The committee will please come to order. A quorum is present. The committee meets today pursuant to notice to consider 10 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 the committee rule 14B.
Without objection, the chair may recess the committee at any point. Uh today the committee will consider 10 bills that aim to strengthen the American workforce, prevent harmful regulations, hold union leaders accountable, protect the rights of students and parents, encourage healthy habits among children,
and ensure students and educators are prepared to use AI tools safely and effectively in the classroom. First, the committee will consider HR 8781, Title 9 Clarification Act of 2026. This
bill codifies the Supreme Court ruling, recent ruling that the term sex under title nine refers to biological sex. Next, the committee will consider HR 4986, parents opt-in protection act, introduced by Representative Mary
Miller. This common sense bill strengthens student and parent consent provisions under the protection of pupil rights amendment and contains in general education provisions act. The committee will also consider HR8747
K12 AI literacy and readiness act of 2026 introduced by representative Randy Fine. The bill helps schools direct federal funds where they will have the greatest impact while ensuring teachers and students get the AI training and
support they need. Next, we'll consider HR8183, modernizing access to talents, careers, and hiring act of 2026 or match act. This bill, introduced by Representative Owens, helps uh states modernize
outdated workforce data systems and build talent marketplaces that better connect workers with jobs and training opportunities. The next bill is HR 9723, Fit Future Act, introduced by Representative Ryan McKenzie. This bill
codifies the president's council on sports fitness and nutrition and restores the presidential fitness test making youth fitness a national priority. Additionally, the committee will consider HR8660 value and employee stock today act or
vest act introduced by representative Ryan McKenzie. This bill clarifies that restricted stock units are excluded from non-exempt exempt uh make that clear non-exempt employees regular rate of pay
providing employers with much needed clarity under fair labor standards act. Next, the committee will consider HR 8347 reinforcing underserved rural and local health care act or rural health care act introduced by representative Burgess
Owens. Uh HR 8347 is a common sense bill to clarify that locom tenants healthc care uh providers are in fact independent contractors. The committee will also consider HR6213,
heat workforce standards act of 2025, which was introduced by Representative Mark Mesmer in the last months of the Biden administration. OSHA proposed an overly burdensome one-sizefits-all standard for heat related injury and illness prevention. HR6213
prevents this proposed rule from going into effect and prohibits future administrations from issuing a similar similarly burdensome rule. Next, we'll consider HR 8775, ending Predator Access to Union Power
Act, introduced by Representative Joe Wilson. This bill prohibits individuals convicted of sex offenses against minors from serving in union leadership or as employer labor consultants or representatives in collective
bargaining. Finally, we'll consider HR 5267, American Franchise Act. This legislation codifies the direct control joint employer test for the franchise industry, guaranteeing future administrations cannot destroy franchise
businesses, which will help Americans to start and grow their franchise business with less fear and uncertainty. I look forward to today's debate. With that, I yield to the ranking member for an opening statement.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, here we here we go again. Considering a package of bills that reflect your your priorities, but not the priorities of the American people. Americans are struggling to cover the cost of groceries, housing, child care, health
care, and others. Gas has again jumped up to $4 a gallon. Everyday Americans are working hard, stretching every paycheck, and looking to Congress for solutions that will lower costs, strengthen economic security, and create opportunity.
But this response in these bills devotes valuable committee time to legislation that in many cases advances cheap slogans and sound bites instead of solutions to the problems. pl plaguing our constituents.
For example, the first bill we'll consider today, the Title 9 Clarification Act, amends Title 9 to define sex to mean biological sex assigned at birth. It should be noted that less than onetenth of 1% of the total US population identifies as trans.
And yet this Congress, we've already considered five bills focused on this less than onetenth of 1% of the population while ignoring millions who are suffering from an economy that is only worsened under this administration. Now, the Supreme Court has already
stated in its majority opinion in PBJ versus West Virginia that sex and Title 9 had the meaning biological sex at birth. Importantly, the court's majority left intact prior rulings that Title 9's
prohibition against sex discrimination could include discrimination based on gender identity, even while ruling that schools could separate men's and women's sports teams based on biological sex. So, this bill really doesn't clarify
anything. For these reasons, I'll oppose the U I'll oppose the bill particularly as it just only thing it really does is narrow the scope of existing civil rights laws by writing transgender students out of the title N protections.
The next bill before us with the parents optin protection act similarly pri prioritizes slogans over solutions. They would amend the protection of of protection of pupil rights amendment to require that schools obtain written
consent from parents for each individual survey covering sensitive top topics. Current law already requires schools to obtain an annual written consent, provide advanced notice to parents, and allow parents to review the surveys.
This bill places that balanced approach with the burdensome opt-in requirement for each individual survey. This bill would make it harder for schools to collect critical information on student mental health, school climate, and safety while offering no new rights for
parents. For these reasons, I'll be voting no and urge my colleagues to do the same. Next bill before us, the K through2 AI literacy and readiness act of 2026 amends title 4A of the Every Student Succeeds Act to add artificial
intelligence as an allowable use of student support and academic enrichment grants. It's curious because current law already allows Title 4A funds to be used for artificial intelligence. Title 4A has a wide variety of allowable uses that
allow states and districts flexibility they need to meet the needs of their communities. In fact, districts are already using Title 4A funds to incorporate AI literacy into their schools. What states and districts actually need is clear federal guidance
on how to safely and effectively integrate AI while protecting students and supporting educators. Lack of guidance is particularly tr troubling given that the Trump administration has just eliminated the office of educational technology. The very office
that was best positioned to provide that leadership and guidance. But I'm in favor of ensuring the title 4A clearly and accurately describes allowable uses that meet the needs of states and school districts. I'm concerned that this bill's broad language could unintentionally create an environment
where AI tools could cause more harm than good because the bill does not include any protection for student privacy. The fourth bill will consider the modernizing access to talents, credentials, and hiring or the match
act. would help states develop talent marketplaces using learning and employment records to better connect workers with education and employment opportunities. There's been bipartisan negotiations uh going on led by
representatives McBath and Owens. And so the bill was revised into a five-year pilot program with strong evaluation requirements and important worker protections helping workers better demonstrate their skills and credentials. This legislation has the
potential of expanding access to quality jobs and strengthening our workforce system. And for those reasons, I support the bill and urge my colleagues to do the same. Fifth bill before us, the fit future act codifies the president's council on
sports fitness and nutrition. The council currently exists through executive order. While the bill largely codifies an existing advisory body, I believe that the Democratic amendments on affordability, accessibility, and inclusion
will um in inclusivity will strengthen this bill by ensuring that efforts to promote youth fitness are more equitable despite students differing abilities and disabilities. And while the bill is necessary since the council has already
existed for decades, with the improvements offered by my colleagues, I plan to support the bill. The sixth bill before us is valuing employee stock Act. This bill will allow employees to pay employees less for overtime work by excluding restricted
stock units or RSUs when calculating overtime pay. RSUs are companies promised to issue stock to employees through a vesting plan, typically after the employees remained with the company for a certain amount of time. RSUs are not the same as stock programs,
which are currently excluded when calculating workers overtime pay under the Fair Labor Standards Act, and there's been no policy basis established at any committee hearing in this Congress for adding RSUs to the list of exclusions by which an employer can
reduce the amount of overtime they pay. I oppose this bill and urge my colleagues to oppose it as well. The next bill and seventh next and seventh bill we'll consider is the reinforcing underserved rural and local health care act. The rural healthcare
act. This bill would allow employers to mclassify health care workers as independent contractors and effectively strip them of their worker protections and benefits that their co-workers enjoy, such as access to overtime pay,
unemployment insurance, workers compensation, and the right to collectively bargain. Rural America faces serious and unique health care challenges and too many communities struggle with provider shortages, hospital closures, and limited access to
care. These problems deserve serious discussion and real solutions. And unfortunately, this bill does not offer any. Stripping employees of their rights and reducing their compensation is not a solution. instead is a distraction from
the very real harms to rural health care created by the big ugly bill which will result in rural hospitals and and clinics closing. For the sake of workers and patients, I urge my colleagues to join me in opposing HR 8347.
Next, we'll consider the heat workforce standards act, which would block Occupational Safety and Health Administration from OSHA from finalizing and enforcing a nationwide heat standard seat safety standard. According to
Bureau of Labor Statistics, heat stress killed 97 US workers between 1992 and 2019, but the true death toll is likely much higher and will continue to climb. This should go without saying, but workers should not have to risk their
lives in order to get to to perform their jobs. The Biden administration address this problem with a proposed rule that would require employees to recognize the risk and to provide workers with access to things like
drinking water, period periodic rest breaks in shaded or colder areas, heat illness training, and emergency response plans. Mr. Chairman, after experiencing heat domes that have settled over large segments of this country, workers are
more at risk now than ever. This bill would prevent the Department of Labor from finalizing a rule to do anything to address heat stress and therefore I oppose the bill. Strongly urge my colleagues to do the same. Uh the ninth bill we will consider is ending predator
access to union power act. This bill would prevent those convicted of sex offenses against a minor from serving as a union official staff in labor relations positions with employers employers or other related roles. I'd be
remiss if I did not point out that the t title inaccurately implies that the restriction only applies to unions. It applies to anyone working in union management either on the union side or the employer side. Any individual in a
position of trust must be held to a high standard. So I'll support the bill and urge my colleagues to do the same. Finally, we consider the American Franchise Act. This bill narrows joint employment roles for franchises and franchiseors under both the Fair Labor
Standards Act and the nation national labor relations act. More specifically, it would limit the finding of joint employment liability for franchises direct and immediate control over their franchises workers conditions and even
goes so far as to carve out an exception even when direct and immediate control might be found in certain cases. This is despite the fact that many large franchise franchiseors require their franchises to uphold strict standards
that affect the day-to-day lives of the franchisees franchisee employees and actually cause many of the violations that this bill would require the franchisee to pay for pay for. This bill would protect large franchiseors from any liability for
violations that their franchises may may make based on the franchiseor's standards, policies, and direction and strip workers of their right to collectively bargain with the franchiseor. It lets the real decision makers off the
hook and makes it harder for workers to fight back when they are underpaid, mistreated or ignored at the bargaining table. For those reasons, I urge my colleagues to I'll be voting no and urge my colleagues to do the same. As we've discussed today, there are areas where
the committee can work together, but too many of the other bills before us fail to address the challenges that the families are actually facing. Worse, the bills today will move us away from policies that expand opportunity, protect workers, and support students.
As we head into the August recess, our constituents expect expect us to be focusing on lowering costs, supporting public education and improving the lives of workers, and these bills do just the opposite. I hope that when we return
this fall, the committee will redirect itself and devote its time to the appropriate priorities. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back. >> I thank the gentleman. Without objection, all other members who wish to insert written open statements in 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 uh members to offer amendments in a manner not prohibited by the House or committee rules. Without objection, members who have more than one amendment to the bills and wish to offer their amendments
on block may do so. The committee will now proceed to consideration of bill HR 8781 for amendment. The bill was circulated in advance and printed copies are available. The clerk shall designate the bill.
>> HR 8781, a bill to clarify that for purposes of federal non-discrimination requirements applicable to education programs or activities receiving federal financial assistance, discrimination prohibited under title 9 of the education amendments of 1972 is based on
the biological reality of sex. 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? Miss Miller, uh, for what purpose do you seek recognition? >> Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment in the nature of a substitute at the desk. >> The clerk shall designate the amendment in a nature of a substitute. Amendment in the nature of a substitute to HR8781 offered by Miss Miller of Illinois
identifier H8781 ANS_00001. >> 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 Mrs. Miller for five minutes to explain the
amendment and the nature of a substitute. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First, I want to thank Congressman Jodie Arrington for introducing HR8781, the Title 9 Clarification Act of 2026,
and I'm proud to offer this ANS, which makes minor technical changes to the underlying bill. Mr. chairman. No one in 1972 thought Congress was enacting a law that would be used to force girls into the
same bathrooms as boys and change clothes in front of boys and shower with boys and compete with boys in athletic events. But this is exactly what happened when the Obama and Biden administrations turned Title N into a
weapon that exposed women and girls to danger, stripped them of their dignity, and rob them of opportunity. Thankfully, President Trump restored Title 9 to its original intent, first in his executive order titled Defending
Women from Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government. And then through the Department of Education's announcement last year that it would interpret quote on the basis of sex to mean biological
sex. And just last month, the Supreme Court definitively confirmed Congress's original intent in West Virginia versus BPJ. Writing for the majority, Justice Kavanaaugh wrote, quote, "The
term sex in Title 9 cannot plausibly be interpreted to refer to anything other than biological sex. The ordinary meaning of the term sex at the time of enactment in the early 1970s was biological sex.
Today, we have an opportunity to advance HR 8781, which codifies President Trump's executive order and the Department of Education's guidance. We have an opportunity to permanently secure the protections for women and girls that
Title 9 has always promised. The Supreme Court put an end to the madness last month and today we have an opportunity to do our part. I urge my colleagues to support Title 9 Clarification Act of 2026 and I yield back.
>> The gentle lady yields. Are there any members who wish to be recognized for further discussion on the amendment and the nature of a substitute? I recognize the gentleman from California, Mr. Chano, uh, for purposes of of comments. Uh, Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the
last word and rise in opposition to the amendment in the nature of substitute. >> You are recognized for five minutes. >> Let's call this bill what it really is, the Bully Empowerment Act. I know every single member of this committee has seen a child being harassed for being gay.
Every single person here has seen the fear, suffering, and anxiety LGBTQ plus kids face when walking into a classroom, a hostile classroom. I cannot imagine any member here would want to look a
parent in the eye and tell them to send their child into a school that is not safe. We know what this bill will do. It will empower the bully to harass LGBTQ plus students just for being who they
are. It will empower the bully to force LGBTQ plus students out of classrooms because they fear for their safety. It will empower schools to ignore the rights of the very students they are supposed to protect. Every student deserves to be protected
from discrimination, no matter who they are. No student should be attacked, get beat up, or miss out on their education because another student or adult targets them for who they are. And no responsible lawmaker, and I repeat, no
responsible lawmaker should take the guard rails off of their legal protections. It seems every time Republicans bring up Title 9, it's to undermine Title 9's protections. Last Congress, they voted to overturn regulations that explicitly
clarified Title 9's protections on the basis of sexual orientation, gender identity, sex characteristics, sex stereotypes, and pregnancy or related conditions, which had made it which had made significant positive changes in how schools address sexual harassment and
violence. Since then, Republicans took control of the White House and gutted the entity that enforces Title 9, the Department of Education's Office of Civil Rights. Let me tell you what that has resulted in. The Office of Civil Rights has resolved only 269 of nearly
12,000 pending civil rights complaints of 2025. That's 1%, the lowest number of case resolutions in a decade. It cost taxpayers $38 million to pay for OCR
employees to sit on administrative leave for 10 months while these cases went uninvestigated. Since Republicans gained control of the Department of Education, it is it has reached zero zero resolution agreements related to sexual harassment and sexual
violence. And now with this bill today, they're trying to make it easier for schools to discriminate against students and turn a blind eye when students are being harassed and bullied. LGBTQ plus students already face challenges in school. According to a 2025 survey, more
than 50% of LGBTQ plus students report facing discrimination at school. This bill would undermine LGBTQ plus students protections under Title 9 and make it harder for schools to be held accountable when discrimination against
LGBTQ students occurs. Republicans attempts to narrow narrowly define Title 9's prohibitions on sex discrimination to only refer to quote unquote biological sex will undermine long-standing legal precedents that protect all students.
All students, all students depend, their safety depends on not changing the definition. This is just one of seven anti-LGBTQI LGBTQI plus bills Republicans have
marked up in this committee over the past year and a half. The majority is wasting everyone's time by attacking children instead of focusing on real solutions that would make our public a public education system better, much less address the more pressing concerns
of Americans related to the cost of living. A vote on this bill is a vote for uh a vote to remove the protections that exist to keep kids safe and able to go to school without fear. It is a vote to strip the consequences for students
and adults that target kids who are different, allowing them to keep on doing uh doing so without punishment. This is a vote a vote for this bill is a vote to empower those bullies. I don't know how people certain people
live with themselves. Thank you and I yield back. The gentleman yields. Are there any other members who wish to be recognized for further discussion on the amendment and nature of the substitute? Uh does the gentleman from Virginia, the ranking member, Mr. Scott, wish to be recognized?
>> Mr. Speak, Mr. Chair, I move second last word. >> You're recognized for five minutes. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This bill is by no means a clarification. Last month, at the end of their term, the Supreme Court clarified to all that the definition of
sex in Title 9 means biological sex at birth. In the case that's already been mentioned, Justice Kavanaaugh writing for the nonzero majority noted that both the appellant and appali conceded that sex as defined in title n
meant biological sex at birth. So it appear unnecessary to add this to the law. That'd be until you realize that the enacting of the bill could threaten the rights of transgender students to be free from discrimination on the basis of sex in educational settings. Over the
last two congresses, the majority of this uh committee said that their goal was to protect women's and girls sports. Well, the Supreme Court did that, ruling that states could pass laws that limit participation on women's and men's teams on the basis of biological sex at birth.
