[Congressional Record Volume 169, Number 108 (Wednesday, June 21, 2023)] [House] [Pages H3054-H3056] From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov] ISSUES OF THE DAY The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of January 9, 2023, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Van Drew) is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader. General Leave Mr. VAN DREW. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the subject of my Special Order. The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from New Jersey? There was no objection. Mr. VAN DREW. Mr. Speaker, I feel like a broken record talking about the invasion of our southern border over and over again, but it continues to get worse day by day. When we have a President and an administration that do not take the crisis seriously, someone has to talk about it. We need to talk about it. We need to speak about it until we get it fixed. From day one, Joe Biden has completely and utterly neglected his duties as President of the United States to enforce our rule of law and protect the national security of our great Nation. It is truly shameful. From day one, Joe Biden abandoned strong and effective border policies put in place by President Trump that had our border nearly totally under control. From day one, Joe Biden and his administration created this crisis. This is a crisis of their own doing, and Democrats have no one to blame other than themselves as to why thousands of illegal migrants come to our border daily. Ironically, some of them actually wear Biden T- shirts. To make the border crisis even worse, and it is hard to believe that you could make it even worse, the radical Democrats are now using elementary and secondary schools to house these illegal immigrants. It is shameful. [[Page H3055]] There is absolutely no way to know the backgrounds of the individuals, yet Democrats find it appropriate to provide shelter for these migrants in children's gyms, auditoriums, and school spaces. Why do Democrats continue to put our children at risk? As if trying to indoctrinate our children in the classroom isn't enough, as if it is not enough to see what they are doing in trying to affect the relationship of parents and their children in the school when parents are concerned about education, God knows how long they will be sheltered at these school campuses. Democrats show time and time again they are not committed to protecting the American public and that they care more about the illusion of appearing compassionate when in reality they are neither compassionate nor competent. Democrats cry that it is a political stunt when 40 migrants get flown to a sanctuary city or their luxury vacation island, yet when our border States and towns are overrun by this engineered crisis, there is no concern on their part. It is completely okay. It is okay for you. It just isn't okay for us. It is also okay to Democrats that migrants are being held in places where there are virtually no bathrooms or sanitation facilities--so much for compassion, so much for caring, so much for the good of the country. This is hypocrisy at an astronomical level. Unlike Democrats, Republicans are committed to protecting your children and will be voting this week to highlight and condemn this insanity. Once again, we will fight the fight. Enough is enough. It is time to protect our children. It is time to take our country back. I thank my fellow colleagues for being here tonight. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. Obernolte). Mr. OBERNOLTE. Mr. Speaker, this week, our House Armed Services Committee is continuing the critical process of crafting the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2024. This important piece of legislation will give our servicemen and servicewomen the resources they need to protect our national security. That is particularly important to my district. I represent five major military installations: the Naval Weapons Center at China Lake, Edwards Air Force Base, the Air Ground Combat Center in Twentynine Palms, the Army's National Training Center at Fort Irwin, and the Marine Corps Logistics Base at Barstow. These five bases are unique because they are classified by the Department of Defense as remote or isolated. Service for our servicemen and servicewomen in uniform is particularly difficult at remote or isolated bases because they are located so far away from urban centers of population. That is why we rely on an army of civilian contractors to provide the services that we need to house our men and women in uniform at these bases. These civilian contractors provide services such as teaching their children, preparing their food, cleaning their barracks, and providing them with the medical care that they need. Unfortunately, reports by the Department of Defense indicate that all 43 of the remote or isolated bases in the United States suffer from severe shortages of the civilian contractors needed to provide these services. That is why, in committee today, I offered an amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act that requires the Comptroller General to conduct a study quantifying the scope of this problem and to make recommendations to the Department of Defense as to how to better incentivize civilian contractors to serve our military men and women at these remote bases. I am delighted that my amendment was unanimously adopted in committee today, and I am looking forward to working with my colleagues on the House floor and my colleagues in the Senate to ensure that it is included in the NDAA this year. I thank all of our colleagues on the House Armed Services Committee for their hard work on this issue and for their work protecting our men and women in uniform. Mr. VAN DREW. Mr. Speaker, I thank Mr. Obernolte for his concern and his commitment to our veterans and his concern and commitment to all those who serve our country. {time} 1945 Mr. VAN DREW. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Rose). Mr. ROSE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New Jersey for yielding me time tonight. Mr. Speaker, this weekend, on June 24, marks one whole year since the landmark Supreme Court decision that overturned Roe v. Wade. As we look back and celebrate this occasion as a win for all those that believe in the sanctity of life from the moment of conception, I can't help but wonder how many lives have been saved just since this decision. Of course, there is still more work to be done, but I am forever thankful for those across our great country, including in my home State of Tennessee, who helped achieve this victory. From those who have traveled and continued to travel to our Nation's Capital every year since 1974 to march for life, to the many volunteers and professional counselors who provide caring services to mothers at crisis pregnancy centers all across the country, this was truly a national movement. Showing great insight at the time, our Tennessee State legislature took decisive action prior to the Dobbs v. Jackson decision to outlaw most abortions the moment this decision was returned to the States. I couldn't be prouder of our State of Tennessee, which has become a leader in the pro-life movement in recent years. Now innocent, unborn children have the legal protection they so desperately needed. I believe we must continue our efforts to protect children from gender mutilating surgeries, the horrid sexualization of our children's classrooms and libraries by drag queen performances on public property, and to protect the ability of women to play sports against other women. As a Christian, a father, and a husband I will always stand up for what is right for our families and fight back against the left's attack against our conservative Christian beliefs. Just like with Roe v. Wade, I believe we will be victorious. Mr. Speaker, I ask all Members present in the Chamber to join me in a moment of silence for those millions of unborn babies who lost their chance to live out the life God meant them to have to the horrid practice of abortion. Mr. VAN DREW. Mr. Speaker, I thank Mr. Rose for his care and love for our children, both born and unborn. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Iowa (Mrs. Miller- Meeks), the sponsor of this legislation. Mrs. MILLER-MEEKS. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague, Representative Van Drew, for yielding me time. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 3799, the CHOICE Arrangement Act, which we just voted on tonight. According to the National Federation of Independent Business, small businesses have ranked the cost of health insurance as their number one problem for 32 years straight. Even our largest employers rank the cost of health insurance and healthcare as a tremendous issue. Offer rates from small employers with under 50 workers dropped from 39 to 31 percent from 2010 to 2021. This is both unfortunate and alarming because small business owners and employees who drive the American economy with their skills deserve better. As a physician and a former small business owner myself and a supporter of small businesses, I understand the importance of quality healthcare. I am all for innovative solutions that bring down costs without expanding the power of the Federal Government. The inaptly named Affordable Care Act doubled down on a broken individual health market that now costs taxpayers more than a trillion a year. The CHOICE Arrangement Act eliminates the need for small businesses to choose between expensive, unaffordable ACA-compliant coverage or no coverage at all. Furthermore, any business size can offer this type of coverage and employers can offer coverage so that their employees can obtain health insurance. The benefit to employees is--let me say it in three words: portability, cost, and choice. Of these three, the most important, especially as a physician delivering care, is for patients to have choice. We [[Page H3056]] know with the innovation that has come about through technology that patients want choice now more than ever. Imagine having an arrangement where you can use your healthcare dollars to get devices that measure your blood sugar rather than having to prick your finger every day, or other things that are not covered necessarily by health insurance or Federal health insurance. Furthermore, this Act codifies a rule created by President Trump that makes it easier for businesses and self-employed individuals to band together or pool together across State lines to purchase association health plans and expanded health reimbursements. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to support the CHOICE Arrangement Act, and I look forward to the Senate's swift consideration of this measure. Mr. VAN DREW. Mr. Speaker, I thank Mrs. Miller-Meeks for the work she does and the difference that she makes. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. LaMalfa), my friend. Mr. LaMALFA. Mr. Speaker, talking on the issue of a campaign being used for buying votes, the President back in his 2020 campaign promised to cancel up to $10,000 of Federal student loan debt per borrower. Of course, after his election he called for the 117th Congress to pass a bill to facilitate $10,000 in student loan forgiveness. When he first announced his attempt by his administration to forgive the debt for those who need it most was in August of 2022. Since that announcement, the plan has been mired in pushback from the judiciary and legislative branches of the government. It isn't even seen as legal or constitutional is the charge. The Administration's main legal argument for its ability to forgive student loan debt is that the 2003 HEROES Act, a bill that provides reservists and their families relief from making student loan payments, also allows, theoretically, the executive branch to cancel student debt for anyone they wish to. This theory has faced severe pushback from many legal experts. The administration's argument is that