H.R. 7894, the "Truman Scholarship Clean House Act"

...would remake the scholarship and foundation as the President sees fit. In other words, he would do to the Truman Scholarship Fund what the President has done to the Kennedy Center. He would weaponize a historically bipartisan program that could be used to seek retribution for perceived non-conservative bias in education. And if there is, of course, a non-conservative bias in education, because conservatives don't believe in science. So they would be absent, disproportionately absent from higher education. So I'll be voting no on that and urge my colleagues to do the same. Another bill we'll consider is the Science of Reading Act, a bipartisan bill focused on strengthening literacy instruction. This bill clarifies that federally supported literacy instruction should align with the science of reading, including core components such as phonics, fluency, and vocabulary. I believe it is a reasonable research-based approach to ensure that federal literacy funding supports practices that help students learn. I want to thank the gentleman from New York, Mr. Mannion, and the gentlelady from Indiana, Ms. Houchin, for their leadership on the issue. I would point out that I have heard some concerns about the effect of this legislation on those that are English language learners and the disabled, and I thank the sponsors for making sure that the bill did not adversely affect those communities. The third bill we consider is the No Aid for Ghost Students Act. The bill would require the Department of Education to use an identity fraud detection system to review each FAFSA application. Under this bill, if an applicant is found to have found what the bill details as reasonable suspicion of identity fraud, then they would be subject to additional identity verification. Now, reasonable suspicion is a legal term which is often called articulable reasonable suspicion. It's not a hunch, it's not bigotry, it is articulable, credible suspicion. And when you have that, of course, you should have additional action taken. And I understand the bill would codify the department's existing actions to combat fraud and ensure that financial aid resources go to students in need rather than perpetrators of fraud or fishing schemes. Now, we need to reduce fraud. The broad language, we need to make sure that the language really means reasonable suspicion in the legal sense and not somebody's hunch or racial bias. But if that's the intent of the bill, and I'm sure it is, I hope the committee can make sure that's agreed to and everybody can work together to root out fraud. The other bill, Student Aid Fraud Oversight and Accountability Act of 2026. This bill would reduce a school's flexibility in dispersing aid to students. Under current law, schools are allowed to disperse financial aid if the institution has not found a credible reason to believe that an applicant's FAFSA application is inaccurate prior to complete verification. Instead of allowing schools this discretion, the bill would require the Department of Education to prioritize an institution for program review if that institution has dispersed final aid to a single student whose application was flagged for raising a reasonable suspicion of identity fraud. I understand the bill is attempting to codify the department's current fraud prevention practices. However, just a single error by a college would trigger this additional review, and I'm not sure that's appropriate. We'll offer amendments to prioritize program reviews only if the school that only to schools that display a pattern of dispersing aid to fraudulent applicants rather than just one mistake. Again, I expect the committee to work with stakeholders to ensure that colleges are set up for success in addressing fraud. The FAFSA Verification Efficiency Act deals under present law, Department of Education verifies students' eligibility for federal aid by matching data with the Internal Revenue, Social Security Administration, and the Department of Homeland Security. While the law already allows verification of student and parent information, gaps in the statute mean that some contributors, such as spouses or step-parents, must undergo slower verification processes. This bill would require the Department of Education working with the Social Security Administration to verify both Social Security numbers and citizenship status for anyone whose information is provided in connection with federal student aid. Our supporters argue that this would speed up the FAFSA process. The bill goes much further than necessary by expanding federal collection of citizenship data to individuals who are not even applying for federal aid. This expansion raises serious concerns about unnecessary data collection and the potential misuse of personal information for immigration enforcement. As currently drafted, the bill goes too far, and I would hope that we would not pass it. Another bill, Stop Sexualization of Children Act. This bill prohibits the use of any funds authorized under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act to, quote, develop, implement, facilitate, host, or promote programs, activities, literature, or materials that include, quote, sexually oriented material for students under the age of 18 and specifically calls out gender dysphoria and so-called transgenderism. I'm not sure that's a word. But let me preface this conversation by saying that, of course, teachers should consider age appropriateness in their lessons. No one is advocating that schools teach age-inappropriate material. That being said, the bill is drafted so poorly that it would even prohibit the teaching of the Virginia state flag because the Virginia state flag depicts a woman whose breast is exposed. Can't talk about the Virginia state flag or the Obergefell Supreme Court decision. We intend to offer a series of amendments to demonstrate how problematic the legislation is, especially for trans kids, and how this bill attempts to impose federal censorship as to what can be taught on states and classrooms across the country and which authors of material, if one author authors material, it would be okay, and if somebody else authors the same material, maybe not. I oppose the legislation, so I will be opposing that legislation. The ERISA Litigation Reform Act, under the Employee Retirement Security Act, ERISA, workers have the legal right to bring claims in federal court. Thanks to this bedrock right, workers have been able to fight back against being charged excessive fees that steal their retirement savings. Last year, the Supreme Court ruled unanimously that plan participants need only allege that a violation of ERISA's rules occurred to pursue their case. This bill would overturn that unanimous Supreme Court decision and impose additional burdens on workers when seeking to enforce their rights in court. In particular, this bill unfairly delays workers' ability to recover losses by placing a hold on discovery until motions to dismiss have been decided. Committee Republicans are advancing legislation that weakens retirement savers' rights to seek justice when harmed, while at the same time, the Trump administration seems poised to encourage retirement plans, retirement plans to include risky assets such as cryptocurrency in 401(k) plans. And this is not in the best interest of workers who already face an economy that isn't working for them. And for those reasons, I'll be urging colleagues to oppose the bill. Mr. Chairman, as I stated before, today is a missed opportunity to actually improve Americans' lives and reduce the cost of living. Americans are in crisis and counting on us to help. We could do that, but we're not doing it today. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.

I thank the gentleman. Without objection, all other members who wish to insert written opening statements into the record may do so by submitting them to the committee clerk electronically by the end of the day today. Pursuant to the House rules, a copy of the text to be marked up as was made available to members and the public at least 24 hours in advance. The bills being marked up today shall be open to amendment at any point, and the chair will allow members to offer amendments in a manner not prohibited by House or committee rules. Without objection, members who have more than one amendment to the bills and wish to offer their amendments en bloc may do so. The committee will now proceed to consideration of the bill H.R. 7894 for amendment. The bill was circulated in advance and printed copies are available. The clerk shall designate the bill.

H.R. 7894, a bill to make improvements to the Harry S. Truman Memorial Scholarship Act and for other purposes.

Without objection, the first reading of the bill is dispensed with. Without objection, the bill will be considered as read and open for amendment at any point, and any amendment offered shall be considered as read. Does anyone seek to be recognized? Representative Fine, for what purpose do you seek recognition?

I have an amendment at the desk.

The clerk will designate the amendment in the nature of a substitute.

Amendment in the nature of a substitute to H.R. 7894 offered by Mr. Fine of Florida, identifier 7894 ANS_01.

Without objection, the amendment shall be considered original text for purposes of further amendment. The amendment in the nature of a substitute has already been distributed. I now recognize Mr. Fine for five minutes to explain the amendment in the nature of a substitute.

Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I'd like to start by thanking you and committee staff and Representative Stefanik for allowing me to pinch hit on this bill today. The ranking member just talked about the bills that we pass should, quote-unquote, improve American lives, and I'd like to explain what this bill does, and I think I'll close by explaining why it does that. In 1975, Congress established the Truman Scholarship, a scholarship for college juniors pursuing a career in public service. The award is the only federal memorial honoring our 33rd President, Harry S. Truman, who I hope we would all agree was an extraordinary President, and is meant to help students who want to serve the country with integrity, respect, and dedication. That sounds like a good thing, something we should all support. Unfortunately, the Truman program has strayed far from its original purpose. Instead of being something that focused on improving all American lives, it's increasingly become a pipeline for radical liberal activists, a job training ground for one political party rather than a bipartisan award where every student, no matter who they are, has an equal chance. A recent College Fix investigation found that in the last 10 years, liberal winners outnumbered conservative winners by a staggering 14 to one ratio. An American Enterprise Institute study could not identify a single winner between 2021 and 2023 who professed interest in stopping illegal immigration, protecting the unborn, or defending the Second Amendment. As of December, the Truman website lists sample essays from Christians, students interested in military service as substandard. There were no highly rated sample essays from Christians or students pursuing military service. After the Truman winners are picked, they remain active in liberal politics. The College Fix reviewed the current public activities of Truman scholars from the 2017 and 2018 cohorts and found that at least 98 of the 122 winners retain a clear connection to liberal politics, such as working for Democrat members of Congress, advocating for progressive causes, or teaching classes with a liberal focus. By contrast, not a single winner could be identified who is currently active in conservative politics. It's okay if you're active in public service if you win this scholarship. In fact, that is the entire idea behind it. But it should be open to all political viewpoints. But it's worse. Student winners have also displayed wildly inappropriate conduct. Representative Stefanik, the bill sponsor, has highlighted how previous winners include, believe it or not, a public unrepentant pro-Muslim terror sympathizer, someone who supports Hamas. The Truman should never become a breeding ground for Muslim terror. The time has come to clean house. Every student, conservative or liberal, should be given a fair chance to win this award. The current leadership of the Truman Foundation has failed to provide that opportunity, so Congress must act. On March 12, Representative Stefanik introduced this bill, the Truman Scholarship Clean House Act. The bill would fire the current board of directors, remove the current executive secretary, empower President Trump with the advice and consent of the Senate to appoint the majority of a new board of directors, ensure that no more than half of any interview panel comes from the same political party, whether it's Republican or Democrat, institute a code of conduct that students must meet, including not being suspended or expelled for violating their university's honor code, codify existing practice that only U.S. citizens, not illegal immigrants, are eligible for the scholarship, and implement additional reforms to restore fairness and accountability. The ANS simply makes a technical change to the original bill. It's time to right the ship and ensure the Truman scholarship once again rewards excellence in public service, not ideological conformity. The bill accomplishes those goals, and I want to thank Representative Stefanik for her leadership on the issue, Chairman Walberg for marking up this bill, and former Chairwoman Virginia Foxx for beginning this investigation. If the standard that we use to pass bills is that it improve American lives, I would argue this does this in two ways. Number one, it's going to make sure that all Americans have access to this program, not just those who engage in liberal advocacy. But second, as one of the investigations showed, it will make sure that the liberal people who get in are exposed to viewpoint diversity. I went to Harvard 35 years ago. It was not an easy place for a conservative to be, but it made me stronger because I had to deal with people who did not have the same views that I did. Having your ideas tested is something that benefits not only one group, it benefits all groups. America deserves better from the Truman Foundation than we have gotten, and so I hope that we will all support this amendment and the underlying bill. With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield my time.

I thank the gentleman. Are there any members who wish to be recognized for further discussion on the amendment in the nature of a substitute? I thank the gentleman. Are there any members who wish to be recognized for further discussion on the amendment in the nature of a substitute? Ranking Member Mr. Scott, do you wish to be recognized?

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I move to strike the last word.

You're recognized for five minutes.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. After this committee held one hearing on this topic where there was little established to be a problem with the program that demands our attention, we are now considering a bill that would make drastic changes to the program far beyond any sensible approach to what reform of a program might look like. This bill fundamentally changes the makeup of the foundation board of trustees, a board that current law mandates be bipartisan. I'd point out it's not just bipartisan, but the president appoints a majority of the board. That majority has to be bipartisan. Four members of the, he appoints eight, four legislators, bipartisan, and the Secretary of Education. So between the president and Secretary of Education and two Republican legislators, the president has handpicked almost the entire board. These terms are staggered, so they kind of carry over. Now, I understand that four of the current positions on the board designated as Republicans are vacant. But according to the foundation, at least two of those vacancies were present throughout the whole first Trump term, and the president had the opportunity and ability to appoint board members and didn't appoint them. Now he's complaining that they weren't there. I don't think the policy solution is to give him the power to name eight board members combined with the Secretary of Education would give him an instantaneous, not the staggered term, but an instantaneous majority just like he did with the Kennedy Foundation. Laws governing the Truman Foundation currently limit the factors that can be considered by the bipartisan board to determine if students become scholars: their academics, their leadership record, their community service, and their suitability to be a leader and make a difference in public service. The executive secretary wrote the chair last Congress and made clear that foundation officials don't ask candidates about their political leanings and only learn of them if they share them. And if the majority had evidence that the scholarships were not being awarded according to the criteria set forth in law and regulation, they would have brought that evidence forward, but they did not. Instead, we're now considering unnecessary changes to the program that has a track record of producing bipartisan roster of stellar public servants. Now, let's be clear. This is just a power grab, unnecessary. We have a bipartisan board. President Trump gets to appoint just about everybody, a clear majority of the members. Firing everybody just makes no sense. I yield back.

I thank the gentleman. Does the gentleman from Missouri, Mr. Onder, seek recognition?

Yes, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.

You're recognized for five minutes.

Briefly. Look, in theory, we might have a bipartisan board here or a process that might choose a bipartisan board. But listen to the statistics that Mr. Fine cited. Progressives outnumber conservatives 14 to one. 2021 to 2023, not a single applicant expressed any interest in protecting the unborn, Second Amendment rights, securing our borders. Christians and people expressing interest in military service are not represented. The bottom line is this has just become a program to train professional leftists. And if that's the case, and if we don't have a reform like Representative Stefanik's bill, then we just need to get rid of this altogether. Because my constituents' tax dollars, and by the way, I represent Missouri, after whom this scholarship is named, do not want to be funding professional left-wing activists. So I encourage the adoption of this bill, and with that, I yield back.

I thank the gentleman. Does the gentlelady from Georgia, Ms. McBath, seek recognition?

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'd like to speak in opposition to the amendment in the nature of the substitute.

You're recognized for five minutes.

Thank you, sir. And I, Mr. Onder, I actually have to disagree. I think that this legislation just would not root out bias. Actually, it's going to do the opposite. It would take a scholarship that is meant to be unbiased and ensure that it prioritizes conservative ideas over others. Time and time again, House Republicans attempt to demonize the programs that they disagree with, programs that make people's lives better, as politically biased because they don't advance their narrow idea of what they think government really should be doing. It isn't about evaluating the students on their merits or the benefit their studies provide or whether they are fully focused on public service. It's about uplifting this majority's opinion over others, whatever that opinion may be. It's about trying to force their black and white viewpoint of people and certain ideas as nothing more than conservative or liberal, when we know that people and ideas are so much more than what those two words really mean and what they really carry. It does nothing but divide the American people even more than we already are. It's the exact type of mindset that Americans are sick and tired of. The villainization of our friends and our neighbors, people who just feel just as strongly about these issues and the direction of this country, but they have a completely different life experience that guides them, and we need to honor those experiences. The tribalism, the inability for politicians to see beyond their own party line, to not even try to understand the point that the other side is making, to take the easy way out and label their opponents as biased just because they think differently than you, to sort and label people and their ideas as liberal or conservative and all the baggage that actually comes with that. Regular people don't try to fit all of their thoughts and opinions into those boxes. That's how politicians think, not regular people. We should all be evaluating people, their work, and their ideas individually, not on whether some politicians share their inherently biased opinion on what they consider to be liberal or consider to be conservative. Wanting to make the world and this country a better place to live for all people is not a progressive ideal. It's an American one, one that God calls upon each of us to make a reality at home and abroad. Wanting to lead in spaces like human rights, to share the stories of the many types of people who call our country their home, to eradicate disease and poverty so that all those made in God's image can live a decent and fulfilling life. This is the type of work that my Republican colleagues label as biased. These are the things that millions of Americans take real pride in. It's what is supposed to make this country special and better than others like it. Our commitment to equality and justice for all, not just for those who believe in the same things as you do. Americans have long defined for themselves by our unity and shared purpose despite our many differences, our commitment to the idea that out of many, one stronger whole is made possible. But that stronger whole is weakened with legislation just like this. I don't believe this to be a good piece of legislation or good use of our limited time in Washington this week. And I hope that we recommit ourselves, as we always claim that we do, I really hope that we recommit ourselves to real issues that have an impact on everyday Americans' lives. And I yield.

I thank the gentlelady. Are there any other members who wish to be recognized for further discussion on the amendment in the nature of a substitute? There being no further discussion on the amendment in the nature of a substitute, the committee will move to consideration of amendments. Are there any members who would like to offer an amendment? Representative Scott, do you wish to offer an amendment?

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk, 7894_AMD01.

The clerk will report the amendment.

Amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute to H.R. 7894, offered by Mr. Scott of Virginia, identifier SCOTT_7894_AMD_01.

Does the gentleman from Utah reserve a point of order?

Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order.

