please come to order. Uh quorum is present. The committee meets today pursuant to notice to consider 11 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. We'll mark up 11 bills that address anti-semitism in educational institutions, protect
college students freedom of association, help licensed professional work across state lines, strengthen oversight of federal workers compensation programs, expand workforce data collection, and increase transparency in healthcare
costs. The first three bills we'll consider address the ongoing problem of anti-semitism within education and harassment. The harassment of Jewish students and faculty. First, we'll consider HR8476,
no anti-semitism in Education Act of 2026, introduced by Representative Randy Fine. Since since October 7th, 2023, anti-semitism has exploded at educational institutions.
HR8476 requires any K12 school, district, or institution of higher education that receives federal funding to treat anti-semitism with the same rigor applied to other forms of discrimination
prohibited it prohibited by uh title six of the civil rights act. We've all heard the excuses from college presidentses, presidents and school district superintendents for why they can't put a stop to the horrific
incidents of anti-semitism happening in their classrooms. Yet, we all know that if similar incidents were happening to other protected classes under title six, no excuses would be acceptable, nor should
they be. Next, we'll consider HR 4795, Protect Economic and Academic Freedom Act, rep introduced by Representative Virginia Fox. Israel remains one of America's strongest allies. Yet, it continues to be singled out for
discriminatory boycott campaigns targeting Israel or Israel related individuals, organizations, and business on college campuses. These economic boycots are often promoted by those creating anti-semitic
uh atmospheres on campus and do nothing nothing to help students learn. HR 4795 ensures federal funds do not support universities that allow such boycots. The third bill we'll consider is HR
9203, Student Protection and University Accountability Act, introduced by Representative Elise Stefanic. HR 9203 amends the Higher Education Act to in to require greater transparency regarding
procedures for investigating alleged Title 6 violations, establishes a minimum standards for those procedures, and requires congressional briefings on Title 6 investigations. HR 9203
also helps ensure that investigations are not dismissed for dubious reasons as was the case under the Biden Harris administration. The committee will then consider two bills that protect students freedom of association on college campuses.
Introduced by Representative Erin Houchin, HR 2555, Freedom of Association in Higher Education Act of 2025, protects students abilities to form and join single-sex organizations.
The bill would also prohibit colleges and universities from taking action against a student or student organization because that organization is single sex. My bill HR5505,
Equal Campus Access Act of 2025, requires public colleges that receive federal student aid to treat religious student groups equally to any other student organization on campus. This bill ensures religious student
organizations maintain full access to campus facilities and official recognition regardless of their beliefs, practices, speech, leadership standards, or standards of conduct. [clears throat and cough] Next, the committee will mark up
Representative Tracy Mann's HR2332, States Handling Access to Reciprocity for Employment Act of 2025 or share act. This bill helps interstate lensure compacts work more smoothly by ensuring
that state licensing boards can obtain the federal background checked information necessary to process compactbased licenses or practice privileges by improving compact operations. The bill would help fill
critical labor gaps largely in healthc care occupations. We'll also consider HR 4122, the Healthc Care for Energy Workers Act of 2025, introduced by Representative Rick Allen, chairman of the Health Subcommittee, and Representative Lucy
McBath. The bill allows nurse practitioners and physician assistants to order care for current and former Department of Energy workers receiving care under the energy employees occupational uh illness compensation
program Act improving access to care while requiring NPs and PAs to act within their scope of practice under the law. [clears throat] Excuse me. Next are two bills related to the
Federal Employees Compensation Act program. HR8822, Federal Workers Compensation Integrity and Care Act, and HR8823, putting patients first by strengthening provider accountability in FICA act.
Both bills were introduced by Representative Ryan McKenzie, chairman of the Workforce Protections Subcommittee. HR8822 allows the Secretary of Labor to obtain earnings and employment information from Social Security
Administration and the Department of Health and Human Services to help detect and prevent improper payments under the program. HR8823 allows the labor secretary to suspend FICA program payments to medical
providers convicted of fraud involving FICA related state programs or other federal healthc care benefit programs strengthening accountability and program integrity. Next is my bill HR 9381
AI workforce assessment and research enhancement or the AARE act. This bill directs that the Bureau of Labor Statistics to collect information on the use of AI in workplaces across the country. The data collected will help
policymakers better understand how AI is affecting workers, jobs, and students. Finally, we'll consider HR 9228, Health Data Access Transparency, and Affordability Act of 2026.
This bill amends the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 or Orisa to protect employers health plans access to critical cost, quality, and claims information. The bill gives employers
health plans uh the right to access this information and holds network services [cough and laughter] providers accountable when they block the access. Giving employers access to this data will help them design better benefits,
identify waste, improve care, and control costs. I thank the members who have worked diligently on these measures, and I look forward to hearing from them throughout this markup. With that, I yield to the ranking member, the gentleman for
Virginia, for an opening statement. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Mr. Chairman, this committee has immense responsibility to pass legislation that ensures students receive a quality education, protects workers, and expands access to affordable quality healthcare.
While I appreciate the bipartisan work reflected in some of the measures before us, several of the bills unfortunately continue a pattern of advancing a divisive political priorities, weakening protections that workers, students, and families rely on and other divisive
activities. Moreover, they do not address America's number one concern right now, and that is the rising cost of living. And we start with considering perhaps the most divisive proposal before us today. And I'd like to start
the discussion by acknowledging the discrimination in any form has no place in America. Currently under title six of the civil rights act of of 1964, religion is not considered a protected class. The only exception is [snorts]
when one's religion is associated with a person's national origin or shared ancestry. However, in 19 however, HR8476, the no anti-semitism in education act, seeks to add anti-semitism to this
exception and does so by using vague language that elevates a particular definition of anti-semitism above others. And it's unclear how this would even work. And discrimination usually means treating one group of
people different from another. Rac for example, racial discrimination results when one group is treated differently from another on account of race. No definition of motive is in is involved, just disparit treatment. For some
reason, this bill uses one definition of anti-semitism over others in an effort that does not even address the disparit treatment. Furthermore, it elevates anti-semitism above anti-seekism, Islamophobia, which
like anti-semitism often presents a discrimination based on shared ancestry or it rel elevates it above any other religious discrimination. If this bill is adopted as written, it would create preferential treatment to
some within the protected class of religious over others and create serious constitutional questions involving the establishment clause and equal protection. For these reasons, I oppose HR8476
and urge my colleagues to do so as well. Next proposal before us is HR 4795, the protect economic and academic freedom act of 2025. Title four of the Higher Education Act is the largest source of federal funding
for America's colleges and universities. However, this bill would strip schools of access to these federal funds if they're deemed to be engaging, I assume, in the boycott, divest, and sanctions movement, the BDS movement, although it
doesn't say so in the in the bill. While there have been some faculty, senates, and some student organizations that support the BDS movement, uh their position does not represent that of their school. In fact, 38 states have some form of anti-BDS laws on the books.
There's not been a single documented case of a college administration adopting a BDS policy as described in this bill. Ultimately, this bill is is obviously a solution in search of a problem and seeks to punish schools in
an effort to curb free speech. Next, we consider HR 9203, the Student Protection of University Accountability Bill accountability act. The bill would amend the Higher Education Act to add transparency and compliance requirements
in relation to Title Six of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Well, I can appreciate the author's intended intent to improve uh Title Six investigations. The Office of Federal The Office of Federal Student Aid is not
the office who should be determining whether a school is living up to the uh civil rights obligations under title six. This is the work of the Department of Education's Office of Civil Rights. In the Trump administration's attempt to
dismantle the department, it has made drastic cuts to the office of civil rights and recently signed an inter agency agreement to move most of its substantive work uh of OCR to the department of justice. The resulting chaos, confusion, [snorts] and staffing
shortages means that OCR will not have adequate resources to defend students civil rights. If we want to strengthen civil rights enforcement in education, having the Office of Federal Student Aid do the work is not the not the answer.
Title Six has its own enforcement and sanctioned provisions. Uh we need to fund fully fund OCR so it can do the work it's tasked to do. Uh, next on the docket would be HR 2555,
the Freedom of Association and Higher Education Act of 2025. The bill would amend the Higher Education Act to ensure that students receive the same academic, social, and act and athletic opportunities regardless of their
membership or lack thereof in single sex organizations. This has been this has long been a bipartisan priority and the bill as introduced was supported on both sides of the aisle. But at the 11th hour,
additional unnecessary poison pills and the member nature of the substitute to call that bipartisan support into question. I hope the committee can work its will in the bill to get it back to where it was to begin with and that is to making sure that colleges cannot
punish students simply for exercising their rights to associate as they choose. Next bill is the Equal Campus Access Act of 2025 which would amend the Higher Education Act to prohibit public colleges and universities from denying
religious organizations benefits afforded to other organizations because of their religious beliefs. While I understand the author's stated intents, its implications are potentially alarming because the bill would undermine an institution's other
non-discrimination policies and potentially shield student groups that claim to be religious from consequences of uh from uh discriminatory uh conduct. For example, an organization could prevent women from holding leadership
positions if it claims that that conduct is in line with religious beliefs. So, I'll oppose um HR5505 and encourage my colleagues to do as well. The uh next would be 2332
states handling access to reciprocity for employment. Uh [snorts] the share act bill requires the FBI to provide criminal history information to states participating in occupational lensure interstate compacts. This bill would eliminate inconsistent interpretations
by the FBI and allow these compacts to operate as intended and allow states to get access to criminal background checks whether or not they're in a compact. I support the bill and urge my colleagues to do the same. Next, we'll consider
another bipartisan proposal. HR4122 Healthcare for Energy Workers Act. Under the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program, only physicians may independently prescribe treatment and certify that care is
medically necessary for beneficiaries. Even in states where nurse practitioners and physicians assistants are authorized to practice independently. This bill allows nurse practitioners and physician assistants to provide direct care um
under the program whenever state law permits them to practice independently. [snorts] The bill does not alter any scope of practice laws. This common sense legislation expands access to care, particularly for workers living in rural areas, reduces treatment delays,
and aligns the program with many other federal programs that already recognize qualified nurse practitioners and physicians assistants as independent providers. So, I support the bill and urge my colleagues to do the same. The next two
bills we will consider HR 8822 and 8823. Under the current law, agencies responsible for administering workers compensation and disability um disability benefits do not consistently share data. As a result, injured workers might receive [snorts]
overpayments that are often discovered years later long after the money has been spent. Additionally, while the labor department can exclude providers from the employees federal employees compensation act program after fraud
convictions, it lacks clear authority to suspend pending payments to these providers. Um, HR228822 authorized data sharing between the Department of Labor, Social Security Administration, and the National Directory of New Hires
to verify earner earnings and benefit information and approve benefit administration. HR 8823 authorizes the Secretary of Labor to suspend FICA payments to providers convicted of criminal fraud
involving FICA and other federal and state healthc care benefit programs, including Medicare and Medicaid. Together, these bills improve access to care, protect individual workers, safeguard taxpayer dollars, and help ensure that federal benefits are administered fairly and efficiently. And
for those reasons, I support both of those bills. Next uh bill we will consider is HR 9228, the Health Data Act. The bill addresses gag clauses that prevent healthare fiduciaries from overseeing
their service providers. Regrettably, the majority has abandoned the committee's past bipartisan work on this issue and has made changes that do not include input from the bill's original sponsor during the 118th Congress, gentleman from California, Mr. Kano. Due
to these changes, the bill now lacks safeguards to ensure that the plan data is utilized for appropriate purposes. Instead, it provides an open-ended right for employers to access data, including employee medical records, without
ensuring deidentification or that individuals are protected from discrimination. While I wholeheartedly agree with the goal of providing tools for plan fiduciaries to hold service providers accountable, this bill does
not strike the proper balance between transparency and privacy. These goals can be achieved as they were in last bill's last year's bill. But this version ignores the legitimate privacy rights that should be protected.
therefore oppose 9228 and urge my colleagues to do the same. The last bill before us is HR 9381, the AI workforce assessment and research enhancement act. Bill will require the
Bureau of Labor Statistics to collect data on how businesses use artificial intelligence. While we can all agree that using data to understand AI's impact on the economy is important, this bill, this bill tasks the already underfunded BLS with data collection
work that is largely already being performed by other agencies and without providing any additional funds to do the work. For example, the Census Bureau's Bureau Trends and Outlook Survey already ask employers
questions relating to AI and produces results every two weeks. Researchers already have an immense amount of data to continue monitoring the use of AI in our in our economy. This bill will force BLS to conduct
duplicative work and divert resources from its core duties and that is uh direct diverting uh resources from currently de current currently devoted to their other responsibilities like employment and price data. So I oppose
HR 9381 and urge my colleagues to do the same. And lastly, Mr. Chairman, I'd like to address a troubling pattern. This is the second time that um my colleagues across the aisle have taken bipartisan work, repackaged and altered bills in
ways contrary to the bipartisan objectives and introduce bills only with the same name with partisan results. It's my hope that this will not be a common practice by my colleagues. And with that, I yield back.
>> I thank the gentleman. Uh, without objection, all members who wish to insert written opening statements into the record may do so by submitting them to the committee clerk electronically by the end of the day today. Pursuant to 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 blanc uh may do so. The committee will now proceed to consideration of bill HR8476
for amendment. The bill was circulated in advance and printed copies are available. The clerk shall designate the bill. >> HR8476, a bill to require each local educational agency and institution of higher education that receives federal
financial assistance to treat discrimination motivated by anti-semitism as vigorously as such agency or institution treats other forms of discrimination prohibited by title six of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 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. Fine, for what purpose do you seek recognition? >> Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the
desk. Amendment ANS_01. >> The clerk shall designate the amendment and the nature of a substitute. >> Amendment in the nature of a substitute to HR8476 offered by Mr. Fine of Florida. identifier MUS8476_01. >> Without objection, the amendment shall
be considered original text for purposes of further amendment. The amendment in the nature of a substitute has already been distributed. I now recognize Mr. Fine for five minutes to explain the amendment in the nature of a substitute. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This ANS makes
a minor technical change to the underlying bill. I want to tell a story about an eighth grade boy um in Colorado. Last year in his PE class, students attempted to play a game in front of him
called Jew Touch Tag and said Jews were dirty and contaminated. And the school did nothing. Eight months later, a classmate allegedly fashioned a Chromebook charging cord into a lasso,
threw it around his neck, and dragged him backwards from a chair while calling him, and excuse my language, a stupid and the school district did nothing. Just a few months ago, another classmate told the student
Hitler should have killed all the Jews when he had the chance. I file this bill today. I bring this bill forward today because this is not an isolated incident. Since October 7th, anti-semitic incidents on college campuses and in K- through2 education have skyrocketed. Overall, there were
950 incidents in 22, 1150 in 2023, and 2550 in 2024. In fact, in 2025, there were 531 anti-semitic incidents in our education system around the country.