Nine justices agreed to that and agreed that it did not a title it did not agree it did not violate title nine and six justices went so far as to say that it spec it was specifically allowed under the constitution's equal protection
clause but the court did not go as far as the majority on this committee would like the court limited their decision to sports and did not say what the majority apparently needed to say and that is that transgender students are not protected by Title 9 whatsoever. Since
transgender students may still have some rights under Title 9 after the Supreme Court's rulings, the committee Republicans have brought up HR 8781. And just like the president's executive order on so-called gender ideology
extremism, HR8781 attempts to write transgender students out of existence. Um, Mr. Chairman, for that reason, I oppose the ANS and the underlying bill and urge my colleagues
to vote no on both and yield back. The gentleman yields. Are there any other members who wish to be recognized? The gentle lady from Connecticut, Mrs. Hayes, do you be wish to be recognized? >> Thank you, Mr. Chair. I move to strike the last word. >> Recognized for five minutes.
>> I rise in opposition to this amendment in nature of a substitute. Um, this is really exhausting that we continue to revisit this on this committee. The representative from Illinois is hyperfocused on this topic and brings it
up a lot. She talked about how when this law was passed, uh, what it meant, but I remind you that when the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was originally passed, it did not include discrimination on the basis of sex. That was added after. And there's been many
court decisions and um administrative guidance that talked about what that meant. I'd like to ask the gentle lady from Illinois because she presented this as a clarifying amendment. My question is, what do you propose we do with these
students? uh this legislation, no court decision, is going to stop a young person from being gay or um the the feelings that they have. Are are you proposing that educators, that
programs, that federal funding, that legislation just erases these young people and say that we don't have an obligation to keep them safe as well? >> I'll yield if the gentle lady would like to respond. First of all, we should be honest with
our children and tell them the truth. This is not about gay. This is about trans men going into girls safe spaces and on their athletic teams. And it has definitely diminished our girls opportunities, equal opportunities in athletics. They are not getting equal
opportunities when they are participating against a man who we all know can have way more bone mass, muscle mass, and it's 100% not fair. I mean, you know it. You guys are a bunch of
liars. You're deceivers. First of all, this >> Call me a liar again. >> This is not about the mayor and the ladies be taken down. >> Call me a liar again. Call me a liar again. The ladies will be a liar again. You say the truthad
ladies will suspend >> men in girls spaces and on girls athletic teams. They are not safe. >> Mr. Chairman, I move the words be taken down. >> I move that her words be taken down and
that we not move on until they are. >> I move that you say the truthad. This is about trans men and girls will answer the question. We will recess from a moment. Yes. Yes.
The committee will come to order. Does the gentle lady from Illinois withdraw her words? >> Yes. The gentle lady from Illinois may resume under the gentle lady from Connecticut's
time and yielding. >> My intention was to speak the truth. This bill is not about being gay and lesbian. This is about protecting female spaces. Men should not be allowed in female spaces. Title N must protect the
safety and dignity of women and girls. >> Reclaiming my time. >> Women lose opportunities because of the trans agenda. We must tell the trans gentle lady will suspend. >> Thank you. >> The gentle lady from Connecticut reclaims her time.
>> Thank you. I want to make sure we keep the main thing the main thing. My question was about what do we do with these children? The Supreme Court has already decided that states should be able to uh rule on sports in their state. They should be able to rule on
leagues and those are local decisions. The Supreme Court has already said that. So there is no need for Congress for this committee to keep pressing this point. Our job, the job of educators is to create inclusive environments where all students can learn, even trans
students. And we're not talking about men. We're talking about youth. We're talking about young people. My question remains, what do we do with those young people? That's the thing we need to figure out if we are going to keep having hearings on this committee meant
to erase the existence of youth, whether they are LGBTQIA, trans, gay, whatever. My question remains, where is our obligation to make sure that those students also have an inclusive educational experience?
That was the question I asked then. That's the question I asked now. That the qu that is the question that remains unanswered. This is not about men in youth sports. This is about youth in youth sports. What do we do with those children? I've
asked this question many times and as an educator I will always pursue an answer to that question because we have an obligation a responsibility to make sure that every student no matter how they identify every student no matter where
they live or what school district they attend every student has access to an appropriate educational experience. And with that I yield back. >> The gentle lady yields. Does a gentle lady withdraw her point of order?
>> I withdraw. >> The gentleman from California, Mr. Tano, do you withdraw your point of order? >> I withdraw my point of order. >> Point of orders are withdrawn. Are there any other members who wish to be recognized for further discussion on the amendment in the nature of a substitute?
I recognize the gentle lady from Oregon, Miss Bonamichi, for five minutes. Uh, >> thank you, Mr. Chairman. I move to strike the last word and speak in opposition to the bill and the ANS. Thank you. I do not understand Republicans continued obsession with attacking transgender individuals. Only
about 1% of Americans identify as transgender and there more than 500,000 athletes in the NCAA. And how many of those athletes are transgender? Fewer than 10. Keep in mind also that Title 9 applies to educational programs, not
just athletics. Do you want to discriminate against trans students in chess clubs, dance classes? I don't understand it. This hysterical fixation with villainizing a small group of our nation's youth has become predatory and frankly is dangerous. The number of hearings we have had in bills that we
have marked up on this subject is staggering. Just last week, my colleagues peppered medical school professionals with questions about uteruses pronouns and how pregnancy works. Title 9 was created to prevent discrimination. This bill turns the
landmark federal statute into a tool to discriminate against a select few who are already underserved and under attack. According to the Trevor Project, more than 40% of transgender youth seriously attempted considered attempting suicide every year. That's
two in five trans kids and young adults. It's abhorentt and bills like this make things worse. Sadly, in this committee, we've heard too much hate and prejudice. Why does it matter so much to you how someone identifies and presents themselves? How does another person's identity harm you? I can't believe I
have to say this, but no human being is less worthy of respect and opportunity than any other human being, and no human being is inherently dangerous because of their gender identity. I urge my colleagues to vote against this bill and end the hatred toward individuals who happen to be different from you. I hope
this committee can get back to focusing on education and making lives better for working people. And I yield back the balance of my time. >> Gentle lady yields. Are there any other members who wish to be recognized? Seeing none,
I claim my five minutes in trying to bring bring this legislation back to what it really is, not an attack on anyone, but a clarification of reality.
Before continuing my statement, I yield to the gentle lady from Illinois, Mrs. Miller. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman, my intention was to speak the truth. This bill isn't about being gay and lesbian. This is
about protecting female spaces. Men should not be allowed in women's spaces. Title N must protect the safety and dignity of women and girls. Women lose opportunities because of the trans
agenda. We must tell our children the truth and we must protect our children. We must defend biology. God created males and females and we must accept that simple truth.
My characterization of the bill is accurate and the gentle woman's characterization of the bill is inaccurate. And I yield back to the gentleoman or to the chairman to the chairman.
>> Thank you. Having seen no others, uh I will go to my statement. F my final statement. I re reiterate the fact that this legislation is not about gay or lesbians. Not at all.
There's actual biology there. fact and science. They're not left unprotected in this legislation. They're not mentioned really in this legislation except that we define male
and female according to biological science. That's it. We saw the ridiculous error and the performance of esteemed medical college leaders last
week who couldn't even answer directly if a nonbiological woman could give birth or a nonbiological woman had a uterus.
I understand the concept of love. I'm a grandfather. I understand the concept of love. Without truth is not love at all. And while some would want to continue
loving without truth trans children, without truth it isn't love. affirming who they are, encouraging them to understand, giving
them the opportunity to grow and really come to a point of accepting who they are and moving through life with that reality of biological science, of DNA,
of all that those esteemed professors in medical colleges were trained in when they went to school. I'm certain. And now I've deviate deviated away from it because of pressure from a small
pressure group that's out there. But nonetheless, this committee isn't based upon that. This is the education committee and education is based upon fact and truth. For that reason, this legislation is
necessary and I believe this necessary. It's necessary to protect biological females from being put in spaces that we would have never countenance before and we shouldn't be doing that now.
With that, I yield. There being no further discussion on the amendment and the nature of a substitute. >> For what purpose does Miss McBath seek recognition at this point in time? >> Thank you, Mr. Chair. I move to strike the last word. >> You're recognized for five minutes.
>> Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm so sorry to see the dee evolving of this committee as such as it has happened today. Um but um I'm I'm glad that we're kind of hashing this out. And with that, I am more than happy to relegate the rest of
my time to my esteemed colleague from Connecticut, Representative Johanna Hayes. I yield to her. >> Thank you. I'm going to go on the record again because we couldn't just leave it at that. Taking the words down, striking it. We have to go back for another bite
at the apple on this same topic. There needs to be some consistency on this committee decorum on this committee. The same expectation that the same thing that is expected for Democrats on the dis should
also be expected of Republicans on the dis. I'm very disappointed that it wasn't enough to just leave it alone and move forward that the chairman had to then take time and yield to continue this discussion.
I'm going to say it over and over and over again. I will always on this committee fight so that all children, all children, every single one of them receives a highquality education.
And if we're talking about truth, I think that there needs some people who need to accept the simple truth that there are children who are different. There are young people who think different, who feel different, who are different, and that's okay. And this
fixation with that is absurd. to keep bringing people for before this committee to have hearings on DEI and trans youth and all of these culture war
issues while we are doing nothing nothing to I don't know fully fund IDA to make sure that students with disabilities have the resources that they need to hold not
only our department of education but even local education agencies accountable for improving student success and outcomes to make sure that teachers have the resources that they need. Nothing, just the same hearings on the same topics over and over and over
again. And this committee has gotten used to being able to say and do whatever they want unchecked. Not today, not any day moving forward. The respect I give is the respect I
demand. We can debate on the issues. We can have differing opinions. We can have different viewpoints. We can have different pathways to the solution. But what you will not do is disrespect me and call me out of my name in pursuit
of that path. So once again, I rise in opposition to this amendment. I encourage my colleagues to vote against this amendment and understand exactly what it's calling for and then to brace yourself for next week or the
next time that this comes up because it will come up again because when you have no policies, when you have no ideas, when you have no solutions, you punch down. I yield back to Miss McBath.
I yield. There being no further discussion on the amendment and nature of substitute, the committee will move to consideration of amendments. >> Mr. Chairman, >> unanimous consent request. >> Uh, for what purposes the gentleman from
Virginia, the ranking member request? >> I'd like to enter into the record a press release from the sponsor of the bill, Mr. Harrington who um says that it restores the in original intent in Title 9 and prevents future administrations from reinterpreting the law to include
gender identity or sexual orientation without congressional approval. Uh that's um not what the bill actually does. >> Without objection, it'll be entered. >> 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 substitute to HR8781. All in favor say I. I. All oppose. No. >> No. >> In the opinion of the chairs, the eyes
have it and the amendment and nature of substitute is agreed to. >> We'll now move to consider the next bill. There were no amendments. >> The committee will now proceed to consideration of bill HR 4986 for amendment. The bill was circulated in
advance and printed copies are available. The clerk shall designate the bill. HR 4986, a bill to amend the General Education Provisions Act to ensure that a student is not required to submit to a survey analysis or evaluation that reveals personal
information about s about such student or their family without prior written consent. >> 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, Miss Miller? For what purpose do you seek recognition? >> I have an amendment in the nature of a substitute at the desk. >> The clerk shall designate the amendment in a nature of a substitute. >> Amendment in the nature of a substitute
to HR4986 offered by Miss Miller of Illinois identifier 4986 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. Miller for 5 minutes to explain the amendment and the nature of a substitute. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am proud to sponsor both HR4986, the parents opt-in protection act, and this ANS, which makes technical and
clarifying changes to the underlying bill. This bill strengthens consent requirements to ensure that parents and students are fully informed before disclosing sensitive information through school administered surveys and
evaluations. The Protection of Pupil Rights Amendment or PPA prohibits educational institutions that receive federal funding from requiring students to submit to a survey, analysis, or
evaluation without the parents consent should such a survey or evaluation ask for sensitive information about the student. This includes the students sexual behavior, income, political affiliations, or religious beliefs. This
bill aligns consent provisions to ensure that any consent, whether offered by the parent or appropriate student, is in writing. This is a small but important change to ensure that parents and students are empowered by law to be
fully aware of what they are consenting to when a child is offered a student survey or screening. Separately, PP also requires school districts to have policies in place that govern general administration of these
student surveys. However, those policies only allow parents to opt their children out of the surveys, not in. My bill inverts this practice by making the default opt out of current law and opt
in, giving parents more control over the information collected about their students. Finally, this bill clarifies that prior written consent must be obtained each time a sensitive student survey is conducted. This will ensure
that busy parents do not inad inadvertently expose their children to inappropriate evaluations if the school sends home a one-time consent request that the parents don't understand. Thank you again, Mr. chairman and I urge my
colleagues to support this common sense legislation and I yield back. >> The gentle lady yields. Are there any members who wish to be recognized for further discussion on the amendment and nature of a substitute? The gentleman from California, Mr. Kano, do you wish to be recognized? >> Uh, Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the
last word and rise in opposition. >> You're recognized for five minutes. >> Mr. Chairman, school surveys provide critical insights into the experiences of students. So school districts, researchers, and policymakers can better understand and address the challenges
students face. For example, a 2023 survey found that nearly three in 10 high school students report experiencing poor mental health in the previous 30 days. That survey revealed a crisis. That very
same survey found dramatic disparities between the experiences of LGBTQ plus students and their peers. That survey found that 25% of LGBTQ plus students were bullied online or
bullied online via or via social media during the previous year. uh compared to 13% of non-LGBTQ plus students and that 19% of LGBTQ plus students did not go to school because of safety concerns during
the previous 30 days compared to 10% of LGBTQ plus students. This is just a small sample of the challenges uh LGBTQ students uh face as revealed by such a survey.
Now, some advocates of this bill have specifically highlighted that this bill is meant to target surveys with demographic questions about sexual orientation and gender identity as well as mental health screenings. That is the goal of this bill to
decrease our understanding of LGBTQ plus students and student mental health. And let's be clear, this includes not only trans students, but gay and lesbian students. uh the animous behind this I find
reprehensible. Do you f do do my colleagues on the other side of the of the aisle really think that we shouldn't know about these kids' experiences in school? I want to be very clear. As a former teacher, I know the critical role parents play in
their children's education. I strongly support parents rights and our current federal system preserves their right to dictate when their child can participate in a covered survey requiring schools to have uh opt out policies. Put it another
way, parents already have a say in what surveys their child takes because they can opt their child out of covered surveys. This bill by switching to an opt-in model will just create more paperwork and more hurdles to administrator surveys, also inhibiting
our understanding of what students experience in school. For example, the CDC estimates that using an optin system as opposed to an opt out system will reduce student survey response rates by about 50% in a youth risk survey, a
youth risk behavior survey. The CDC says you can prevent this decrease by telephoneoning and emailing parents to follow up directly on the forums among other actions. This suggests that this the this suggests this the the decrease isn't because parents don't want their
children to participate. It's because filling out another school form isn't always at the top of every parent's list. So, let me be clear. This bill is just creating more work for schools, more work for parents who want to who want their children to participate in
these surveys. Those parents uh who used to have to take no action will now have to fill out a form for every survey. For me, this also comes down to who should make these decisions. Politicians in Washington DC or states and local school
districts. States and school districts are best positioned to understand what permission system works best for their schools. As I have highlighted, opt-in systems require increased costs and create burdens on both parents and staff. States and school districts
better understand if they have the resources and time to administer those systems. Schools are already facing rising costs and a and an education department that's abandoned them. Uh, parents already have enough on their plates. We don't need
politicians in Washington DC mandating a one-sizefits-all approach that will lead to more school forms for parents and schools. I urge my colleagues to vote no on HR 4986 and I yield back. >> Gentleman yields. Does the gentleman from California, Mr. Kylie, seek
recognition? >> Uh, yes, Mr. Chair. >> You're recognized for five minutes. >> Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, I think this is a very important bill and uh one that I'd be happy to co-sponsor. Uh, it follows uh a hearing that we held in the K12 education uh subcommittee about a
recent Supreme Court uh ruling uh upholding the constitutional right of parents to opt their children out uh of objectionable content in schools. And uh I don't want to minimize the issues at play here because uh there have been very fierce debates uh across the
country about what content is appropriate uh in public school classrooms uh whether that comes in the form of instruction uh or surveys. And uh I personally think there are a number of examples uh of uh schools and
classrooms uh where uh things have gone too far in terms of curriculum uh that shouldn't be in schools. But I recognize that there are edge cases. There's a legitimate debate. Different states, different districts uh will decide these questions uh differently. Uh but the
very important uh fallback option uh that families have in order to assure that their kids are not exposed uh to content that uh interferes with uh the right of parents to to raise their kids uh with the values uh that they choose.
uh is number one the ability to exercise choice as far as where your child goes to school uh within the traditional public school system uh in the broader public school system including the charter sector uh as well as options outside of that system. Uh and the
second important uh fallback is the ability to opt your child out of objectionable curriculum uh curricula uh at your at their school. uh and this is the right that the courts uh the Supreme Court recently upheld. We've seen some
examples where districts uh are not adhering to the spirit perhaps not even the letter uh of that decision. Uh so this bill is very simple and it's something that I think the vast majority of parents uh would agree with. It says
that if your child is going to be uh exposed to uh material that you as a parent find objectionable uh then you should have the right uh to opt them out and uh in order for them to participate there should be a requirement of written uh consent and this also expands uh this
standard for uh for uh students who have the ability to consent uh on their own behalf uh as well. Uh so uh I'm happy to support it today. I think it's a common sense measure. It doesn't require anyone to take a position on the propriety of a
particular type of curriculum in one school or another. It simply says that regardless of what the curriculum is, uh, parents should have a say uh, in their child's education. I yield back. >> Gentleman yields. Does a gentle lady from North Carolina seek recognition?