Point of order is reserved. I now recognize the gentleman from Virginia, the ranking member, Mr. Scott, for five minutes in support of his amendment.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, the amendment does essentially two things. It's a change of date of implementation and prevents the president naming the, renaming the foundation in his honor, in his own honor. I wish this did not have to be offered, but based on the track record of this administration, I fear it must. This amendment is silent on the merits of the underlying bill, just recognizes we can't trust the current chief executive to implement it. In March of last year, officials from the so-called Department of Government Efficiency took over the U.S. Institute of Peace, pitting Washington, D.C. Metropolitan Police officers against lawfully present employees. By the end of the year, former officials had succeeded in a federal case declaring these actions illegal, but that case is on pause pending Supreme Court consideration. Meanwhile, a president who just unilaterally started a war has his own name on his U.S. Institute of Peace. Last February, the president dismissed most of the board of the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts and appointed new board members and the president and CEO of the center to do his bidding. In the subsequent year, they've done inestimable damage to the center's reputation, including closing it down because nobody wanted to go. In a move that is also being challenged in court, the board so-called voted to rename the center the Trump-Kennedy Center, a power the board doesn't even have. This amendment would make clear that there are powers that the Truman Foundation board does not have. They cannot rename the scholarship. They cannot give out scholarships in honor of anyone else besides President Harry S. Truman. And frankly, sad that we have to make this clear, but based on what's going on, I think it's necessary. As I said in my remarks on the amendment in the nature of a substitute, the underlying bill gives a blank check to the president to handpick board of trustees and an executive secretary to make the Truman Foundation whatever way he sees fit. We should make it clear in this bill that if and when the newly constituted Truman Foundation board makes a motion to change it from the Truman Scholarship to the Trump Scholarship, that they do not have the power to do so and acting would be in violation of the law. And so whatever the merits of the underlying bill may be, we can be certain that this president administration are not the ones to execute them, so we should start this for the next presidential administration. And this Congress and this committee should go on record when it comes to the Truman Scholarship and other congressionally authorized institutions and let this administration know that we will not put up with using agencies and naming agencies to serve his vanity. As such, this amendment would postpone the effective date of the bill until after this president leaves office and make sure that whatever board that is constituted in the future is one that will recognize President Truman and not the vanity of whatever president they may represent. Urge adoption of this amendment and I yield back.

The gentleman yields. The gentleman yields. Does the gentleman from Utah insist on the point of order?

I withdraw my point of order.

The reservation is withdrawn. Does anyone else seek recognition on the amendment? For what purpose does the gentleman from Florida, Mr. Fine, seek recognition?

To oppose the amendment, Mr. Chairman.

You're recognized for five minutes.

This amendment's not necessary. No one's talking about removing President Truman's name from the scholarship. In fact, it's named that in statute today. But I would note that the behavior that we've seen in this scholarship dishonors the name of President Truman. President Truman was the United States president that recognized the state of Israel at great difficulty to himself. Yet this scholarship openly honors those who oppose that and seek its destruction. This award was meant to honor President Truman's life by promoting bipartisan civic spirit and helping students from a variety of backgrounds pursue an honorable career in public service. As I talked about, by only having one group of people get into a self-supporting loop of agreement, the values are never tested, the views are never challenged, and it ends up hurting not only the conservatives who are refused access to the scholarship, but the liberals that get involved in some sort of groupthink where their views are never tested. But the second thing this amendment does is it pushes back the date of implementation to 2029, and that should not happen because we can see how the Truman Scholarship folks have handled this scrutiny. If they were right, if the things we've heard from my colleagues on the other side of the aisle were correct, they would have provided data that says, no, no, no, this is not happening. What you allege is false, it just so happens that this is how things work out, but we really are open to everyone. But we know how they have changed. In 2024, after the AEI report, instead of helping us understand what was going on, the Truman Foundation stopped publishing biographies of its winners so people couldn't figure out the ideological background of them. Instead, they only shared names and universities. They even hid the biographies of past winners. The only way you can get to those are with password-protected information. It is not accessible to the public who pays for this. Just think about that. You pay for this, but you can't know who's getting your money. So obviously they believe that they have something to hide. And College Fix used things like LinkedIn and the names to research the people and found 43 of 54 winners were obviously liberal, only three were obviously conservative. Because we've seen how the Truman Scholarship has reacted to this, we should not give them more time to hide and more time to obfuscate. We should do this now. It is the right thing to do, and I hope everyone will vote down on that amendment. And Mr. Chairman, I yield back.

I thank the gentleman. Gentleman yields. Are there any others who seek recognition on the amendment? The question is on the amendment by the gentleman from Virginia, Representative Scott. All in favor say aye.

Aye.

All opposed, no.

No.

In the opinion of the chair, the noes have it and the amendment is not agreed to. A roll call vote is ordered pursuant to the chair's previous announcement. This vote will be postponed. Are there any further amendments to the amendment in the nature of a substitute to H.R. 7894? For what purpose does the gentleman from Virginia seek to be recognized?

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk, 7894_AMD_02.

The clerk will report the amendment.

Amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute to H.R. 7894, offered by Mr. Scott of Virginia, identifier SCOTT_7894_AMD_02.

Does the gentleman from Utah reserve a point of order? A point of order is reserved. I now recognize the gentleman from Virginia, the ranking member, Mr. Scott, for five minutes in support of his amendment.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is simple. It just says any member who decides to vote to destroy the Truman Foundation in its current form shall not be rewarded by being appointed to whatever the new board is. As I said when speaking on the amendment in the nature of a substitute, I fear that the underlying bill would put too much power in the hands of the administration to remake the Truman Foundation. The administration already has the opportunity to appoint a vast majority of the board. This would be, this could be used to allow members of this body to benefit, whether it's being appointed to the new board or help, or perhaps joining the foundation as an officer once they leave office. These should not be options for members to create for themselves. As such, the amendment would simply prevent members who support the bill from being able to accept any largesse from the president as a result of that support. If you think the Truman Foundation needs reform, you can vote for this amendment, letting constituents know that you support the reform on its face, not for any actual or perceived opportunity. Mr. Chairman, urge adoption and yield back.

The gentleman yields. Does the gentleman from Utah reserve a point of order? The point of order is withdrawn. Does anyone else seek recognition to speak on the amendment? Representative from Florida, Mr. Fine, do you wish to be recognized?

I do, Mr. Chairman, to speak in opposition.

Recognized for five minutes.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This amendment is not only petty but mean-spirited and doesn't even do what it purports to do. The amendment's basically meant to target Representative Stefanik for her current leadership on the Truman Foundation where she's uncovered these issues. We should be thanking her for what she's done, not attempting to punish her. She's served admirably on the board. She's held board members accountable for the horrific bias that's infiltrated the program. She also uncovered and shared the Muslim terror advocate who received a scholarship as part of this, and she's called for them to have their awards revoked. For this, Democrats don't think she should be allowed to serve on the board. You find wrongdoing, you find bias, you must be punished apparently. This is an awful amendment that targets Representative Stefanik for doing the right thing. But it doesn't just target her. The sponsor says, well, if you vote for this, you shouldn't benefit. I think it's a ridiculous argument. But nonetheless, let's take him at his word. But this amendment also targets people who don't have the ability to vote on it. Any person who's serving in a role appointed by the president of the United States. So any one of the thousands of people who are serving in any role appointed by the president, who may have nothing to do with this, may not even agree with what we're doing. But because they have served for President Donald J. Trump, Democrats believe they should be canceled and ineligible to serve. This is not only petty, it's not only mean-spirited, but it's frankly undemocratic, and I would encourage all of my colleagues to vote against it. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.

The gentleman yields. Does anyone else 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 aye.

Aye.

All opposed, no.

No.

In the opinion of the chair, the noes have it and the amendment is not agreed to. A roll call vote is ordered pursuant to the chair's previous announcement. This vote will be postponed. Are there any further amendments to the amendment in the nature of a substitute to H.R. 7894? Does the gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Scott, seek to be recognized?

Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk, 7894_AMD_04.

The clerk will report the amendment.

Amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute to H.R. 7894, offered by Mr. Scott of Virginia, identifier SCOTT_7894_AMD_04.

Does the gentleman from Utah reserve a point of order?

Reserve a point of order.

A point of order is reserved. I now recognize the gentleman from Virginia, the ranking member, Mr. Scott, for five minutes in support of his amendment. recognized for five minutes in support of his amendment.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Before I make remarks on this, on the previous amendment previously where we talked about the reason we need to prohibit them changing the name, the gentleman from Florida mentioned that the code dictates that the Kennedy Center, the name Kennedy Center is in the U.S. Code. And they changed it, that the Truman is in the code, and I would point out that Kennedy is also in the code, but they changed that. So we're just making sure that they know that they can't change it because it's in the code and they can't change it. But Mr. Chair, this amendment is designed to reflect a problem that's been articulated. The purpose of the scholarship program is designed to award scholars who intend to pursue a career in public service. Current law and regulations of the Truman Scholarship are clear. The law states that the basis for the award is to award scholarships to persons who demonstrate outstanding potential and plan to pursue a career in public service. Regulations that govern the program require that scholars must include in their submission to the foundation a statement of interest in a career in public service that specifies in detail how their graduate program and their overall education and work experiences will realistically prepare them for their chosen career goal in government or elsewhere in public service. Now the foundation has found that most MBA graduate programs are not designed to realistically prepare a candidate for public service. And they have recognized that there are exceptions, but it is not a hard and fast rule that scholars pursuing an MBA may be Truman Scholars. So whatever, however that's considered, I think it would be helpful just to strike out that presumption that they're not qualified, just to strike that out and let people be considered the way they want, the way they should be considered. The underlying provision in the bill is not in line with the purpose of the Truman Scholarship program, recognizing outstanding candidates who intend to enter public service, some of whom may have MBA degrees or are pursuing MBA degrees. So I ask support for my amendment and I yield back.

