition is President Trump's executive order which says among other
things and I quote, "Discriminatory equity ideology means an ideology that treats individuals as members of preferred or disfavored groups rather than as individuals
and minimizes agency, merit, and capability in favor of immoral general generalizations. including that members of one race, color, sex, or national origin are morally or inherently
superior to members of another race, color, sex, or national origin. An individual by virtue of the individual's race, color, sex, or national origin is inherently racist, sexist, or oppressive, whether consciously or
unconsciously. the United States is fundamentally racist, sexist, or otherwise discriminatory." End quote. There's no need to further clarify the definition, I believe.
And I believe this amendment is going totally off topic in an effort to score political points against the president. I oppose the amendment and urge my colleagues to vote no. Does anyone else seek recognition on the
amendment? Seeing none, u the question is on the amendment by the gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Scott. All in favor say I. >> All oppose? No. No. In the opinion of the chairs, the nose have it and the
amendment is not agreed to. A roll called 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 HR8705? Scott.
>> Uh I recognize Mr. Scott, the gentleman from Virginia, the ranking member to speak to. >> Mr. Chairman, I have an >> present a new amendment. >> Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk AMD_6. >> The clerk will report the amendment.
>> Amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute to HR8705 offered by Mr. Scott of Virginia identifier Scott_amd_06. >> This a gentleman from Utah. Reserve a point of order. >> Yes, I reserve a point of order. >> Point of order is reserved. I now
recognize the gentleman from Virginia, the ranking member, Mr. Scott, for five minutes in support of his amendment. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Mr. Chairman, this amendment would ensure the bill would not prohibit the educators from being trained to teach facts related to involvement of any member of the current presidential
administration or any former presidential administration and investigations of child of sexual trafficking of children or grooming children for sexual trafficking. real world examples such as the case involving Jeffrey Epstein matter because
our children deserve to know a complete history based on facts, not just things that support certain political ideology or promote the belief that our political leaders are without flaws. This amendment assures that educators can be trained to teach history using facts
even when there are uncomfortable truths. And now I guess on this amendment we'll find out whether this is going to be hidden. um and um hidden away and and blocked by this um legislation. I would hope
that it wouldn't. I'd hope that the teachers could be trained on this difficult subject, but we'll see. Yield back. >> The gentleman yields. Does the gentleman from Utah reserve a point of order? >> I withdraw my point of order. >> Point of order is withdrawn.
I recognize gentleman from Utah uh to speak on this amendment. Five minutes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Once again, the Democrat amendment uh is a solution in search of a problem. Discriminatory equity ideology is clearly defined, and there's no need to further define what
this means. The definition is President Trump's executive order which is worth reading again says among other things discriminary equity ideology means an ideology treats individuals as members of a preferred or disfavored groups
rather than individuals and minimizes agency merit uh capability in favor of immoral generalizations in that that include members of one race, color, sex or national order that order or origin that morally or inherently superior to
members of another race, color, sex, or national origin. An individual by virtue of individuals race, color, sex, or national origin is inherently racist, sexist, or oppressive, whether consciously or unconsciously. The United States is fundamentally uh racist,
sexist, or otherwise discriminatory. There's no need to further clarify that definition or offer an off-topic rule of of construction. Democrats are going totally off topic in an effort to score political points. This amendment has nothing to do with the actual substance of the bill. Nor is there is there any
anything in the bill that'll make this amendment necessary. I oppose the amendment and urge my colleagues to vote no and I yield back. The gentleman yields. Are there any others who seek recognition on the amendment? Seeing none, the question then is on the
amendment by the gentleman from Virginia, the ranking member, Mr. Scott. All in favor say I. >> All oppose. No. >> No. >> No. >> In the opinion of the chair, the nos have it. An amendment is not agreed to. Uh roll call vote is ordered. Pursuant