>> Uh, yes, Mr. Chair. I I move to strike the last word in opposition to the bill. >> You're recognized for five minutes. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Uh parents should know what is happening in their child's school. They should be informed. They should be involved. And they should have a voice. But let us be clear about
what this bill actually does. Current law already protects parents and students. Schools must provide notice before certain surveys are administered. Parents have the right to inspect those surveys. They may not. They may opt
their child out. And for surveys involving sensitive subjects, schools must have already obtained written parental consent. So this bill is not filling some major gap in the law. Instead, it would require a separate opt
out opt in for every survey involving topics such as mental health, student safety, bullying, substance use, or or school climate. That may sound simple here in Washington, but anyone who has worked in a school knows what will
happen. Forms will be sent home and never return. Working parents will miss an email. Families who speak another language may may not receive clear information in time. And students whose parents simply forget to sign a form
will be left out. The CDC has warned that active optin requirements can reduce student survey participation by by roughly half. When participation participation dropped that sharply, schools lose the information that they
need to understand what students are facing. They may not see a rise in depression or suicidal thoughts. They may miss patterns of bullying or violence. They may not know whether students uh feel safe in the classroom
or supported by the adults around them. As an educator for more than 40 years, I know that teachers and school leaders cannot address problems they cannot see. These surveys help schools identify where support is needed. They help
districts decide whether to hire more counselors, expand mental health services, improve school safety, or respond to a growing crisis before it becomes a tragedy. This is not about forcing students to answer personal
questions. Participation is voluntary and parents already have rights under the law. This is about whether schools will have reliable information to protect children and to help them succeed. I'm also concerned that this
bill will not affect every community equally. Parents with more time, reliable internet access, and familiarity with school paperwork are more likely to return consent forms. Students from working families, families
with limited English proficiency, or families facing housing instability are more likely to be excluded. And that means the student with the greatest needs may be the least visible in the data schools use to make decisions. We
can respect parents without making it harder for schools to understand the health and safety of their students. Current law already provides notice, transparency, access to survey materials, and the
right to decline participation. This bill goes beyond protecting parents. It creates another barrier between students and the support uh they may need. For these reasons, uh Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to vote no. And with that,
I yield back. >> The gentle lady yields. Are there any other members who wish to speak on the amendment nature of a substitute? Uh gentleman from Virginia, the ranking member, Mr. Scott, do you wish to be recognized? >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Move to the last word. >> You're recognized for five minutes.
>> Mr. Chairman, I oppose HR 4986, the parents optin protection act. This bill would amend the protection of student of pupil rights um amendment the PP to make it more difficult for schools and districts to conduct surveys including
mental health surveys under the guise of parents rights. Under current law, the PP protects both parents rights and student data employing a balanced approach between this responsibility and the need for schools, districts and schools and states to conduct surveys to
better serve students. Current law prohibits students from being required to take a survey that touches on eight enumerated sensitive topics, including political affiliations or beliefs, mental psychological problems, sex, sex behavior or attitudes, religious
practices, affiliations, or beliefs. The law requires that school districts provide advanced notice to parents about such surveys, allowing parents to review such surveys and provide parents the right to opt their child out of such surveys or provide annual written
consent for such surveys. This uh bill would replace the balanced approach with an opt-in requirement which schools uh would need to obtain written consent from parents for each individual survey conveying sensitive topics making it harder for schools to collect critical
information on student mental health, school climate, and school and safety while offering no new rights for parents. sponsor of the bill specifically stated when introducing it for the first time in the 118th Cong Congress that its purpose was to, and I
quote, create a barrier between our nation's school children and inappropriate influence from radical transgender ideology and big tech, including sexual orientation, sexual identity, and woke politics." unquote. And while the majority claims the bill
is necessary to protect parents rights, the bill represents yet another attempt to target transgender students. But in fact, it will harm all students by reducing the school, district, and state awareness of school climate, mental health, and other issues. And it would
limit the ability of schools and districts and states to support students in addressing their needs. Research shows that students who feel safe and supported at school have better educational outcomes, achieve more in school, and have better attendance and graduation rate rates, and are better
behaved. Uh, efforts to improve school climate have been supported over the years by the US Department of Education and Institute of Educational Science. The danger in this bill is it could significantly reduce survey responses on school climate surveys and other surveys
including the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Voluntary Bial uh youth risk behavior survey the Y RBS which has been conducted since 1991 using sampling of 9th through 12th
graders. The CDC uses a survey to understand health and mental mental health related behaviors as well as issues such as weight, obesity, and asthma and to identify and evaluate programs to improve adolescent health.
Optin requirements hinder participation in surveys in general and also affect who participates in the survey. In a school setting, the opt-in requirement feed survey may make it less likely that working parents or parents who speak a different language submit a written
consent form. According to CDC, requiring opt-in surveys could have significant detrimental effects. CDC stated that it expects the opt-in requirement to reduce the student response rate by about 50%.
Excuse me. Research shows that students who feel safe and supported in school have better outcomes as I indicated. And when you have less information, you have less ability to uh create those better situations. And while it's imperative
that parents be aware of what is happening in the schools, current law finds a reasonable balance between parental oversight of these surveys and the importance of conducting such surveys. bill is opposed by the National
Women's Law Center Action Fund, the Advocates for Trans Equality, and the Human Rights Campaign. So, I ask unanimous consent that letters in opposition from the women's women national women's law center and the Human Rights Campaign be entered into
the record. >> Without objection, hearing none, they'll be entered. >> 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? Seeing none, there being no further
discussion on the amendment nature of 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 4986.
All in favor say I. I all oppose. No. >> No. >> In the opinion of the chair, the eyes have it and the amendment in the nature of substitute is agreed to. We'll now move to consider the next bill. The committee will now proceed to
consideration of bill HR 8747 for amendment. The bill was circulated in advance and printed copies are available. The clerk shall designate the bill. >> HR 8747, a bill to amend the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 to
include certain curriculum expenses as permissible uses of funds 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. Owens. For what purpose do you seek recognition? >> Mr. Chairman, I have amendment and in nature of a substitute at the desk. >> The clerk will designate the amendment in a nature of a substitute. >> Amendment in the nature of a substitute
to HR 8747 offered by Mr. Owens of Utah identifier 8747 ANS_01. >> Without objection, amendment shall be considered original text for purposes of further amendment. The amendment in the nature of substitute has already been distributed. I now recognize Mr. Owens
for 5 minutes to explain the amendment and the nature of a substitute. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um, artificial intelligence is coming as fundamental to our economy as computers and internet were in the previous generations. A question is no longer whether students will use and encounter a a AI is whether
schools will prepare them to use it responsibly and effectively. If America wants to remain the global leader in innovation, our educational system must keep pace with technological change. Schools, educators, industry leaders report growing demand for AI literacy
programs. Districts want to move forward but often lack clear authority to scale implementation and use existing federal education funds prepare the students and educators for this transformation transformation. Title 4A already offers schools broad flexibility but is not
clear whether AI education is allowable use of those funds. In many cases, schools attorneys may advise caution if federal funds are being used for activities that are not specifically mentioned in law. The aim of this bill is to clarify that AI instruction is allowable is allowable use for federal
funds by amending title 4 of EA. It will give states and local districts flexibility to use existing federal educational funds to prepare students and educators for the AIdriven future. The bill focuses on safe, effective, and responsible implementation, emphasizing
educators uh leadership rather than replacing teachers with technology. The bill does not create any new spending, nor does it impose any federal mandates on schools or state districts. Uh HR 8547
does not require schools to adopt AI. It does not create a federal curriculum. It simply allows states and school districts to use existing federal education dollars if they choose to invest in AI education and education and educator preparation. Successful implementation requires preparation
preparing educators and students together. This bill supports students. Students need to learn not just how to use AI but how to think critically about it, evaluate his output and use it responsibly to learn, create and solve problems. This bill supports educators. One of the largest barriers of AI
adoption in schools is educator preparation. Teachers cannot teach students how to use AI responsibly if they themselves lack access to training and professional development. HR8747 allows schools to invest in teachers paraph professionals, librarians, uh
institutional support staff and school leaders. AIS has enormous potential in education and schools need to approach it thoughtfully and responsibly. America led the computer revolution because we prepare students for the digital age. We
must do the same for the age of artificial intelligence. This bill modernizes education, strengthens workforce readiness, and does so without creating a single new federal spending program. This is about preparing students for the world they will inherit, not the world we grow up in.
The ANS makes a minor technical change to underlying bill. With that, I urge my colleagues to vote yes on this bill, and I yield back. The gentleman yields. Are there any members who wish to be recognized for further discussion on the amendment? I recognize the gentle lady from Oregon,
Miss Bonabichi, for five minutes. >> Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Uh, I want to speak in opposition to the bill and the ANS. Uh, this bill and the ANS amend the student support and academic enrichment grant program. That's title 4A of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, which already gives
school districts flexible funding in three very carefully negotiated areas. Providing a well-rounded education, improving school conditions for learning, including safety, and supporting the use of technology. I know this because I worked on drafting, negotiating, and passing Title 4 A, and
I lead the Title 4A appropriations letter. Title 4A was bipartisan when we passed it and remains so today. Current law already gives districts the flexibility they need to use these funds for artificial intelligence and AI literacy and readiness. But what the students support in academic uh
enrichment title 4A grant programs need is funding. But that doesn't address the challenges of AI. What AI literacy and readiness need is a comprehensive strategy. The challenge is not a lack of flexibility in title 4A. Artificial
intelligence is changing how Americans learn, teach, and work. Many students are using these tools without consistent standards or guidance. Educators need professional development to teach AI and to use these tools responsibly. Workers need opportunities to develop the skills
required for an economy that is changing because of AI. Our education and workforce systems need to keep pace, but that's not what this bill does. I'm leading the AI education and workforce readiness act. This draft legislation would establish a coordinated strategy
to prepare students, educators, and workers to use artificial intelligence safely, responsibly, and age appropriately. It would coordinate efforts across the departments of education and labor and federal science agencies to support career pathways,
evidence-based educational tools, research, and technical assistance. My bill recognizes that AI literacy is about more than learning how to use a new tool. Students and educators need to understand the ethical questions that artificial intelligence raises. They need to consider its implications for
civics and democracy. And with concerns about AI leading to cognitive stunting, especially in young children, we must grapple with how to protect critical thinking and perspective. Putting an AI tool in a classroom does not by itself improve learning.
Artificial intelligence should help students learn, create, and solve problems. It should not replace a productive struggle that helps students develop these skills. Artificial intelligence should be one of the many tools in the hands of a skilled educator, not a replacement for teaching. My bill would support
professional development and AI literacy to address these issues. And it would also provide grants to support learners from communities that have historically faced barriers to educational and economic opportunity. We must not let artificial intelligence widen existing gaps and opportunity. Innovation
requires responsibility. Artificial intelligence is here. The question is whether we will prepare people to shape this technology or allow technology to shape their future without them. Students need to be prepared for the AI world. And they need to be protected from its risk. The bill we're
considering today simply duplicates flexibility that schools already have without providing comprehensive strategy, investments, and safeguards that are so important for students, educators in our future. So instead of passing this bill, we should work together on careful policies that
recognize the complexity and risks involved with AI and educational settings. Thank you. And I yield back the balance of my time. >> The gentle lady yields. Does a gentleman from California, Mr. Kylie, seek recognition? Yes, Mr. Chair, >> you're recognized for five minutes.
>> Thank you, Mr. Chair. Uh, I'll be supporting today the uh K12 AI Literacy and Readiness Act of 2026 uh because I think it will uh reinforce uh the work of our subcommittee which is now held uh two hearings on the topic of the use of
AI uh in schools. one focused on how it's being used to assist students and another on how uh teachers are using it to assist with their own uh lesson planning uh instruction assessments uh and and so forth. And uh you know we have highlighted in our hearings
examples of how AI is being used at schools and in districts and in states across the country. And we've highlighted both the extraordinary opportunity and the very real perils. I personally uh believe that these tools have the ability to make uh to give
every child in America access to a kind of education that no child had uh you know not that long ago. So there is just extraordinary opportunity. But we also see uh various issues connected with academic honesty with uh increased
screen time uh with uh the potential to uh erode critical thinking skills uh and uh and many other issues uh that come up when we're dealing with uh tools that are continuing to advance at a very rapid pace. So, I I don't disagree with
uh the ranking member of our subcommittee's comments about how we need to be uh doing more on this topic, but I think that this bill uh is really helpful in the following sense that the way that we're going to come up, I think, with the best solutions here, the
best use cases uh are empowering teachers and school leaders uh and districts uh to really uh respond to the challenges they're seeing in their classrooms. and deploy uh the latest tools as they become available. And then
we can see what is working and we can do what we've been doing on our subcommittee and in this full committee uh which is to highlight the examples that have been really helping students uh and helping teachers. And so that's what this bill will do. It will allow for greater flexibility in the use of
funds uh in order to uh assist teachers with uh training related to AI and in order to uh assist students with being able to use AI uh in productive ways. I'm also working on legislation that will uh provide uh greater opportunities
for professional development for teachers in order to uh learn best practices in this ever uh evolving rapidly evolving uh area which I think will be helpful as well. Uh but I think this legislation is a good start and I'll be supporting it today. I yield back. The
>> gentleman yields. Are there any other members who wish to speak on the amendment and nature of a substitute? I recognize a gentleman from Virginia. the ranking member, Mr. Scott, uh for the purposes uh of discussion. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, HR 8747
would include professional development instruction on safe, responsible, and effective use of artificial intelligence as an allowable use of funds under title 4A of the elementary and secondary education act. And that title 4A was carefully negotiated under every student
succeeds act to ensure the school districts can school districts can use the funds to support safe and health safe and healthy students well-rounded education and effective use of technology. These are broad categories
that allow school districts a wide range of flexibility to meet the needs of their students. Many many districts across the district are already using title 4A funds to support a um AI um le
literacy as it's already an allowable use. Now the last year the center on reinventing public education released data revealing that the number of districts surveyed or that are early adopters of AI jumped
from 40% in 2024 to 2025 to 79% to the 202526 school year. that shows that schools and educators are opening to the use of updated technology, but they need support and guidance to ensure coherent
usages that it ensure educators and students understand the risks and potential dangers of AI. Um, I have concern concerns about first of all the attempt to specify a particular
allowable use of 4A funds as this bill does. Highlighting AI in this way does nothing to help states figure out the approach uh to AI and may inadvertently lead states and districts to believe that this is a preferred use of the
funds over other allowable uses. Additionally, it's not lost that we sit here today as the office of education technology at the department of education is being dismantled. uh that office could be
working directly with states and local districts to provide guidance and support needed to negate the AI landscape safely. However, this administration has dismantled that that office, leaving states and districts to fend for themselves. And while I fully
support flexibility in for in title 4A, this bill does nothing to strengthen the program or help districts support students. and we should be supporting research and initiatives that help states and districts better understand how to engage in the changing AI
landscape. Gentlemen, I yield back. The gentleman yields. Are there any other members who wish to be recognized? 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? Mr. Mr. Chairman, >> I recognize a gentleman, the ranking member from Virginia, Mr. Scott, for purpose of amendment. >> Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk 8747 AMD_2. >> Clerk will uh report the amendment.
>> Amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute to HR 8747 offered by Mr. Scott of Virginia, identifier Scott_8747 AMD_02. >> Does a gentleman from Utah reserve a point of order? A point of order is reserved. Yes,
>> I now recognize a gentleman from Virginia, the ranking member, Mr. Scott, for five minutes in support of his amendment. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, this amendment would maintain the Office of Education Technology and restore the staffing cap capacity as AI continues to expand and become more integrated into
educational settings. It's important to recognize that OE had a had played a critical role in helping states and district understand and evaluate these new technologies including artificial intelligent intelligence to improve
student learning and teaching. It's worth noting that OET had developed key resources that help states and district navigate the effective and responsible uses of AI, including a report, artificial intelligence and the future of teaching and learning, which provided
recommendations on AI integration in the classroom. However, this administration has since dissolved OE. These these actions eliminated the primary source of expertise and guidance at the department that has helped states and districts integrate AI. This amendment would
reestablish that office and that capacity to provide critical resources and guidance that states and districts need to address the opportunities and challenges in integrating AI into education. So I urge my colleagues to vote yes on this amendment and yield back the balance of my time.
>> The gentleman yields. Does the gentleman from Utah withdraw the res withdraw? My point of order. >> The reservation is withdrawn. Does anyone else seek recognition on the amendment? >> The question then is on the amendment by the gentleman from Virginia, the ranking member, Mr. Scott. All in favor say I.