The gentleman yields. Does the gentleman from Utah insist on a point of order? The gentleman yields. Does the gentleman from Utah insist on a point of order?

I withdraw my point of order.

The reservation is withdrawn. Does anyone else seek recognition on the amendment? For what purposes the gentleman from Florida, Mr. Fine, seek recognition?

Mr. Chairman, I'd like to speak in opposition.

You're recognized for five minutes.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Of all the amendments, the three amendments we've heard, this one is unquestionably the worst because it engages in the sort of rank discrimination that is part of what has made our government broken. Now I understand that attorneys like the ranking member believe that only attorneys ought to be in government, nobody else, because they've studied the law. And apparently if you become a lawyer and you go work in M&A or something else, you're somehow advancing a career in public service. We have a doctors shortage in this country. We have people who go to medical school, they may join the military as we have some who have done to practice their trade. They may go into rural America, provide it where medical care is needed, serving low-income rural people. And by the way, it turns out you might get an MD and join Congress. We have 20 members of Congress from both parties who are doctors. As it relates to MBAs, well I know a little bit about that because I am one. And I can tell you, I'm new here, but part of the reason I was incredibly effective, passed more bills than anyone in the history of the Florida legislature in my eight years there, is because I applied the same skills and training that I learned as an MBA. I was once jokingly called the best lawyer in the Florida House, wasn't very nice to the actual lawyers. So I understand we may live in a world where only becoming an attorney is seen as some sort of honorable trade in order to get into government. That's exactly what is wrong with government and this place. There's certainly a room, a place for attorneys, but to say that MBAs and doctors cannot be committed to advancing a career in public service and to literally state if you want to get an MBA or an MD you're excluded from participating in this, it is absolutely wrong and frankly it's just simply disgusting. And for that reason I hope you'll oppose the amendment, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.

The gentleman yields. Does the gentlelady from Georgia, Ms. McBath, seek recognition?

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to go ahead and just stand in support of Mr. Scott's amendment and I do yield the balance of my time to the good man of Virginia, Ranking Member Scott.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just in defense of lawyers, I think it's clear that our job here is to draft laws. Of course there'd be a disproportionate number of lawyers. If our job here was to bake cakes, there'd probably be a disproportionate number of bakers. Not, you know, have to be a baker, you don't have to be a lawyer, but we shouldn't be surprised. But I am surprised at the opposition because I don't quite understand the logic. The bill eliminates any presumption of disqualification for someone seeking an MBA degree. They would be considered like everybody else. I thought that was the gentleman's position. But I'm not sure what the, what his opposition is. This amendment will eliminate the presumed disqualification of people with MBA degrees so that anybody seeking an MBA degree can be considered just like everybody else. Does the gentlelady yield?

Yes, Chairman, I yield.

The gentlelady yields. Are there any others who seek recognition on the amendment? Seeing none, the question on the amendment by the gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Scott. All in favor say aye.

Aye.

All opposed no.

No.

In the opinion of the chair the nos have it and the amendment is not agreed to. Further action on H.R. 7894 is postponed. We'll now move to consider the next bill. The committee will now proceed to consideration of the bill H.R. 7890 for amendment. The bill was circulated in advance and printed copies are available. The clerk shall designate the bill.

H.R. 7890, a bill to amend the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 to exclude certain instructional approaches from comprehensive literacy instruction, to prioritize certain funds to promote the use of evidence-based literacy instruction and supports aligned to the science of reading and for other purposes.

Without objection the first reading of the bill is dispensed with. Without objection the bill will be considered as read and open for amendment at any point. And any amendment offered shall be considered as read. Does anyone seek to be recognized? Representative Mackenzie, 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 H.R. 7890 offered by Mr. Mackenzie of Pennsylvania, identifier 7890 ANS_01.

Without objection the amendment shall be considered original text for purposes of further amendment. The amendment in the nature of a substitute has already been distributed. I now recognize Mr. Mackenzie for five minutes to explain the amendment in the nature of a substitute.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to speak in support of the amendment in the nature of a substitute to H.R. 7890, the Science of Reading Act of 2026. For generations, children have learned to read in a clear and rational way. The letters in the alphabet are associated with sounds. They can be joined together with other letters to create new sounds. By combining those sounds in order, we're able to read and understand language. This approach, commonly known as phonics, was the bedrock of reading instruction in our nation's schools. Starting in the 1960s, a radical new approach to reading instruction emerged. Instead of relying on the science of reading and teaching children the construction of the English language, students were taught to quote guess words based on elements like pictures or context. This three-cueing approach was then pushed into countless schools across the country, robbing children of a foundational understanding of how the English language actually works. Decades later, the result is clear. Long-term trends of the nation's report card or NAEP show little to no improvement since 1971. Fortunately, many states have taken steps to reverse the damage and return to common sense by embracing a traditional phonics-based curriculum. Some states like Alabama and Louisiana have seen significant improvement after banning three-cueing, even at a time when most states are still struggling to recover from COVID-era learning loss. It's time now for Congress to double down on what works, encouraging schools to embrace proven performance of phonics. That's why we need to pass the Science of Reading Act of 2026. This common sense legislation ensures that comprehensive literacy state development grants aren't used to support three-cueing and prioritizes funding for states with comprehensive literacy plans aligned to the science of reading. The ANS simply makes a technical change, and America's children deserve proven high-quality literacy curricula. It's time to pass the Science of Reading Act of 2026 and ensure that schools everywhere are using curricula that give our students the knowledge and skills they need to succeed. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I yield back.

The gentleman yields. Are there any members who wish to be recognized for further discussion on the amendment in nature of substitute? The gentleman from New York, Representative Mannion, do you wish to be recognized?

Mr. Chair, I move to strike the last word.

You're recognized for five minutes.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'd like to speak in support of the amendment in the nature of a substitute and I want to start by thanking my colleagues Congresswoman Houchin and Congressman Kiley for working with me in introducing this bipartisan bill. Strong reading skills are foundation to our students' success and to our nation's future. We should always be doing more to ensure that our students are meeting or exceeding proficiency standards and that our teachers are equipped with the best instructional tools. Unfortunately we know from our recent assessments that many of our students are falling behind. Average reading scores are declining or stagnating and most fourth and eighth graders are not doing as well as they did just a few years ago. I was a teacher for almost 30 years. So I also want to say this. Standardized test scores don't always tell the full story and should never be the only benchmark of success. Our teachers are always assessing their students. We have other complementary ways to measure academic process and those deserve our attention as well. But still, the reading scores at the national level are indeed concerning and we need to take action to address those concerns. That's why I'm proud to have co-led the Science of Reading Act of 2026. This bill would improve the Department of Education's comprehensive literacy state development grants by better aligning the program with the science of reading. It would ensure that federal funds for reading instruction and appropriately are appropriately spent on evidence-based methods. This bill is also written in a way that carefully retains local control over curriculum and ensures that individualized instructional supports for students with disabilities are protected. In the school that I used to teach and where I represented my colleagues as a teacher association president, there was a district-wide adoption of the science of reading. My experience was that many veteran teachers and new teachers alike were resistant to this change, but after it was piloted and they saw the results, they came around, embraced the science of reading after understanding that it is an evidence-based form of instruction and they saw many positive preliminary results. My wife is also an expert in literacy instruction and curriculum and she experienced this as well along with her colleagues. Professional development for teachers is also a critical part of effective science of reading implementation and New York is one of the many states making those necessary investments. Again I appreciate the committee's consideration of this bill today and I kindly ask my colleagues to support it. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and I yield back.

Thanks to the gentleman. Gentleman yields. Are there any other members who wish to be recognized? Gentlelady from Georgia, Mrs. McBath, do you wish to be recognized?

Thank you, Chairman. And I actually would like to speak in support of the amendment in the nature of a substitute.

You're recognized for five minutes. You're recognized for five minutes.

Thank you very much. Thank you very much. I'm very excited to support this legislation sponsored by Congresswoman Houchin and Congressman Mannion and both Kiley. Actually, this is how I learned how to read in the 1960s. So when implemented correctly, the science of reading has been proven to help children learn to read and to write more effectively. Something that sounds basic but is incredibly challenging if you don't have the proper instruction. With a focus on comprehension, it emphasizes that reading does not come naturally to children. It is a skill that must be cultivated and must be taught with a focus on not just reading the words but really understanding what they mean. A troubling number of children and adults across our country are not able to read and they're not able to write effectively. Not only is that bad for our economy, but it's limiting people's ability to truly enjoy their lives to the fullest. Learning to read and critically think about what you're reading and what it means is essential to a fulfilling life. But what has been done to teach these skills in the past has unfortunately not set up our students to achieve their full potential. According to the nation's report card, which I would like to submit digitally for the record...

Without objection.