to the chair's previous announcements, this vote will be postponed. Are there any further amendments to the amendment and a nature of a substitute to HR8705? >> Seeing none, further action on HR 8705 is postponed. We will now move to
consider the next bill. You're good to go. The committee will now proceed to consideration of the bill HR7362 for amendment. The bill was circulated in advance and printed copies are available. The clerk shall designate the
bill. HR 7362, a bill to amend the Employment Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 to simplify the filing of form 5500 for employee benefit plan administrators. >> 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? Mr. Growthman, for what purpose do you seek recognition? I have an amendment at the desk. I'm kind of surprised. I thought the room was going
to fill up for this thing, but uh Okay. I have an amendment at the desk. >> Take take any benefits you can get. Okay. The clerk shall designate the amendment in the nature of a substitute. >> Amendment in the nature of a substitute to HR 7362 offered by Mr. Growthman of
Wisconsin identifier HR 7362 ANS. >> 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 Mr. Growthman for five minutes to explain
the amendment in a nature of a substitute. HR 7362. Uh the form 55000 filing simplification act is bipartisan legislation designed to modernize and simplify outdated federal
reporting requirements for employer sponsored benefit plans governed by the employee retirement income security act. Orisa specifically HR7362 establishes a single uniform filing
deadline for annual reports required under Orisa. Under current law, plan administrators do not have enough time to complete all necessary recording require reporting requirements before the filing deadline. Also, there's a shortage of people to fill out these
forms at that time due to other things going on. As a result, many are forced to submit an extension requirement using form 5558 simply to file their form 5500 on time. It's a redundant two-step process which
increase paperwork and compliance cost without improving oversight of protections for the participants. HR 7362 provides a common sense fix by cutting red tape while maintaining strong oversight and accountability. 7362 will allow employers to spend less
time navigating duplicative paperwork requirements and more time serving workers and beneficiaries. I urge my colleagues to vote yes on the ANS which makes technical changes to the bill. Um you know, we all hear of of too much
paperwork here. We found something that we felt was bipartisan at least until a couple days ago. just a way to employers have one less form to worry about. And can I also uh
I'd also without objection I'd like to enter into the record seven letters supporting this bill from CHRO Association, the Orisa Industry Council, the American Retirement Association, NFIB, the Small Business Council America, the Spark Institute, and the
American Benefits Council. Without objection, they'll be introduced. >> Thank you. >> The gentleman yields. Are there any members who wish to be recognized for further discussion on the amendment and the nature of a substitute? I recognize the gentleman from Virginia,
the ranking member, Mr. Scott, to speak on the amendment. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, the ANS makes technical changes to the underlying bill which primarily establishes the new statutory deadline for filing a form 5500. In the current
law, plan administrator is typically required to file its annual form 55500 in the summer, but may request an extension of up to two and a half months, which pushes the deadline to mid-occtober. Most common way for a plan to request an extension is through
filing a form 5558 in the with the IRS. This is a simple one-page document. Here it is. That can be easily filed as long as form 5558 is properly completed and filed before
the deadline for 5500 is initially due. The request extension will be automatically approved. In pract in practice, that means the plan has close to 10 months in total to file its 5500 form 5500.
Republican colleagues have said that the bill establishes a single unified deadline for filing form 5500. And I'd like to ask the bill sponsor, gentleman from Wisconsin, is is there anything in
the bill that expressly prohibits a plan from requesting an extension beyond the newly established deadline of October 15th? >> No, I don't believe so. >> So that so there is a prohibition. So
October 15th is it? Period. >> I believe so. >> I'm sorry. I believe so. >> You have a you have a section that points to that. >> I'm sorry, I didn't hear you.
>> You you have you have right now a under the present law, you have an automatic right to an extension, >> right? >> Is that uh is that repealed in the bill? >> I believe the intent does intent was that it be repealed.