>> I. >> All oppose, no. No. >> In the opinion of the chair, the nos have it. An amendment is not agreed to. >> A roll call vote is ordered. Pursuant to 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? I recognize a gentle lady from Connecticut, Miss Hayes. For the purposes of amendment. >> Yes, Mr. Chair. I have an amendment at the desk. The clerk will report the amendment. >> Amendment to the amendment in the nature
of a substitute to HR8747 offered by Miss Hayes of Connecticut, identifier Hayes_h AECT_071. >> Does a gentleman from Utah reserve a point? >> Reserve a point of order. >> Point of order is reserved. I now recognize a gentle lady from Connecticut for 5 minutes in support of her
amendment. >> Thank you. I fully support preparing students to navigate an AIdriven world. Recognizing that AI literacy is an essential skill and I understand the intent behind this
legislation, my amendment to HR HR8747, the AR AI literacy and readiness act would ensure that federal funds used to implement AI tools in classrooms come with fundamental safety guard rails. According to the CDC, firearm related
injuries are the leading cause of death for children and teenagers in the United States aged 1 to 19. And 7 months into the year 2026, we have already witnessed 14 school shootings resulting in injury or death at K12 schools across the
country. AI has found its way into this disturbing trend. The Center for Countering Digital Hate indicates that eight out of 10 AI chat box are regularly assisted have regularly assisted teenage users in planning school shootings and other violent
attacks. Hundreds of users user tests have shown that these chat boxes actively provide information that is directly applicable to planning and executing violent acts. For example, chat GPT provided maps of a high school
campus in Virginia to a user who had already engaged with content related to school shootings and misogyny. Additionally, Meta AI suggested nearby gun stores and shooting ranges without questioning the intent of the user. My
amendment requires any AI tool funded under this provision to have a documented policy disclosing uh their policy for notifying law enforcement when a user shares a credible plan to harm others. It also requires notification of school mental health
professionals when a user discloses su suicidal ideiation or self harm. Every school counselor who hears a student say they want harm themselves is required to act. Every teacher who hears a student threaten someone else is required to
act. By law, in all 50 states and Washington DC, educators are mandated reporters. Teachers must report reasonable suspicion. These requirements exist because we recognize the responsibility schools have for the
safety and well-being of children. Teachers see children daily and are often the first adults to notice warning signs. We hold every counselor, teacher, and staff member in a school building to a basic reporting standard. AI funded AI
tools funded by federal dollars should be no different. This amendment will make this bill stronger by ensuring the tools being funded are safe for the children using them. I know this committee does not want to address the issue of school shootings and what harm
it does to children. But as we move forward with new legislation, we have to face this daunting reality that our children are dying because of firearm related injuries and we have a responsibility to do something or at least I know I do. I urge my colleagues
to support this amendment and I yield back. >> The gentle lady yields. Does the gentleman from Utah withdraw my point of order? >> Point of order is withdrawn. Are there any other members who seek recognition on this amendment? I recognize the gentleman from Virginia,
the ranking member. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I move the second last word. >> You're recognized for five minutes. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This Mr. Mr. Chairman, this amendment would require um AI those um
would would excuse me would prevent any funds from being used for any AI purpose unless there is in place a protocol that um would reveal information about someone trying to harm themselves. Bill also adds a reporting
clause and also limitations on what the AI can do. Now, we all know uh situations where school shootings have occurred and many of these involved information that should have been reported to law enforcement.
Unfortunately, this um amendment is not limited to situations where AI may be um involved with interaction with students. It covers all AI situations and these protocols would have to be uh done
whether or not the individuals um or whether or not the AI is involved with students. Um furthermore, we have to be cautious about deploying law enforcement in situations involving students. Preemptively involving law enforcement
before you have all the necessary information could lead to unnecessary harm. For example, there have been reports of students being entangled with law enforcement unnecessarily because AI claimed to have caught something it believed to be suspicious when in fact
it was innocuous. AI does not always have the ability to understand nuances and according to the um amendment uh keywords would have to be used and if a key word is triggered then that information is revealed and results can
results can wreak havoc on student lives. This amendment also implies that some kind of surveillance of students will be taking place. Otherwise, the you you wouldn't have the information. The breadth of research shows that school
surveillance measures disproportionately harm black and brown students instead of keeping themsel instead of keeping them safe. So, I appreciate the sentiment. It's imperative that we provide funding for mental health supports for students, resources for educators, counselors, and
other school officials as they work with students among others. However, such an amendment needs to be narrowly tailored to achieve that goal and um I would oppose this bill as it's over broad. I yield back.
The gentleman yields. Are there any others who wish to speak to the amendment? Seeing none, I recognize myself for five minutes to speak on the amendment brought by the gentle lady from Connecticut. Student safety is paramount.
Period. That's why HR8747 already requires that funds may only be spent for safe, effective, and responsible use of AI. That said, there's much to support in
this amendment and I would be happy to work with the gentle lady going forward to reach agreement on the language. Unfortunately, I must oppose the amendment because of its unclear implications for FURPA. The rule of construction at the end of the amendment initially ensures that none of the
amendments disclosure requirements would violate Furpa, but then adds an exception for federal and state laws. I'm not sure what the intent of that language is. Apply Furpa, but then accepting any federal mandatory
reporting obligations, which would include reporting obligations under this very amendment, will create confusion. Additionally, this language would allow state mandatory reporting laws to preempt Furpa. As I said before, I'm happy to work with
the general lady going forward to work out language that adequately protects student safety, but we need the opportunity to vet implications of this amendment on Furpa. Protecting students safety and student privacy is a priority of this committee.
So, I urge my colleagues to vote no on the amendment at this time and I yield back. Are there any other members who wish to speak to the amendment? Seeing none, the question is on the amendment by the gentle lady from Connecticut. All in favor say I.
>> All oppose, no. >> No. In the opinion of the chair, the nose have it and the amendment is not agreed to. Are there any further amendments to the amendment in the nature of a substitute to HR8747? Seeing none, further action on HR 8747
is postponed. We'll now move to consider consider the next bill. The committee will now proceed to consideration of bill HR8183 for amendment. The bill was circulated in advance and printed copies are
available. The clerk shall designate the bill. >> HR 8183, a bill to amend the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act to provide for the establishment of talent marketplaces. >> 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. Owens, for what purpose do you seek recognition? >> Mr. Chairman, I have amendment in nature of substitute at the desk. >> The clerk shall designate the amendment in the nature of a substitute. >> Amendment in the nature of a substitute
to HR8183 offered by Mr. Owens of Utah identifier HR8183_s2. >> Without objection, the amendment shall be considered original text for purposes of further amendment. The amendment in the nature of a substitute has already been distributed. I now recognize Mr.
Owens for five minutes to explain the amendment in the nature of a substitute. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm thrilled to offer the amendment in nature of a substitute HR 8183 match act. This bill will help our workforce system keep pace with a rapidly changing economy. Too many Americans have valuable skills they
cannot easily articulate while too many employers struggle to find the talent they need. This bill helps close the gap by supporting modern workforce data systems, talent marketplace, portable skill records, and voluntary job related skills assessment. For a veteran, this
could mean translating military training and hands-on experience into skills a civilian employer might need. For a student, it could mean much fuller and understanding of what skills they possess and how those skills and other lead and others lead to a dynamic career pathway. The NS makes several changes to
the original bill. It converts what was a permanent cotification of the workforce data quality innovation initiative into a focused five-year pilot program with annual reports to Congress independent evaluation by the government accountability office. It
also strengthen strengthens uh learning and employment records by requiring skills to be supported by verification or real world experience as uh voluntary and uh evaluated skills assessment tools and reinforces privacy protections by
requiring an individual's consent before personal information may be disclosed. The amendment gives individuals greater control over their information, protects privacy, and helps employers hire based on demonstrated abilities. The current version of the bill was crafted in and spirited part
bipartisanship and I'd like to express my thanks to my friend Representative McBth for reaching across the aisle and working in good faith to find common ground on this legislation. Her partnership reflects the bipartisan commitment we share in ensuring that every American has a fair opportunity to demonstrate his or her skills and
succeed in the workforce and that every child has a clear skills pathway to the dream career. Match act is recognizing that people can do and give what people can do and giving them a fair shot at opportunity. I urge my colleagues to support this ANS and the underlining
bill. I yield back. >> The gentleman yields. Are there any other members who wish to be recognized? The gentle lady from Georgia, Miss McBth. Do you wish to be recognized? >> Thank you, Mr. Chair. I wish to speak in strong supportment of the amendment and the nature of the substance. >> You are recognized for five minutes.
>> Thank you, Mr. chair and thank you to my good friend and colleague uh chair of the higher education and workforce development subcommittee Burgess Owens. My staff and I uh are really proud to have worked with you and your team over these past few months on the match act,
a bill that will ensure workforce data is interoperable and portable between states. explore and evaluate talent marketplaces and make it simpler for every working adult in our country to get a good job and to keep it. Almost
every good job today requires some sort of credential after high school. But even though most Americans will not go to college, our workforce system relies more on four-year traditional universities than it does on programs that working people are more likely to
participate in. things like apprenticeships and competencies and other short-term licenses and credentials. Our workforce system has become too reliant on 16 to 24 year olds making one-time difficult to reverse
decisions involving loans that they may never be able to pay back. Decisions that are exorbitantly expensive decisions that students and workers are told to make without knowing all of their options. Credential registries and talent marketplaces help solve this
problem by putting everything together in one place for students, families, workers, and employers. Whether you're a 17-year-old deciding what degree is going to set you up to pay back your loan at UG or Georgia State, or a 50year-old with a family that needs to
know what shortterm programs you can take part in as soon as possible to get back to work, there will be one uniform place that everyone can go see and compare credentials so that they can make the best decision for themselves. Getting a good job and keeping it takes
time and effort. It is something that takes constant upkeep. It can't be solved by focusing too heavily on the front end of a person's working career. As we have seen, regular people will spend their entire working lives trying to keep up and stay relevant. We need a workforce system that meets people where
they are and helps them adapt to the world around them. Talent marketplaces, credential registries, and bipartisan efforts like this make it so there's a single place for people to go to make these decisions instead of having to jump from place to place looking for what classes or jobs might show up on a
quick Google shirt Google search. It shows people exactly where to go to find good employment and helps them get there. No more just hoping that your credential will get you where you want to go. Now people can see and compare the full universe of options that they
have that they've always had but they didn't know about them. As I've said so many times before in this committee, you don't have to go to college to be successful. It certainly helps though, but there are so many other viable options and pathways to building a successful and fulfilling life for
yourself in this country. This bill helps put all of these options together in one single place where people can make the best decision for themselves. I ask for unanimous consent to enter into the record this letter of support for
the match act from Scott Cheney of Credential Engine who testified before the committee during the higher education and workforce subcommittee hearing on labor and employment records late last year. >> Without objection and hearing none, it'll be entered. >> Thank you. I know that this committee
can be contentious, but that does not mean that we can't find ways to work together to make life better for the American people. That is our charge, and my staff and I try to extend the same benefits of the doubt that we hope would be extended to us
when working with offices belonging to the opposite party. And this is what happens when members really listen to each other and not attack one another. I mean, actually listen to hear what the other person is
saying and working to comprehend what they're saying. Not just itching to come up with the best retort or waiting for a slip to take advantage to prove your point, but really listening to what is being expressed.
So, Representative Owens, I know that you don't have very many more months here left on this committee, but I want to thank you and I do want to commend you for working with me and my staff. And I encourage all of my colleagues to support this bill. I hope that we can pass this unanimously through this
committee today. And I um hope that all members, all of us would work to make sure that we get this signed into law before the end of this Congress. And I yield. >> The gentle lady yields. Are there any any other members who wish to speak on
this amendment and nature of a substitute? I recognize the gentleman from Virginia, the ranking member, Mr. Scott, for purposes of speaking to this amendment and nature of substitute. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just very briefly, I just wanted to thank the gentle lady from Georgia, Miss McBath,
and the gentleman from Utah, Mr. Owens, for their work together on this bill. They made significant improvements on the original bill, including converting the bill's grant program into a 5-year pilot, adding a substant substantive program evaluations,
standardizing terminology to ensure that systems can work across states and institutions, and adding provisions that will give workers more control over what information is in their learning and employment record and how it's used. Um, I would hope that we'd pass the bill and
yield back. The gentleman yields. There being no further discussion on the amendment in nature of substitute, the committee will move on 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 8183. All in favor say I. I. All oppose. No. In the opinion of the chair, the gentle lady from Georgia, Miss McBTH, has her wish unanimous.
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 9723 for amendment. The bill was circulated in
advance and printed copies are available. The clerk shall designate the bill. >> HR 9723, a bill to establish the president's council on sports, fitness, and nutrition 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. McKenzie, for what purpose do you seek recognition? >> Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk titled ANS_01.
>> The clerk shall designate the amendment and nature of a substitute. >> Amendment in the nature of a substitute to HR 9723 offered by Mr. McKenzie of Pennsylvania identifier HR 9723 ANS_01. >> Without objection, the amendment shall be considered original text for purposes
of further amendment. The amendment in the nature of substitute has already been distributed. I now recognize Mr. McKenzie for five minutes to explain the amendment in the nature of a substitute. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Today I offer an amendment in the nature of a
substitute or ANS to HR 9723, the fit future act. The amendment makes a minor technical edit to the introduced text. America's youth face a growing crisis of declining physical fitness and increasing rates of chronic disease,
undermining the health, strength, and future of our nation. A range of factors, including reduced school-based opportunities for physical activity, are pulling kids away from the exercise that they actually need. Research has affirmed that what we have always known
is true. That regular physical activity builds stronger bodies, sharper minds, greater confidence, and lifelong resilience. For generations, our leaders have recognized that youth fitness is a cornerstone of national strength. President Eisenhower first created the
President's Council on Youth Fitness in 1956. After reports showed that American children were falling behind, President Kennedy later famously warned in an essay uh this titled The Soft American that physical vigor was one of our
nation's most essential resources and that neglecting it would actually weaken our ability to meet great challenges. Most recently, our nation has grappled with rising rates of chronic disease, threatening the quality of life of tens of millions of Americans and
contributing to the rise of health care costs for everyone. To restore a national focus on youth fitness, HR 9723 codifies President Trump's executive order reviving the president's council on sports, fitness, and nutrition as an
advisory body focusing on improving youth physical activity, fitness, and nutrition. The council advises the president and the secretary of HHS on progress toward improving youth health and recommendations uh for ways that they can have better
outcomes. My bill directs the council to recommend strategies to implement the presidential fitness test with appropriate improvements. Extend opportunities for sports participation and physical fitness. set bold and innovative fitness goals to build a
healthier, more active generation and also launch campaigns and events that highlight American sports traditions. Additionally, to ensure that youth fitness remains a national priority, HR 9723
permanently establishes the council. Mr. Chairman, this is common sense and it's a measure that will help build a stronger, healthier, brighter future for millions of American children. I urge my colleagues to support HR 9723. 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 gentleman from Virginia, the ranking member for purposes of discussion.
>> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, HR 9723 establishes the president's council on fitness, sports, fitness, and nutrition. Bill requires the council to make recommendations related to youth fitness and importance of an active lifestyle. For decades, versions of the
President's Council have been expanded and rebranded through various executive orders since the initial creation of the President's Council on Youth Fitness under President Eisenhower in 1956. Notably, under the Obama administration,
the name of the council was changed from the President's Council on Physical Fitness and Sports to the President's Council on Fitness, Sports, and Nutrition, expanding the mission of the council to focus on healthy eating. The Trump administration's current executive order and the legislation being
considered today follow President Obama's lead, maintaining nutrition as a focus of the of the council. We all agree that lack of physical exercise leads to and exacerbates health disparities that are well documented, including heart disease, depression, and
obesity. Given the benefits of increased access to recreational sports and physical activities, it is critical that we ensure consideration for all children, including those with differing abilities and disabilities. So amendments offered by my Democratic
colleagues today will further ensure that students of all abilities are considered by the council and I welcome those improvements to the bill. So I'll support the bill and I yield back the balance of my time. The gentleman yields. Are there any others who wish to speak to this
amendment in the nature of substitute? Does the gentleman from California, Mr. Kylie, wish to be recognized? >> Yes, Mr. Chair. You're recognized for five minutes. >> Thank you, Mr. Chair. Uh I'm very happy to support the Fit Future Act today. Uh I think this is uh very important
legislation on an issue that hasn't quite got, I think, enough uh attention, which is uh putting uh our young people on a track for uh on a path to uh to healthy lives. I think we've seen a uh diminishing emphasis on things like uh
fitness uh and uh and truly uh meaningful uh physical education uh and uh encouraging young people to be involved uh in youth sports and other forms of recreation. Uh it's become uh even more of a an issue as we've seen uh
the amount of screen time that is spent by young people absolutely uh skyrocket. And so, uh, I think this is very solid legislation that will help to reverse, uh, that trajectory. And it's really almost impossible to overstate, uh, the the benefits that would acrue to, uh, to
young people, to our health care system, to our country if we could establish these habits, uh, early, uh, in life. And, um, this bill will encourage that in a number of ways. I'd also note that we've been looking in our subcommittee now at a couple hearings on uh the uh
issues of affordability in connection with youth sports uh across the country. And so I think that another piece of the equation here is assuring that we can make access to youth sports uh affordable for all families and broaden
participation uh as much as possible. But I think this is uh a very good piece of legislation. Uh thank my uh colleague from uh Pennsylvania for introducing it. I'll be happy to support it today. >> The gentleman yields. Are there any others who wish to speak on this
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 would like to offer amendments? I recognize the gentle lady from Georgia, Miss McBTH, for purpose of an amendment.