Thank you. ...over 40 percent of Georgia's fourth graders were not reading at their grade level in 2024. And that should be so unacceptable to us. The numbers are even worse for children who look like me. Black and Hispanic students had average scores that were significantly lower than their white counterparts, than white students. In Georgia, less than 10 percent of white children grow up in poverty, which is still too many, but it is less than the national rate of 15 or 16 percent. Unfortunately, the same can't be said for all children in the state of Georgia. One in three Black and Hispanic students live in households that make below the poverty line. For a family of four, that is just $32,150 a year. The same report card found students who identified as poor or economically disadvantaged had an average score that was 32 points lower than students who don't have to worry about their family's finances. It's clear that if we want to get at the root of this problem, we must also commit ourselves to creating a country where no child is forced to grow up in poverty. This country has come so far in its literacy, but there are still far too many children who never really have learned how to read. And without that foundational skill, it makes it so much more frustrating and more difficult to understand the world around them, the world in which they live. These kids are passed along until they age out of the system where they don't just wake up every day and learn to read. They often never have the opportunity or the resources to learn these foundational skills as adults. As a lead sponsor of the Adult Education Works Act, which would reauthorize the adult education portion of WIOA, I work very closely with adult educators from around the country, most of whom are severely overworked and definitely underpaid. A lot of them aren't even paid at all. These are people teaching the very basic reading, writing, and numeracy skills that everyone needs in order to be truly successful. But there is practically no funding or support for these programs, which Congress can and must change. There are so many adults that we can help by not leaving them behind as we're leaving them as our children. By preventing more kids from being passed along and left behind, we can ensure that there are more adults with the skills they need to get a good job and to keep it. I truly believe that the best way to fight poverty is with opportunity. And you give our children opportunity by making sure they have the ability to read. You fight poverty by ensuring people have and can afford the skills they need to get good jobs and build a future that they can look forward to. And you can't get a good job without a high-quality education. So bipartisan bills like this set our children up for success and I am so grateful and so thankful that there's something that we're working on together, something that's going to come out of this committee that is going to be beneficial to our children, not partisan. And I look forward to supporting it and other legislation that uplifts the science of reading and uplifts our children's success. And I yield.

The gentlelady yields. I now ask forgiveness from my colleague from California for missing your hand signal. I recognize you now to speak on this amendment in the nature of a substitute.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. The reading wars are over. That was the conclusion we reached on our K-12 Education Subcommittee at a hearing on literacy a few months ago. And so this bill today follows directly from that conclusion. And the idea here is pretty simple, that we should not be using federal literacy funds to promote discredited approaches to literacy like three-cueing or whole language approaches that in fact have only proven to increase rates of illiteracy. So this bill is the Science of Reading Act of 2026. And what that refers to is the recent studies that have shown time and again that the way that the brain is wired when it comes to learning is actually, you know, validates the more traditional approaches to reading instruction. Namely, phonological awareness, phonics, fluency, vocabulary, and comprehension. So while there might be a language instinct, which is to say that young children can learn language by osmosis, that they're sort of wired to pick it up, there is no reading instinct. This doesn't just kind of happen naturally, which is the premise of some of these alternative approaches that came into vogue in recent decades. Rather, it requires explicit instruction of those elements that I just listed. And so this approach or the return to this more traditional approach, which has been adapted in certain ways but is ultimately rooted in getting back to basics of phonics, it has shown amazing results across the country. So perhaps most strikingly in Mississippi, a state that had really struggled with literacy, was 49th in the country. They adopted a full approach of returning to the science of reading and they in a matter of years went from 49th in the country for fourth graders to ninth in the country. This is referred to as the Mississippi miracle, but there was nothing really miraculous about it. It was all grounded in proper pedagogy and science-based instruction. And we've seen similar examples in other states. And at this point, just about every state has to varying degrees recognized the importance of returning and recognizing the science of reading. Even most recently, my own state of California has come around and it's about time because California has suffered from not having proper literacy instruction. We actually have the highest rate of illiteracy in the country. So I'm very grateful that we have strong bipartisan support for this legislation. When it comes to our kids' ability to succeed academically and their success in life, not to mention the future of our country, there's perhaps nothing more important than making sure that they learn to read, our kids learn to read and to read well from a young age. So thank you very much to the co-sponsors of this legislation on all sides and I yield back.

The gentleman yields. Now I recognize the gentleman from Virginia, the ranking member, to speak on this amendment in the nature of a substitute.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I'm supportive of H.R. 7890, the Science of Reading Act. The bill aligns federal literacy funding with evidence-based reading instruction to ensure that competitive literacy grant programs supported under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act reflect actual research about how children actually learn to read through strong foundations in phonemic awareness, phonics, vocabulary, fluency, and comprehension. Far too many children are not reading at grade level. National assessments show stagnant or even declining reading rates with only about a third of third graders in the nation reading at proficient levels. And criminologists will tell you that if you can't read by the third grade, you're on track to dropping out of school and a lot of things which include disproportionate levels of crime. Literacy is not a partisan issue. It is a national priority and is one of the clearest areas where evidence can guide us towards better outcomes. By strengthening literacy instruction, we strengthen access to academic success and opportunity for all students. Now, Mr. Chairman, it's important to note that concerns have been expressed about the effect of this bill on English language learners and students with disabilities. And I want to thank the sponsors of the legislation for considering those concerns because as the bill is written, it is clear that the students, English language learners and students with disabilities, are not adversely affected by the provisions of this bill. And so with that in mind, Mr. Chairman, ask people to support the bill and I yield back.

The gentleman yields. Are there any other members who wish to be recognized to speak on this amendment in the nature of a substitute? Seeing none, there being no further discussion on the amendment in the nature of a substitute, the committee will move to consideration of amendments. Are there any members who wish to offer amendments? Seeing none, there being no amendments, the question now occurs on the amendment in the nature of a substitute to H.R. 7890. All in favor say aye. Aye. All opposed, no. In the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it and the amendment in the nature of a substitute is agreed to. We'll now move to consider the next bill. The committee will now proceed to consideration of the bill H.R. 7891 for amendment. The bill was circulated in advance and printed copies are available. The clerk shall designate the bill.

H.R. 7891, a bill to amend section 498A of the Higher Education Act of 1965 to require the Secretary of Education to prioritize program reviews of institutions of higher education that disperse federal financial aid under Title IV of such act without verifying the identity of a student whose FAFSA presents a reasonable suspicion of identity fraud.

Without objection, the first reading of the bill is dispensed with. Without objection, the bill will be considered as read and open for amendment at any point and any amendment shall be considered as read. Does anyone seek to be recognized?

Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Thompson, for what purpose do you seek recognition?

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment in the nature of a substitute at the desk, amendment 7891 ANS.

The clerk shall designate the amendment in the nature of a substitute.

Amendment in the nature of a substitute to H.R. 7891 offered by Mr. Thompson of Pennsylvania, identifier 7891 ANS.

Without objection, the amendment shall be considered original text for purposes of further amendment. The amendment in the nature of a substitute has already been distributed. I now recognize Mr. Thompson for five minutes to explain the amendment in the nature of a substitute.

Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for convening today's important markup on my Student Aid Fraud Oversight and Accountability Act. I'm honored to lead this legislation amending the Higher Education Act to strengthen federal oversight of institutions that disperse federal student aid to applicants suspected of potential identity fraud. This issue, commonly referred to as ghost student fraud, has plagued community colleges and universities across the country for many years and crowded real deserving students out of classrooms. Ghost students fraud refers to schemes in which bad actors use stolen or counterfeit identities to submit college admission and federal student aid applications, enroll in courses, extract federal student aid, and then vanish with extra funds. These fraudulent actors posing as students have cost taxpayers millions of dollars, proving that our current system is being exploited at the public's expense. In 2025, the Department of Education discovered that almost $90 million in federal student aid was distributed to fraudulent actors. Millions of dollars have been dispersed to deceased individuals and more than $40 million were collected by entities using bots disguised as students. This crisis has hit states like California and Minnesota particularly hard. In fact, over the past year, scammers stole more than $10 million from California's community colleges, where roughly 34 percent of applicants were identified as fake. In Minnesota, more than 1,800 ghost students collected $12.5 million in taxpayer-funded grants and loans. The Student Aid Fraud Oversight and Accountability Act will create an oversight mechanism requiring the Education Department to identify institutions that disperse federal aid to applicants flagged for potential fraud, placing those institutions in a priority category that can allow for program reviews, audits, and other oversight activities. By implementing common sense identity checks like in-person or live video verification, institutions can ensure federal funds are given to legitimate students. This legislation is a key step in rooting out fraud and abuse in our education system and ensuring our taxpayers' money is not wasted. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the Student Aid Fraud Oversight and Accountability Act to help ensure aid reaches the students it is intended to serve, not criminals. And I yield back.

The gentleman yields. Are there any members who wish to be recognized for further discussion on the amendment in the nature of a substitute? Does the gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Scott, seek to be recognized?

I move to strike the last word.