Well, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman. So, I think at best the bill is unclear as to whether the extension would be permitted beyond the newly established deadline October 15th as a process for getting an extension. If
it's not repealed, then presumably you can extend under that same provision another two and a half months. one can make a very convincing case that an extension on top of the letter statutory deadline would still be possible unless there's some
repeal in the law >> and that takes that just takes things in the wrong direction. There's already a significant issue with respect to the timeliness of form 5500 data. The most uh recent um document called private
pension plan bulletin published in January 2026 summarizes form 5500 data for plan years ending in 2023. Congress should be working together and
leveraging technology to encourage plans to file the these forms sooner so data can be more relevant and usable for the public. By the time you get the data, some of these plans may already be so insolvent that nothing can be done. It'd
be nice to get that data in a more timely basis. M >> Mr. I yield the gentleman. >> Yeah, I I'll I'll make that categorical. The bill says the IRS has to in their instructions make it clear that there that still that is the filing deadline.
You don't get an additional an additional extension. >> Okay. Thank the gentleman for that clarification. Mr. Chairman, hundreds of thousands of retirement plans and tens of thousands of other employee benefit plans meet the current annual statutory deadline for
filing and a similar number of plans seek an extension. For those plans that need an extension, there's an easy process. It's automatic. And I'm just seeing that no one has said that the total 10-month period is um is too
short. What I am seeing with respect to workers ability is with respect to workers ability to save for retirement. Workers retirement security starts with the their economic security. And right now many workers are struggling to pay
bills and meet basic needs, let alone save for retirement. Committee Republicans should be focused on making life more affordable for these workers and their families. And that starts with raising the minimum wage, reducing health care costs, ensuring workers can join a union so they can negotiate for
better wages. Unionized workers are are more likely to have access to retirement benefits through their employer than non-unized um their counterparts. And we need data to make sure these plans so we can find
out what's going on these plans. Um, we spent hundreds of um, we spent billions of dollars saving plans from the multi-employer pension fund because they had gone broke. Um, be nice to get the data in a timely fashion
so that we can take action maybe to save the plans before it's too late. So, I urge opposition HR 7362 because it's going in the wrong direction. And I yield back the balance of my time. I thank the gentlemen.
Are there any other members who wish to be recognized for further discussion on the amendment and the nature of a substitute? There being no further discussion on the amendment and the nature of substitute, 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 and the nature of the substitute to HR 7362. All in favor say I. I. >> I. All oppose. No. >> No. >> In the opinion of the chairs, the eyes
have it and the amendment and the nature of substitute is agreed to. We'll now move on to to consider the next bill. The committee will now uh proceed to consideration of of bill HR7895
for amendment. The bill was circulated in advance and printed copies are available. The clerk shall designate the bill. HR7895, a bill to amend section 408 of the Employment Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 to prohibit
kickbacks to pharmacy benefit managers. >> 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? Mr. Allen, for what
purpose do you seek recognition? >> Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment to desk. >> The clerk shall designate the amendment in the nature of a substitute. >> Amendment in the nature of a substitute to HR7895 offered by Mr. Allen of Georgia, identifier HR7895
ANS. >> Without objection, the amendment shall be considered original text for purposes of further amendment. The amendment in the nature of substitute has already been distributed. I now recognize Mr. Allen for five minutes to explain the amendment and the nature of a substitute.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Pharmacy pharmacy benefit managers or PBMs are third-party intermediaries that wield enormous power over the prescription drug supply chain affecting 90 million patients covered by Orisa
health plans. Yet, PBMs operate through a complex and opaque system of fees and rebates that drive up costs for patients and employers while lining the pockets of PBM middlemen. To navigate this system, employers often hire consultants
or brokers to help design and manage their health plans. These consultants and brokers are trusted to act in the best interest of employees and employers. Too often, however, consultants and advisers are incentivized to in steer uh employers to