because of the language of the HEROES Act of 2003, the President would somehow have the authority to unilaterally transfer up to $500 billion in student loan debt from those who are contractually required to repay it to taxpayers who never borrowed the money. The plan would cancel up to $20,000 in Federal student loan debt for more than 40 million borrowers. Republicans and Democrats have voted for legislation that prevents the administration's bailout from taking effect. Many Republicans see the bailout as a wealth distribution scam because it in effect forces working-class Americans to subsidize the college tuition of wealthier Americans. Nearly all borrowers who today obtain Federal student loans do so under the William D. Ford Direct Loan Program authorized by Congress in 1993. The designation of this Federal program as a direct loan program means that when making an FDLP loan, the Federal Government disburses funds to a non-Federal borrower under a contract with the borrower that requires repayment. Since September of last year, multiple lawsuits have resulted in the administration's scheme being put on hold. A Federal judge in Texas declared the entire plan to be unlawful. The Department of Education stopped taking applications from student loan borrowers who would have been forgiven under the plan, but the DOJ is currently appealing that decision. The U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals rejected an appeal from the Biden administration asking to allow the scheme to continue while the Supreme Court took up the case. Lawsuits against the Biden administration have been filed in the U.S. Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals. In a case known as Biden v. Nebraska, the U.S. Supreme Court is set to weigh in on the constitutionality of the plan. Oral arguments were heard in February. A decision has not been announced, but many legal experts expect the Court to overturn the program. Congress itself has also reacted negatively to the plan. H.J. Res 45, a bipartisan resolution which uses the Congressional Review Act to overturn the administration's student loan forgiveness plan, was vetoed by the President earlier in June. Republicans in Congress have likened the President's plan to a vote- buying scheme, claiming it is an attempt to buy college graduate votes in exchange for the possibility of financial reward in the form of debt forgiveness. Concerns have been raised that if the President's scheme is successful, there is the possibility a future President may forgive large sections of the country's debts and use the Biden student loan cancellation as a precedent to justify it. The bottom line is that for the people who took the loans out, they need to pay their own loans back. Hardworking people in this country that chose not to take student loans for college, or just went immediately to work or went into a trade or other aspects of that, should not be footing the bill for those that agreed to do it when they signed up as adults to take on these loans. Mr. Speaker, we don't need to have an administration somehow intervene and buy votes on that and promise things that it cannot deliver for folks that really don't deserve it when they incurred the debt and were making a free decision to do so. This is a scam, a scheme, and it needs to be prevented. I hope the Supreme Court rules that way and Congress needs to act to make sure that isn't carried out. Mr. Speaker, let's reward the people that work hard and pay their debts and not have a giveaway program that the Federal Government does in order to buy votes. Mr. VAN DREW. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate Mr. LaMalfa's focus on what is a very important issue and it is a fairness issue. I appreciate the time and trouble he put into that. Well done. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Langworthy), my friend. Mr. LANGWORTHY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New Jersey for yielding me the time. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H. Res. 461, condemning the use of elementary and secondary school facilities to provide shelter for illegal immigrants. Under the policies of the Biden administration, every State is a border State. The communities across my district are feeling this burden. Five counties in my district declared a state of emergency because they simply do not have the resources to handle the flood of illegal immigration that this administration has allowed unchecked. This crisis is exacerbated by the radical sanctuary city policies of New York Democrats. They have turned their back on hardworking Americans, forcing small towns to manage illegal immigrants that overflow out of these Democrat-run cities. Now they want to take resources away from our students. By turning taxpayer-funded schools into housing, we steal critical resources from student achievement, impede the learning process, and jeopardize the safety of our schools. Let me be clear: the radical open border policies of Democrats in Washington, Albany, and New York City have created these problems. It is our duty to protect our borders, secure our schools, and uphold the rights and the safety of our children. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to be cosponsor of H. Res. 461, and I urge my colleagues to support this measure and join us in our commitment to securing our borders and enforcing our immigration laws. Together, we can put an end to this crisis and ensure the well-being of our communities and the future of our Nation. Mr. VAN DREW. Mr. Speaker, I thank Mr. Langworthy for his focus on this. I spoke about it earlier. We need to talk about it over and over and over again until we have policies that make sure our American people are number one and are safe. Certainly, we can have immigration but in a legal and appropriate way. Our President has been shameful in this. Mr. Speaker, I believe that concludes my Special Order, and I yield back the balance of my time. ____________________