Jews in America today are three times as likely to be the subject of a hate crime as any other group. So I tried to tackle this almost 10 years ago as a young legislator in the Florida legislature and I came up with this idea. I said,
you know, when someone uses the n-word on campus, no one thinks about free speech. No one talks about let's understand what they're thinking. Let's have a discussion. No. When someone uses the N-word on campus, they are invited to go get an education somewhere else.
And by the way, that's exactly how it should be. But somehow when it came to Jews, everyone wanted to rediscover the idea of free speech. So I came up with an idea. I said, "Let's define anti-semitism and then let's not tell institutions how
to deal with it. Let's just tell them they have to deal with it the same way they deal with racism." So this bill does that today. It uses a definition of anti-semitism that is bipartisan in nature. It is the
definition of anti-semitism used in 38 states. It is the definition of anti-semitism used by the Obama administration. It is the definition of anti-semitism used by the Trump administration. It is the definition of anti-semitism that was used by the Biden
administration. And then it simply says what I said before. you will treat anti-semitism the same way you you treat racism if you wish to obtain federal funding. The good news is that it works. See, we
can talk in this chamber in this room about ideas. Will things work or will things not? But the good news is the framers intended a laboratory of democracy, 50 states to try ideas. And this bill passed in Florida in 2019.
I'm wearing the kipa today that I wore the day that bill was signed. I wear the kipa today for that eighth grade boy in Colorado who went through things he never should have. And the bills worked. Last year in New York,
there were 439 anti-semitic incidents. The state with the largest Jewish population in America. In Florida, a state larger than New York, there were 55. See, when you pass the right bills, you
can solve the problem. We have seven years of experience with this piece of legislation. Seven years of it being used in K12 education, seven years of it being used with our 12 state universities, seven years of experience
of it being used in our 28 state colleges. And with that seven years of experience, we have largely eradicated the problem. It's time to take this experiment from our laboratory of democracy and make it nationwide. This committee under the chair the leadership
of Chairman Wahlberg and the former chairman, Chairwoman Fox, has done an extraordinary job of illustrating the problem that plagues our education system. Today with this bill and the other two we will be hearing today, we will begin to advance legislation that
will actually solve the problem. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I yield back. [clears throat] Gentleman yields. Are there any members who wish to be recognized for further discussion on the amendment and the nature of a substitute? There's a gentle lady from North
Carolina which should be recognized. >> Uh thank you, Mr. Chair. I move strike the last word. >> You are recognized for five minutes. >> Uh let let me begin by saying what should be clear to every member of this committee. Anti-semitism is real. It's dangerous. It has no place on a college
campus or anywhere else in this country. Jewish students deserve to attend class, participate in campus life, and and practice their faith without fear of harassment, threats, or discrimination. When a university fails to protect its students, it must be held accountable.
But protecting civil rights requires more than a strong bill title, it requires a policy that's workable, fair, and supported by the resources necessary to enforce it. And this bill does not meet that standard. uh HR 9203 would
impose new title 6 procedures on colleges and universities and new reporting and investigation requirements on the department of of education's office for civil rights. At the same time, the Trump administration has cut
OCR staff, weakened its capacity, dismissed thousands of complaints, and begun moving portions of this work uh to the Department of Justice. So, let me understand this correctly. The majority wants to give OCR more duties while this
administration is taking away the people, resources, and infrastructure it needs to perform the duties it already has. This is not serious civil rights enforcement. This is setting an office up to fail, then blaming the office when
when students do not receive justice. As a former educator of 40 years, I know that a right is only meaningful when a student can enforce it. When a black student faces racial harassment, when a Jewish student faces anti-semitism, when
when a student with a disability is is denied an an accommodation, or when when a student experiences sexual harassment, that student should be able to turn to an office for civil rights that has the staff and the capacity to investigate
the complaint. This bill does not uh rebuild OCR. uh it does not restore the regional offices that have been weakened and it does not provide more invest in invest for more investigators. It does not address the thousands of students
who are already waiting for their complaint to be resolved. Instead, the bill creates a separate and more favorable process for certain title six complaints while leaving other civil rights complaints behind. That is a
serious equity problem. Students waiting on complaints involving disability discrimination, sexual harassment, racial harassment, or retaliation should not be told that their cases matter less because Congress has created a new
process that that places other complaints ahead of theirs. Civil rights are not a competition. We should not protect one group of students by weakening the protections available to another. I am also deeply concerned that
this bill would connect compliance with with these new procedures to to an institution's participation in federal student aid programs. Federal student aid belongs to students. Pell grants, student loans, and work study assistance
should not be used as political leverage in a dispute between the federal government and a college administration. And if an administration violates civil rights laws, then we should investigate the violation. We should require corrective action and hold the
institution accountable. But we should not place access to college at risk for low-income students who had no role in the alleged misconduct. That does not punish a a university president. It punishes the student who's trying to to
earn a degree. There are parts of this bill that reflect reasonable goals. Colleges should have clear complaint procedures. Students should know where to report discrimination. Institutions should respond promptly and communicate
with complaint complaintants. But those goals should apply fairly across civil rights laws and and they should be paired with a fully staffed and functioning office of civil rights. The majority cannot claim to care about civil rights enforcement while remaining
silent as this administration dismantles the agency responsible for carrying it out. And if we're serious about protecting students, then let us restore OCR staff. Uh this let us address this backlog and let us ensure that that
every student regardless of race, religion, national origin, sex or disability can have their complaint fairly investigated. and let us stop using federal student aid as a weapon against every very very students that we say we're trying to protect. Anti-semitism demands a serious
response. This bill is is not that response. And I urge my colleagues to vote no. And with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back. >> Gentle lady yields. Does a gentleman from California seek recognition? >> Uh yes, Mr. Chair. >> Mr. Kylie, you're recognized. >> Thank you, Mr. Chair. Uh over the course
of the last few years, this committee has uh focused a lot of its efforts uh on addressing the horrifying rise uh in anti-semitism in education across this country. And uh a lot of the focus has been on the horrifying uh scenes that
have played out on university campuses. Uh but we've also looked at the uh perhaps even more uh shocking uh scenes that have played out on K through2 campuses uh across the country. And I have spoken directly with many students
who have been the subjects of of targeting of harassment uh of discrimination. These are high school students or younger who are just trying to go to school, get an education, just trying to be kids. Uh, and yet are subject to the
most vile forms of discrimination and bullying and harassment simply on the basis of who they are. So, this is heartbreaking. It is morally uh extremely troubling uh and it's also
illegal under our civil rights laws. Especially when you consider the fact that in connection with many of these incidents, there have been adults on campus who either failed to hold those responsible accountable uh or were in
some way complicit in what was going on. We have even seen overt anti-semitism incorporated into curricula uh in the form for example of of liberated ethnic studies which uh became somewhat uh prevalent in California and fortunately
now we're starting to see uh those curricula uh removed from uh from districts in uh San Francisco for example uh and the statewide version was uh was condemned when they put out a model uh framework uh on that. So, uh,
this bill, uh, simply reaffirms the legal obligations that exist in every educational institution in this country and that is to comply with our civil rights laws. Uh, so I would hope that this can be the subject of strong
bipartisan support today. uh because there are many Jewish students across this country who have had to live through things that no stu child ever could. When you look at what's happened, you wonder how could this possibly be
taking place in the United States of America in the 21st century. And uh this is an opportunity for all of us to say that it's unacceptable and that we want to assure that the full extent of our civil rights laws are enforced to
protect these students. I yield back. >> Gentleman yields. Are there any other members who wish to be recognized uh for for further discussion? >> Mr. Chairman, >> does the gentleman from Virginia wish to be recognized? >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
>> Gentleman is recognized. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um, Mr. Chairman, what >> she's talking to. >> Um, HR 8476 is an attempt to rewrite civil rights
laws in a ma matter that is grossly inequitable and probably unconstitutional. Title six of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 does not include religion as a protected class. However, since 2004, there's been a bipartisan consensus that
Title 6 can and should be interpreted to protect individuals based on their actual or perceived shared identity or ethnic character characteristics or their national origin, even if at first glance it appeared to be uh that um that
discrimination was based on religion. And this has been found to be uh to apply most frequently discrimination against Jews, Sikhs, and Muslims. But the Department of Education recognized as recently as 2024 that there are situations where others could be
included. And under this definition, the situation described by the gentleman from Florida would certainly come under current law. Enforcement of the law is a responsibility of the office of civil rights within the department of education and regrettably the office of
civil rights is being dismantled and the department of education is being abolished. But so if you want to enforce the law, you can't enforce the law while you are dismantling the agency responsible for enforcing the law. Uh
the uh department has produced guidance over 20 years to help recipients of federal funds understand their duty to respond to discrimination in these cases cases which are often highly factsp specific. This bill would elevate the treatment of anti-semitism above any
other form of racial of religious discrimination. Rather than amend Title Six directly, the bill attempts to piggy back on the provisions of Title Six, asking those provisions apply to religious discrimination as well, but only for
anti-Semitic discrimination. This bill would put um would position Jewish victims of discrimination differently than Christian, Muslim, Sik, or other religions were victims of discrimination. I don't believe it's the
intent of the sponsor uh to have uh to have enacted a law that offers varying degrees of legal protections from discrimination based on a person's specific religious beliefs. I don't believe it's his intent to write a bill that establishes one religion as having
a higher priority over others. But the plain text of the bill is clearly construed has to be construed in that way. As since October 7th, the committee has been focused on the issue of discrimination, religious discrimination
by only focusing on anti-semitism. This is not because it's the only kind of discrimination occurring on campuses. Now whether it is the former FBI director's testimony to the Senate on the rise of Islamophobia,
the hate crime statistics or headlines of Palestinian students shot while wearing uh while shot as students with them being violently attacked as counterprotest, it's been clear that to everyone except the majority that there
are others who are victims of discrimination. But to the extent the majority continues to ignore that fact, you're being you're building a record [snorts] uh that you are not considering equal protection. This bill also defines anti-semitism
using the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance definition and working examples. This is the definition that one of its own authors has publicly testified that should not be used in educational settings. By equating certain statements of opinion about
Israel as being anti-Semitic, it has the effect of chilling constitutionally protected speech as federal court in Texas of all places ruled in 2024. This definition is not the only one around. There are multiple definitions of anti-semitism now in use. the ones
that make key distinctions that protect political speech. It's also important to note, Mr. Mr. Chairman, how you define anti anti-semitism is of little use in discrimination cases. Discrimination occurs when there is a differential
treatment based on the protected class in this case religion. How you define uh religion is irrelevant. The operative question is did you treat one group different from another on account of religion? Um so I just urge my
colleagues to oppose the bill >> and um and and yield back. And >> gentleman yields. >> I yield back. >> Does the gentle lady from North Carolina seek to be recognized? >> Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield to
the gentleman from Florida. First, let me say I I associate myself with the comments from Representative Kylie and Representative Fine, and I uh yield to Representative Fine for his comments.
>> Well, thank you, um, Representative Fox for that. Um, we just heard that we have current law. The current law, the law of 20 years exists
to protect Jewish students. Tell that to the students who had to deal with this person on their campus. I'm glad there are words on paper >> that should solve the problem. But what
is clear is that they are not. And you don't have to take my word for it. Look on just about any college campus that's not in the state of Florida. You know, we heard that we've got an office of civil rights being defunded. They are
the ones who are supposed to deal with this. They weren't defunded under Joe Biden. No one was going after them then. and they failed objectly to solve the problem. >> Interestingly,
>> the number of recorded cases of anti-semitism has fallen for the first time in years in 2025. All we needed was a new president. The what aboutism
about other groups and other faiths? No one should be discriminated against on college campuses. But what is clear is what is taking place every single day in our K12 system, in our university system, and
our community college system is unique to Jewish students. And for those who are concerned that what I am proposing may be unconstitutional, I would issue the same warning I issued
to those in Florida 7 years ago. When you say you will treat anti-semitism the same way you treat racism and then you say you cannot go after those who engage in anti-semitism, guess what that means to the groups that
you actually do care about. Because if you're allowed to say anything you want, if every speech is protected, then get ready for things that none of us want. Get ready for someone to say the N-word
is protected speech. I remind you, this bill does not elevate one group over another. It does not say one group gets preferential treatment. It simply says that we cannot discriminate in how we
deal with discrimination. And to object to that view means that you think that we should. It means that you think some minority groups deserve superior protection to others. My bill does the opposite. It says they must all be
treated the same. Lastly, we heard some words about the definition that is used. The definition that is used in this bill is pulled directly from executive orders used by Barack Obama,
Joe Biden, and Donald Trump. Three men that don't really agree on all that much, but on this they did agree. 38 states agreed with this definition. Over a thousand
governmental organizations around the world have adopted this definition. Why? Because it was prepared over years of study. Because you cannot solve a problem if you do not define it. Now I know there are those who will
desperately use any excuse to justify what we see on this sign on college campuses. But for my two sons, for that eighth grade boy in Colorado, and for the thousands of other Jewish students who are putting up with this stuff every
day, I'm not going to stand by. I'm not going to allow it. And I hope that all of my colleagues will support this good bill. I yield back. >> Gentleman yields. Does the lady a gentle lady from Oregon seek to be recognized? >> Yes. Um uh Mr. Chairman, I seek to be recognized. >> You're recognized. Uh >> thank you. I'd like to yield my time to
the gentleoman from North Carolina, rank, uh member, uh uh Adams. Yeah, M. Thank I want to thank the the lady for yielding. Mr. Chairman, I just want to um uh make a correction that the bill I spoke on was for 9203.
9203. That was the bill that I was speaking on when I when I spoke earlier. >> So, just to understand, it wasn't on this bill. >> No, >> that you were speaking. Okay. >> Thank you, sir. >> Appreciate that. >> I yield back to the >> I yel back. >> Gentle lady. >> Gentle lady yields. Are there any others
members who wish to be yielded time for discussion on this amendment and nature of a substitute? There being no further discussion on the amendment and the nature of the substitute, the committee will move to
consideration of amendments. Are there any members who would like to offer amendments? There being no amendments, the question now occurs on the amendment in the nature of a substitute to HR 8476. All in favor say I. I. All oppose. No.