a particular PBM in exchange for significant financial kickbacks from those PBMs. These arrangements are rarely transparent, leaving employers in the dark about the financial incentives influencing plan recommendations. While patients continue to face rising drug
costs and higher insurance premiums, employers deserve to know that their cons consultants and brokers are providing independent unbiased guidance, not recommendations influenced by hidden financial incentives. That is why I
introduced HR7895, the PBM kickback prohibition act. It would prohibit PBMs from paying kickbacks to brokers or consultants in exchange for steering health plans toward preferred PBMs. This is a key element of President
Trump's great health care plan and will and will eliminate these opaque pricing tactics which will help lower health care costs for patients and employers. Today I'm offering amendment in the nature of a substitute to strengthen the bill and ensure PBMs cannot evade these
prohibitions by simply calling the kickbacks something else. I urge my colleagues to vote yes on the ANS and the underlying bill. And with that I yield back. Gentleman yields. Are there any members who wish to be recognized for further discussion on the amendment
and the nature of substitute? Does the gentleman from uh California wish to be recognized? Okay, Mr. Chairman, >> I recognize the ranking member, the gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Scott, to speak to the amendment and the nature of
the substitute. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The amendment nature of substitute makes extensive changes in the underlying text of HR7895, the PBM kickback prohibition act. While we've only had 24 hours to examine this dramatically rewritten version, I assume
this overhaul was in response to some of the criticisms we made to the earlier original legis introduced legislation. Many people noted that the introduced version of the bill suffered from serious loopholes that would have essentially allowed entities to
mischaracterize referral fees to avoid compliance. and we've been uh included in the legislation. We could have worked to address that but I want to thank the gentleman from Georgia for rewriting that provision and it seems that we have fixed that in the amendment and nature
of a substitute. This is unfortunate way to address the issue. The committee has in the past worked in a bipartisan manner and hopefully we can do better in the future. some of these reforms uh became some of the reforms that we've worked on PBMs have become law already
particularly in the consolidated appropriations act of 2026. Um that said I support the ANS because it addresses a significant issue that is of concern to consumers employers alike. In 2023,
um there was a publication that investigated PBMs and found that they commonly pay referral fees to brokers and consultants that influence recommendations to employers when they are designing their healthcare plans. This often raises
costs for plan sponsors who receive conflicted advice from brokers and consultants. Prohibiting these payments is a positive step, but the bill still remains an incomplete product. Thanks to reporting from outlets like ProPublica, we have known for years that similar
payments are commonly are common throughout the health care system, not just PBMs. And this bill could be strengthened substantially by ensuring that the requirements uh that its requirements uh apply to all covered service providers.
Um I hope this deficiency can be addressed as the legislation goes forward. Thank you and I yield back. I thank the gentleman. Are there any members who wish to be recognized for further discussion on the amendment and the nature of a substitute? >> Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of
order. >> It's delayed for a point of order. >> Um I I I don't think we have a need yet for >> Oh, okay. >> point of order to be reserved. Um there being no further discussion on the amendment and the nature of a
substitute, the committee will now move to consideration of amendments. Are there any members who would like to offer amendments? I recognize the gentleman from California, Mr. Dsonier, for purpose of amendment. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um, and I appreciate the discussion as the ranking
member on the subcommittee and I'm generally supportive of the ANS which addresses a problem that has been well documented by outlets such as stat uh PBMs commonly pay what are >> will the will the gentleman offer the amendment. >> Uh yes, I'm sorry.
>> Uh >> I got ahead of myself. >> The clerk will identify the amendment. >> Amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute to HR 7895 offered by Mr. Donier of California identifier Donier_HR7895 AMD_1 >> gentleman from uh from Georgia reserve a
point of order. >> Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order. >> Point of order is reserved. I now recognize the gentleman from California, Mr. Sonier for five minutes in support of his amendment. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm sorry I get ahead of the clerk.