>> Thank you, Mr. Chair. I have an amendment at the desk. Uh the clerk will report the amendment. >> Amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute to HR 9723 offered by Miss McBTH of Georgia identifier McBath_9723 AMD_03.
>> Does the gentleman from Utah reser does gentleman from Indiana reserve a point of order? >> I reserve a point of order. >> Point of order is reserved. I now recognize the gentle lady from Georgia for five minutes in support of her amendment.
>> Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, I'm really proud to offer this bipartisan amendment to help ensure that every child, regardless of how much money their parents make, can afford to play the sports that that that they all love.
Azie Smith, a Hall of Fame shortstop and 13time winner of Major League Baseball's Golden Glove Award. He learned to play as a child, but uh he used a paper bag instead of a baseball mitt. Uh that's
all that they could afford. He did that because his family just couldn't afford to buy him a baseball mitt. And while that story is a testament to his commitment, that isn't something that any child should have to go through just to take part in America's um favorite
pastime, as they say. Uh just play baseball. Before I came to Congress, I was a single mother working as a flight attendant. And during the Great Recession, I wasn't fired, but I took a pretty hefty pay cut. It was about $10,000 a year. And ouch, that really
hurt. I remember worrying about being able to make ends meet. I had to pull my son Jordan out of baseball in the fall and swimming in the summer just because I couldn't afford all of those activities anymore. So instead, he and I
uh would every Monday night for about five years, uh we would go to the local skating rink, Sparkles, and I'd take him and his friends. I was known as the skate mom. I picked up all the boys in the neighborhood. Uh I was a single mom,
but you would have thought I had about five or six kids because they were always in the SUV with me. And um these were our homeschool kids uh our homeschool group and we would all go to Sparkles roller skating rink because it was a dollar to get in. It was a dollar
for your skates and it was a dollar for for CocaCola and dollar for uh pizza. So they were cheap dates for me. So when families have to make tough decisions about their budgets, sports and other activities like music lessons, those are
usually the first to go. Kids are often the first to feel the squeeze, and that's just simply wrong. Kids should be able to play the sports that they love without having to worry about their parents' finances, without having to worry about something that they are
forced to deal with, but have absolutely no control over. This amendment would direct the council to develop strategies to assist families with the rising costs by expanding access to recreational sport and athletic opportunities offered
by nonprofit organizations like the YMCA or the Boys and Girls Clubs of America and so many other youth uh leagues um that are run by Jewish community centers and churches and church groups all around the country. So, I think we
really need to to emphasize making sure that our children are allowed to just be kids. Just let them be kids. Let them do what they love to do. And so, I hope everyone would be in acceptance of this amendment and I yield back.
>> The gentle lady yields. Does the gentleman from Indiana wish to withdraw? >> I withdraw my reservation. >> The reservation is withdrawn. Does anyone else seek recognition on the amendment? I recognize the gentleman from Virginia,
the ranking member, Mr. Scott. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Move to second last word. >> You're recognized for five minutes. >> And just to follow up with the gentleman from California, we know from our recent hearings that the involvement of private equity in youth sports is only added to
the expenses associated with youth sports as these entities prioritize profits over participation. As a result, families are left with fewer affordability options for their children to participate in sports. And so we believe that supporting increased access
to recreational sports programs and other physical activities run by nonprofits of all for all children should be a priority. So I'd urge my colleagues to join in supporting the amendment and yield back the balance of my time. >> Gentleman yields. Are there any others
who wish to speak on the amendment? recognize myself. We uh will be accepting this amendment. The question is on the amendment by the gentle lady from Georgia, Miss McBath. All in favor say I.
>> I. All oppose. No. In the opinion of the chair, the gentle lady from Georgia gets another unanimous vote and the amendment is agreed to. further action on I apologize. I was basking in the sweet
success of unity. Does anyone else uh have an amendment to offer? The gentle lady from Connecticut. Uh, do you wish to offer an amendment? >> Yes, Mr. Chair. I have an amendment at the desk. >> The clerk will report the amendment.
>> Amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute to HR 9723 offered by Miss Hayes of Connecticut, identifier Hayes_hct_072. >> There's a gentleman from Utah wish to reserve a point of order. Point of order is reserved. I now recognize a gentle
lady from Connecticut, Miss Hayes, for five minutes in support of her amendment. >> Thank you. The Fit Future Act establishes the Council on Sports, Fitness, and Nutrition. This council is directed to make recommendations on
reducing childhood obesity, improving nutrition, and promoting healthy lifestyles. There are import these are all important goals that I fully support. However, there's a fundamental contradiction at the heart of this legislation that is being overlooked.
You cannot ask a hungry child to be fit. Currently, more than 4 million Americans face the risk of hunger and over 700,000 children have already lost access to federal food assistance. This situation directly results from HR1 legislation
that was passed and celebrated by my Republican colleagues in Connecticut. Since July 2025, more than 32,000 people have lost SNAP benefits, and it's projected that 58,000 additional Connecticut families will lose an
average of $194 in benefits each month. For millions of children in this country, proper nutrition depends entirely on whether their families can afford food. The National School Lunch Program, the School Breakfast Program,
WIC, SNAP, and other federal nutrition programs form the foundation for any serious conversation about childhood nutrition. My amendment requires the council to make recommendations recommendations on strategies to address
food insecurity as a barrier to physical fitness and healthy nutrition. It also suggests ways in which federal nutrition programs can support these goals. If my colleagues are genuine genuinely serious about improving the health and nutrition
of children in America, they will accept this amendment. I cannot understand how we can create a council promoting nutrition while simultaneously undermining the programs that keep children fed. Mr. Chair, you can
continue the sweet success of unity by supporting my amendment. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment and I yield back. >> Gentle lady yields. Are there any other members who wish to speak on this amendment? I recognize the gentleman from Virginia, the ranking member for
purposes of speaking to the amendment. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Uh Mr. Chairman, we u very well know that healthy nutrition and physical activity work in tangent and both are key to improving lifelong health. And since the big ugly bill was signed into law last
year, there's been a drastic decline in the number of children receiving SNAP benefits with more than 700,000 children no longer participating in the program. taking away access to federal nutrition act nutrition assistance uh programs
including free and reduced price meals is anothetical to our goals today of getting more children involved in recreational sports and physical activities. That's why I support this amendment that would require the council to make recommendations on how federal nutrition programs such as SNAP
supplemental women uh supplemental nutrition program for women infants and children that's wick and the school meal program can work in tangent to improving physical fitness and childhood obesity. So I urge my colleagues to support the amendment and yield back the balance of
my time. >> The gentleman yields. Are there any others who wish to speak on the amendment? Seeing none, I recognize myself. This amendment asks the council to take on food insecurity policy and coordinate
major federal nutrition assistance programs. These responsibilities are well outside the scope and congressional intent of the fitness council. The council was established to provide recommendations on sports, physical fitness, and nutrition in the context of
promoting active and healthy lifestyles, not address food insecurities and inequalities. In fact, this amendment proposes to utilize the fitness council to duplicate efforts of existing programs that Congress created to help address these
issues. The very nutrition program this amendment wishes to analyze, SNAP, WICK, school meals, are already focused on helping communities with limited access to food. Furthermore, not all the nutrition programs cited here are within the committee's jurisdiction. Let's not
put too many cooks in the kitchen, so to speak. For this reason, I oppose the amendment and I yield back. The question is now on the amendment by the gentle lady from Connecticut. Uh all in favor say I.
>> All oppose? No. >> No. >> In the opinion of the chair, 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 9723? I recognize a gentleman from New York, Mr. Manion, for purposes of amendment. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have an amendment at the desk. The clerk will report the amendment. >> Amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute to HR 9723 offered by
Mr. Manion of New York, identifier Manion_9723 AMD_01. >> Does a gentleman from Utah reserve a point of order? >> Yes. >> Point of order is reserved. I now recognize the gentleman from New York, Mr. Manion for 5 minutes in support of the amendment.
>> Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you to my colleague from Pennsylvania for bringing this bill through the committee. Uh, I have an amendment that I believe makes sense to some important and includes some important additions to this bill to ensure that all kids, regardless of ability, can lead
healthier and more active lifestyles. In this committee, we've talked before about the important physical, mental, and social benefits of youth sports participation. I want to thank my colleagues today for continuing that bipartisan dialogue. The bill we're
discussing establishes a federal advisory council focused on school-based programs that improve physical fitness and address issues like childhood obesity and chronic disease. Those are important goals that I share. My amendment simply builds on this
legislation by adding recommendations to address barriers to participation so that many kids that face challenges including childrens with disabilities uh can meet these recommendations.
We know that the lack of access to sports and fitness at a young age can lead to lifelong habits. According to the CDC, nearly half of all adults with disabilities get no leisure time aerobic physical activity. For this reason, my amendment would require the council to
make recommendations related to adaptive physical fitness, ensuring that exercises and activities are accessible and that kids with disabilities can participate. It also includes the promotion of recreational sports, which are not only healthy, but are often a
formative part of a child's upbringing. In some communities, however, recreational sports programs have been crowded out or have struggled with gaining local funding. So, protecting and promoting these should be the focus of this council. Lastly, my amendment
recommends that uh we encourage participation in a wide range of sports activities, guarding against the sedentary lifestyles or excessive early specialization that research says is harmful in the development of our youth. I kindly urge my colleagues to vote in
favor of this amendment and I yield back. >> The gentleman yields. Are they Does the gentleman from Utah >> I withdraw res? >> With draws points of order. Are there any other members who wish to speak on the amendment? I recognize a gentleman from Virginia, the ranking member, Mr.
Scott, to speak on the amendment. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And as my colleague mentioned, the amendment includes a requirement that the council recommends strategies to increase access to recreational sports and other physical activities for all children, including those who have barriers access and youth with disabilities. It's
imperative that we consider opportunities for our youth that are inclusive and adaptive to meet the variant needs of of our of our students. This specifically includes kids with disabilities. Overall, this amendment makes an important improvement to the
legislation by adding focus on children who face barriers to sports, be they financial, be they be financial, physical, or otherwise. So, I support the amendment and yield back the balance of my time. >> Gentlemen yields. Are there any other members who wish to speak on the amendment?
Seeing none, um I recognize myself to uh note that we plan to accept this amendment. The question the question is now on the amendment by the gentleman from New York, Mr. Manion. All in favor say I. I.
All oppose. No. In the opinion of the chair, the eyes have it and the amendment is agreed to. Are there any further amendments to the amendment in the nature of substitute HR 9723? Seeing none, further action on HR 9723
is postponed. We'll now move consider the next bill. The committee will now proceed to consideration of bill HR 8664 amendment. The bill was circulated in advance and
printed copies are available. The clerk shall designate the bill. >> HR8660, a bill to amend the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 to protect worker access to employer equity 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. McKenzie, for what purpose do you seek recognition?
>> 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 HR8660 offered by Mr. McKenzie of Pennsylvania identifier 8660s_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. McKenzie for five minutes to to explain the amendment in the nature of a substitute. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Since 2000,
hourly employees have benefited from the provisions of the worker economic opportunity act wo which exempts the value of employer provided stock options, stock appreciation rights or bonafide employee
stock purchase programs from employees regular rate of pay. This means that Congress unanimously concluded that hourly employees who are considered non-exempt under the Fair Labor Standards Acts or FLSA should be
eligible for the same equity compensation as their exempt counterparts and employees should be able to exempt such equity compensation from the employees regular rate of pay. Otherwise, the incentive for employers
to provide this benefit is minimal and comes with significantly increased overtime costs. Unfortunately, there is uncertainty regarding the application of WEOA to restricted stock units or RSUs. These are a modern form of equity
compensation arrangements in which employees receive uh company stock upon meeting certain tenure or performance requirements. Current law is unclear about the treatment of these modern equity compensation arrangements when calculating an employees overtime and
many employers choose not to offer them to due to the uh to their non-exempt workers because of this lack of clarity. HR8660 clears up that confusion, expands workers access to this important benefit, and aligns it with current
compensation practices. A federal judge in California recently explained this perfectly during litigation in a related case. Judge William Oric, appointed by President Obama, wrote that quote, "It is hard to imagine that Congress would
exclude stock options from SL FSA overtime rate calculations, but would choose not to exclude RSUs, which are almost identical in purpose, form, and function. The amendment in the nature of a substitute makes a technical change
and adds clarifying language from WEOA. I urge the adoption of the amendment and ultimately 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
gentleman for Virginia, the ranking member, Mr. Scott, for purposes of discussion. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Mr. Chairman, under current law, employers must pay their non-exempt workers time and a half overtime premium for working more than 40 hours in a work week.
That's just not one and a half times their hourly wage. It's one and a half times their what's called regular rate of pay, which includes some nonwage compensation. The bill would amend the Fair Labor Standards Act to remove the
value of restricted stock units, RSUs, from the regular rate of pay calculation. As I mentioned in my opening statement, RSUs are a company's promise to issue stock to an employee in a future in the future after the employee satisfies the requirement to
stay with the company for a specified period. When overtime was re was originally established in the FLSA, the overriding purpose of overtime provisions was not to reward excessive work, but instead to discourage
employers from demanding it. Any bill that exempts forms of compensation from the regular rate of pay chips away at the disincentive that makes a 40-hour work week the rule rather than the exception. The bill's proponents say that RSUs should be excluded from the
overtime calculation because stock options and two other stock programs are already excluded from the uh FLSA's regular rate of pay. But as but RSUs are different from the other programs. For
example, unlike stock options, employees do not purchase RSUs or pay a price when exercising them. RSUs function as a future promise that materializes or what's called vests if the employee
meets a continued service requirement. Republican uh committee Republicans have failed to hold a hearing focusing on this bill in demonstrating any policy rationale for it. And at least the last time I checked, the bill had zero
co-sponsors. Unfortunately, committee Republicans continue to think that bills like this are worth pursuing. But earlier this year, committee Republicans advanced legislation that would exclude certain job training programs from the regular rate of pay. Fortunately, the bill was
defeated on the House floor in January. Committee Republicans also advanced legislation that would exclude child or dependent care services from the regular rate of pay under the guise of incentivizing more employers to offer child dependent care services. But fortunately, the
House Republican leadership pulled it off the floor when it was obvious it wasn't going to pass. This bill follows the same pattern and it should be similarly rejected. Mr. Chairman, I hope we defeat the bill and I yield back the balance of my time.
The gentleman yields. Are there any further members who wish to speak on the amendment? There being no further discussion on the amendment and the nature of substitute, the um 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 HR8660. All in favor say I. I. All oppose. No. >> No. >> In the opinion of the chair, the eyes
have it. An amendment in nature of substitute is agreed to. We'll now move to consider the next bill. The committee will now proceed to consideration of bill HR8347 for amendment. The bill was circulated
in advance and printed copies are available. The clerk shall designate the bill. HR 8347, a bill to classify qualified locom tenants, professionals, and advanced care practitioners as independent contractors for the purposes of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1939
and the National Labor Relations Act. >> 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. Owens. For what
purpose do you seek recognition? >> Mr. Chairman, have an amendment. >> The clerk shall designate the amendment in the nature of a substitute. >> Amendment in the nature of a substitute to HR8347 offered by Mr. Owens of Utah, identifier 8347s_01.
>> 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. Owens for five minutes to explain the amendment and the nature of a substitute. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Locent Latin
for placeholding refers to arrangement in which the medical providers temporarily fill critical workforce gaps at hospitals and health systems around the country. Uh these workers choose to operate as independent contractors much like millions of other self-employed American workers. While independent work
varies greatly across many uh more than a 100 occupations, what all independent workers have in common is that their classification is constantly in question due to a vague definition of employee in the labor fair labor standards act. Last
week, the workforce protection subcommittee heard directly from expert witnesses on local tenants. We heard from an expert in Utah's healthc care industry who works to place local tenants, medical providers, and health facilities to fill critical workforce gaps that occur more frequently than we
would like to see. The reality is that physicians, nur nurse practitioners, and other medical pro providers offer our communities a critical service. But burnout and health care is a serious issue. These are stressful workplaces. So personnel need to have an ability to
step away, spend time with family and recharge. When that happens, the need for health care services does not disappear or decrease. We need temporary local tenant clinicians to hold the place of full-time medical providers as needed to
allow hospitals and self and health systems to continue treating patients and delivering highquality care particularly in rural and underserved communities. Importantly, uh, studies show little difference in patient satisfaction or health outcomes whether patients see a full-time
provider or a local tenants clinician. Uh, frequently the choice is not between local tenants providers and a full-time provider, but rather between local tenants provider and no provider at all. Unfortunately, the lack of clarity and FLSA makes it more difficult to work as
local tenants uh provider. HR 8347 Rural Healthc Care Act is a logical solution. The bill simply defines local tenants medical providers as independent contractors under FLSA and prevents them from being reclassified as employees.
Upwards to 80% of independent contractors prefer their current status and well over 90% of local tenants medical providers have access to benefits. This bill is proworker, proratient and supports healthier communities. The amendment and nature of the substitute makes a technical change
to the bill. I urge support for the amendment and the underlining bill. I yield back. The gentleman yields. Are there any members who wish to be recognized for further discussion on the amendment to the nature of substitute? The gentleman from New York. Mr. Manion, you wish to be recognized.