>> No. >> In the opinion of the chair, the eyes have it. An amendment is in the nature of a substitute is agreed to. We'll now move to consider the next bill. >> [clears throat and cough] >> The committee will now proceed to
consideration of bill HR 4795 for amendment. The bill was circulated in advance and printed copies are available. The clerk shall designate the bill. HR4795, a bill to amend the Higher Education Act
of 1965 to prohibit an institution that participates in a non-expressive commercial boycott of Israel from being eligible for certain funds under that act to require an institution that participates in certain programs under that act to certify that students are not unreasonably obstructed from
participating in academic pro programs in Israel 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? Um, Mrs. Fox, for what purpose do you seek to be recognized? >> I have an amendment at the desk titled 4795s_01. >> Uh, the clerk shall designate the amendment in a nature of a substitute. Amendment in the nature of a substitute to HR4795
offered by Miss Fox of North Carolina identifier 4795 ANS_01. >> Without objection, the amendment shall be considered original text for purposes of further amendment. The amendment in the nature of a substitute has already been distributed. I now recognize Mrs.
Fox, the gentle lady from North Carolina for five minutes to explain the amendment in the nature of a substitute. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. For decades, the United States and Israel have maintained a strong partnership rooted in shared democratic values, economic cooperation, scientific advancement, and
educational exchange. It's the reason Congress designated Israel as the quote first major strategic partner unquote in 2014 via the United States Israel Strategic Partnership Act. American universities and Israeli institutions
have worked together on groundbreaking research, medical innovations and programs that benefit students and faculty in both countries. Unfortunately, there's been an alarming rise in anti-semitism on American college and c university campuses driven
largely by anti-Israel radicals to coers institutions into divesting from and boycotting Israel. Boycotts of Israel have been weaponized to isolate Jewish students, silence Jewish faculty, and cut American universities off from invaluable
intellectual and research partnerships with Israel Israeli academic institutions. In one boycott example, this committee's investigation of Northwestern University found that faculty members at Northwestern's provost were openly willing to appease
encampment organizers in their efforts to demand the university boycott Sabra Hummus because of the brand's perceived association with Israel. In addition, while a concentrated academic boycott of Israel academic and cultural
institutions has been pursued for decades, harmful academic boycott activity has increased since the October 7, 2023 attack. Title six of the Higher Education Act authorizes funds, quote, to promote access to research and
training overseas, including through linkages with overseas institutions end quote. Some of the entities receiving this taxpayer funding have become hotbeds of calls for academic boycotts. For example, one leading professor of
Georgetown's Title Six supported National Resource Center, has actively pursued a full academic boycott of Israel. In 2013, the American Studies Association, the largest academic group in the United States, adopted a policy
endorsing an academic boycott of Israel. In 2014, six taxpayer supported NRC directors signed a letter endorsing an academic boycott of Israel. These academic boycotts contravene the purposes of the Title Six funding they
received. Such actions do not expand knowledge. They do not promote dialogue and they do not advance the mission of higher education. The Protect ED economic and academic freedom act prohibits institutions participating in federal student aid programs from
engaging in non-expressive commercial boycots of Israel. It also requires universities receiving Title Six funds to treat partnerships, exchanges, and collaborations with academic programs in Israel in the same manner as academic programs in other states. This
legislation does not dictate void point viewpoints, does not prohibit anyone from expressing their opinions. Individuals remain free to advocate, protest, or engage in political speech protected by the First Amendment. Students can still choose to abstain
from products made in Israel. But what Congress cannot and should not tolerate is taxpayer money being used to marginalize Jewish people and undermine Israel's major strategic partner status enshrined in law. This bill addresses
conduct and sends a simple message. American taxpayers should support institutions that foster academic opportunity and international collaboration, not institutions that erect barriers and engage in discriminatory boycots. At a time when
anti-semitism has risen on campuses across our country, Congress has a responsibility to reaffirm that discrimination and exclusion have no place in higher education. Jewish students and faculty should not be denied opportunities for research or
collaboration simply because these opportunities involve Israel. Knowledge flourishes through engagement, not isolation. Universities should be centers of inquiry, discovery, and open exchanges, not vehicles for economic warfare against major academic partners,
strategic partners. I will note this ANS includes changes to reflect technical feedback from the administration to ensure the most economical approach by encapsulating the bill's reforms within the frameworks of program participation agreements. Doing so will ensure
colleges and universities do not face unnecessary burdens. Even as Congress makes clear that these harmful, hateful weapons of anti-semitism, these BDS campaigns will not be aided by taxpayer funds. I'd like to thank my Democratic
colleague, Representative Godheimer, for his work in co-authoring this legislation. He's a great partner in this chamber and a steadfast champion for safeguarding our interest against BDS boycott at home and abroad. I'd also like to thank the American Jewish
Committee and the Combat Anti-semitism Movement for their support of this legislation. I urge my colleagues to support HR4795. And I yield back the balance of my time. >> Gentle lady yields. Are there any other members who wish to be recognized for further discussion on the amendment and
the nature of a substitute? Does the gentleman from Virginia, the ranking member, wish to be recognized? >> Uh, yes, Mr. Chair. I recognize you for 5 minutes. >> Thank you, Mr. Spe Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, sponsor of 4795 claims the
bill is a direct response to the boycott dest movement against Israel. uh to disagree with the aims of BDS and like many others during the 116th Congress voted in support of a resolution which opposed the efforts to delegitimize the state of
Israel and the global boycott devestment sanctions movement targeting Israel. I supported that resolution in part because the global BDS movement does not favor a two-state solution and seeks to exclude the state of Israel and the Israeli people from economic, cultural,
and academic life of the rest of the world. If the goal is to defeat global BDS, I would argue that it's a solution in search of a problem. My understanding is there is not an institution of higher education in this country that has joined the global BDS movement. There
have been student assemblies or faculty senates who have expressed their legally protected first amendment opinions that their schools should join that movement, but those votes were invariably followed [snorts] by the schools publicly stated that they weren't taking that action. As
we've had to stipulate many times over the past three years, speech that offends is still constitutionally protected. Uh, many states have found out this in their anti-BDS laws which have been defeated on constitutional grounds. And I guess that's why BDS is
not specifically mentioned in the bill. It claims to only regulate quote non-expressive commercial boycots. Um, so but I I think there is common ground we can move forward on. The second half of the bill conditions liier's
international educational funding on schools certifying that they will not impede the ability to engage in academic programs, cultural exchanges and so forth with Israeli students and faculty. The higher education act international
education funding is arguably very closely linked with concept of cultural exchange and I think bringing students together to learn from each other is something we should be promoting. So, some of it is specific and easy to
understand with the others is kind of garbled, but um whatever I yield back. >> Gentleman yields. Are there any other members who wish to be recognized? The gentleman from Florida, Mr. Fine, do you wish to be recognized? >> Yes. Thank you, Mr. >> Recognized for five minutes.
>> Thank you. I just want to say that I I support this bill fully and I yield the balance of my time to Representative Fox. Uh thank you, Mr. Chairman. I I want to just uh reassert that the framework is based on state law that has withtood
challenges. Um I'm not sure if a colloquialism would work in this case, but I I would say that I believe an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. I yield back to the gentleman from Florida.
I yield back. Gentleman yields. Are there any other members who wish to continue the discussion on this amendment and the nature of a substitute? 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 wish would like to offer amendments? There being no amendments, the question now occurs on the amendment and the nature of a substitute to HR 4795. All in favor say I. I. All oppose. No.
In the opinion of the chair, the eyes have it. An amendment and a nature of substitute is agreed to. We'll now move to consider the next bill. The committee will now proceed to consideration of bill HR 9203
for amendment. The bill was circulated in advance and printed copies are available. The clerk shall designate the bill >> HR 9203, a bill to increase the transparency of colleges and universities in carrying out their civil rights responsibilities 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. Fine, for what
purpose do you seek recognition, >> Mr. Chairman? I have an amendment at the desk. Amendment ANS_01. >> The clerk shall designate the amendment in the nature of a substitute. >> Amendment in the nature of a substitute to HR 9203 offered by Mr. Fine of Florida identifier MU9203s_01.
>> Without objection, the amendment shall be considered original text for purposes of further amendment. The amendment in a nature of a substitute has already been distributed. I now recognize Mr. find the gentleman from Florida for 5 minutes to explain the amendment in the nature of the substitute. >> Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. The ANS
makes a minor technical change to the underlying bill. Federal tax dollars should never support discrimination. That's why Title Six of the Civil Rights Act prohibits targeting people based on who they are, their race, color, or national origin. Administrations of both parties have affirmed that Title Six
protects Jewish students from anti-Semitic discrimination based on their shared ancestry and ethnic identity. But since the terrorist attack against Israel on October 7th of 2023, we have seen an explosion of anti-semitism on college campuses, as I talked about before. But students and
families face confusing reporting processes and often don't even know whether their complaints are being investigated, why cases are dismissed, or what actions have been taken. This has raised questions about how institutions of higher education
investigate claims of discrimination and harassment under title 6. This legislation is needed because while title six theoretically provides protection against discrimination, the current title 6 statute and regulations provide very little guidance to colleges and universities on how those complaints
should be handled. As a result, students are often left navigating inconsistent procedures and uncertain outcomes. This bill strengthens transparency, accountability, and oversight of title six investigations by both institutions of higher education and the federal
government. It requires colleges and universities to clearly communicate how discrimination complaints are investigated to keep complaintants informed throughout the process and explain the reasoning behind the decisions that they make. The bill also ensures that students know where to turn
if they experience discrimination. It requires institutions to widely communicate their Title 6 complaint procedures so students understand how to file a complaint and what to expect throughout the investigative process. But transparency should not end at the
campus level because as we have learned, we cannot necessarily trust what is happening at the campus level. Therefore, this bill requires the Office of Civil Rights to brief this committee as well as our counterpart in the Senate on the status of investigations. This
provision will give Congress an opportunity to hear directly about the progress being made while investigating Title Six claims. Finally, the bill ensures that Title Six complaintants receive the review and attention they deserve. The bill prevents complaintants
from being improperly dismissed or delayed simply because similar allegations have been raised elsewhere or by other people. It codifies long-standing OCR practices regarding class action complaints, helping to ensure these practices are applied consistently. While this was long OCR
policy, the Biden Harris administration abused its discretion and dismissed cases that should have been investigated. This provision will codify an OCR's practice into law to ensure it is followed. And I'm certain my Democratic colleagues will support that given their concerns about the Office of
Civil Rights. The bill also ensures that same office will not dismiss or delay an investigation of a complaint simply because the same allegations have been raised elsewhere. If multiple people are making the same complaint, it probably means it's more likely that it's true, not that it should be dismissed. This
bill is supported by the Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America, a leader in the efforts to increase the transparency of Title Six investigations on college campuses. At a time when anti-semitism is once again rising on college campuses across the nation, this committee has a
responsibility to ensure that our colleges and universities remain places of learning, not as they have too often become hostility. This legislation is just one important step forward in our efforts to protect students rights and guarantee equal access to educational
opportunities for all students. I urge my colleagues to support the student protection and university accountability act and I yield back. >> Gentleman yields. Are there any other members who wish to be recognized for further discussion on the amendment and the nature of substitute? The gentle lady from Oregon. Do you wish to be
recognized? >> Yes, I wish to be recognized. Thank you very much >> for five minutes. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um, I obviously agree with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle that anti-semitism is a real problem that must be addressed, but I'm a little confused reading this bill because it makes frequent references
throughout to the Office for Civil Rights of the Department of Education. As you all know, last week Secretary McMahon announced that she is, in my opinion, illegally transferring the Office of Civil Rights to the Department of Justice. Over the years, it's been clear that the Office of Civil Rights at
the Department of Education is obligated to look at all complaints. Uh that's their case processing manual. They have to evaluate every complaint. And if they don't, of course, as Congress should hold them accountable. That's not what the Department of Justice does. They do
not work that way, and they were never built to. So, I'm just confused at this bill right now because of the attempt to move the uh Office of Civil Rights to the Department of Justice. So, I encourage my colleagues to join me in fighting that move and keeping the Office of Civil Rights at the Department
of Education. But in the meantime, it doesn't make any sense to keep referring to it and giving it responsibilities when this secretary is illegally transferring it to another agency. And I yield back. >> The gentle lady yields. Are there any other members who wish to be recognized
for further discussion? The gentleman from Virginia, the ranking member. Do you wish to be recognized? >> Yes, Mr. Chairman. >> Recognized for five minutes. >> Uh, thank you, Mr. Chairman. The issue of title six compliance and educational settings is one that I've been working on for some time. in the 116th Congress
introduced in the House to pass the Equity and Inclusion Enforcement Act or EIA, which would require all K through2 schools and colleges to receive federal funding to designate at least one employee as the official title six monitor just like we have title nine
monitors to handle both investigation of complaints and institutional compliance. Also provides a private right of action for disparit impact cases under title six. This Congress EA is HR 366.
I encourage the committee to take it up and report it and to improve title six compliance in all settings. We're putting the um merits aside for e EIA or this bill. I feel we have to address the
elephant elephant in the room and that is it is hard to consider these bills from the majority that put affirmative responsibilities on the department of education when the department is illegally being dismantled
while we're while we're just as we're talking. I think the title six compliance should be handled by the department's office of civil rights. That's the present law. uh 9203 would dictate that the office of federal student aid and the office that handles
program participation agreements should pay a role ro role in that. But regardless of which opinion is better, these [snorts] two offices, the office of student aid and the um federal student the federal student aid and the
office of civil rights. There are two educational offices that lost the most employees in [snorts] secretary in the secretary's reduction and force last year. Both of these officers have entered into inner inter agency agreements to transfer many of their
duties to other other executive departments particularly Treasury and and um and justice. JAO found that OCR paid staffers upwards of $ 38 million not to work last year as the backlog of
cases grew. And a recent Senate Health uh committee report found that OCR reached zero resolution agreements last year in cases of sexual harassment, sexual violence, seclusion and restraint, racial harassment, and
discriminatory school discipline. So frankly, why should we take any measure the majority offers regarding these directives seriously when this committee continues to ignore its offshoring and crippling to the point where it can't accomplish the the task already mandated
under current law? OCR [snorts] is tasked with enforcing the nation's educational civil rights laws, including title six of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, title nine of the civil of of the Education Amendments of 1972, and the
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, among others. Currently, OCR has a backlog of approximately 25,000 pending cases. We plan to offer an amendment to authorize funding necessary for OCR to get its arms around the
problem and start doing the job it will require to uh to chip away at that backlog. Finally, HR 9203 includes OCR case processing reforms that I fail to understand the purpose of. OCR relies on
a uniform case processing manual to direct how its staff handles cases. That manual ensures that all cases are handled in the same manner and the manual outlines multiple instances of where OCR shall dismiss or may dismiss
claims that are pending with other agencies or with a court of law. OCR must make determinations that other agency or court in question will apply comparable legal standards and afford complainants comparable remedies that they would receive from OCR before
[snorts] dismissing such cases and complaints uh and have the opportunity to refile after their case has been handled by another agency at a time when understaffing when the understaffed agency has a backlog twice as long as when we considered the bill in the last
Congress. I don't understand who is advocating for a policy change that will exacerbate the current current backlog of cases at OCR or changes that will result in longer times to resolution for all educational civil rights claims.