Uh so, as I said, I'm generally supportive of the amendment and the nature of the substitute, the issues around PBMs. Won't repeat that part. Uh but this conflicted advice can result in employers getting a bad deal on behalf of their workers, raising health care
costs for both workers and uh their families. I am concerned that the scope of the legislation is too narrow. By only focusing on pay payments made by PBMs to brokers and consultants, which is a good step, the bill ignores the
vast range of other middlemen who may also engage in similar practices. There is nothing in the bill that would address, for example, insurance companies or third-party administrators that might want to influence brokers and consultants by providing them with
similar similar payments. This is not just speculation. As the ranking member of the full committee mentioned, we have known this is an issue for many years. In 2019, ProPublica published an influential report detailing payments to
brokers and consultants from insurance companies. These include luxury vacations, large cash payments, and other compensation that have sub substantial impact on employers deciding which insurer to contract with when
designing their health plans. Congress took a small step toward addressing this issue by passing transparency requirements under the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2021. This has brought to light these payments in an unprecedented ways but did not actually
prohibit them. As a result, this remains a major issues issue. My amendment would address this through a simple change. It would strike language in the uh ANS that limits the kickback prohibition to PBMs.
This would ensure it applies to all covered service providers described in Orisa, including insurers, thirdparty administrators, and others. I urge my colleagues to support the amendment and yield back and thank the chairman for recognizing me.
>> Thank the gentleman. Does the gentleman from Georgia insist on a point of order? >> Um, M. >> You wish to withdraw? >> Yeah, Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my point of order. >> The reservation is withdrawn. Does anyone else seek recognition on the
amendment? U I recognize a gentleman from Georgia for five minutes to speak to the amendment. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. PBMs wield immense power in the pharmaceutical drug supply chain, influencing which drugs patients can
access and at what price. PVMs operate through a convolted system of rebates, fees, and pricing mechanisms that drive up cost. Employers hire brokers and consultants to navigate this complex system. However, some brokers and
consultants are being paid by PBMs to steer employers toward decisions that make more money for the PBMs but harm patients. Cracking down on PBM's paying kickbacks to consultants and brokers is a key feature of President Trump's great
health care plan. Other entities may also be making steering payments to brokers and consultants. However, to address PBM's pharmaceutical uh monopoly, we must keep the scope of this bill focused on PBMs to lower costs as part of president the president's great
healthc care plan. For these reasons, I urge my colleagues to vote no on the amendment. >> The gentleman yields. Are there any others who seek recognition on the amendment? Seeing none, uh, the question is on the amendment by the gentleman from
California, Mr. Dson. All in favor say I. All oppose, no. >> No. >> In the opinion of the chair, the nose have it and the amendment is not agreed to. >> Mr. Chairman, I'd like to request a recorded vote. >> 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 substitute to HR7895? There being no further amendments, further action on HR7895 is postponed. We'll now move to consider
the next bill. The committee will now proceed to consideration of bill HR8684. The bill was circulated in advance and printed copies are available. The clerk shall designate the bill. >> HR8684, a bill to amend the Employee Retirement
Income Security Act of 1974 to require group health plans and health insurance issuers offering group health insurance coverage to only play pay claims submitted by hospitals that have in place policies and procedures to ensure accurate billing practices 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 rec
to be recognized? Uh Mrs. Fox, 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 HR8684 offered by Miss Fox of North Carolina
identifier HR8684 ANS. >> Without objection, the amendment shall be considered original text for purposes of further amendment. The amendment in the nature of substitute has already been distributed. I now recognize the gentle lady from North Carolina. Uh the
uh chairman emeritus of this committee, Mrs. Fox, for five minutes to explain the amendment in the nature of a substitute. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I really appreciate you're recognizing me and considering this bill or considering this amendment. Hospital
prices are the number one driver of health care costs and account for one of every $3 pound health care in the United States. In recent decades, provider consolidation has skyrocketed, reducing competition and driving up costs for