>> Thank you, Mr. Chair. I move to strike the last word. This is yet another bill that concerns me related to weakening essential labor laws by carving out certain types of workers. This time it's locom tennis providers including
physicians, nurse practitioners, PAs and CRNAs who are contracted to work in temporary staffing arrangements. This is not solving any real widespread problem, nor is it solving any of the rural health crises on the other side that the
other side has created over the last year. Most of the time, providers in these temporary staffing arrangements are independent contractors anyway. So, what this bill really does is remove any labor protections and collective bargaining rights from these providers when their employers violate the
contractual relationship and are in fact treating them as employees. In cases like this, the providers can depend on our existing labor framework to provide them with a legal recourse. arbitrarily carving them out from these laws is
unnecessarily unnecessary and certainly does nothing to support rural health. If anything, it just fills our hospitals and clinics with more temporary staff rather than full-time providers with a real attachment to their place of work and the community. I urge my colleagues
to oppose this bill and I yield back. >> The gentleman yields. Are there any others who wish to be recognized on this amendment? Uh the gentleman from Virginia, the ranking member, Mr. Scott, you're recognized for five minutes. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Although the
bill is titled Rural Healthc Care Act, bill will not actually improve access to health care in rural communities. Bill simply allows employers to mclassify healthcare workers as independent contractors and effectively strip them of their rights and protections under
our labor unemployment laws such as access to overtime pay, employment, unemployment insurance, workers compensation, and the right to collective bargaining. Those benefits go to employees once they're mclassified as
independent contractors. say they they lose access to overtime, unemployment insurance if they lose their job, workers compensation, and the right to collective bargaining. And they don't agree to lose those benefits. They agree to get the job. And if the job doesn't
if they say they have to be an independent contractor to get the job, they want the job, they have to forego the benefits. Uh this reach covers any temporary assignment of a doctor, nurse, practitioner, physician assoc physician
assistant anywhere in the United States. But then it defines uh the position as a temporary position counting temporary as continuous up to a year at one place. As
a result, it could shield a health care business in New York or Boston or teleaalth provider anywhere in the United States from accountability from mclassifying medical professionals as independent contractors. It would allow big health care conglomerates to reduce
some of the highest paid paying jobs into permits. Uh, for example, although the bill limits its coverage to placements of less than less than a continuous year at a single site of service, keep in mind that their very large health care networks with multiple
sites. Large healthcare networks could, as a result, create permanent staffing lines occupied exclusively by independent contractors, provided only that a staffer be shuttled around at least once a year. In fact, um, some may
actually form out the human resources office and make everybody a temporary employee. All you got to do is change the site once a year or lay them off for a few days once a year to end the continuous service. And they could be
working side by side. The people working exactly the same job except uh those working the same job get benefits. these um uh independent contractors lose all of those benefits. And additionally, the
bill could allow these large powerful businesses to undermine organizing and collective bargaining effort efforts. If you're an independent contractor, you do not have the right to join a union. The nation's labor laws do not apply to independent contractors. enabling
enabled by this bill to set aside any number of staffing positions for any period of time for any reason just by calling them independent contractors. In that case, the large healthc care businesses could effectively be able to divide and conquer an organizing effort
uh effort by pushing many positions outside of the reach of the labor law. Ultimately, this bill is a distraction from the very real healthc care crisis in rural communities which are reeling from the a aftermath of the Republican big ugly bill attack on the Affordable
Care Act and Medicaid coverage and professional education which which will jeopardize the financial viability of many hospitals and clinics in rural areas. Meanwhile, by giving healthc care businesses the power to erode job quality, the bill could also erode
quality of health care itself. Experience of nurses placed in through gig platforms is instructive. Some of these gig nurses report being given no orientations, leaving them in the dark about such essential facts as where
supply closets are located, how to access patient information, or whom to contact in the chain of command. Patients deserve better. Rural communities deserve better and the nation's health care professionals certainly deserve better. I urge my colleagues to oppose the bill and yield
back the balance of my time. >> The gentleman yields. Are there any any other members who wish to speak on the amendment and the nature of a substitute? Seeing none, there being no further discussion on the amendment and the nature of a substitute, the committee will move to consideration of amendments. Are there any members who
would like to offer amendments? There being no amendments, the question now occurs on the amendment and the nature of the substitute HR 8347. All in favor say I. I. All oppose. No. >> No. >> In the opinion of the chair, the eyes
have it and the amendment in the nature of substitute is agreed to. We'll now move to consider the next bill. The committee will now proceed to consideration of bill HR6213 for amendment. The bill was circulated
in advance and printed copies are available. The clerk shall designate the bill. HR 6213, a bill to prohibit the Secretary of Labor from finalizing, implementing, or enforcing a proposed standard with respect to heat injury and illness prevention.
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. Mesmer, for what purpose do you seek recognition?
>> 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 HR 6213 offered by Mr. from Mesmer of Indiana identifier heat safety_s
>> without objection the amendment shall be considered original text for purposes of a further amendment the amendment in the nature of a substitute has already been distributed I now recognize Mr. Mesmer for five minutes to explain the amendment and nature of a substitute
>> thank you Mr. Chairman, at the end of the Biden Harris administration, OSHA proposed a terrible rule to establish an all-encompassing federal heat injury prevention regulation. The misguided intention was to create a one-sizefits-all framework for all
workers and all businesses across all 50 states for those performing work in outdoor and indoor environments where heat fluctuates. The Biden Harris suggested rule must be stopped before it causes significant harm to American businesses without any
evidence that it will create one iota of improvement for existing workplace safety efforts. It's not fair to propo propose a one-sizefits-all federal mandate that applies to very disparit industries, climates, and workplace environments. A construction company in
South Florida should not face the same requirements as a manufacturer in Indiana or a landscaping business in Michigan because they all operate under very different conditions. The Biden Harris administration's proposal also ignores the collaboration already going
on between workers and businesses to address any work workplace challenges. The number one focus for any responsible employer is the safety of their most important resource which of course is their workforce. Responsible employers already take heat related safety very
seriously and for any business which does not do so. States already have strict regulations in place to deal with those bad actors. OSHA already has a general duty clause which requires employers to protect workers in heat situations with needed flexibility for
climate setting industry and other circum circumstances. More than 50 organizations representing millions of small businesses across the nation have voiced their concern over this destructive proposed rule. Support of HR6213 sends a clear message that the
Biden Harris proposal is a bad approach to a problem that doesn't doesn't need solving. The amendment in nature of amendment in nature of a substitute makes a technical change to the bill and I urge the committee to adopt it and approve the underlying bill and 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 New York, Mr. Manion, is recognized for 5 minutes. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I move to strike the last word. Uh in the middle of the summer, just
after a dangerous heat wave earlier this month, the committee is now marking up legislation that actively makes workers less safe on the job while exposed to extreme heat. Specifically, this bill prevents OSHA from finalizing, implementing, or enforcing a proposed
standard with respect to heat injury and illness prevention. And not only does it object to the basic protections proposed under the previous administration, but it also prevents any similar rule from taking effect in the future.
Let's be clear on exactly what we're talking about here and what the majority objects to simply that employers have a plan in place to protect workers from excessive heat and that includes things like drinking water, rest breaks in the
shade and fans to control indoor heat. Basic standards around occupational heat exposure are just a common sense measure to keep workers safe. This is critical for construction, agriculture, and other industries where
workers are spending significant time outside or around heavy heat generating machinery. Instead of advancing this bill, we should have approached this in a bipartisan way and talked through any concerns with the heat standard. When it
comes to any OSHA standard, I too want to make sure that it's workable for businesses to understand and to follow. But throwing out the entire standard altogether is wrong and puts people at continued risk. I oppose the bill and urge my colleagues to do the same and I
yield back. The gentleman yields. Are there any other members who wish to speak on the amendment and nature of a substitute? I recognize the gentleman from Virginia, the ranking member, Mr. Scott, for purposes of discussion. >> Thank you, M. Mr. Chairman. All over the United States, we've had one
recordbreaking high temperature after another. According to the Washington Post, for every low temperature record set this year, there have been around 19 high temperature records. Exposure to heat stress in the United States has
increased 21% since the 1940s. The same according to one new study and the same study found that if global warming reaches 2 degrees Celsius above the 20th century levels, exposures could increase 273%.
As always, if everyone is suffering in the heat, workers feel the brunt of it and people are dying every year because of heat stress and there are thousands more who are injured or made ill because of occupational heat stress. This is nothing new. People have recorded the
dangers of heat stress going back to ancient Greece and the Old Testament. For centuries, people have realized that there are simple steps to preh to prevent heat illness. rest, water, shade, taking care to gradually get used
to the heat conditions. And this bill would make requiring these simple lifesaving steps impossible. The the American military has taken the threat so seriously that it has invested for decades in research and policies to protect our troops. The Biden
administration stepped up in 2024 with a proposed OSHA rule so that we can apply these simple measures for workers at risk. This Republican bill, however, would take us backwards. Instead of allowing OSHA to complete work on the Biden
proposal, this bill would flatly forbid OSHA from getting the job done. Worse, it would prohibit OSHA from ever developing a workplace heat rule that looks anything like the Biden proposal in the future. And we can do better than that. We can't just sit back and ignore
the risks, especially when they are so easy to address. So 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 discussion? Seeing none, there being no further discussion on the amendment in the
nature of substitute, the committee will move to consideration of amendments. Are there any members who would like to offer amendments? >> Mr. Jim, >> I recognize the gentle lady from North Carolina, Miss Adams, for purposes of amendment. >> Thank you, Mr. Jim. I have an amendment
um 6213 ADAM. >> Clerk will report the amendment. >> Amendment in the to the amendment in the nature of a substitute to HR 6213 offered by Miss Adams of North Carolina identifier Adams_nc_612. >> Does a gentleman from Utah reserve a
point of order? >> I reserve a point of order. >> Point of order is reserved. I now recognize a gentle lady from North Carolina, Miss Adams, for five minutes in support of her amendment. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Uh let me start by saying that this bill uh the heat workforce standards act is cruel and
it's deadly. Every year tens of thousands of workers experience heat related injuries in the US and every year there are around 50 confirmed heat related deaths in American workplaces and that's almost certainly an an underestimate. When a worker dies on the
job their health their death certificate lists the immediate cause of death. Well, maybe it's kidney failure or maybe it's cardiac arrest, but these conditions are too often brought on by heat stress. Mr. Chairman, I'd like to submit for the record a report from
public citizens uh entitled boiling point, which estimates that between 600 and 2,000 workers die from heat related illness in the US every year. >> Without objection and hearing none, the report will be submitted. >> Thank you. Whether it's 50 cents um 50
deaths a year or 600 or 2,000, all of these deaths are preventable. They are policy choices. My colleagues on the other side of the aisle are condemning working Americans to to death so that big corporations can save a few dollars.
working Americans like Winsy Johnson. She was a post a postal surviv uh supervisor from Fedville, North Carolina, who lost her life to heat ill heat illness in 2024 after spending hours in the back of a postal truck on a
95 degree day without air conditioning. She was a mother of five, a grandmother of four, and a dedicated public servant. And now she's gone. If we had a heat safety standard, she would still be here today. She could give advice to her children and spoil her grandchildren.
And if this bill is passed, it will leave more dead mothers, grandmothers, fathers, and grandfathers in its wake. By supporting this bill, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are reminding the American people of who they stand for. They'll do whatever they
can to save big business a few dollars, even if that means sacrificing workers' lives. Frankly, that's pretty sickening. At a time when every summer seems hotter than the last, my colleagues are telling working Americans that they don't even
deserve a cool glass of water. As everyone in this room knows, it's a hot week in Washington, and it was last week as well. I encourage everyone in this room, go outside and stack boxes on Independence Avenue for a few hours without water and without shade and come
back after you're done and tell me how you feel about the heat standard. My amendment is simple. It would replace the text of this cool and census bill with the text of the uh Ashi uh Valdivia uh heat illness injury and
fatality prevention act. My amen would direct OSHA to continue its work on a heat safety standard and would establish common sense requirements on what the standard should contain. For example, employers must provide workers with cool
water, periodic rest breaks, and access to shade. Is that so radical? And we know these policies work. California implemented heat standards in 2005 and expanded its standard to include indoor
workplaces in 2024. After implementing its standard, heat related work injury injuries declined by 30 30%. And businesses still thrive in California. The research is clear. We
know heat standards save lives and we know that heat illness reduces economic productivity. My amendment supports workers. It supports the economy and supports any American who values the
sanctity of human life over corporate profit. I encourage all of my colleagues to oppose the underlying bill and support my amendment like their constituents lives depended on it because they do. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
>> The gentle lady yields. Does the gentleman from Utah withdraw? >> Without withdrawal. >> The point of order is withdrawn. Does anyone else seek recognition on the amendment? For what purposes? The gentleman from
Texas seek recognition. >> I seek recognition to uh speak for Miss Adams amendment. And uh >> you're recognized for five minutes. >> We're here in the Education and Labor Committee where House Republicans are
voting to try to kill protections for Americans who are working in extreme heat. And I think we need to clearly uh lay out what we're trying to talk about. The rules that we've been advocating to get put in place are if it's 90 or 100°
out, workers should have a right to get a little bit of water or sit in the shade every once in a while. And I'll admit, uh, it's strange to be talking about getting rid of those baseline protections here in Congress where it's
hundreds of us being paid six figures to work inside feel the need to kill these kinds of basic worker protections. Uh but I want to um uh ask uh Mr. Mesmer, the the author of the bill um questions if he uh wants me to yield him uh some
time because for example uh when we recently had a hearing on this question. One of the Republican witnesses, Jack Parson from the National Association of Manufacturers, said he would not oppose rules like making sure workers could get
water uh and a break when they're working in 90 plus degree heat. And so I'm interested to hear from the sponsor of this bill that would block those sorts of rules whether the sponsor would agree that we should require that
workers get some water and a break if it's 90° or 100° outside. >> Mr. Mesmer, >> it's already acquired under the general duty clause. the the general duty clause in your view requires regular water breaks in 90 degree and 100 degree
>> with flexibility for the employers and on how they do it not not strictly mandated uh standards that apply across all industry sectors and and all 50 states. >> My question Mr. Mr. Mesmer is is there reason for there to be any OSHA rules
then if you think the general duty clause just applies clearly to everything. >> Uh that's not appropriate question. I think my question sir is you recently said in your in your testimony and I understand you know that we may have
disagreements be on uh different sides of the aisle but you laid out that you think that there is that this is trying to address a problem that doesn't exist but Colin Bondi American citizen died while working in 95 degree heat in Glendale last year Leonard Perser died
working in 106 degree heat in Phoenix last year Danny Laasco in 18-year-old construction worker died working in 104 degree heat near my district in Austin recently. Don't you think that this is a real problem that so many workers are dying
from heat? And isn't there a problem if employers don't give workers a chance to take a water break? >> They would already be in violation of the general duty clause. And so what you're laying out here is that you think that because you think that this is
already against the law. So sir, could you lay out why you think we should pass a bill than to block these rules to make that make it specific and clear that at 90° workers need a water break? Why, if
you think this is already against the law, are we passing an entire law in the United States Congress to try to get rid of these water break protections? >> It doesn't prohibit OSHA from adopting rules in the future, but it has to be done with congressional authority.
>> Well, that congressional authority has been passed through the OSHA act. Your bill actually says that it stops OSHA from putting out a quote substantially similar rule without defining what that means. It seems to me that this >> bill says without congressional authority.
>> So what you are doing essentially just to lay out here clearly is that the executive branch is moving forward a rule to make it illegal against the rules to to say a worker has to stay up on a scaffold all day.
You could put forward a bill to clearly say that that's not allowed, but instead what we're doing is just wiping out the executives's authority to protect workers. Mr. Mesmer, I respect your ability to bring forward this bill. I
see all of the large lobbying industry associations trying to wipe out these heat protections. For decades, for decades, workers have been asking for protection from heat and the sun. And to me, it's just so sad to see here in
Congress, where we get to work indoors, get paid a fat salary, um, us prioritizing wiping out those heat protections, basically because industry lobbies are asking for it. I yield back. >> The gentleman's time is expired. Uh, a vote has been called in the House.
Pursuant to previous order, the chair declares a committee in recess subject to call of the chair. We'll plan to plan specifically to reconvene promptly 10 minutes after the last vote has been called has been called, not finished, but has been
called in the series. The committee now stands in recess. You are here. The committee will resume. We were on the Adams amendment um
to HR6213. the amendment and the nature of a substitute. Are there any? >> No, this we're on the Adams amendment. >> Yeah, we're on the Adams amendment >> to the amendment. >> To the amendment. Yes. Does anyone want us else want to speak on the amendment? The Adams amendment.
Uh I recognize the gentleman, the ranking member from Virginia, Mr. Scott for five minutes. >> Thank you, M. Mr. Chairman. Mr. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentle lady from North Carolina, Miss Adams, for this amendment because it protects workers from excessive heat with
sensible measures like ensuring breaks and cool spaces and access to water. There's nothing radical about offering a little rest, shade, and water to workers when it gets hot. If this um if this amendment passes, they'll be protected.