The gentleman is recognized for five minutes.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. H.R. 7891 amends the Higher Education Act to require the Department of Education to prioritize program reviews for institutions that have dispersed financial aid to any student whose application was flagged as raising a reasonable suspicion of identity fraud. Now, we have to note, Mr. Chairman, that a lot of times people are trying to get registered by a deadline and you can't wait if they have to wait a couple of weeks to get everything in order, they may not be able to register. And so sometimes these things are rushed, and we have to keep that real life into consideration. This bill would codify the department's current practice of prioritizing reviews of institutions based on fraudulent student financial aid activity. However, I'm concerned that as drafted, this bill does not adequately support colleges in their efforts to address identity fraud. Colleges are working hard to prevent individuals from fraudulently enrolling in their institutions or receiving federal student aid for classes that they did not take. This bill could penalize institutions for simply making a single mistake with one individual student. Instead, I strongly urge Republicans to better target the program review prioritization to colleges that have displayed a pattern of dispersing aid to fraudulent applications. Additionally, I have several concerns on this bill as I do with the next bill, 7892, regarding the expansive interpretation of what constitutes reasonable suspicion of fraud. This process must be evidence-based practices that root out actual fraud rather than burdening students with increased verification requirements that delay their access to student aid. Despite these concerns, I'll support the underlying bill. However, I expect this committee to work with colleges, financial aid officers, and other stakeholders before floor consideration to ensure that the program review process prioritizes institutions that have a pattern rather than penalizing institutions for a single mistake. I have amendments to address these issues and I yield back.

The gentleman yields. Are there any other members who wish to be recognized? Gentleman from California? Are there any other members who wish to be recognized? There being no further discussion on the amendment in the nature of a substitute, the committee will move to consideration of amendments. Are there any members who wish to offer an amendment? I recognize the gentleman from Virginia, the ranking member, Mr. Scott, for the purpose of amendment.

Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk, Scott VA_056.

The clerk will report the amendment.

Amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute to H.R. 7891 offered by Mr. Scott of Virginia, identifier Scott VA_056.

Does the gentleman from Utah reserve a point of order?

I reserve a point of order.

A point of order is reserved. I now recognize the gentleman from Virginia, the ranking member, Mr. Scott, for five minutes in support of his amendment.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, this bill would allow the department to prioritize program reviews for a school if they've seen even one instance where they've dispersed student financial aid in one individual with a reasonable suspicion of identity fraud. My amendment would update this requirement to prioritize program reviews for institutions that have displayed a pattern of dispersing student aid to potentially fraudulent individuals. This prevents a single institution reporting a single institutional reporting error from triggering a program review. It would also require the department to allow institutions to provide information on any errors or mistakes made regarding a given disbursement to a reasonably suspicious individual. This amendment would ensure the department is targeting reviews to institutions that are not making meaningful steps to address fraud issues, rather than institutions trying to do their best to address fraud like community colleges. This will also enable the department to utilize its resources in a more efficient manner, given the severely reduced staffing levels at the Office of Federal Student Aid. Without narrowing down what constitutes reasonable, many under-resourced institutions may be subject to additional unnecessary verification and burdens that take them away from helping students. I urge my colleagues to support the amendment. Yield back.

The gentleman yields. Does the gentleman, Mr. Owens?

I withdraw my point of order.

The reservation is withdrawn. Thank you. Does anyone else seek recognition on the amendment?

Mr. Chairman.

For what purpose does the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. Thompson, seek recognition?

To speak on the amendment.

You're recognized for five minutes.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I thank my good friend from Virginia for bringing up the issue that he did. We've heard feedback on this as well and we're interested in these changes. However, we want to examine these changes closely to ensure that we get the language right. And for that reason, I have to oppose this amendment, however I am willing to commit to working with the ranking member to consider some of your proposed or similar changes to the bill. And with that, I yield back.

The gentleman yields.

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the amendment with those remarks.

Unanimous consent to remove the amendment with the remarks that were given by Representative Thompson. Without objection, so ordered. Are there any other amendments to the amendment in nature of substitute? I recognize the gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Scott.

I have an amendment at the desk, Scott VA_057.

The clerk will report the amendment.

Amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute to H.R. 7891 offered by Mr. Scott of Virginia, identifier Scott VA_057.

Representative Owens, do you? I reserve a point of order.

A point of order is reserved. I now recognize the gentleman from Virginia, Representative Scott, for five minutes in support of his amendment.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, this amendment, the bill allows the department to conduct additional program reviews for institutions that have dispersed federal student aid to an individual who has reasonable suspicion of identity fraud. As I previously mentioned, I have concerns about how this administration may interpret what constitutes reasonable suspicion of identity fraud, and as drafted, there are no parameters on what this could be. Therefore, my amendment would clarify that the department utilizes its existing verification group framework to better identify serious patterns of identity fraud, rather than place these requirements on lower levels of identity verification, such as verifying students' tax information. Without narrowing down what constitutes reasonable, I fear many students may be subject to additional unnecessary verification burdens. Colleges and students must be able to trust the department is solely addressing legitimate suspicions of suspicious behavior, such as submission of several FAFSA applications under different names from the same IP address or physical address, or the use of a Social Security number from a deceased individual. This bill should not allow this administration to consider other factors unrelated to potential identity fraud, such as a student's demographic information. Mr. Chairman, in light of the comments from the sponsor of the bill, I withdraw the amendment and work with them on this as well as the other.

I thank the gentleman. Are there any other amendments to be offered? There being no further amendments, the question now occurs on the amendment in the nature of the substitute to H.R. 7891. All in favor say aye. Aye. All opposed, no. In the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it, and the amendment in the nature of a substitute is agreed to. There being no further amendments and further action on H.R. 7891 being postponed, we will now move to consider the next bill. The committee will now proceed to consideration of bill H.R. 7892 for amendment. The bill was circulated in advance and printed copies are available. The clerk shall designate the bill.

H.R. 7892, a bill to amend the Higher Education Act of 1965... H.R. 7892, a bill to amend the Higher Education Act of 1965 to require to the Secretary of Education to use an identity fraud detection system to review each FAFSA to determine whether the FAFSA represents a reasonable suspicion of identity fraud.

Without objection, the first reading of the bill is dispensed with. Without objection, the bill will be considered as read and open for amendment at any point, and any amendment offered shall be considered as read. Does anyone seek to be recognized? Representative Owens, for what purpose do you seek recognition?

I have an amendment at the desk.

The clerk shall designate the amendment in the nature of the substitute.

Amendment in the nature of a substitute to H.R. 7892 offered by Mr. Owens of Utah, identifier 7892 ANS.

Without objection, the amendment shall be considered original text for purposes of further amendment. The amendment in the nature of a substitute has already been distributed. I now recognize Mr. Owens for five minutes to explain the amendment in the nature of a substitute.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The No Aid for Ghost Students Act seeks to remedy a serious problem that institutions of higher education face. Bad actors submit FAFSA applications using stolen or fabricated identities to obtain federal student aid dollars. These fraudsters are often called ghost students, and they leave taxpayers to foot the bill while crowding out real students. It's time we strengthen protections for federal funding to stop them from profiting. The No Aid for Ghost Students Act remedies this problem by requiring the Department of Education to use identity fraud detection systems to review each FAFSA application to determine whether the application presents a reasonable suspicion of identity fraud. When an application is flagged, the applicant and the institution designated by the applicant are notified. For institutions to disperse federal student aid to these applicants, the institution must verify the identity of the applicant either in person or on a live video call. The bill also requires the department to establish guidelines for the verification process and to report on the system's use and effectiveness to Congress. My ANS makes a simple technical change. This common sense legislation ensures federal dollars aren't flowing to professional fraudsters. Federal aid needs to go to students who need it most, and every cent that is defrauded represents a lost opportunity for students in need and a serious offense to the American taxpayer. I urge my colleagues to vote yes on this ANS and on this much-needed underlying bill. With that, I yield back.

I thank the gentleman. Are any members, any other members who wish to be recognized for further discussion on amendment in the nature of substitute? Mr. Scott, do you wish to be recognized?

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I move to strike the last word.

You're recognized for five minutes.