patients and employers. One way this happens is through hidden facility fees. Hospitals often purchase outpatient clinics and then build services provided as those clinics as if they were delivered in a hospital setting,
allowing them to charge additional facility fees to insurers with little transparency or accountability. Those higher costs are ultimately passed on to patients through higher premiums and increased out-ofpocket expenses. My
bill, the Transparency and Billing Act, reaffirms a common sense policy. Patients and health plans should pay for the care that is actually provided, not hidden or inflated charges. HR8684
requires hospitals to receive a separate unique health identifier for each off-campus outpatient department and to use that unique number or identifier on all claims submitted from those
facilities. This allows plans to see exactly what services they're being charged for. The bill also protects employers and plan sponsors from paying claims unless hospitals bill honestly for their services. HR 8684
increases transparency, ensures hospitals are honestly and accurately billing for services and helps lower health care costs for American families. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation. The amendment in the nature of a
substitute is purely technical in nature and makes no substantive changes to the legislation. With that, I yield back. >> I thank the gentle lady. Uh does the gentlemen that from Virginia, the
ranking member, wish to be recognized? >> Yes, Mr. Chairman. Who would strike the last word? >> You're recognized for five minutes. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'd like to first thank my colleague, Dr. Fox for working with me on this bill over the last two congresses. I'm glad that we're continuing to move forward in a
bipartisan way to address this important issue. As she as she said, the ANS makes only technical changes to the underlying legislation which improves billing in a commercial market to address opaque billing practices by hospitals that rise
costs for both workers and businesses. According to CMS, the hospital industry accounts for 31% of overall health spending in the US by addressing unfair billing practices. The legislation will help address this major driver of cost for all Americans. This is a partic this
is particularly important as across the country, hospitals are acquiring independent physician offices and converting them to hospital outpatient departments. Hospital outpatient departments often charge facility fees and receive higher
reimbursement rates than physician offices or other lowerc cost settings even when they when the care provided may be essentially identical. And while it may be appropriate necessary for care provided in certain settings to receive higher reimbursement rates based on a v
variety of factors this is not true across the board. In some instances, once a hospital acquires a doc, a physician's uh office, the only thing that changes is a sign on the door. The care provided is identical. This does
not justify increased cost to the health care plan or the consumer. However, many hospitals do not obtain a unique provider identifier that clearly indicates the site of care. As a result, plans are unable to determine whether the higher reimbursements are warranted
and often end up overpaying for care. Congress took a significant step towards addressing this issue in the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2026 when it would which was enacted earlier this year. This included a provision that will require hospitals to provide a
unique provider in identifier when they build Medicare beginning in 2028. However, this provision does not apply to privately insured individuals, including those covered through job-based health plans. This bill will address this gap by requiring unique
provider identifiers when claims submitted to private health insurance plans. This will ensure this reform to the Medicare program will also extend individuals covered by private health plans. So again, I want to thank Dr. Fox for a bipartisan work on the issue and
urge my colleagues to support the bill and yield back the balance of my time. >> I thank the gentleman. Are there any other members who wish to be recognized for further discussion on the amendment of nature of substitute? The gentleman from Indiana, Mr. Mesmer, do you wish to be recognized? >> Yes, Mr. Chairman. You're recognized for five minutes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I
yield my time to Representative Fox. >> U Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thanks um Congressman Mesmer. I am very I was very negligent in not thanking the gentleman from Virginia for working with me on
this issue of transparency over the last several years. I think it's one of the most important things we've done and um we're moving closer and closer and closer to true billing. Um and I I'm really grateful to him. I think we were
way ahead of the curve, Mr. Scott. people are getting on to it now and I I appreciate the the good work that we've been able to do on this issue and thank you um Mr. Mesmer for uh yielding and I yield back to you.