Further, by elevating title six claims above others at the department, we run the risk of creating inequities in the enforcement of our educational civil rights laws. I urge my colleagues to oppose the bill and yield back the balance of my time. >> The gentleman yields. Are there any
other members who wish to be recognized for further discussion? There being no further discussion on the amendment and the nature of the substitute, the committee will move to consideration of amendments. Are there any members who would like to offer amendments?
Does a gentleman from Virginia, the ranking member, wish to offer an amendment? >> Uh, yes. I have an amendment at the desk HR 9203D AMD 01. >> Uh, the clerk will report the amendment. >> Amendment to the amendment in the nature
of a substitute to HR 9203, offered by Mr. Scott of Virginia, identifier Scott_AMD_01. >> Does the gentleman from Utah wish to reserve a point of order? >> Yes. Like to reserve a point of order. Point of order is reserved. I now recognize the gentleman for Virginia, the ranking member, uh for five minutes
in support of his amendment. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, this amendment simply requires the department to do the work uh this uh bill is asking it to do. HR 9203 is one of multiple bills we marked up in committee this Congress that places
affirmative duties on the Department of Education. In fact, the majority can bring these bills forward knowing full well that the duties of Congress have already have already placed in the department are being sent all over Washington to other agencies with inter
inter agency agreements is shocking. Just this month, the department entered an entered into an inter agency agreement with the department of justice to transfer the investigate the investigative work of the office of civil rights to the department of
justice civil rights division. begs the question, what will OCR be able to tell us about their Title Six work if that work is being done by another agency? Will DOJ have to brief OCR about what they're doing in OCR's name so OCR can
then brief us? This is is this the government efficiency that we were promised? My amendment would make clear that when we write a bill asking the Department of Education to do something, we accept them to do it and not farm it out to somewhere else. And I urge my
colleagues to support the amendment. >> Yield back. >> The gentleman yields back. Does the gentleman from Utah withdraw the reservation? The reservation is withdrawn. Does anyone else seek recognition on the amendment?
Does a gentleman from Florida, Mr. Fine, seek to be recognized? >> I do, Mr. Chairman. >> You're recognized for five minutes. >> Um, thank you. I I speak in opposition to the amendment. I understand that my colleagues across the aisle are fundamentally opposed to any effort to shake up the status quo in education.
They they don't want families to have more choices to escape low performing schools. They apparently don't think any child was ever educated before the creation of the Department of Education in 1979. And they apparently think the Department of Education, despite all of the data to the contrary, was doing a
great job right until 2025. Their commitment to these beliefs, despite all the evidence of the contrary, is impressive in a sad way. or whatever happened to quote unquote following the science. I oppose this amendment because it cements silos and prohibits collaboration between agencies to
improve program delivery. Inter agency agreements under the economy act have been used by many prior administrations, both Democrat and Republican, to deliver better results for program recipients and taxpayers. Eliminating this option for agency collaboration would only protect outdated systems that do not
work. I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment, support the underlying bill, and I yield back. >> The gentleman yields. Are there any other members who wish to speak? The gentle lady from Oregon. Do you wish to be recognized? >> Yes, I wish to be recognized in support of Mr. Scott's amendment. Thank you. I I support Mr. Scott's amendment and and
just wanted to note that uh at present there's at least 600 organizations that have signed a letter opposing the transfer of uh IDEIDA to HHS and OCR to DOJ. These are organizations particularly uh organizations that work with students with disabilities and
other civil rights groups. They are the people on the ground and they are concerned about the importance of having these programs consolidated. This is not about finding a more efficient way to do things. In fact, uh transferring from the Department of Education to other agencies only adds more bureaucracy. So
I support the amendment and I yield back. >> Gentle lady yields. Are there any other members who wish to speak on the amendment? Seeing none, the question now is on the amendment by the gentleman from Virginia, the ranking member. All in favor say I. I.
>> All oppose, no. >> No. >> In the opinion of the chair, the nose have it and the amendment is not agreed to. >> A roll call vote is ordered. Pursuant to the chair's previous announcement, this vote will be postponed.
Are there any further amendments to the amendment in the nature of substitute to HR 9203? Gentleman from Virginia wishes to be recognized for an amendment. >> Yes, sir. >> Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk. HR 9203D
AMD2. >> The clerk will report the amendment. >> Amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute to HR 9203 offered by Mr. Scott of Virginia identifier Scott_amd_02. >> Does a gentleman from Utah reserve a point of order? >> Reserve a point of order.
>> Point of order is reserved. I now recognize gentleman from Virginia, the ranking member for five minutes in support of his amendment. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Florida just incredibly opposed an amendment requiring the Department of Education to do what his bill tells them to do. This
amendment would give them the funding to do what his bill tells them to do. So, we'll see how this works out. The if we want to improve civil rights enforcement, we need to put our money where our mouth is. The Office of Civil Rights has been decimated under the
Trump administration. The reduction in force cut its staff nearly in half, essentially doubling case loads for the investigators that were left behind. The department was eventually forced by the dictates of reality to rehire some of those staff to help bring down the ever
growing backlo backlog of cases. When the secretary came to us earlier this year, she insisted that the budget she submitted to Congress, a budget that contained less money for OCR than last year, that that was merely a flaw and that she wanted an increase to she
wanted to increase the hiring numbers. This amendment would provide the secretary with what she asked for. It would raise the floor, she mentioned, and authorize up to $280 billion for OCR for each of the next four fiscal years. And that's what it will take to uh get
this job done that the bill is asking the the department to do so. I urge the adoption of the amendment and yield back the balance of my time. >> The gentleman yields. Uh, does the gentleman from Utah with >> I withdraw my reservation.
>> A point of order. Uh, the reservation is withdrawn. Does anyone else seek recognition on the amendment? Gentleman from Florida. Do you wish to be recognized? >> I do, Mr. Chairman. >> Recognized for five minutes. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um,
unfortunately, I must oppose this amendment. Um, with all due respect to my colleague, this amendment doesn't advance the effort to increase the transparency of Title Six investigations on college campuses, nor does it help cottify effective OCR investigative procedures. It just throws money at a
problem. A problem I would note, as I shared before, anti-semitism that went up during Joe Biden's presidency, despite his concerns, has gone down under President Trump's. This administration's made great strides combating anti-semitism. It's now taking steps to better align civil rights
investigations with civil rights enforcement by formalizing a partnership with the Department of Justice. Democrats have no substantive reason to argue with this administration's actions or with the ab actual substance of the bill. So, they're raising smoke screens and just throwing money away. I urge my
colleagues to ignore these distractions, reject this messaging amendment, and support the underlying bill. I yield back. >> Gentleman yields. Are there any other members? Uh the gentle lady from Oregon. Do you wish to be recognized? >> Yes, I wish to be recognized in support of Mr. Scott's amendment. >> Recognized for five minutes. >> Uh uh thank thank you, Mr. Chairman. I I
strongly support this amendment. We cannot expect the Office of Civil Rights to do the work if they don't have the staff and if they don't have the funding. They're currently facing a massive backlog of somewhere between 11,000 and 24,000 cases pending across the country. It's not a smoke screen or
messaging amendment to say that they need staff to handle those. So, I support the amendment and I yield back. I thank the gentle lady. Are there any other members who wish to be recognized on this amendment? >> Seeing none, the question is on the amendment by the gentleman from
Virginia, the ranking member. All in favor say I. I. >> All oppose, no. >> No. >> In the opinion of the chair, the nos have it and the amendment is not agreed to. >> A roll call vote is ordered. Pursuant to the chair's previous announcement, this
vote will be postponed. Are there any further amendments to the amendment in the nature of a substitute to HR 9203? Seeing none, the further action on HR 9203 is postponed, we'll now move to consider the next bill.
The committee will now proceed to consideration of bill HR 2555 for amendment. The bill was circulated in advance and printed copies are available. The clerk shall designate the bill. >> HR 2555, a bill to amend the Higher
Education Act of 1965 to provide for certain freedom of association protections 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. Harris, 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 HR255
offered by Mr. Harris of North Carolina identifier MU2555 ANS_01 >> without objection the amendment shall be considered original text for purposes of further amendment the amendment in the nature of a substitute has already been distributed I now recognize Mr. Harris
gentleman from uh from North Carolina >> for five for five minutes to explain the amendment and nature of the substitute >> thank you Mr. Chairman, I'm proud to co-sponsor HR 2555, the Freedom of Association and Higher Education Act,
which would uphold the Freedom of Association protections for students. Too often, students in single sex social organizations, which range from Greek life to religious groups and others face requirements that are not placed on other student groups. Students in
fraternities and sororities, for example, have been barred from receiving college fellowships or holding leadership positions in other student organizations. Students are also often required to follow a deferred recruitment policy that prohibits them from joining Greek life even while
they're allowed to join other campus organizations. It's simply not fair to place additional requirements on single sex student groups solely because they enforce single sex membership standards. The Freedom of Association and Higher Education Act would ensure that any
student can form a single-sex social organization or join one if selected for membership. The bill would prohibit colleges from taking action against a student or student organization because that organization is single sex. It would also prohibit colleges from
imposing additional restrictions on an organization because it is single sex. And my amendment in the nature of a substitute makes a few changes to the bill that I'd like to take a moment and highlight. First, it allows private universities to take action against
single-sex organization if the organization's purpose is incompatible with the religious mission of the university, ensuring that private universities can abide by their religious beliefs. It also prohibits colleges from imposing additional
requirements on adviserss serving single- sex social organizations. And lastly, the ANS defines sex as biological sex, ensuring that protections in the bill would only apply to single sex student groups that abide
by this common sense definition and are consistent with Title 9. I'm proud to support this bill to protect students and single-sex organizations on college campuses. And I urge my colleagues to support HR 2555, the Freedom of
Association and Higher Education Act. And with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back. >> Gentleman yields. Are there any members who wish to be recognized for further discussion on the amendment in the nature of the substitute? >> Yes, Mr. Chairman. >> Does the gentle lady from North Carolina
wish to be recognized? >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I I move strike the last word. >> Gentle A is recognized for 5 minutes. >> I'm just amazed at what I just heard. I I am a member of a single sex sorority. I taught at a single sex college for 40
years. But anyway, let me let me just um uh make a few comments. I do support the right of students to associate freely. I understand the importance of fraternities, sororities, and and other student organizations. And on many campuses, especially our historically black colleges and universities, these
organizations are more than social clubs. They're places of leadership, service, me mentorship, scholarship, and lifelong community. For generations, black fraternities and sororities have helped students find belonging, serve their communities, and develop into
leaders. So, I understand why Congress would want to ensure that colleges do not unfairly punish students simply because they choose to join a single sex organization. That was the issue this bill was supposed to address. But the amendment and the nature of a substitute
changes the bill. Uh the majority inserted a definition of sex that has nothing to do with protecting a student from being uh denied a scholarship, a leadership position, or a letter of recommendation because they joined a
fraternity or sorority. Instead, the bill now defines sex exclusively through reproductive biology and and rights transgender students out of the protections the bill claims to provide. That language was not necessary to solve
the problem before us. It was added to turn a bill about freedom of association into another vehicle for the majority's political attacks on transgender Americans. And that's why I cannot support it. Freedom of association
should mean freedom for all students. It should not mean that Congress protects the freedom of some students while using the same bill to question the dignity and the identity of others. Transgender students attend our colleges and universities. They join clubs. They
participate in campus life. They form friendships and communities. And they deserve the same respect, safety, and opportunity as every other student. uh this committee uh has spent far too much time this Congress targeting a very small and vulnerable group of young
people. At some point we must ask what problem we are actually trying to solve. And if the goal is to protect fraternities and sororities from unfair institutional retaliation, then we can do that without inserting a definition
designed to exclude transgender students. If the goal is to protect freedom of association, we can write a bill that protects freedom of association. We do not need to legislate the bodies of students in order to do
that. Uh I'm so concerned as well uh about how broadly this bill defi defines adverse action. This bill reaches scholarships, housing, athletic participation, leadership positions, employment
recommendations, and institutional recognition. And some of those protections may be reasonable when an institution acts solely because a student belongs to a single sex organization. But schools must still be able to enforce rules against hazing,
harassment, discrimination, violence, and other misconduct. fraternity or sorority should not be punished simply because it is a single sex. But neither should an organization be placed beyond accountability because it claims uh its conduct is tied to its membership
practices. Students deserve both freedom and safety. We can protect both. This bill also reflects a troubling pattern. The majority takes a legitimate concern, adds divisive language that that that's
not needed to address it, and then tells members that opposing the bill means opposing the the the original principle. Well, that's just not true. I support fraternities and sororities, proud member of Alpha Kappa Alpha. I support student leadership. I support the
freedom of students to associate and I support the right of every student including transgender students to be treated with dignity. Those positions are not in conflict. The majority choose choose uh chose to create that conflict by adding this definition. Uh it did not
have to do that. If that language were removed, we could have a serious bipartisan conversation about protecting student organizations and and protecting uh uh preventing unfair institutional retaliation, but as written, this bill
is no longer simply about freedom of association. It's another attempt to use federal education policy to marginalize transgender students. And I'm not going to support that. I urge my colleagues to reject this bill and return to the
bipartisan principle that every student deserves freedom, safety, equal treatment on campus. With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back. >> The gentle lady yields. Are there any other members who wish to be recognized for further discussion on the amendment
and nature of the substitute? >> Does a gentle lady from Illinois wish to be recognized? Gentle lady is recognized for five minutes. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for your leadership on this critical
bill. The First Amendment is clear. The right to peaceibly assemble and express free speech is fundamental. And yet, federally funded colleges and universities have repeatedly violated this right for religious student
organizations. For example, the University of Houston at Clear Next one. >> Oh, okay. >> Okay. I'm waiting till the next bill. >> The gentle lady yields. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Are there any other members who wish to
speak on the amendment in the nature of a substitute? The gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Scott, do you wish to be recognized? >> Yes. >> You're recognized for five minutes. >> Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As I mentioned in my opening remarks, I came
here ready to recommend a yes vote on HR 2555. The students right of a student to join a private social organization of their choice should not be impeded by an institution of um higher education just
because it's a sorority or fraternity. I happen to belong to two fraternities, Alpha F Alpha and Sigma FIA. Further, students should not be penalized for making similar choices. If a social organization is causing problems at a school, the school can and should deal
with those problems on their face, but it shouldn't address a student or students or organizations's actions, not the simple fact that the members choose to associate with each other. This bill makes it clear that fraternities and sororities are not being given some sort
of get out of jail free card. simply can't be penalized simply because they're single-sex organizations. Fraternities and sororities long been part of the college experience and should not be arbitrarily uh create barriers in a way of students forming in
what in some cases the most meaningful lifelong friendships they may have. Language substantially similar to HR 25555 has been included in both Democratic and Republican bills to reauthorize a higher education act since at least 2018. It's [snorts] been one of
those things that most members agree on and if given its own up or down vote, it'd like to receive wide margins of support. However, in the last 24 hours before this markup, the majority released an amendment nature of a substitute that
had known poison pill language in it. language and made no substantial improvements to the bill and turned just turned it into another culture war bill. Committee Democrats will offer an amendment to strip this language from the bill and hope that we can move the
bill forward that many people can support. Uh however, if this amendment fails, I'll urge members to vote no and um on the amendment nature of a substitute and the bill yield back.