And I'd urge my colleagues to support the amendment and yield back the balance of my time. >> Gentleman yields. Are there any other members who wish to speak on the Adams amendment? Seeing none, then the question is on the amendment by the gentle lady from North Carolina. All in favor say I.
>> All oppose? No. No. In the opinion of the chair, the nose have it. >> Mr. Chair, I'd call for a recorded vote. >> A roll call vote is ordered. Pursuant to the chair's previous announcement, this vote will be postponed. Are there any further amendments to the amendment in the nature of a substitute
to HR6213? Seeing none, further action on HR 6213 is postponed. We'll now move to consider the next bill 51. The committee will now proceed to consideration of bill HR5267
for amendment, the American Franchise Act. The bill was circulated in advance and printed copies are available. The clerk shall designate the bill. >> HR5267,
a bill to preserve the franchise business model. 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. Moland, for what purpose do you seek recognition? >> Mr. Chair, 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 HR5267
offered by Mr. Molen of Guam identifier HR5267_s without objection the amendment shall be considered original text for purposes of further amendment. The amendment and the nature of a substitute has already been distributed. I now recognize Mr. Mland
for five minutes to explain the amendment and the nature of a substitute. >> Thank you, Mr. Chair. Over the last decade, the NA the National Labor Relations Board NLRBS joint employer role has changed four times and the Department Labor Standard
has been revisited three times. The Biden Harris NRBS rule considered a business to be a joint employer if it shares a co-determines the employees essential terms and conditions of
employment even when that power has was indirect or reverse reserved by creating a liability for in entities with indirect or reserve control of another entity's employees. The 2023
rule raised costs for franchisers. This means thousands of franchisers share legal liability for the actions of people they do not actually supervise or even see on a regular daily basis. It means that franchises,
many of whom are firsttime business owners, get less support from their franchiseors because more support might mean more liability. And it means that fewer Americans get to own their own business and be their own boss.
Basically, the American dream becomes harder to obtain. While the 2023 rule harm businesses across the country, we are here today to discuss its impacts on the franchise industry. Specifically,
franchises are critical to our economy, and the franchise model is an engine of upward mobility for many Americans who would not be able to own their own businesses outside the franchise model. We must protect this industry and its
workers from massive pendulum swings of joint employment standards. The American Franchise Act provides that clarity and stability. This is why I'm proud to support HR5267, the merit, the American Franchise Act.
This bipartisan bill amends the National Labor Relations Act and Fair Labor Standards Act to establish that franchiser may only be considered a joint employer with franchisee if it shares the employees with them and
directly actually and immediately exercise significant control over the essential terms and conditions of employment for those shared employees. This direct and immediate control standard is standard that the Trump
administration and administrations of both parties both have traditionally used. I thank the rep. I thank Representative Hearn for his leadership on this important bill and I urge adoption of the Americ.
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 gentleman, the ranking member from Virginia, Mr. Scott, uh, for the purposes of discussion on the
amendment. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, the American Franchise Act seeks to radically rewrite the long-standing law by narrowing the standard for finding joint employment liability for franchiseors. This bill would severely curtail workers ability to enforce their
rights under the Fair Labor Standards Act or the FLSA and the NAP National Labor Relations Act, the NLR and frustrate ability of workers unions to bargain with all of the companies that control their working conditions in the
franchise industry. would also harm small business franchise owners by leaving the franchisees liable for unlawful practices and procedures that are outside of their control and set by the large corporate franchiseors. The
bill would limit the funding of joint employment liability to a franchise direct and immediate control over the franchisees workers uh working conditions such as pay, hiring, firing and scheduling. While this extremely
narrow standard is problematic enough, the bill goes a step further and also creating explicit safe harbors in which certain actions that could normally be considered direct and immediate control are explicitly carved out from being
indicators of joint employment. It's common practice for franchiseors to indirectly set to set to indirectly set the working conditions for the franchisees workers even if they do not directly supervise the workers themselves. These commonly take the form
of operational requirements, franchise agreements and brand standards. While the sorts of agreements may not reflect quote direct and immediate control unquote over the franchisees workers, they do allow a franchiseor to set up operate operating hours and
scheduling practices, mandate staffing levels, require specific payroll software, and provide detailed rules and restrictions on how work must be performed under the franchise agreement. Since the reason that this level of control and supervision would be
meaningfully would meaningfully constrain and direct how franchises conduct their day-to-day businesses and worker supervision. Yet, the American Franchise Act explicitly states explicitly shields the franchiseors from any sort of liability for these sorts of
practices when determining joint employment liability. bill would weaken enforcement under the FLSA, which includes federal wage theft and child labor laws by li limiting FLSA liability to only to franchiseors
that that exercise direct and immediate control. The American Franchise Act would allow franchiseors to evade liability for unlawful business practices and technology requirements they mandate that their franchisees follow, which would result in wage
theft, wage theft, and child labor violations. This bill would also severely limit how unionized workers could effectively bargain by narrowing joint employment liability to only franchiseors that exercise quote direct and immediate control. Workers at a
franchise would be unable to bargain with the franchiseor over any conditions they have indirect or direct control over such as wages or hours. The franchise franchisee would be unable to meaningfully bargain with the employees.
The American Franchise Act would also create a safe harbor for franchiseors to engage in worker retaliation. The bill allows franchiseors to supervise a franchise workers and inform the franchisee of their opinion on the performance of
employees and whether they meet acceptable standards. Through this safe harbor, a franchiseor could make strong could strongly encourage a franchisee to terminate a worker engaged in union or organizing activities or who raises concerns about unlawful practices in the
workplace and faces zero consequences. In some the American Franchise Act is bad for workers, bad for small business franchises and writes a blank check to big businesses to control small businesses and their workers without any
without any accountability. So I oppose the legislation, urge my colleagues to do the same and yield back the balance of my time. >> Gentlemen yields. Are there any members who wish to be recognized for further discussion on the amendments and the
nature of a substitute? >> Mr. Chairman, >> the gentle lady from North Carolina, Miss Fox, is recognized for five minutes. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I very much support this piece of legislation.
Franchising is one of America's greatest success stories. It empowers entrepreneurs to own and operate businesses, create jobs, and strengthen local economies. Unfortunately, over the past several years, uncertainty
surrounding the federal government's interpretation of the joint employer standard has threatened that opportunity. When franchiseors are held responsible for employment decisions they do not make or control, it
discourages investment, increases costs, and makes it harder for entrepreneurs to open or expand their businesses. This is also a problem with how the courts are interpreting the joint employer
standard. The American Franchise Act provides certainty for franchise employers and employees by making clear that a franchiseor may only be considered a joint employer of the employees
of a franchisee if the franchiseor exerts direct control over one or more essential terms and conditions of employment. The bill preserves the independence of locallyowned franchise
businesses while ensuring that the actual employer remains responsible for employment decisions. This common sense legislation protects small business owners,
supports job creation, and reinforces the franchise model that has helped so many Americans achieve the dream of owning a business. I urge my colleagues to support HR 5267
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 in the nature of a substitute? Seeing none, there being no further discussion on the amendment in the
nature of substitute, the committee will move to consideration of amendments. Are there any members who wish to offer amendments? There being no amendments, Scott, >> pardon. >> Does the gentleman from Virginia, the
ranking member, Mr. Scott, wish to offer an amendment? >> Have an amendment to the desk. Um, >> the clerk will identify >> the amendment. >> AMD01. >> Amendment to the amendment and the nature of a substitute to HR5267
offered by Mr. Scott of Virginia identifier Scott_AMD_01. >> Does the gentleman from Utah reserve >> reserve point of order? >> A point of order is reserved. I now recognize the gentleman from Virginia, the ranking member, Mr. Scott, for 5 minutes in support of his amendment.
>> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman HR5267 allows large corporate franchiseors to evade accountability when they violate labor and employment laws and leave small business franchises on the hook even if the franchises were following
mandated franchiseor policies. but also weaken the ability of workers unions to negotiate a full and fair contract to improve to improve their working conditions because franchiseors who are controlling the terms and conditions of employment in one way or another would
have no obligation to come to the bargaining table leaving the franchisee with little to say or authority to effectively bargain. My amendment replaces the narrow joint employment standard in the bill with the more robust and even-handed st standard
established in the bipartisan protecting the right to organize act the proactifies the joint employment standard under NLRB's 2015 Ferris Browning Ferris decision which considers direct control indirect control reserved authority to
control and control exercised in fact when determining joint employment liability under NLR. My amendment also strikes the bill's joint employment uh standard under the Fair Labor Standards Act which keeps its current and it keeps
its current fact specific and holistic test for establishing joint employment liability. Labor and employment laws have long protected workers who have joint employers, and a strong joint employment standard under the NLR ensures that workers can collectively bargain with
all of the parties that control the terms and contracts of their employment. Maintaining a strong proorker joint employment standard under the FLSA ensures that franchiseors can be held accountable for maintaining policies that result in violations pertaining to
everything from wage theft to equal pay to oppressive child labor. Strong joint employment standards also protects small business franchises by ensuring that franchiseors will be held liable for any policies or practices
that could coersse a franchisee into potentially breaking the law. A strong joint employment standard will provide an effective deterrent to franchiseors placing pressure on their franchisees to engage in low road and potentially
illegal practices. So I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this amendment which serves the interests of workers and small business franchises rather than large corporate franchises. Yield back. >> The gentleman yields.
Does the gentleman from Utah withdraw the reservation? >> I withdraw. >> Point of order is withdrawn. Does anyone seek recognition on the amendment? Mr. Mr. Chairman, >> gentle lady from North Carolina, do you wish to speak to the amendment?
>> I do. >> You're recognized for five minutes. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This is not a good amendment. We need to go with the uh bill. And um I I want to express
opposition to the amendment and say we need to have a really strong vote on the original bill. Thank you very much. I yield back. The gentle lady yields. Are there any other members who seek recognition on the amendment?
Seeing none, the question is on the amendment by the gentleman from Virginia, the ranking member, Mr. Scott. All in favor say I. 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 than the nature of substitute HR5267? The gentleman from Virginia, the ranking member, Mr. Scott, do you offer an amendment?
>> Uh, yes, Mr. Chairman. I have an amendment at the desk. The clerk will report the amendment. >> This is AMD04. >> Amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute to HR5267 offered by Mr. Scott of Virginia
identifier Scott AMD_04. >> Does a gentleman from Utah reserve a point? >> Reserve reserve point. >> Point of order is reserved. I now recognize the gentleman for Virginia uh for five minutes in support of the amendment. >> Mr. Mr. Chairman, my member would franchises with the right to sue their
corporate franchiseor for damages when the franchisee is found to have violated the NLA or the FLSA as a result of their fin franchiseor's mandated policies or guidance. Franchise regularly engage in a level of control over their
franchisees businesses that meaningfully impact workers terms and conditions of employment through operational requirements, franchise agreements and brand standards. Franchiseors can set operating can set operating hours, scheduling
practices, mandate staffing levels and require specific payroll software or provide detailed rules and regulations on how the work must be performed under the franchise agreement. With the level with that level of control, franchises are left with little to say or how they
conduct their day-to-day businesses and work worker supervision. So if enacted as written, this bill would create a situation where a franchisee who is obligated to follow unlawful practices mandated by the franchiseor,
if he wishes to keep his agreement, he's left fully liable for any damages and other consequences under the NL or FLSA caused by the franchiseor's required policies and guidance. My amendment would correct this injustice and
guarantee that franchises may hold franchiseors accountable for their illegal behavior. No business should be above the law and we should not require our small businesses or franchises to take all the blame for the lawful practices forced
upon them by their franchiseors. Urge my colleagues to vote for the amendment and protect the franchises. I yield back. >> Uh, does the gentleman from South Carolina? >> Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my point of order.
>> Where are we? Does anyone seek Does anyone else seek recognition on the amendment? >> Yes. >> Yes. I would like to speak in favor of Mr. Scott's amendment. >> Okay. General is recognized in
Washington. >> Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to speak uh in support of ranking member Scott's amendment. Um some of you know that um before I came to Congress I was a lawyer and what I one of my roles was to represent franchises in disputes
with franchiseors. Um I' I've also said many years over many years on this committee um that uh the franchise model is a good one. It helps um oftentimes individuals who want to start a small business. It helps them get into the
business. Um, but if the franchiseor is acting like an employer, they should be held responsible like an employer, which is the reason why I uh do not support the underlying bill. But I absolutely support this amendment. And I think back to the clients I represented who were franchises who had invested sometimes
their life savings and put everything on the line because they wanted to have a small business. If they are held responsible because they were directed to do something by the franchiseor, there is no way in the world that we should hold these small business owners responsible for uh whatever they were
directed to do by a franchise or this is an amendment that's about fairness. I think about the small business owners who run franchises. They should not be held responsible for being directed to do something in violation of the law by a franchiseor. So, I support the amendment. I do not support the underlying bill and I yield back the
balance of my time. >> Thank you. Does anyone else seek recognition on the amendment? The question on amendment from Mr. >> I'm sorry. >> Thank you, Mr. Chair. I object I object to the amendment. Uh, franchises operate
their own businesses and make their own management decisions. The American Franchise Act reinforces this independence by clarifying that franchisors and franchises are joint employers only if they directly control
essential employment matters. This targeted fix brings back stable, predictable legal framework that empowers local entrepreneurs and protects the integrity of the franchise model. Thank you, Mr. Chair. >> Does anyone else seek recognition on the
amendment? The question on the amendment by the gentleman from Virginia. All in favor say I. I. >> All oppose. No. >> No. >> No. >> In the opinion of the chair, the nos have it and the amendment is not agreed
to. >> The chairman at a roll call is ordered. Pursuant to the chair's previous announcement, this vote will be postponed. Are there any other amendments to the amendment in the nature of N substitute for HR 526367?
>> Okay. Further action HR 5267 is postponed. Proceeding to the previous order. The chair declares the committee in recess. >> Oops. We went out of here.
>> Further action on HR 87. No, that okay. 56 52 5267 is postponed. We'll now move to consider the next bill. >> Now move to this is our last bill.
>> Okay. It's right here. Committee will now proceed to consideration of bill HR8775 for amendment. The bill was circulated in advance and printed copies are available. The clerk shall designate the bill. HR 8775,
a bill to amend the Labor Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959 to provide that individuals who have been convicted of sex offenses against minors may not serve in certain positions. >> 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. Any amendment offered shall be considered as read. Does anyone seek to be recognized? Mr. Whistle, what's the purpose of you? >> I have an amendment at the desk. >> The clerk shall designate the amendment
in nature of a substitute. >> Amendment in the nature of a substitute to HR 8775 offered by Mr. Wilson of South Carolina identifier HR 8775_s. >> Without objection, the amendment shall be considered original text for purpose
of the f for further amendment. The amendment in the nature of substitute has already been distributed. I now recognize Mr. Mr. Wilson for 5 minutes to explain the amendment and the nature of the substitute. >> Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. HR 8775, the Ending Predator Access to
Union Power Act, amendment amends the Labor Management Reporting and Disclosure Act, LMRDA, to prohibit individuals convicted of sex crimes against minors from being employed by labor organizations. Specifically, the bill bars these
individuals from serving in leadership or decision-making roles within labor organizations, acting as employer labor consultants, or representing employers in collective bargaining. This prohibition applies for 13 years
after conviction or the end of imprisonment. Critics might say this bill is unnecessary or fixing a problem that doesn't exist. But sadly, just recently, the committee investigated a service employees international union's SEIU
local chapter, which hired a convicted child molester and a longtime registrant of California's sex offender registry to be a member of the leadership team. This is particularly troubling because SEIU represents public service employees who
work closely with children, including public school employees, bus drivers, and child care providers. In this case, holding a union leadership position could provide a child molester access to children. The hiring practice of unions
and their leadership are important to the committee as it relates to the integrity of a union. Union dues should not fund the salaries of those convicted of these horrible crimes. The LMRDA already prohibits individuals convicted
of many crimes, including rape and serious forms of assault, from holding office in labor unions. So, it only makes sense to add sexual abuse of a minor to the list. The bill closes this loophole in current law by adding sex offenses against minors to the list of
disqualifying crimes. The bill ensures that union power cannot be exploited by those who have committed serious offenses against children. I urge adoption of the amendment and the nature of a substitute which makes a technical change to the bill and passage of the
underlying bill. I yield back. >> Are there any members who wish to recognize to for further discussion on the amendment and nature of a substitute? >> Chairman. >> Yes. I have an amendment after that.
>> No, no, no, no. >> I'm sorry, >> we're still debating, >> Mr. >> Okay, we're still we're still debating, >> Mr. Chairman. >> Yes, I recognize lady from >> Thank you. I I just want to lend my second.
>> Sorry, >> Mr. Recognize member from U Virginia. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um speaking to the amendment of nature substitute, we know that labor unions, we know that labor unions are one of the most
regulated in indices entities in the country and the labor management reporting disclosure act requires unions to submit extensive financial disclosures of their assets, liabilities, payroll and other expenses.