>> Thank you. I yield back. >> The gentleman yields and I express appreciation too to the two members for working hard on this issue and working together. Mr. >> Are there any other members who wish to be recognized for further discussion on the amendment? Mr. Chairman, >> recognize a gentle lady from North
Carolina, Miss Adams. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Move to strike the last word in support of the bill. And >> thank you. Let me let me first let me also thank the the gentle lady from North Carolina and gentleman from Virginia uh for this bill. I do want to
start with the question that I've been hearing most from my constituents. What's Congress doing to meet the demands of our country's healthcare affordability crisis? I know that uh to truly address the crisis, we need a massive amount of reform to truly change
the industry for the better, but the transparency and billing act is an important step in the right direction to address a skyrocketing uh patient costs. And so, as we are all aware, it's becoming more and more common for hospitals to buy up private physician
practices. The American Medical Association estimates that the number of physicians working in private practices decreased from 60% in 2012 to 42% in 2024. At least 47% of physicians were employed
by or affiliated with hospital systems in 2024, and that's up from less than 30% in 2012. I mentioned affordability because that's what the core concern of this bill is. Studies have found that following a private practices
consolidation with a hospital, the health care costs at this facility often go go up and many hospitals receive a higher facility base reimbursement for services provided at these outpatient facilities. This happens despite the
fact that outpatient sites do not have the same overhead costs as a hospital. What does this mean for for patients? Well, for many patients, this means less affordable health care options in their community. So, when we talk about the affordability crisis in health care, we
we need to talk about this issue. The transparency and billing act will make it so that hospitals with with separately located outpatient sites must bill commercial health plans using distinct national provider identified
NPI numbers. Establishing these identifying numbers will increase transparency in in claims data, making it clearer where the services actually took place and decrease these inflated payments. This is the first step uh to
creating more fair pricing for patient health care services. And with bipartisan support for this bill, we're delivering on the needs of American patients. And for that reason, again, I thank my colleagues, but I urge my colleagues to vote yes on the bill. And with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
>> I thank the gentle lady. Are there any other members who wish to be recognized? Seeing none, there being no further discussion on the amendment and 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 and the nature of a substitute to HR 8684. 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 the substitute is agreed to. Pursuant to the previous order, the chair declares the committee in recess subject to the call of the chair. We expect to reconvene promptly at 200 p.m. Thank you. The committee stands in recess.
The committee uh will reconvene and come to order. >> Following our recess, we'll proceed to postpone requests for recorded votes. Uh, for what purposes does the gentleman from Virginia, the ranking member seek
recognition? >> Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to enter the record 10 letters in opposition to HR 8736. One from the National Council on Disabilities, the rest from disability advocacy groups, the Alliance for
Expanding America's Workforce, Association for People Supporting Employment First, ARC, Coalition to Promote Self-Determination, Melwood Family of Companies, National Association of Councils of Developmental Disabilities, National Disability Rights
Network, National Down Syndrome Society, and the National Organization on Disability. Without objection, they'll be received. >> Thank you. >> We'll now be voting on one amendment to the amendment and the nature of a substitute
to HR8736. The amendment offered by Miss Mcmath titled McBath_amda. A recorded vote is offered and requested. Members will record their votes using electronic voting system.
The clerk will open the board. The view is getting better all the time, but we haven't seen the Okay. Hallelujah. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Well, I'm told that while this is
refreshing, it's not refreshing to me, but it's uh it's refreshing, we're going to do it the oldfashioned way, and the clerk will be calling the role. Uh we'll be voting again on one
amendment. Amendment offered by Miss McBath. A recorded vote is requested. Members will respond as the clerk calls the role. The clerk will call the role. >> Mr. Wahlberg, >> no.
>> Mr. Wahberg votes no. Mr. Wilson, >> no. >> Mr. Wilson votes no. Miss Fox, >> no. >> Miss Fox votes no. Mr. Thompson, >> Mr. Thompson votes no. Mr. Growthman. >> Mr. Growthman votes no. Mr. Stefonic.
>> Mr. Phonic votes no. Mr. Allen. >> Mr. Allen votes no. Mr. >> Comr. >> There we go. See, this is what happened when I give you voice. >> We'll go. Members record their votes using
electronic voting system. The clerk will open the vote. It's good to see it opened. 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 18 nazs. >> The amendment is not adopted. The question now occurs on the amendment in the nature of a substitute to HR8736.