Mr. Chairman, H.R. 7892 amends the Higher Education Act to require the Department of Education to implement an identity fraud detection system within the FAFSA process. Specifically, the bill would require the Secretary to inform aid applicants that they are subject to these identity verification processes. It also requires colleges to certify that there is no reasonable suspicion of identity fraud through identity verification. This bill would codify the framework of what the Trump administration is already implementing for the 2026-27 school year. Over the last decade, there has been an increase in college enrollment by individuals attempting to commit fraud. In many cases, these are fraudulent applicants using fake or stolen identities to enroll in courses and obtain access to federal student aid money and other college resources with no intention of actually attending courses or working towards a degree. While this fraud happens across all higher education sectors, there's been an increase in fraudulent enrollments at low-cost open enrollment colleges like community colleges or online programs. It is important for the department to proactively screen for identity fraud since verification process is a very time and resource-intensive process for under-resourced colleges. This is why the FAFSA Simplification Act of 2020 required the department to streamline and simplify the verification process. Now, while I support the goals of the legislation, I do have a few concerns about the way the bill is drafted, might make it more confusing for colleges and potentially actually slow down aid disbursement. For example, the bill lacks details on what steps an individual should take for an individual who gets flagged for verification that are in fact students but may not have immediate access to necessary documentation. Those would include those who are unhoused or foster youth. Additionally, we have seen significant discrimination from the Department of Education to many student populations, including students of color and students with legal permanent residence. Concerned that this administration may attempt to twist what constitutes reasonable suspicion of identity fraud to attack colleges or students, and therefore it is critical the bill require clear guidance on how colleges should comply with the law and how to determine which students to subject to additional verification. Despite these concerns, we need to support the bill because we need to address identity theft. However, as I mentioned in my opening remarks, I expect the committee to work with colleges, financial aid officers, college access organizations, and others to ensure that this new process decreases the verification burdens on colleges and will not prevent students from receiving their student aid in a timely manner so they can actually register for classes before the deadlines. I'll offer amendments to address these issues and yield back the balance of my time.

The gentleman yields. The gentleman from California, Mr. Kiley, wish to be recognized? You're recognized for five minutes.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. The taxpayers in my state of California have been attacked by a staggering amount of fraud. And one of the very clear examples of that is with community colleges in particular. We saw a staggering 1.2 million fake community college applications. That's about a third of the applications that were simply used to commit financial aid fraud, where fraudsters would pose as applicants and then, you know, whatever portion of the financial aid was above and beyond tuition and fees and went to the supposed student, they would simply pocket as part of their criminal enterprise. And so our taxpayers lost millions and millions of dollars because of this. One of my local community colleges, they saw this massive increase in applicants, like a tripling in the number of applicants, and they said, huh, that's odd. We know we're doing a good job, but that's a pretty unusual spike in applications. So they actually were on top of things and implemented measures to combat this at their particular college, but not every college is able to do that, has the resources to do so. And frankly, the state has kind of been missing in action. So a group of us from California asked the Department of Education to look into this issue, and they responded by creating new ID verification validation requirements, which have been pretty successful in actually rooting out this fraud. So today's bill is simply codifying these practices to make sure that they remain in place and that fraudsters can't simply wait for a future administration to pull back these requirements. So the bill is called the No Aid for Ghost Students Act, and I think it's properly named because we want aid to go to real students, not ghost students. We're very proud of the financial aid that we're able to provide students to attend college, to attend community college, to climb the ladder of economic opportunity to become valuable contributing members of our workforce, and this bill will assure that they're the ones who benefit from financial aid, not fraudsters who are simply advancing criminal aims. I thank my colleague from Utah for proposing this bill. Very happy to support it, and I yield back.

The gentleman yields. Are there any others who wish to speak on the amendment in the nature of 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 would like to offer amendments? Representative Scott, do you wish to offer an amendment?

Mr. Chairman, I have two amendments that I'd like to offer en bloc. Scott VA_058 and Scott VA_059.

The clerk will report the amendments.

Amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute to H.R. 7892 offered by Mr. Scott Virginia, identifiers Scott VA_058 and Scott VA_059.

Does the gentleman from Utah reserve a point of order?

I reserve a point of order.

Point of order is reserved and I recognize the gentleman from Virginia, the ranking member, Mr. Scott, for five minutes in support of his amendments.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The first amendment _08 just says after fraud detection system, insert the following based on identity verification process for verification tracking groups V4 and V5. It's similar to the amendment I introduced in the previous bill. This would require colleges to determine a reasonable suspicion of identity fraud is not present by conducting in-person or live audio-visual verification of individuals. We have concerns about how the administration may interpret what constitutes reasonable suspicion, and my amendment would just make sure that it's talking about a verification process that's already in existence. V4 and 5 are more serious cases. Those are the ones that you are going after, not flagging people because of demographics or family size or anything else. Colleges should be able to trust the department is solely addressing legitimate suspicious suspicions rather than fearing the administration may be looking at this information for other reasons. The other amendment _09 simply says that the bill aims to streamline the identity verification process by requiring the Department of Education to implement an identity fraud detection system within the FAFSA process. But there are open questions regarding the requirement of institutions when faced with identity fraud and how colleges support students who have been flagged for additional verification. My amendment would require the Secretary of Education to provide resources, including technical and financial assistance, to colleges to carry out the new requirements outlined in H.R. 7891. The amendment would also require the Secretary to establish guidance for institutions that outline the specific roles and responsibilities of institutions and the department. Right now it's unclear what procedures they would have in place to support students who get flagged for increased identity verification, but it's critical for these students that they have timely access to their student aid if they get flagged. You don't want a situation where the verification process puts them past the deadline for registering for their courses. Additionally, it's important to make clear how institutions remain compliant with the new regulations as they navigate all of the complex changes in federal student aid from the big ugly law that was passed earlier in this session. We know colleges want to mitigate identity fraud within federal student aid. It hurts students and increases burdens on college administrators, but we must provide them with the tools they need to successfully implement a streamlined verification process and support their students who get flagged for verification. Therefore, I support these amendments and yield back.

The gentleman yields. Does the gentleman from Utah reserve?

I withdraw my point of order.

The reservation is withdrawn. Does anyone seek recognition on the amendment? I recognize the gentleman from Utah for five minutes.

I want to thank first of all the ranking member for offering the amendment, the financial assistance and guidelines. Unfortunately, this amendment is unnecessary and I must oppose it. The department already assists institutions with technical assistance when needed. Institutions also already receive taxpayer funds through federal student aid and should take their commitment to combating fraud seriously. They should not require an additional taxpayer funds to follow through on that commitment. The bill also provides Congress with information about the fraud detection system and a 30-day notice before any changes of that system is implemented. The bill also continues a also already has a an annual evaluations and reports on that fraud system as well as guidelines for that institution. There is no need to request an additional set of guidelines when this bill already clearly describes a process of combating fraud. And for the second amendment, adding assistant existing regulations on verification into the bill, this amendment is unnecessary. The bill is already clear that it's addressing this identity fraud. Adding current regulations language to FAFSA verification into this bill would only tie the hands of the department in adapting its systems to changing fraud schemes. We should oppose these amendments and support the underlying bill, and I yield back.

The gentleman yields. Does anyone else wish to speak 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 aye.

Aye.

All opposed no.

No.

No. In the opinion of the chair, the nos have it and the amendments and the amendments are not agreed to. Further action on H.R. 7892 is postponed. I'm sorry. There being no further amendments, the question now occurs on the amendment in the nature of a substitute to H.R. 7892. All in favor say aye.

Aye.

Aye. All opposed no.

No.

In the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it and the amendment in the nature of a substitute is agreed to. There being no further amendments and further action on H.R. 7892 being postponed, we'll now move to consider the next bill. The committee will now proceed to consideration of the bill H.R. 7893 for amendment. The bill was circulated in advance and printed copies are available. The clerk shall designate the bill.

H.R. 7893, a bill to amend the Higher Education Act of 1965 to improve the process for the verification of Social Security numbers required to be provided to the Secretary of Education for federal student aid and for other purposes.

Without objection, the first reading of the bill is dispensed with. Without objection, the bill will be considered as read and open for amendment at any point, and any amendment offered shall be considered as read. I now recognize myself to offer an amendment in the nature of a substitute. 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 H.R. 7893 offered by Mr. Walberg of Michigan, identifier 7893_ANS_01.