Gentleman yields. Are there any other members who wish to recognize in discussion of the amendment and the nature of the substitute? Seeing none, uh we will now move on to amendments. Are there any members
who wish to offer an amendment on HR 2025? Does this gentleman from Virginia seek to offer an amendment? Uh yes, I have a member at the desk HR 25555m DO1. >> The clerk will designate the bill. The
amendment >> amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute to HR255 offered by Mr. Scott of Virginia identifier Scott AMD_01. >> There's a gentleman from Utah >> reserve. >> Yes, I like to reserve port order. Point of order is reserved.
I now recognize the gentleman from Virginia for 5 minutes in support of his amendment. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I think a student should not be punished for choosing to join a fraternity or sorority. Either we want college students to have the freedom to associate with members they choose or we
don't. And there's no need to insert our politics into this debate and putting it over their desire to celebrate brotherhood or sister sisterhood as they see fit. This amendment would strike the divisive poison pill language from the bill that many members on this side of
the dis came here ready to support. If this amendment is defeated, the NS is adopted in its current form. I regret that I will not be able to support the bill. Uh but hopefully this amendment will be adopted and we can proceed with
almost unanimous support. You back. >> The gentleman yields. Uh, does a gentleman from Utah? >> I'd like to withdraw my res reservation. >> Reservation is withdrawn. Does anyone else seek recognition on the
amendment? >> Mr. Chairman, I would like to unanimous consent. >> The gentleman from Virginia wish to wishes to be recognized. For what purpose? >> Unanimous consent to for the record. >> For the record.
>> Yes. like to have an article here from uh NBC News uh seven sarity sisters at the University of Wyoming sue cappa capagama to challenge induction of transgender member like to have that as
part of without objection it'll be entered are there any other members who wish to speak in discussion on the amendment >> Mr. Gentlemen, >> the gentleman from Virginia is recognized
the gentleman from Virginia, there was a gentleman from North Carolina that introduced that um document. I think it's now evident we recognize that. Any others who wish to be recognized in
discussion on the amendment from gentleman from Virginia? Seeing none, the only thing I would say is that because of the inability for common sense and science to be followed,
this legislation is in place and I oppose the amendment. The question is now on the amendment by the gentleman from Virginia. All in favor say I. >> I. >> All oppose, no. No. >> In the opinion of the chair, the nos have it and the amendment is not agreed
to. A roll call vote is ordered. Pursuant to the chair's previous announcement, this vote will be postponed. Are there any further amendments to the amendment in the nature of a substitute to HR 2555? There being no further amendments, the
question now occurs on the amendment in the nature of a substitute to HR 2555. >> On the amendment Further action on HR2555 is postponed. We'll now move to consider the next bill. The committee [clears throat] will now
proceed to consideration of HR5505 for amendment. The bill was circulated in advance and printed copies are available. The clerk shall designate the bill. HR5505, a bill to amend the Higher Education Act of 1965 to ensure campus access at
public institutions of higher education for religious groups. >> Without objection, the first reading of the bill is dispensed with. Without objection, the bill will be considered as read and open for amendment at any point, and any amendment offered shall be considered
as read. I now recognize myself to offer an amendment in the nature of a substitute. I have an amendment at the desk. The clerk shall designate the amendment in a nature of a substitute. >> Amendment in the nature of a substitute to HR5505 offered by Mr. Wahberg of Michigan
identifier MU5505 ANS_01. >> Without objection, the amendment shall be considered original text for purposes of further amendment. The amendment in the nature of a substitute has already been distributed. I now recognize myself for five minutes to explain the
amendment in the nature of a substitute. This amendment in the nature of a substitute makes a small technical change to the bill, but I'd like to discuss the significance of the bill overall. We know that religious student groups often face unique challenges on college
campuses. In our April hearing, we heard examples of how religious student organizations nationwide have lost benefits afforded to other organizations due to their religious beliefs and practices. Religious student groups have lost access to funding, lost access to
university space, and been required to invite speakers opposed to their views. Yet, no other student organizations were held to these same standards. That simply isn't right. My bill equal access or equal cample
campus access act requires public colleges and universities that receive federal student aid to treat religious student groups the same as any other student organization on campus. This would ensure that religious student organizations can receive the full
benefits afforded to them regardless of their beliefs, practices, speech, leadership standards or standards of conduct. It's incredibly important that Congress supports students exercising their First Amendment rights on public college
campuses. I urge my colleagues to support HR5505, Equal Campus Access Act, and I yield back. Are there any members who wish to be recognized for further discussion on the amendment in the nature of the substitute?
>> I do. Does the gentle lady from Georgia, Miss McBath, wish to be recognized? >> Thank you, Mr. Chair. I have an amendment at the desk, McBath_. >> No, we're we're on discussion purposes at this point in time. >> Are there any who wish to the gentleman
from California? For what purpose do you wish to be recognized? >> Uh, Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word and rise in opposition to the bill. >> You are recognized for five minutes. >> Mr. Mr. Chairman, there are many pressing items that this committee could be focused on addressing today like uh
skyrocketing college costs, the declining purchasing power of the Pell Grants, or the student loan crisis. Instead, we are spending more committee time on another GOP ideological crusade.
Colleges and universities have gone to great lengths to make campuses inclusive places where any student can participate in all aspects of student life, including in clubs and student organizations. These aspects of a student's life are foundational for for
young people seeking out community professional networks and groups that make college feel less overwhelming or more accessible. When these clubs are officially recognized by the institution, they receive support and certain benefits
from that recognition. And for that reason, non-discrimination policies are in place to ensure that all students who are enrolled at that university can participate or seek leadership positions
regardless of their status or beliefs. Equal access is one of the core foundations of the university educational system. This bill, however, seeks to create a major carveout for that equal access. HR5505
would prohibit universities from denying religious student organizations recognition and benefit because of their beliefs, practices, speech, or even or or other standards. even if those beliefs and practices include barring
certain students from joining or removing them from membership. What's worse is that these officially recognized clubs and organizations are generally funded by all student fees. That means that students who wouldn't be welcome in these organizations would
still be required to subsidize them. The Republican majority is attempting to erode non-discrimination protections uh through death by a thousand cuts or death through a thousand carveouts is more is more accurate. They are scraping away at the
protections that allow students equal access to their campus and place to learn free from harassment and discrimination. Religious groups absolutely have a place on college campuses, but their right to be recognized by the institution does not
override other students rights to be free from discrimination. What type of message does this send to the student in the closet who fears if they if they fully accept who they are, they will be cast out from the
university recognized uh for the from the university recognized religious student organization they deeply care about. This legislation will tell that student uh to make an impossible choice to conceal who they are in order to continue to participate and have access
to their university funded religious student organization. That's no way to live. And for some students, concealing who they are may not even be an option for this text. Religious student organizations would have the right to discriminate on to discriminate based on race, disability,
or any characteristic and still receive official institutional recognition, resources, including funding and other benefits. Non-discrimination policies ensure all students have an opportunity to continue to worship and practice as
they see fit. Conditioning federal funds on a university violating non-discrimination policies and practices does nothing to help students, including those in religious student organizations. We are facing a national affordability and access crisis in higher education. I
would rather that the committee would focus on that. I urge my colleagues to vote no on HR550 and I yield back. >> The gentleman yields. This is a gentle lady from Illinois wish to be recognized. >> Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank
you for your leadership on this critical bill. The First Amendment is clear. The right to peaceibly assemble and express free speech is fundamental. And yet, federally funded colleges and universities have repeatedly violated
this right for religious student organizations. For example, the University of Houston at Clear Lake barred a Christian student organization from officially organizing, leaving the students unable to reserve campus space,
invite speakers, or access school funding. The First Amendment is not optional, regardless of whether or not the university agrees with the group. It protects the right of any person to speak and peacefibly protest in a public
place. Religious student groups should be treated like any other student organization when it comes to accessing the benefits provided to official student organizations. The Equal Campus Access Act does exactly
that. It prohibits federally funded institutions of higher education from denying a religious student organization any right, benefit, or privilege afforded to other student organizations. As we've seen intolerance rise on
college campuses, it's critical that Congress steps up to protect students who are attempting to exercise their First Amendment rights. I urge my colleagues to support the Equal Campus Access Act to protect the rights of students in religious student
organizations. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I yield back. >> Gentle lady yields. Are there any any other members who wish to be recognized for further discussion on the amendment and nature of a substitute? I recognize the gentleman for Virginia, the ranking member for the purposes of discussion.
>> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Mr. Chairman, the Equal Camp the Equal Campus Act excess Act prohibits funding under the Higher Education Act to public colleges and universities that refuse to recognize or provide benefits to religious student organizations because
of the organizations religious beliefs, practices, speech, leadership standards or standards of conduct. But the act does not in fact provide equal campus access but instead gives preferential treatment to religious student organizations to preempt any number of
institutional policies including non-discrimination policies that otherwise apply to every other student organization. Public colleges and universities must comply with First Amendment protections related to speech, religion, and association, including as they apply to
religious student organizations. Student groups contribute to the full measure of the college experience, providing students with added social and academic benefits. The opportunity for students to join to both join and lead student groups is an essential part of
that experience. Many colleges and universities have non-discrimination policies and some have all comer policies which require recognized student groups to not discriminate against students seeking to join or lead the group. These policies prevent
student groups, many of which are funded by student activity fees paid for by all students, from discriminating against uh students, including LGBTQ plus students. These policies treat religious student
groups the same as all other student groups. Organizations of all stripes can become recognized groups to access funds and other benefits provided they adhere to schools policy including any non-discrimination policy. All students
deserve access to join and lead student groups free from discrimination. This committee should be working to end discrimination, not [snorts] making it easier to discriminate against our students. It's important to understand the backdrop into which we're considering this legislation. The bill
adds yet another requirement that a now dysfunctional Department of Education would be responsible for administering when it is not even meeting its responsibilities to address claims by students facing discrimination under federal civil rights laws already. Just
two months ago, we learned from the Senate helped Democratic staff report that [snorts] the Office of Civil Rights reached its lower number of resolution agreements in 12 years, resolving just 1% of pending cases. On Tuesday, a
report from the Office of Inspector General at the Department of Education found that the staffing cuts at the department were so deep that the agency eliminated offices that were performed that performed statutory functions as well as conducted oversight and
monitoring of programs. Worse still, we do not have a full picture of the dysfunction at the department because it refuses to comply with reasonable requests to assess its changes, such as one reported by the Department of Education's Office of Inspector General.
Yet, we continue to mark up legislation like this one, which adds yet another requirement to our educational laws with professionally with potentially no one at the department to enforce those conditions. This bill undermines the rights of our students and fails to
address the underlying deficiencies in the department of education caused by this administration. So I urge my colleagues to oppose the uh amendment nature of the substitute in the underlying bill. >> This gentleman yield back.
>> Gentleman yields. Are there any other members who wish to be recognized for purpose of discussion of the n of the bill amendment and nature of substitute? There being no further discussion on the amendment and nature of substitute the committee will move to consideration of amendments. Are there any members who
would like to offer amendments? I recognize the gentle lady from Georgia, Miss McBath, for the purpose of amendment. >> Thank you, Mr. Chair. I have an amendment at the desk. It it is um let's see.
>> Will the clerk will designate the amendment >> for me? Amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute to HR5505 offered by Miss McBath of Georgia identifier Mcbath_amd_01. >> Reserve point of order. >> 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. Chair. Uh, this amendment would close a loophole in the bill that could be used to allow members of student organizations to discriminate against students and excuse deadly hazing incidents. One of the things I'm
most proud of during my time here in Congress was getting the Stop Campus Hazing Act signed into law. It's taken several years to do that, but I didn't do that alone. It was the result of years of work from families whose children were killed and a bipartisan
coalition of members both on and off this committee coming together to get that done. As written, the bill would prohibit HA funding to public colleges and universities that refuse to recognize or provide benefits to
students to student religious groups because of the group's standards of conduct. It would create blanket immunity for students in certain groups, exempting them from standards of con conduct, making it possible for people to avoid being held accountable for
specific conduct. Conduct like collegic hazing that results in death or serious inquiry, injury, excuse me. No student should be held liable solely for being a part of a student group. And I think that we all agree upon that matter. But the conduct
of a student, the actions they personally choose to take on campus, that is what people need to be held accountable for. Families who have had loved ones killed, they need accountability. And I know that feeling all too well. When people are killed or
the disabled, and when law enforcement is involved, the stakes completely change. The people responsible for these crimes will do and say just about anything to avoid being held accountable. I experienced that myself when my own son was murdered and I hear
about it over and over again from the families who have not only lost their child but now have to go through the multi-year process of a court case. We cannot allow people to escape justice with blanket immunity like this.
I am a woman of very deep faith and I understand wanting religious organizations to be welcomed on campus and they should. But that doesn't mean that we should provide [music] blanket immunity for students for their specific conduct. Regardless of how you plan to
vote on this underlying bill today, I encourage my colleagues to adopt this amendment to make sure that this legislation won't undermine an important bipartisan achievement of this committee that we've already done a bill that
saves lives. And I yield. >> The gentle lady yields. There's a gentleman. >> I throw my reservation. Point of order is with withdrawn. Does anyone seek recognition on the
amendment? I oppose the amendment. The question now is on the amendment by the gentle lady from Georgia. All in favor say I. >> All oppose? No. No. >> No. In the opinion of the chair, the nose have it. The amendment is not
agreed to. >> A roll call vote is ordered. Pursuant to the chair's previous announcement, this vote will be postponed. Are there any further amendments to the amendment and the nature of a substitute to HR5505? >> Yes, Mr. Chairman. >> The gentle lady from Oregon. Do you wish to be recognized for
>> Yes, I have an amendment at the desk. >> The clerk will uh will report the amendment. Thank you. >> Amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute to HR5505 offered by Miss Bonamichi of Oregon identifier Bonamichi_amd_03. >> Does the gentleman reserve point of order?