All in favor say I. I. >> All oppose. No. >> In the opinion of the chair, the eyes have it. An amendment in the nature of substitute is agreed to. I hereby move the committee report the bill HR8736 to the House of
Representatives with amendment and with the recommendation that 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 votes is requested. Members will record their votes using electronic voting system. And the clerk will open the 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 18 yays and 15 nazs. The eyes have it and the motion is agreed to HR 7 8736 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. We'll now be voting on six amendments to the amendment and the nature of substitute to HR 8705. The amendment offered by
Miss Bon Bonamichi entitled Bonami 100. A recorder vote is requested. Members will record their votes using electronic voting system. 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 15 naysay and 19 nays. >> The amendment is not adopted. We'll now
be uh voting on the amendment offered by Miss Adams titled AdamNC 587. A recorded vote is requested. Members will record their votes using an electronic voting system. 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 a tally? >> Mr. Chairman, on this vote, there are 15 nays and 19 nays. >> The amendment is not adopted. We now
move to the amendment offered by Representative Grahova. Uh, Gree Jazz_114. A recorded vote is requested. Members will record their votes using the electronic voting system. 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 15 nays and 19 nays. >> The amendment is not adopted. We now move to the amendment by Representative
Scott. Scottd03. A recorded vote is requested. Members will record their votes using the electronic voting system. 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 15 yays and 19 nays. The amendment is not adopted. We now move to the next Representative Scott amendment. Scottam AMD04.
A recorded vote is requested. Members will record their votes using the electronic voting system. 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 15 yays and 19 nays. >> The amendment is not adopted. >> We now move to Representative Scott's amendment. Uh Scott amendment Scott
AMD6. Recorded vote is requested. Members will record their votes using the electronic voting system. The clerk will open the vote. Have all members been recorded or 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. Uh the question now occurs on amendment in the nature of a substitute to HR 8705. All in favor say I. I.
>> All oppose. No. >> In the opinion of the chair, the eyes have it. An amendment in the nature of a substitute is agreed to. I hereby move that the committee report the bill HR8705 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. >> In the opinion of the chair, the eyes have it and the motion is agreed to. >> Recorded vote is requested. Members will
record their votes using the electronic voting system. 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 19 yays and 15 nays. >> Days have it and the motion is agreed to. HR 8705 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 HR7362 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. >> In the opinion of the chair, the eyes have it and the motion is agreed to for what recorded vote is requested. Members will record their votes using electronic voting system. 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 22
yays and 12 nays. >> The eyes have it and the motion is agreed to HR 7362 as amended and the company material shall be transmitted that House of Representatives. The chair notes for the record that a quorum is present. We'll now be voting on one amendment to the amendment in the nature
of a substitute to HR7895. The amendment offered by Mr. Dson entitled Dsonier/HR7806 AMD1. A recorded vote is requested. Members will record their votes using the electronic voting system. The clerk will open the vote.
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. The question now occurs on the amendment and
the nature of a substitute to HR7895. All in favor say I. I. All oppose, no. In the opinion of the chair, the eyes have it. An amendment and the nature of a substitute is agreed to. I hereby move that the committee report the bill
HR7895 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. In the opinion of
chair, the eyes have it and the motion is agreed to. Recorded vote is requested. Members will record their votes using electronic voting system. 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 34 yays and zero nazs. >> The eyes have it and the motion is agreed to. HR7895 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 HR8684 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. >> In the opinion of the chair, the eyes have and the motion is agreed to. A recorded vote is requested. Members will record their votes using electronic voting system. 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 34 yays and zero nays. >> The eyes have it and the motion is agreed to. HR 8684 as amended and the
accompanying materials shall be transmitted to House of Representatives. The chair notes for the record that a quorum is present. I ask unanimous consent that the 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.