Okay. that um that act also regulates internal governance of unions, including restrictions on who can hold office or be employed. Specifically, section 504 of the act prohibits individuals convicted of certain crimes from holding
union office, being employed by a union, or serving as a consultant to a union, among other positions. Disqualifying conditions convictions include robbery, bribery, extortion, embezzlement, murder, sexual assault. Other offenses
include violations of the uh of the laws union disclosure and trustee requirements. But the bill does not just apply to unions. It also imposes certain requirements on employers and their labor relations consultants. These requirements include transparency around
union busting consultants hired to fight unions organizing efforts which employers and their cult which their employers and consultants often fail to comply with and follow the restrictions of section 504 for labor relations
positions and roles. The bill we're considering today, HR8775, would amend section 504 to include sex a sex offense against a minor to existing list of convictions that bar individuals from serving in union and employer side
positions and roles. As written, bill is balanced by having to having it apply to both sides, both unions and employers. However, Republicans often unfairly criticize the labor movement, exaggerate the prevalence of a little
problem this bill addresses by highlighting a singular incident from four years ago regarding an individual who was im immediately fired by a local union. The reality is this is not widespread issue among among unions.
The reality is that this is not a widespread issue as unions remain subject to section 504, conduct background checks for job applicants and have codes of conduct. Nevertheless, remains imperative that any individual in a position of trust must be held to a
high standard, which is why I intend to vote in favor of the bill. I yield back. >> Thank you. Are there other members who wish to be recognized further discussion? General from North Carolina. >> Thank you, Mr. Mr. Chairman, I just want to lend my support to the bill from the
gentleman from South Carolina and um and in response to my friend from Virginia. Um one of these um situations um deserves being corrected. We don't
need children being sexually abused. Thank you. Any other members wish to be recognized further discussion on the amendment and nature of the substitute? >> Gentle lady from Washington. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I I I just
wanted to state that nobody here wants a sex offender in any position of leadership. And as ranking member Scott said, the individual who was named was uh separated from SEIU as soon as the union learned she was a registered sex offender. That was taken care of. I I
also want to note um Mr. Chairman and committee members that we still don't have all the Epstein files. We're sitting here talking about one instance years ago about a situation that was corrected, but we're here in Congress still without the Epstein files. So, uh let's let's be real here about what
we're looking at. Again, nobody wants sex offenders in office, but also we want to know uh the connection of uh everybody who was involved uh with Mr. Epstein and all of his horrific horrific abuse. Um, and I also noticed that we
have somebody in the White House who's been convicted of sex offenses as well, and I yield back. >> Are there any other members who wish to be recognized further discussion on amendment and nature of the substitute? >> There being no further discussion on amendment and nature of sub substitute,
the committee will now move to consideration of amendments. Are there any members who would like to offer amendments? >> Mr. Chairman. >> Yes. And the committee from North Carolina. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Uh, I have an amendment at the desk. Um,
8775_03. >> The clerk will report the amendment. >> Amendment to the amendment and the nature of a substitute to HR 8775 offered by Miss Adams of North Carolina. Identifier Adams_HR8775 AMD_03. >> Does a gentleman from South Carolina? M
>> M Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order. >> Point of order is reserved. U I now recognize a gentleoman from uh North Carolina. 5 minutes. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Uh I I do support the underlying goal of the bill
to prevent sexual predators from managing collective bargaining and labor relation processes. Having said that, my amendment builds on the underlying bill by ensuring that all business associates of Jeffrey Epstein and Glaine Maxwell are barred from serving in labor
relations roles for employers and from serving in labor unions. By including business associates of Maxwell Nepstein in section 504 of the Labor Management Reporting and Disclosure Act, we can disqualify individuals from leadership who have no place representing the
interests of workers or corporations because, as I hope everyone in this room can agree, business associates of Jeffrey Epstein cannot be trusted with positions of power. I do know or I believe that my colleagues on the other side have discussed a case in California
in which a union local unknowingly hired a sexual predator who was promptly terminated once their history became known. To me, this incident shows an organization taking accountability and moving quickly with corrective action to
address an abuser who had infiltrated their organization. I wish that Congress and the administration showed the same urgency in rebuking a sexual predator who had infiltrated the highest offices in our government. A predator who hosted
business and political leaders at his home, who enabled powerful men to abuse women and even young girls in the privacy of his estate and his island. But this amendment presents an opportunity to continue seeking accountability and to ensure that the
labor relations process is not dominated by individuals uh affiliated with sex trafficking. Those associated with Jeff Jeffrey Epstein and Galain Maxwell cannot be trusted to manage anything, let alone Americans working conditions.
And while I support adding convicted sex offenders to section 504, those involved in the most notorious sex trafficking ring in recent history shouldn't get a hall pass. Sexual predators do not deserve special treatment because their
wealth, their power, and their status shield them from legal accountability. And with that, Mr. Chairman, I I'll withdraw my amendment. >> Gentle lady yields. Uh, does the gentleman from South Carolina reserve >> I I withdraw my reservation.
>> The reservation is withdrawn. Does anyone else seek recognition on the amendment? For what purpose? The gentle lady from Oregon, Miss Bichi seek rec. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um, I I understand that my colleague has withdrawn her amendment, but I I want to clarify a comment that I made uh just so
the record is clear. Although the president has been found uh criminally liable for financial crimes, he was found civily liable for sex abuse. And I just want the record to be clear and I yield back. >> Gentle lady yields.
Are there any other members who wish to be recognized to to introduce an amendment? Gentleman from Virginia, the ranking member, Mr. Scott, do you wish to offer an amendment? >> Uh, yes, Mr. Chairman. Um, AMD O2
member of the desk. >> The clerk will report the amendment. >> Amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute to HR 8775 offered by Mr. Scott of Virginia identifier Scott_hr8775
AMD_01. >> There's a gentleman from Utah. Reserve a point of order. >> Point of order. >> Point of order is reserved. I now recognize the gentleman from Virginia, the ranking member, Mr. Scott, for 5 minutes in support of his amendment. >> Thank you, M. Mr. Chairman. Uh, as I
mentioned before, section 504 of the LMRDA currently prohibits those convicted of certain crimes such as bribery, extortion, embezzlement, arson, murder from serving as a union officer, staff, and in specific roles for employers.
Underlying bill adds sex offense against a minor to the current list of disqualifying offenses. It is vital that any anybody in a position of trust and power should be held to a high standard. Which is why this amendment would prohibit individuals convicted of
certain crimes detailed under the LMR DA from serving as executives of corporations that are dealing with labor organizations. Director of the Office of Labor Management Standards, Secretary of Labor, Inspector General of the Department of Labor, any other import
political appointees at the Department of Labor, and the president. This bill, this uh act holds union officials and labor relations advisers and consultants to certain standards, corporate executives, including and public officials, including the president, who
are dealing with the law should be held to the same standard. So I urge my colleagues to support the amendment and I yield back. >> The gentleman yields. Does the gentleman from >> I withdraw. Reservation. >> Reservation is is withdrawn. Does anyone
else seek recognition on the amendment? Seeing none, the questions on the amendment by the gentleman from Virginia, the ranking member, Mr. Scott. All in favor say I. >> I. All oppose? No. >> No. In the opinion of the chair, the nose have it. The amendment is not
agreed to. >> Are there further amendments to the amendment in nature of substitute HR8775? >> Have an amendment at the desk. >> The clerk will report the amendment. >> 01 AMD 01.
>> Gentleman from Virginia. We'll pause for a moment. >> Ask the clerk to clarify. Would the clerk clarify which amendment was passed previously? >> That was Scott_HR8775 AMD_01.
>> That was the previous one. >> Yes. >> Okay. That's it. O2. >> This one 02. >> No, that the Yeah. >> past one was O2. This one is 01. >> We don't have a Scott O2 amendment. >> No, that was a Norcross O2.
>> Okay. The amendment at the desk we want brought up now is Good day, clerk. Um, red designate the former the bill we just voted on. Can you redesate that amendment?
>> Yeah. >> Amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute to HR 8775 offered by Mr. Scott of Virginia identifier Scott_hr8775 AMD_02
>> 02 >> Okay, that's right. >> Is that the one we voted on? >> That's the one we voted on >> parliamentary inquiry. Mr. Parliamentary Crier. >> Was that how how it was designated before?
>> Okay. Um, Mr. Chairman, I move we reconsider the vote by which we defeated the previous amend previous amendment. >> In light of that, we call for the vote again. All those in favor of the
>> This is a motion to recon You you going to accept the motion reconsider by unanimous consent? >> Accept the motion to reconsider by unanimous consent. And now to revote on the Scott. Identify the amendment
again. >> Amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute to HR8775 offered by Mr. Scott of Virginia. identifier Scott_HR8775 AMD_01. >> The question is on the
>> No, no, no, no. 02 is what we want to be voting on right now. >> 02. >> Amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute to HR 8775 offered by Mr. Scott of Virginia. identifier
Scott_HR8775 AMD_02 all aware. The question now then is on the amendment by the gentleman from Virginia, the ranking member, Mr. Scott. All in favor say I.
>> I. >> All oppose? No. >> No. >> In the opinion of the chair, the nose have it. An amendment is not agreed to. A roll call vote is ordered. >> Okay, we did that.
>> Where are we going now? >> Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk. >> Are there any other members wishing to offer an amendment? >> Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk. This is AMD01. The clerk will report the amendment.
>> Amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute to HR8775 offered by Mr. Scott of Virginia identifier Scott_HR8775 AMD_01_01. Uh does a gentleman from Utah reserve a
point of order? >> Point of order. >> Point of order is reserved. Um, I now recognize the gentleman from Virginia, the ranking member, to address his amendment. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I'm proposing a simple amendment to
eliminate uh potential misinterpretation about what this bill accomplishes. My amendment would simply strike the short title of the bill because it is misleading and inaccurate. This bill amends section 504 to add another offense to the list of disqualifying
convictions. It does not apply only to unions. It also applies to labor relations positions and roles with an employer or a group of employers or union busting consultants. The current title of this bill suggests that it only applies to unions, which is not right.
So, I urge my colleagues to accept the straightforward amendment to eliminate the misleading title. I yield back. >> Gentleman yields. Does the gentleman from Utah reserve? >> I withdraw my >> withdraw point of order.
>> Does anyone else seek recognition on the 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 nose have it and the
amendment is not agreed to. A roll call vote is ordered. Pursuant to the chair's previous announcement, this vote will be postponed. Are there any further amendments to the amendment and nature of a substitute to HR 8775? I need to get
going. We're pause. Further action on HR 8775 is postponed. Pursuant to previous order, the chair declares the committee in recess. Subject to the call of the chair. We expect to reconvene at 3:30.
The committee stands in recess. The committee will reconvene and come to order following our recess. We'll proceed to postpone requests for recorded votes. I hereby move the committee report the bill HR 8781
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 >> oppose. No. 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. 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 A's have it and the motion is agreed to. HR8781 as amended and accompanying material shall be transmitted to the House of Representatives. The chair notes for the record that a quorum is
present. I hereby move that the committee report the bill HR4986 that 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 >> oppose. No.
>> In the opinion of the chair, the eyes have it and the motion is agreed to. Record a vote. >> Record a vote is requested and 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 18 yays and 15 nays. >> The eyes have it. The motion is agreed to. HR 4986 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. >> How many votes? >> We will now be voting on one amendment to the amendment and the nature of a substitute to HR 8747. The amendment offered by Mr. Scott of
Virginia titled Scott 8747 AMD02. Recorded vote is requested. Members will record their votes using electronic voting system. The clerk will open the vote.
Have all members been recorded who wish to be recorded? Do any members wish to change their vote? >> Hearing none, will the clerk please close the vote and announce the tally? >> Mr. Chairman, on this vote, there are 15 yays and 18 nays. >> The amendment is not adopted. The
question now occurs on the amendment in the nature of a substitute to HR8747. All in favor say I. I. >> All oppose, no. >> In the opinion of the chair, the eyes have it. an amendment to the nature of a substitute is agreed to.
I hereby move the committee will report the bill HR8747 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. In the opinion of the chair, the
eyes. >> Okay, I guess I have to go back. All oppose. No. >> No. In the opinion of the chair, the eyes have it. 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. Mr. Chairman, on this vote there are
18 yays and 15 nays. >> The eyes have it and the motion is agreed to. HR 8747 as amended and the accompanying material shall be transmitted to the House of Representatives. The chair notes for the record that a quorum is present. I hereby move that the committee report
the bill HR8183 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. The motion is agreed to. >> Record a 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 clerk please close the vote and announce the tally? >> Mr. Chairman, on this vote, there are 33 yays and zero nays. >> The eyes have it and the motion is agreed to HR8183 as amended and the company materials shall be transmitted to the House of Representatives. The
chair notes for the record that a quorum is present. >> Have one. We'll now be voting on one amendment to the amendment and the nature of a substitute to HR 9723. The amendment offered by uh recorder who
wish to be recorded. Do any members wish to change their vote hearing? None. Will the clerk please close the vote and announce a tally? >> Mr. Chairman, on this vote there are 15 yays and 18 nazs. >> The amendment is not adopted. The question now occurs on the amendment and the nature of a substitute to HR 9723.
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. I hereby move the committee to report the bill HR 9723 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 a chair's motion. All in favor say I. I. All oppose? No. In the opinion of the chair, the eyes have it. The motion is agreed to. A recorded vote is requested. Members
will record their votes uh 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. Mr. Chairman, on this vote there are 33 yays and zero ns. >> The eyes have it. The motion is agreed to HR 9723 as amended and 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 HR8660 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. The motion is agreed to. A recorded vote is requested. Members will record their votes using electronic voting system. The clerk will open the vote. Have all members been recorded who wish to be recorded? Do any members wish to change their
vote? hearing. None. Will the clerk please close the vote and announce the tally? >> Mr. Chairman, on this vote, there are 18 yays and 15 nazs. >> The A's have it and the motion is agreed to. HR8660 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. There's no I hereby move that the committee report the bill HR8347 to the House of Representatives with amendment and with the recommendation that the amendment be agreed to and the bill do pass. The question now occurs on the chair's
motion. All in favor say I. I. >> All oppose no. >> No. >> In the opinion of the chair, the eyes have it and the motion is agreed to. >> Recorded vote 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 A's have it and the motion is agreed
to. HR 8347 as amended and the accompanying material shall be transmitted to the House of Representatives. The chair notes for the record. A quorum is present. >> There is. >> We'll now be voting on one amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute to HR6213
numerated as Adams Adam NC612. A recorded vote is requested. Members record their votes using electronic voting system. The clerk will open the vote. Have all members been recorded who wish
to be recorded? Do any members wish to change their vote? Hearing none, will the clerk please close the vote and announce the tally? >> Mr. Chairman, on this vote, there are 15 yays and 18 nazs. >> The amendment is not adopted.
The question now occurs on the amendment and the nature of a substitute to HR6213. All in favor say I. >> I. >> I. All oppose, no. No. >> In the opinion of the chair, the eyes have it and the amendment is in the nature of a substitute is agreed to. I
hereby move that the committee report the bill HR6213 to the House of Representatives with amendment and with the recommendation that amendment be agreed to and the bill do pass. The question now occurs on the chair's motion. All in favor say I. I. All oppose. No.
>> No. >> In the opinion of the chair, the eyes haven't. The motion is agreed to. A recorded vote is requested. Members will record their votes using electronic voting system. The clerk will open the vote. Have all members been recorded 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 6213 as amended and the
accompanying materials shall be transmitted to the House of Representatives. The chair notes for the record that a quorum is present. >> Two. >> We'll now be voting on two amendments to the amendment and the nature of a substitute to HR5267.
The amendment offered by Mr. Scott title Scott_amd01. 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. Mr. Chairman, on this vote there are 15 yays and 18 nays. >> The amendment is not adopted. >> We'll now be voting on a second Scott amendment
titled Scottam AMD04. A recorded vote is requested. Members will record their votes using electronic voting system. The clerk will open the vote. Have all members been recorded who wish to be recorded? Do any members wish to change their
vote? Hearing none, will the clerk please close the vote and announce the tally? >> Mr. Chairman, on this vote there are 15 yays and 18 nays. >> The amendment is not adopted. The question now occurs on the amendment in the nature of a substitute to HR5267.
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. I hereby move that the committee report the bill HR5267 to the House of Representatives with amendment and with the
recommendation that the amendment be agreed to and the bill do pass. All in favor say uh the question now occurs on the chair's motion. All in favor say I. >> All oppose no. >> In the opinion of 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. 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 nays. >> The eyes have it and the motion is agreed to. HR 5267 as amended and the accompanying materials shall be transmitted to the House of Representatives. The chair notes for the record that a quorum is present. Turn
the page. >> We'll now be voting on one amendment to the amendment in a nature of substitute to HR8775. The amendment offered by Mr. Scott uh titled Scott underhr8775
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 nays. >> The amendment is not adopted. The question now occurs on an amendment in the nature of a substitute to HR8775. 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 HR8775 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. 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. The motion is agreed to. HR8775 as amended and accompanying materials shall be transmitted to the House of Representatives. The chair notes for the record that a quorum is present. Can you
>> turn to page 86? I ask unanimous consent that staff be authorized to make necessary technical and conforming changes to today's bills. Without objection, so ordered. Pursuant to House Rule 11, clause 2L, I give notice that all members have the requisite number of days to file
supplemental minority additional or desending views without objection. So ordered. I would request that we take the joyous celebrations off the floor. 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 is no further business before the committee without objection, the committee stands adjourned.