>> Point of order is reserved. I now recognize the gentle lady from Oregon. Miss Bonamichi for 5 minutes in support of her amendment. >> Uh thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, HR5505 adds a requirement to the Higher Education Act, which normally would be
enforced by the Department of Education. In fact, the bill actually says in its text, the enforcement uh shall be carried out by the Secretary of Education at the Department of Education. Uh first of all, I want to align myself with the comments of
ranking member Scott and Mr. Tano. Regardless of the merits of this policy, this committee cannot ignore the fact that the secretary has spent the last year or so dismantling the department through illegal transfers of power that undermine the laws this body has
written, delegating those powers to the Department of Education. Words matter. If my friends on the other side of the aisle wanted the Department of Labor or the Department of Justice or any other federal agency to handle the enforcement of campus access for religious groups, they could have drafted this bill to
reflect that, but they did not. So to make sure the secretary follows what Congress has intended in this bill, my amendment makes a clear statement that would prohibit the secretary from delegating the power to enforce campus access for religious student organizations in this bill to any other
federal agency. My amendment refle reaffirms the intention of Congress that the Department of Education is the federal agency vested with the responsibility to enforce this provision. It says so right in the bill. We must be clear. We expect the Department of Education to do this work
and we will not authorize more power to the Secretary unless the language reflects that expectation. The recent release this week of the Department of Education's Office of Inspector General report only underscores the need to reign in the powers of this department.
To quote from a Politico pro article, "Staffing cuts at the education department were so deep that the agency eliminated offices that may have been responsible for tasks required by law," the department's watchdog said in a
report on Tuesday. And the department's failure to fully comply with OIG's request for information to fulfill its inquiry means that this Congress and the Committee of Jurisdiction do not have a true picture of what is left of the Department of Education. We have no idea
whether they are currently able to meet the obligations required by federal statute. This bill would add more requirements. Only two months ago, the Senate Help Committee Democratic staff released a report that the unprecedented cuts to the Office for Civil Rights have
had devastating results. OCR has reached 78% fewer resolution agreements overall compared to the previous year, the lowest rate in more than a decade. Secretary McMahon's failure to follow the law, her failure to comply with
oversight requests by OIG and JGAO, her failure to meet the department statutory functions to serve students, teachers, and schools are all emblematic of her failed leadership at the department. I urge that we do not make things worse by
giving the Department of uh uh education unclear instructions when they're trying to shut it down. I we must adopt this amendment to make clear that this uh bill will be enforced by the actual department of education not sent elsewhere. I urge the adoption of the amendment and I yield back.
>> Gentle yields. Does the gentleman withdraw his res? >> Withraw my reservation. >> Reservation is withdrawn. Does anyone else seek recognition on the amendment? I recognize myself in opposition to amendment. It's not necessary. It provides no additional support that
would be necessary to carry out uh the proposals in this bill. Having said that, uh seeing no um further are there are are the question is now an amendment by the gentle lady from Oregon. All in favor
say I. >> All oppose. No. >> No. >> In the opinion of the chair, the nos have it. An amendment is not agreed to is a record rule. Are there any further amendments to the amendment in nature of substitute to
HR5505? >> Does a gentleman from Virginia seek to be recognized? >> Have a unanimous consent request to enter into the record a letter from about two dozen civil rights and religious organizations. It says in part, "The bill would
actually force public institutions of higher education to allow clubs to discriminate public colleges and universities or lose federal funding under the higher education act unless they exempt religious student groups from non-discrimination rules that apply to all other student groups. Schools
should have schools would have to give funding and recognition to a religious student group that turned away a student who was gay or a single mother. This is wrong. Discrimination has no place in our public university campuses. >> Without objection,
the letters will be entered. Are there any other amendments that wish to be offered? Further action on HR5505 is postponed. We'll now move to consideration of the next bill. The committee will now proceed to
consideration of bill HR2332 for amendment. The bill was circulated in advance and printed copies are available. The clerk shall designate the bill. >> HR 2332, a bill to authorize the use of
Federal Bureau of Investigation criminal history record information for administration of certain licenses. >> Without objection, the first reading of the bill is dispensed with. Without 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. Owens, for what purpose do you seek to be recognized? >> Um, thank you, Mr. Chairman. Uh, thank you, Mr. Chairman. [clears throat] >> Oh, I have I have I'm sorry. I have a
minute at the desk. The clerk will designate the amendment. >> Amendment in the nature of a substitute to HR 2332 332 offered by Mr. Owens of Utah identifier MU2332 ANS_02.
>> 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 5 minutes to explain the amendment in the nature of a substitute. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Proud to
support HR 2332, states handling access to reciprocity for employment or share act. Across the country, states have voluntarily entered into interstate lensure compacts to help qualified workers practice across state
lines while maintaining state oversight and public safety protections. These compacts have become an increasingly important tool for addressing the workforce uh workforce shortages, expanding access to services in health care, counseling and other licensed professions. However, many interstate
lensure compacts require participating um uh state licensing authorities to conduct criminal background checks before granting compact privileges. Due to amb ambiguity and existing federal law, some states licensing authorities have have faced challenges obtaining the
criminal history information necessary to determine eligibility for compact to participation. The share act addresses this issue by clarifying the authority to uh access that information for compact purposes by ensuring states can continue implementing these compacts as
intended. This legislation helps qualified professionals work where they are needed most. Expands access to critical services and preserves the authority of states to establish and enforce their own occupational licensing standards. My amendment in the nature of
a substitute makes technical uh correction to the bill and does not change the underlining policy uh or general purposes of the legislation. The Share Act is a common sense measure that supports state-led uh solutions to workforce choice shortages uh reduces
unnecessary barriers to un to employment and and strengthens the effectiveness of interstate occupational legisure uh compacts. I urge my colleagues to support HR uh 2332 the share act and I yield back. The gentleman yields. Are
there any other members who wish to be recognized for further discussion on the amendment and the nature of a substitute? Mr. >> Chairman, >> gentle lady from from North Carolina. Do you wish to be recognized? >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I move strike the last word. >> Recognized for five minutes. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um, [clears throat] as we all are aware, our
country faces a health care provider shortage and our rural communities are are most impacted. Over 90% of rural counties are designated as primary care health professional shortage areas. Nearly 40% of residents have reported
using emergency department care that could have been handled in a primary care setting. The average ratio in rural areas is one physician per 2,881 residents. This situation is is already unacceptable and it's only going to get
worse in the next decade. The Association of American Medical Colleges in 2024 report found that our country will face a physician shortage of up to 86,000 physicians by 2036.
According to Hersa, by 2038, uh non-metro areas will experience a 58% shortage of physicians. It is urgent that Congress exhaust all options to improve patient access to health care
providers. The share act would improve the effectiveness of occupational lensure interstate compacts. An important component in this accessibility crisis. Medical interstate compacts reduce the administrative
burden for medical professionals interested in practicing in in other states. It makes the process for outofstate health professionals more streamlined and reduces administrative burden. However, it is currently uh way
too difficult for employers to gain access to criminal history record information when they are hiring and onboarding new health care workers from across state lines. This bill would allow the FBI to share background checks
across state lines and and expedite the lensure process for providing uh for for providers in states participating in interstate compacts. While this would apply to all occupational lensure
interstate compacts, this change is especially relevant to the health care field. 17 of the 21 compacts are are for health care professionals. North Carolina is one of the most recent states to join in participation in the
interstate medical lensure compact at the start of this year. 43 states in Washington DC and Guam currently participate with North Carolina having the second largest rural population in the country. This is especially helpful
for our state and gaining new providers in our rural communities. We in Congress must do everything that we can do to make this mechanism as effective as possible when we talk about how to increase recruitment of new talent in
rural and underserved areas. This has to be a part of the conversation. For that reason, Mr. Chairman, I I urge my colleagues to vote yes uh on this bill and and I yield back. >> I thank the gentle lady. Are there any
other members who wish to be recognized for further discussion on the amendment and the nature of substitute? The gentleman from Virginia, the ranking member, >> Mr. Chairman, ask unanimous consent to enter a statement under the record. >> Um without objection, the statement will be entered. Are there any other members
who wish to discuss the amendment and nature of the substitute? There being no further discussion on amendment in the nature of a substitute, the committee will move to consideration of amendment of amendments. Are there any members who would like to offer amendments? There being no amendments, the question
now occurs on the amendment in the nature of a substitute to HR 2332. All in favor say I. I. All oppose. No. In the opinion of the chair, the eyes have an amendment in the nature of a substitute is agreed to. We'll now move
to consider the next bill. The committee will now proceed to consideration of bill HR 4122 for amendment. The bill was circulated in advance and printed copies are available. The clerk shall designate the bill.
>> HR 4122, a bill to permit nurse practitioners and physician assistants to furnish necessary services, appliances, and supplies to individuals receiving medical benefits for illnesses. >> 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. Al Allen, uh, for what purpose do you seek recognition? >> Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk. >> The clerk shall designate the amendment
in the nature of a substitute. >> Amendment in the nature of a substitute to HR 4122 offered by Mr. Allen of Georgia, identifier 4122s. >> Without objection, the amendment shall be considered original text for purposes of further amendment. The amendment and
the nature of a substitute has already been distributed. I now recognize Mr. Allen for five minutes to explain the amendment and the nature of a substitute. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I introduced HR 4122 along with my colleague from Georgia, Mrs. McBth. This bill amends
the energy employees occupational illness compensation program act to allow nurse practitioners and physicians assistance to order care for patients eligible under the energy workers program within their scope of practice under state law under the energy
employees occupational illness compensation program act. Department of Energy contractors and subc subcontractors as well as uranium miners, millers and ore transporters as well as the survivors of these workers can receive compensation for certain
occup occupational ill illnesses that are linked to the work environments through the energy workers program. Under current law, only physicians may order care for eligible program patients. Unfortunately, in many parts across many parts across the country
where these DOE sites are located, particularly in rural areas, workers can experience long delays in receiving essential health care services. This physician only policy also conflicts with Centers of Medicare and Medicaid Services and the Department of Veterans
Affairs guidelines, which allow NPs and PAs to order care without their scope of practice. HR 4122 helps address these delays and aligns the program with CMS and VA policies. This bill also requires
MPs and PAs to act within their scope of practice under state law. These providers play a significant role in America's health care system and it's time that they play a greater role in the energy workers program. HR 4122 mirrors the policy in HR 3170, improving
workers compensation for injured federal workers act, which chairman Wahberg and Representative Courtney introduced. Uh HR 3170 would allow MPs and PAs to order care for workers under the federal employees compensation act program within the scope of their practice under
state law. I was happy to see the committee approved that bill unanimously exactly one year ago. The amendment in neighbor in in the nature of a substitute to HR4122 makes a technical change to the bill and urge my colleagues to adopt the ANS and
approve the underlying bill. And with that, I yield back. >> 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 gentle lady from Oregon. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I move to strike the last word and speak in favor
of the amendment and the nature of the substitute. >> Recognized for five minutes. >> Thank you. Uh, I support the Healthcare for Energy Workers Act as a necessary step to increase access to care for the hundreds of thousands of Americans who were exposed to dangerous toxins while working on our country's nuclear weapons
program. And I thank my colleagues on both sides of the aisle for introducing this bill. The bill will allow nurse practitioners and physicians assistants to order care for current and former workers under the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program. Nurse practitioners and
physician assistants provide a vast range of quality care, but their ability to serve patients is often unfairly constrained by outdated restrictions. This bill will remove barriers and allow these essential health care providers to care for more patients, which will
improve care and reduce costs. This bill aligns with the current state policies that already allow NPs and PAs to provide care for patients independently. It in no way changes scope of practice laws for states that haven't provided this expanded care. As co-chair of the
bipartisan nursing caucus, I want to thank the sponsors of this bill for working to expand access to quality care for patients. I encourage all of my colleagues to support this important policy through the ANS and the underlying bill. And I yield back the balance of my time.
>> The gentle lady yields. Are there any other members who wish to be recognized for further discussion on the amendment and the nature of a substitute? I recognize a gentleman, the ranking member from Virginia. Thank Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The bill simply allows beneficiaries under the energy workers
program to receive services from nurse practitioners and physicians assistance if the state allows them to work independently. Bears repeating that this bill would not change the state scope of practice laws in any way. It's the same
change we've made in other programs. And I want to thank the gentleman from Georgia and the gentle lady from Georgia, Miss McBath, for their hard work on this bill. I urge my colleagues to support it and yield back the balance of my time. >> The gentleman yields back. Are there any
other members who wish to be recognized? Seeing none, there being no further discussion on the amendment in the nature of substitute, the Penny will move to consideration of amendments. Are there any members who would like to offer amendments? There being no amendments, the question
now occurs on the amendment in the nature of a substitute to HR4122. All in favor say I. I. All oppose. No. In the opinion of the chair, the eyes have it and the amendment in the nature of a substitute is agreed to. We'll now
move to consider the next bill. The committee will now proceed to consideration of bill HR 8822 for amendment. We will go to a short recess. A momentary recess. I'll proceed come to order again and
we'll now proceed to consideration of the of the bill HR 8822 for amendment. The bill was circulated in advance and printed copies are available. The clerk shall designate the bill >> HR 8822, a bill to amend the Federal
Employees Compensation Act to permit the Secretary of Labor to obtain certain information relating to earnings and employment. >> 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. McKenzie, for what purpose do you seek to be recognized? >> 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 HR8822 offered by Mr. McKenzie of Pennsylvania
identifier 8822s. >> 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. McKenzie for five minutes to explain the amendment in the nature of a substitute.
>> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. HR 8822 amends the Federal Employees Compensation Act, also known as FICA, to permit the Secretary of Labor to obtain earnings and employment information from the Social Security Administration and the Department of Health and Human Services
or HHS related to the FICA program beneficiaries for the purpose of preventing fraud. I would like to thank the gentleoman from Minnesota and the ranking member of the workforce protection subcommittee, Miss Omar, for co-sponsoring this bill with me. For 110
years, the FICA program has been a critical resource for federal employees who are injured or become ill on the job. The FICA program provides benefits to approximately 2.6 million federal civilian employees, postal workers, and
Peacecore volunteers. The last meaningful changes to this program were made more than 50 years ago. Today, we have an opportunity to strengthen the program by prioritizing patients, improving program integrity, and delivering muchneeded medical care more
efficiently. The workplace protection subcommittee has held two hearings on federal workers compensation programs, which produced recommendations to improve FICA. In May 2025, the subcommittee heard from DO's acting inspector general, who recommended
strengthening information sharing efforts among DO, HHS, and the Social Security Administration. Doing so would help DO identify claimants who may be accepting FICA disability payments while failing to report income that they have
earned elsewhere. The Government Accountability Office has also made this same recommendation. Resources intended to support injured workers should go to the workers who need them. As the acting inspector general testified, OWCP
is currently limited in their ability to determine which claimants are receiving outside income. HR8822 addresses that problem and helps strengthen the FICA program for the workers it is intended to serve. The amendment in the nature of a substitute
makes technical changes to the bill and I urge its adoption. With that, I yield back. The >> gentleman yields. Are there any members who wish to be recognized for further discussion? Does a gentle lady from Minnesota wish to be recognized?
>> Yes. >> You're recognized for five minutes. >> Chairman, I move to strike the last word. >> You're recognized for five minutes. I want to thank um chairs Wellbrook and McKenzie for their work uh on HR8822.
I am proud to co-lead the federal workers compensation integrity and care act. When federal workers are injured on the job, they end up navigating a very complicated landscape. They might be receiving wage loss compensation through
FICA while also being eligible for SSDI benefits. Those two programs have overlapping rules and requirements and for far too long the agencies administering them have been operating without enough data
to get payments right in real time. The lack of inter agency data sharing has led to excessive administrative burdens for beneficiaries. This is what happens. injured federal workers will receive their workers compensation and
disability payments and end up using that money to pay for medical care and to support their families while they recover. And then sometimes months later, even years later, workers will receive a notice telling them that they were overpaid and have to pay back the
government. These workers are not committing fraud. They are simply spending the payments they received. I am proud to support this bill which fixes this issue by giving OWCP SSI and HHS the clear authority to share
earnings and benefits data so that payment calculations happen automatically and accurately from the start. Federal workers will get what they are owed and their plan and they can plan their lives accordingly. When we work towards improving program
delivery, we are not only saving taxpayer dollars, but we are also making sure the federal workers who serve our communities every day are quickly receiving the benefits they need. I urge my colleagues to vote for this bill. Thank you, and I yield back. >> The gentle lady yields. Are there any
other members who wish to be recognized for further discussion on the ANS? 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 in the nature of substitute to HR8822. 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.
will now move to consider the next bill. The committee will now proceed to consideration of bill HR8823 for amendment. The bill was circulated in advance and printed copies are available. The clerk shall designate the bill. HR8823,
a bill to amend the Federal Employees Compensation Act to allow the Secretary of Labor to suspend payments to medical providers who have been convicted of fraud. 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. McKenzie, for what purpose do you seek to be recognized? >> 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 HR8823 offered by Mr. McKenzie of Pennsylvania identifier 8823 ANS. >> 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. McKenzie for five minutes to explain the amendment in the nature of a substitute. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman, HR8823 amends the Federal Employees Compensation Act, also known as FICA, to
allow the Department of Labor to suspend payments to medical care providers who have been convicted of fraud with respect to the program. I thank the gentleoman for from Minnesota, Miss Omar, for co-sponsoring this bill. Each year, the FICA program provides benefits
to hundreds of thousands of injured federal workers. And we know that the program serves these workers best when it runs efficiently and with strong safeguards against fraud. That's why it's essential that when we strengthen accountability and ensure taxpayer dollars are used to deliver the
muchneeded care, they are not wasted on medical providers who are trying to game the system. When a provider is convicted of fraud, the Department of Labor or DO should have clear authority to stop them from receiving taxpayer dollars. During
the Workforce Protection Subcommittee hearing in May of 2025, we heard testimony about fraud schemes that cost taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars, money that could have gone towards providing quality care to our federal workers. Currently, DO may suspend payments to medical care
providers who are convicted of fraudulent activities, but this is necessary to protect both injured workers and taxpayers who fund the program. However, regulations can be revised or rescended by future administrations. That's why the policy
should be explicitly included in the statute and that is what HR8823 does. This bipartisan bill is also consistent with existing FICA provisions that allow for the suspension or denial of payments to those who are convicted
of fraud. HR 8823 does not aim to restrict access to medical care for injured federal employees. Instead, this bill helps ensure care is delivered to providers who meet basic standards of professional and ethical conduct. The
amendment in the nature of a substitute makes a technical change to the bill and I urge its adoption. With that, I yield back. >> The gentleman yields. Are there any members who wish to be recognized for further discussion? I recognize gentleman for Virginia, the ranking member. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Me in support
of the ANS providers are greatest providers are the greatest source of fraud in the FICA program. For example, during this committee's oversight in the opio opioid crisis, we learned about corrupt compoundingarmacies that were crushing up pills and putting them into creams, even though the
medicines in those pills were not absorbed through the skin. And in a 15 ounce tube of this useless cream got charged to the FICA program for $15,000. Existing [snorts] rules allow the Department of Labor to strike a provider from the list of eligible providers in
the FICA program when they are convicted of criminal fraud for any public health program. Those roles rules don't enable the department to stop payment on any pending claims that are that a convicted provider has already submitted prior to
the conviction. That would that could amount to millions of dollars in claims with a high risk of fraud moving through the system. There are of course due process issues that could arise, but this bill already comp contemplates those by empowering the Department of
Labor to develop appropriate rules for implementing the new new authority. And it's you have to restate that these are convictions. Those are criminal convictions, not uh disputes over billing disputes. These are criminal convictions. Um all in all, the bill
closes an important gap and protects taxpayers. I want to thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. McKenzie, and the gentle lady from Minnesota, Miss Omar, for their work on this on this issue. Urge my colleagues to support the bill and yield back.
>> The gentleman yield. >> Gentleman yields. Are there any members 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, the committee will move to consideration
of amendments. Are there any members who wish to offer amendments? There being no amendments, the question now occurs on the amendment in the nature of a substitute to HR 8823. All in favor say I. I. All oppose. No.
In the opinion of the chair, the eyes have it. An amendment and a nature of a substitute is agreed to. We'll now move to consider the next bill. The committee will now proceed to consideration of bill HR 9381 for amendment. The bill was circulated
in advance and printed copies are available. The clerk shall designate the bill. >> HR 9381, a bill to direct the Bureau of Labor Statistics to report on the usage of artificial intelligence in the workplace. Without objection, the first reading of the bill is dispensed with.
Without objection, the bill will be considered as read and open for amendment at any point, and any amendment offered shall be considered as read. I now recognize myself to offer an amendment and a nature of a substitute. I have an amendment at the desk. The
clerk shall designate the amendment and a nature of a substitute. >> Amendment in the nature of a substitute to HR 9381 offered by Mr. Wahberg of Michigan identifier 9381_NS_01. >> Without objection, the amendment shall be considered original text for purposes
of further amendment. The amendment and the nature of a substitute has already been distributed. I now recognize myself for five minutes to explain the amendment and the nature of a substitute. My bill HR 9381 directs the Bureau of
Labor Statistics, BLS, to incorporate questions related to workplace artificial intelligence adoption in into existing surveys. It also requires BLS to begin incorporating these questions within 18 months of enactment.
BLS is the federal government's principal agency for collecting labor market and workplace data. Through a variety of monthly, quarterly, annual, and multi-year surveys, BLS has played an important role for more than a
century in helping policymakers understand how industrial advances and technological innovations affect the nation's workplaces. AI in the workplace is the next technological frontier. The BLS must continue to play its vital role in
helping us understand the impact of this technology. We're already seeing AI's adoption in our workplaces, but we should not rush to pass sweeping laws when we lack crucial information. HR 9381
is not prescriptive and does not dictate specific questions for BLS to incorporate into its surveys. Nor does the bill specify surveys in which these questions must be added. Instead, the bill relies on the expertise of BLS and
the Department of Labor to determine the most effective questions and the best surveys in which to incorporate them. The 18month timeline gives BLS sufficient time to create questions and determine the best surveys in which to incorporate them. Throughout this
committee's building on AI Ready America hearing series, witnesses and members have stated that it is critical for us to strengthen data gathering so that we can better identify trends, opportunities, and
potential disruptions related to AI in the workplace. Better information will help policymakers, educators, and enduser employers make informed decisions about workforce development, job training, and skills development.
There is a balance we can strike with policies that benefit workers without hampering innovation, and without America losing its edge in the AI race, and HR 9381 can play a critical role in achieving that goal.
The amendment in the nature of a substitute makes technical changes to the bill and I urge my colleagues to support the ANS and the underlying bill. With that, I yield back. Are there any members who wish to be recognized for further discussion on the
amendment in the nature of a substitute? The gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Scott, do you wish to be recognized? >> Yes. >> You're recognized for five minutes. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, the Bureau of Labor Statistics or BLS is charged with, and I quote, producing
objective quality measures and analyses of labor market activity, working conditions, price changes, and productivity of the US economy to support public and private decisionmaking," unquote. Unfortunately, tight budgets have styied attempts to modernize BLS's
data products, and surveys in recent years. As recently as fiscal year 2025, BLS required an increase in funding simply to maintain the current population survey sample and begin to take steps towards modernization plans
that are already more than a decade old. And BLS has never restarted several data series which had to be cut due to sequestration in 2020 in 2013 including the elimination of the mass layoff statistics program which crucially
provided and I quote [snorts] information that identifies describes and tracks the effects of major job cutbacks in the economy. This is information very relevant to today's conversation. Nevertheless, the BLS maintains an irreplaceable source of
information about health of the labor market, wages, prices, and industry industry trends. Uh, this bill, the Workforce Assessment Research Enhancement Act, uh, would amend the Department of Labor's um,
organic statute to require BLS to com to collect information on issues of artificial intelligence among businesses in a way excuse me, in a way that um is on par with BLS's collection of wage and
employment information. However, the bill does not authorize any funding to conduct this work. The risk of redirecting the existing data resources seemed doubly reckless given the Department of Commerce is already collecting statistics on the use of a
variety of technologies used by employers. For example, the business trends and outlook surveys or BTOS administered and published by the census department collects the information on
AI amongst employers. Uh that um survey fields questions to approximately 1.2 million businesses each year asking them to report information on a staggered rolling basis every 12 weeks over the course of a year. As a result, data
collection occurs every two weeks, providing for near realtime estimates. The survey asked businesses about their current and future pro projected use of AI and results are broken down by state, sector, and firm size. Separately, the
Census Bureau's um annual business survey, the ABS, has historically been used to un to understand business trends in applications of new technologies, allowing for ongoing analysis that can adapt to to look at new technologies as
they arise. Only time will tell how AI and other future technologies will be deployed in workplaces, but existing data resources when sufficiently funded and are well suited to continue to meet the demand for more information.
Resource researchers have more than enough data to continue to monitor technology uh use among firms alongside of trends in employment. This bill would duplicate efforts and significantly draw resources away from other BLS products.
And so I urge my colleagues to oppose the bill and yield back the balance of my time. The gentleman yields. Are there any members who wish to be recognized for further discussion on the amendment and a nature of a substitute? There being no further discussion on the amendment and a 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 9381. All in favor say I. I. All oppose. No.
>> No. >> In the opinion of the chair, the eyes have it. An amendment in the nature of a substitute is agreed to. We'll now move to consider the next bill. In light of the fact that the votes have now been called and there's one vote, we
would ask that uh we would recess and come back at 1:30 to resume our markup. Having said that, we stand in recess. Let's do it. >> The committee will
again come to order. The committee will now proceed to consideration of bill HR 9228 for amendment. The bill was circulated in advance and printed copies are available. The clerk shall designate the bill HR 9228,
a bill to amend the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 to ensure plan fiduciaries have access to deidentified information relating to health claims 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. Under, for what purpose do you seek recognition? >> Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk. >> The clerk shall designate the amendment in the nature of a substitute.
>> Amendment in the nature of a substitute to HR 9228 offered by Mr. and of Missouri identifier and_030. >> 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. Ander for five minutes to explain the amendment and the nature of a substitute. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Today we are considering HR 9228, Health Data Access
Transparency and Affordability Act. Uh this legislation is based on a simple principle. Employer sponsored health plans should have access to the information they need to oversee the health plans they sponsor so workers and their families are receiving highquality
affordable care. Employer sponsored health plans provide health care coverage for over 135 million Americans. The employers sponsoring these plans and the fiduciaries res and the fiduciaries responsible for overseeing them rely on
network service providers including thirdparty administrators, pharmacy benefit managers, insurers, and other vendors to to perform critical administrative functions. Plan fiduciaries must have access to information in order to effectively oversee those service providers and
evaluate whether plan participants are receiving highquality benefits at a reasonable cost. Unfortunately, some service providers continue to restrict access to claims information, audit rights, payment methodology methodologies, administrative fees, and
other data needed to oversee plan operations and evaluate performance. In these cases, employers and plan fiduciaries face significant barriers to obtaining basic information about benefits they are paying for. These barriers prevent oversight necessary to
plan evaluate plan performance, identify waste and improper payments, and ensure participants receive value from the benefits offered through the plan. This lack of transparency is currently costing American employers and workers billions of dollars in hidden fees and
inflated costs. Look no further than the lawsuit filed by Craft Hind ver against its insurance carrier. Craft hind discovered that its administrator was providing only edited data reports while blocking access to
the raw medical claims. Why? Because the carrier was using its market power to negotiate lower prices from from doctors but not passing those savings back to the employer and its workers. Instead, it was pocketing the difference. They
hid the spread and they used data suppression as a shield to get away with it. We see similar behavior in prescription drug pricing. Employers face excessive costs because they cannot audit what they are actually being
charged. In a recent federal lawsuit involving Johnson and Johnson, it was revealed that because of a lack of transparency, a corporate health plan paid over $10,000 for a 90-day prescription of a common generic drug.
The actual retail cash price for that same drug at a community pharmacy is about $28. That is a 36,000% markup passed straight onto the health plan, hidden entirely behind a wall of proprietary secrecy. Bringing these
prices into to into the light is the right thing to do for patients and it is the right thing to do for small business and the employees themselves paying for coverage. My bill, the Health Data Act, builds on existing law by ensuring that group health plans and their fiduciaries
have timely access to claims and encounter data, supporting documentation, the information, payment methodologies, and information necessary to conduct meaningful audits. The bill also makes clear that service providers must provide this information and may
not prevent or delay access. Importantly, this legislation establishes meaningful enforcement mechanisms to ensure compliance. The bill also strengthens the attestation requirements and gag clause protections previously enacted by Congress.
Unfortunately, some have interpreted that previous legislation simply to prevent gag clauses in contracts rather than as an obligation to actually give the employer health plans access to their own information. At its core, this
legislation is about transparency and accountability. Plan fiduciaries cannot effectively oversee health plans, evaluate network service performance, identify improper payments, or fulfill their responsibilities to plan participants if they are denied access
to basic information about how those plans are being administered. Workers and their families deserve health plans that are well-managed, transparent, and accountable. HR 9228 helps achieve that goal. This is substantially similar to
HR 4527 um passed through this committee on July 11th in the 118th Congress uh sponsored by Representative Chavez de Reamer and Representative Takano. This amendment in the nature of a substitute makes nonsubstantive technical changes to the
bill and I urge my colleagues to vote yes on the amendment in the nature of the substitute and the underlying bill. With that, I yield back. The >> gentleman yields. Are there any members who wish to be recognized for further discussion on the amendment and the
nature of a substitute? >> The gentleman from California. Did you wish wish to be recognized? >> Uh yes, Mr. Chairman. >> You're recognized for five minutes. >> Um am I speaking on this? Oh, no. I have an amendment. So, >> are there any others who wish to be
recognized? the gentleman from Virginia, the ranking member. You're recognized for five minutes. >> Thank you. Um, Mr. Chairman, although I oppose this information, this legislation, I [snorts] share the goal of HR 9228, the health data access, transparency, and affordability act.
This bill seeks to address the issue of so-called gag clauses that block group health plan fiduciaries from accessing data that is necessary for audit auditing their service providers. Service providers that block this type of information include third-party
administrators and pharmacy benefit managers. Now, we have a long history of working on this issue in a bipartisan manner in beginning with the consolidated appropriations act of 2021 in which the [snorts] Congress
prohibited contracts that contain these gag clauses. However, despite this prohibition, service providers still erect barriers that impermissibly block fiduciaries from auditing plan data. To correct this, during the 118th Congress,
the committee advanced legislation, also called the Health Data Act, which was introduced by several members of the committee, including the gentleman from California, Mr. Tano. This legislation reflected a bipartisan effort to ensure
that service providers are not engaged in self-deing or other practices that increase the cost of care. I would have hoped that we could have continued this bipartisan work through today's markup. Regrettably, this this bill abandons the
process instead of improving the fiduciary oversight of service providers. bill grants employers open-ended access for to far more data than necessary, including employee medical records. It
also lacks adequate guard rails to protect sensitive information and ensure that workers are not subject to discrimination by their employer or health plan. Moreover, as drafted, the bill does not clearly ensure that the data is deidentified in a manner [snorts] consistent with
HEPA. In fact, language in the bill requiring the bill to be unmodifi data to be unmodified could be read to imply that the data should not be deidentified at all. Additionally, the legislation placed no
limits on why data data needs to be made available to employers and for what purpose it can be used. The bill extends data access to a range of other individuals acting on behalf of the employer who may not actually need such access. Now, I shared the goal of this
legislation and I believe the more effective approach would have been to build off our previous bipartisan efforts while working to include safeguards for workers and their families. Troubling, Mr. chairman also worry about this pattern being
demonstrated by the majority where Democrats are shut out of the process in areas where we have a bipartisan history in this committee. So I oppose the bill and urge my colleagues to do the same until we can get back on track to the bipartisan efforts that we started.
You're back. >> The gentleman yields. 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 a substitute, the committee will move to consideration of amendments. Are there
any members who wish to offer an amendment? I recognize the gentleman from California for the purpose of an amendment. >> Uh Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk. >> You're recognized for minutes. [clears throat] Uh the the clerk will identify the amendment.
>> Amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute to HR 9228 offered by Mr. Takano of California identifier Tano_HD_access_01 AMD. >> Reserve point of order. >> Point of order is reserved. I now
recognize gentleman from California for five minutes in support of his amendment. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Traditionally, uh, healthcare data transparency has been an area of robust bipartisan agreement. As, uh, ranking member Scott,
uh, mentioned, last year, I introduced the Health Data Transparency Act of 2023 with representatives Lori Chavez Dmer and Kathy Manning. I was excited to work productively with my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to make health
care more affordable for everyday Americans. After our bill passed out of committee favorably, it went through months of bipartisan negotiation. The Health Data Transparency Act of 2023 became a stronger product that strengthened data
transparency while effectively protecting the privacy of plan participants. It was included in the bipartisan lower costs, more transparency package that passed the House. When Republicans and Democrats work
together in good faith, we can create legislation that makes our health care system fairer. So, I was surprised when this bill HR 9228 was introduced, which shares the name of our by pass the name of our past
bipartisan legislation, but does not reflect our bipartisan work. Instead, it dramatically broadens the scope of data that is shared through employer sponsored health plans, including by needlessly granting employers access to
workers medical records. There are essentially no guard rails under HR 9228 on why the data needs to be shared and what it is to be used for. Now, this approach does not reflect the careful thought that should be put into
such an important issue. Now, due to the speed of the markup and lack of notice, it has been impossible to have the in-depth conversation with my Republican colleagues to ensure this bill is effectively safeguarding patients. My amendment reflects both the bipartisan
work that was done last Congress and timely updates to ensure patient privacy and security. Now rather than providing an open-ended right for employers to examine data and information of their employees, my amendment ensures that
planned fiduciaries access to the to data is for the purpose of conducting audits uh of the purpose of conducting audits of their service providers. It also provide it also clarifies that individuals with authority over planned
data must handle that data in a manner consistent with Orisa's fiduciary standards. This will ensure that companies like PBMs and third party administrators can be held accountable when they overcharge or engage in self-deing.
and it will help ensure that data is handled prudently in a manner that ensures privacy and cyber security. It provides additional clearer protections for workers from discrimination and retaliation based on planned data, including enhanced
enforcement tools and remedies for workers and the Department of Labor. Now, while I regret that the underlying legislation has moved away from our previously bipartisan process, I hope that my amendment will help bring us back on track. [clears throat] I think
if we work together, we can strike the right balance and address this issue in a constructive manner. It has been uh I've been encouraged by my recent conversations with my Republican colleague that have reiterated their commitment to creating a bipartisan
bill. I look forward to working with them on this important issue. Uh and I urge my colleagues to support the amendment and I yield back. The >> gentleman yields. Does the gentleman withdraw his point of order? >> Yes, I withdraw withdrawn. Does anyone
else seek recognition on the amendment? >> Mr. Chairman, >> gentleman from Missouri. >> Uh thank you, Mr. Chairman, to speak on the amendment. >> Speak on your amendment. Five minutes. >> Uh thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Well, I look forward to uh working with my Democratic colleagues, including Representative Tano, on on this uh on this important bill. I would point out that nothing in this bill preempts HIPPA. Nothing in this bill would give
employers access to medical records. It gives employers much needed access to claims data. uh HR9228 builds upon and improves the framework established last Congress in the Health Data Act of 2023 by expanding the scope
of data, increasing the timeliness and frequency of reporting and specifying the format in which the data must be provided. Um the bill closely tracks section seven of the patients deserve price tags from the uh from from this
Congress incorporating only minor changes based based on technical assistance from the department of labor and feedback from employers, patient advocates and other stakeholders. Section 7 is the only portion of the patients deserve price tags act that
falls solely within the jurisdiction of this committee and HR 9228 allows the committee to advance these provisions independently. The policies in HR 9228 have broad bipart broad stakeholder support. More than 150 organizations,
including bipartisan economists, employer and union health plan sponsors, consumer advocates, and trade associations have expressed support for the patients deserve price tags act and its transparency provisions. Uh the amendment in the nature of the
substitute in nature of the substitute offered by Mr. Tano lacks important features of HR 20 9228 by eliminating important requirements for timing and formatting of the data provided, eliminating protections against
contractual language, restricting claims data, and eliminating other important protections in the event providers violate the rules. Adopting this amendment in the nature of a substitute would eliminate key key improvements that strengthen data access and
transparency for employers, researchers, and consumers. So, I urge my colleagues to vote no on this amendment. And I yield back, Mr. Chairman. >> The gentleman yields. Are there any others who seek recognition on the amendment? Uh, the gentleman from Virginia, the ranking member.
[clears throat] >> You're recognized for five minutes. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just um I wasn't going to speak. The gentleman from California said all that needed to be said except for the fact that the question of medical records on page two
it says that on line 22 no contract or arrangement services. Um uh no renewal between a group health plan and any other person including a network is reasonable within the meaning of this
paragraph unless such contract allows and then it goes down on line 12 and page three access to any documentation including medical records.
So, looks like you can get people's medical records under the under the bill. That's um what the um gentleman from California is trying to fix. Does anyone else seek recognition on the amendment?
Seeing none, the question then is on the amendment by the gentleman from California. All in favor say I. I. >> All oppose, no. >> No. >> In the opinion of the chair, the nose have it and the amendment is not agreed to.
>> A roll call vote is ordered. Pursuant to the chair's previous announcement, this vote will be postponed. Are there any further amendments to the amendment in the nature of a substitute to HR 9228? Seeing none, >> further action on HR 9228 is postponed.
We'll now proceed to postpone requests for recorded votes. We'll spend suspend for a moment while the clerks prepare for the voting. Hallelujah. Heat. Heat. Hallelujah.
Hallelujah. I hereby move that the committee committee report the bill HR8476 to the House of Representatives and uh 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 motion is agreed to. Roll call vote is requested. Members will record their votes using electronic voting system.
The clerk will open. >> 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 20s and 12 nays. >> The eyes have it and the motion is agreed to. HR8476 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 the committee report the bill HR 4795 to the House of Representatives with amendment and with recommendation that the amendment be agreed to and the bill do pass. The question now occurs on the chair's motion. All in favor say I. I.
>> All oppose. No. >> In the opinion of the chair, the eyes have it. and 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 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 24 yays and nine nays. >> The eyes have it and the motion is agreed to. HR 4795 as amended and the
company material shall be transmitted to the House of Representatives. The chair notes for the record that a quorum is present. We have >> We'll now be voting on [sighs] one amendment to the amendment and
nature of a substitute HR 9203. A recorded vote is requested. Members will record their votes using the electronic vote. >> What are we voting on? >> We're voting on the uh the Scott AMD01.
We're voting on the amendment to HR 9203, the Scott amendment AMD01. The clerk will open the vote. Have all members who wish to be recorded been recorded?
Do any members wish to change their vote? Hearing none, will the clerk please close the vote and announce the tally? >> Mr. Chairman, on this vote there are 15 yays and 18 nays. >> The amendment is not adopted. We'll now be voting on
which one we'll be now be voting on the Scott AMD02 amendment to HR 9203. The clerk 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 18 nazs. >> The amendment is not adopted. The question now occurs on the amendment in the nature of a substitute to HR4 uh 9203.
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 HR9203 to the House of
Representatives with amendment and with a recommendation that the amendment be agreed to and the bill do passed. The question now occurs on the chair's motion. All in favor say I. I. All oppose. No. >> In the opinion of the chair, the eyes have it and the motion is agreed to. A
recorded vote is requested. Members will record their votes using electronic voting system. 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 nays. >> The eyes have it and the motion is agreed to. HR 9203 is as amended and the accompanying material shall be transmitted to the House of Representatives. The chair notes for the
record. A quorum is present. >> We'll now be voting on an amendment to HR 2555. It is Scott AMD01. 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 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 18 nazs.
>> The amendment is not adopted. The question now occurs on the amendment in the nature of the substitute to HR 2555. All in favor say I. I. >> All oppose? No. >> In the opinion of the chair, the eyes have it and the amendment in the nature of the substitute is agreed to. I hereby
move that the committee will report the bill HR255 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. Uh 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 18 yays and 15 nazs. >> The eyes have it and the motion is agreed to. HR 2555 as amended and
company material shall be transmitted to the House of Representatives. The chair notes for the record that a quorum is present. Which one? One amendment. >> We will now be voting on one amendment to the amendment in nature of a
substitute to HR 5505. The amendment offered by Mr. Mrs. Mc McBath entitled McBath AMD01. 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 18 nazs. >> The eyes have it and the motion is agreed to. Yes. >> Let's go back on the >> Let's go back. >> Clerk will open the vote. >> The last vote. >> You don't right now. Announce the
announce the tally. >> Mr. Chairman, on this vote, there are 15 yays and 18 nazs. >> The amendment fails. >> Okay. Where we at? the question now occurs on the amendment and nature of a substitute to HR5505.
All in favor say I. >> I. All oppose? No. >> In the opinion of the chair, the eyes have it. An amendment and nature of a substitute is agreed to. I hereby move that the committee report the bill HR5505 to the House of Representatives with amendment and with recommendation
that the amendment be agreed to and the bill do pass. The question now occurs on the chair's motion. All in favor say I. I. >> All oppose, no. >> In the opinion of the chair, the eyes have it and the motion is agreed to. >> A recorded vote is requested. Members will record their uh their vote 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 18
yays and 15 nazs. >> The eyes have it. The motion is agreed to HR 550 as amended and the accompanying materials shall be transmitted to the House of Representatives. chair notes for the record that a quorum is present. I hereby move that the committee report
the bill HR2332 to the House of Representatives with amendment and with a 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 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, we have 33 n y n y n y n y n y n y n y n y n y n y nays and zero nays. >> The eyes have it and the motion is agreed to. HR 2332 as amended and the
accompanying material shall be transmitted to the House of Representatives. Chair notes for the record that a quorum is present. I hereby move that the committee report the bill HR 4122 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 motion is agreed to. A recorded vote is requested. Members
will record their votes using electronic voting assistant. The clerk will open the vote. [clears throat] 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, we have 32 yays and zero nays. >> The eyes have it. The motion is agreed to HR4122 as amended and the company material shall be transmitted to the House of Representatives. Chair notes for the record that a quorum is present.
>> I hereby move that the committee report the bill HR 8822 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. I.
>> All oppose. No. In the opinion of the chair, the eyes haven't 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 322 yays and zero nays. >> The eyes have it. Then a motion is agreed to. HR8822 as amended and the
company materials shall be transmitted to the House of Representatives. Chair notes for the record that a quorum is present. 883. >> I hereby move that the committee report the bill HR8823 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. 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 33 yays and zero nazs. The eyes have it and the motion is agreed to HR8823 as amended and the accompanying material shall be transmitted to the House of Representatives chaired notes for the record that a quorum is present.
>> I hereby move that the committee report the bill HR 9381 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. >> A recorder 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 14 nays. >> The eyes have it. The motion is agreed to. HR 9381 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 one amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute to HR9228. The amendment offered by
uh Mr. Tano uh identified as Tano_HD_access. 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 18 nazs. >> The amendment is not adopted. The question now occurs on the amendment
and the nature of a substitute to HR 9228. 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. I hereby move that the committee report the bill HR9228 to the House of Representatives
with amendment and with recommendation that the amendment be agreed to and the bill do pass. The question now occurs on the chair's motion. All in favor say I. I. All oppose. No. In the opinion of the chair, the eyes have it and the motion is agreed to. A 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, the clerk will please close the vote and announce the
tally. >> Mr. Chairman, on this vote, there are 18 yays and 15 nazs. >> The eyes have it. Then the motion is agreed to. HR 9228 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. And
thank you. 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, submitting them to the committee clerk electronically by the end of the day today. If there's no further
business before the committee, without objection, the committee she >> anything, >> are we okay? >> We're good. >> Thank you. If there's no no further business before the committee without
objection the committee stands adjourned.