Without objection, the amendment shall be considered original text for purposes of further amendment. The amendment in the nature of a substitute has already been distributed. I now recognize myself for five minutes to explain the amendment in the nature of a substitute. The Department of Education is statutorily required to verify students' identities when they fill out the FAFSA form. To do that, the process uses an individual's Social Security number and checks government records to indicate citizenship status. This is not controversial and since 1995, the citizenship indicator has been used for purposes of identity verification. In 2019, Congress passed the FUTURE Act, which requires that all students and their contributors consent to having their tax information requested directly from the IRS and populated into FAFSA. To do this, the department needs to verify each student and his or her contributor's identities with the Social Security Administration. But there is a problem. The law only allows the department to verify the Social Security numbers of students and their parents, not other contributors like stepparents and spouses. The FAFSA Verification Efficiency Act fixes this gap by requiring the department, in coordination with the Social Security Administration, to verify the Social Security number and citizenship status of anyone applying for federal student aid and other contributors for the purpose purpose of identity verification. As Congress works to reduce improper federal student aid payments, we should make sure the department has the tools it needs to to detect fraudulent identities and inaccurate financial information. I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 7893, the FAFSA Verification Efficiency Act, and I yield back. Are there any members who wish to be recognized for further discussion on the amendment in the nature of a substitute? I recognize the gentleman, the ranking member from Virginia, Mr. Scott, for five minutes.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, H.R. 7893 amends the Higher Education Act to require the Department of Education, in cooperation with the Social Security Administration, to verify Social Security numbers of anyone that is required to be provided to the Secretary for federal student aid eligibility. When students complete a FAFSA, they can consent to having their and their contributor's tax information pulled directly from the Internal Revenue Service, which speeds up the process in determining federal student aid. To do this IRS match, the department must verify the student or contributor's Social Security number. However, it is currently it currently only has the authority to verify the Social Security numbers of students and parents of dependent students, but fails to address spouses and stepparents. H.R. 7893 would ensure the department can verify Social Security number of any family member contributing to FAFSA and therefore more easily access their tax data through the IRS. However, this bill goes a step further and requires the Secretary to collect and verify citizenship status of any individual who provides their Social Security number for the purpose of federal student aid. This opens the door to a very concerning federal data collection on citizenship beyond what is required by law. Only students and parents who are applying for a parent only students and parents who are applying for a Parent PLUS loan should be required to verify their citizenship status because only citizens are eligible for those for those loans. And that's what happens under current law. Given the Trump administration's ongoing rampant and violent attacks on immigrants and people of color across the country, I'm concerned that this data collection can and will be used to further expand immigration enforcement and intimidate students from mixed-status families from applying to college. Congress should never authorize Congress should never authorize this citizenship verification of anybody who did not receive federal who is not receiving federal student aid, and we certainly should not give the Trump administration more authority to to surveil or intimidate students and their families for simply applying to college. Therefore, we will offer amendments to address these issues, including limiting citizenship verification to individuals accessing federal student aid and prohibiting FAFSA data from being shared or used in immigration enforcement. So I oppose my colleagues to oppose the underlying bill unless these are

Are there any other members who wish to be recognized for further discussion on the amendment in the nature of a substitute? There being no further discussion on the amendment in the nature of a substitute, the committee will move to consideration of amendments. Are there any members who would like to offer amendments? Does the gentleman from Virginia, the ranking member, wish to offer an amendment?

Yes, Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk, Scott_AMD_04.

The clerk will report the amendment.

Amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute to H.R. 7893 offered by Mr. Scott of Virginia, identifier Scott_FAFSA_AMD_04.

We'll suspend for a moment. Will the clerk redesignate the amendment.

Amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute to H.R. 7893 offered by Mr. Scott of Virginia, identifier Scott_FAFSA_AMD_04.

Does the gentleman from Utah reserve a point of order?

I reserve a point of order.

Point of order is reserved. I now recognize the gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Scott, the ranking member, for five minutes in support of his amendment.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, H.R. 7893 opens the door to very concerning federal data collection on citizenship status that outweighs any improvement made to the application process. As I said in my earlier remarks, parental and spousal citizenship status does not affect student eligibility for financial aid. Thus, there is no reason for Congress to expand citizenship verification for anybody beyond those where it is relevant to eligibility. My amendment would prohibit the Department of Education from collecting citizenship or immigration status of anyone who is not required to have their citizenship verified for the purpose of receiving federal student aid. It would also prohibit the Department of Education from sharing FAFSA data with other agencies. Prevalent immigration enforcement across the country raises concerns about how the Trump administration may choose to weaponize citizenship data on students, students' parents, and their spouses. Without these restrictions, this bill creates another tool for the Trump administration to encroach on people's data and advance harmful immigration actions. Just last month, immigration agents detained a student at Columbia University after misrepresenting themselves to access a restricted area of campus without legal authorization. And outside of higher education, we have already seen the Trump administration break the trust of everyday Americans to advance their immigration enforcement. For example, the IRS illegally shared private taxpayer data with the Department of Homeland Security. So how can we trust that they are not going to weaponize FAFSA data? Regardless of immigration status, increase in immigration enforcement across the country, especially in education spaces, is negatively impacting students, families, and college staff, many of whom, most of whom are there properly without any problems. Seeing having young people see their classmates dragged away inflicts trauma on them that they will never forget. So this amendment will ensure that students can access federal student aid without fear of their loved ones being reprimanded while still making improvements to FAFSA. I urge my colleagues to support the amendment. Yield back.

The gentleman yields back. Does the gentleman from Utah insist on a point of order? The gentleman yields back. Does the gentleman from Utah insist on a point of order?

I withdraw my point of order. I withdraw my point of order.

Point of order is withdrawn. I recognize myself for five minutes in opposition to the amendment. I personally believe, looking at, reading the amendment, it is unnecessary. The identity verification process between the Department of Education and Social Security Administration constitutes a matching program under the Privacy Act of 1974 and is allowed under the statutory authority provided by the Higher Education Act. This has been the Department of Education's process for students who have applied for federal financial aid since 1995. The process that this bill would statutorily require of all FAFSA contributors is already the status quo for many. The department knows how to safeguard this data as they use it for the intended purpose of identity verification and have been doing so for years. I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment and support the underlying bill, and I yield back. Are there any others who wish to speak on the amendment?

Yes, Mr. Chairman.

The gentlelady from Oregon, do you wish to speak on the amendment?

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

You are recognized for five minutes.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to align myself with the comments of Ranking Member Scott and support his amendment. We have seen in my home state of Oregon and across the country a vicious attack on immigrants, and this amendment will help to address that. And Mr. Chairman, you said that the department would safeguard the data. I say without hesitation that I do not trust in this administration that they will safeguard any data. As we speak, there is a press conference right now in support of DACA students who, of course, are people in our communities who contribute so much to our communities, to our society, to our economy. We should be protecting DACA students as well, Mr. Chairman. I wish we were working on the Dream and Promise Act instead of this. So I want to align myself with Mr. Scott and am extremely concerned about anything that is going to discourage people from getting a higher education and particularly give information to the Department of Homeland Security to increase their already vicious and violent attacks against immigrants and people of color across the country, and I yield back.

The gentlelady yields. Are there any others who wish to speak on the amendment? Seeing none, the question is on the amendment by the gentleman from Virginia. All in favor say aye.

Aye.

All opposed no. No. In the opinion of the chair, the nos have it and the amendment is not agreed to. A roll call vote is ordered pursuant to the chair's previous announcement. This vote will be postponed. Are there any further amendments to the amendment in the nature of a substitute to H.R. 7893? I recognize the gentleman from Virginia, the ranking member, Mr. Scott, for an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I have a substitute to the amendment in the nature of a substitute at the desk. It is SUB_01.

The clerk will report the amendment.

Substitute to the amendment in the nature of a substitute to H.R. 7893, offered by Mr. Scott of Virginia, identifier SCOTT_FAFSA_SUB_01.

Does the gentleman from Utah reserve a point of order? A point of order is reserved. I now recognize the gentleman from Virginia, the ranking member, Mr. Scott, for five minutes in support of his amendment.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, H.R. 7893 would improve the FAFSA process for dependent or married students and their contributors, but this bill goes too far. It opens the door to increased federal data collection on citizenship status as this country experiences an unprecedented amount of violent immigration enforcement efforts. Parent and spouse citizenship status does not affect the student eligibility for financial aid. Therefore, citizenship status should not be collected for anybody except students applying for federal aid or parents applying for Parent PLUS loans, and that is already required under federal law. The Democratic amendment in the nature of a substitute would replace the text of the bill with a more narrow verification process. Specifically, this amendment would require the Department of Education to work with the Social Security Administration to verify the Social Security numbers of any person applying for federal student aid or any parent applying for a Parent PLUS loan. This would help improve the department's data matching process to determine student aid without expanding the Trump administration's ability to unnecessarily collect or verify citizenship status on family members for which that citizenship status is not relevant to the eligibility for student aid in that case. So let's be clear, the current law does not require either a student's parents or spouse to be citizens in order for that student to receive federal student aid. Congress should not allow the Trump administration to get away with expanding citizenship collection or encouraging the surveillance of students with family members who may not be citizens or are caught up in President Trump's violent immigration enforcement tactics. This amendment will ensure that our students and their contributors' data are protected while making improvements to FAFSA. So I urge my colleagues to support this amendment in the nature of a substitute or oppose the underlying bill.

The gentleman yields. I recognize myself in opposition to the amendment. The department has used citizenship, as I mentioned before, as a component of the identity verification process for students applying for federal student aid since 1995. It should not be controversial to allow the department to use citizenship to verify the identities of anyone who contributes to the FAFSA. The department has been safeguarding this data for 30 years. The underlying bill allows the department to use citizenship for identity verification without restricting student aid based on the citizenship status of a student's parents, stepparents, or spouse. It is also not necessary to include that the department must engage in a computer matching agreement since this is what is required by the Privacy Act. I oppose this amendment and support my underlying bill, and I yield back. Does anyone else seek recognition on the amendment? I recognize the gentlelady from Oregon, Ms. Bonamici, for five minutes on the amendment.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I want to speak in favor of Mr. Scott's amendment for the reasons he explained. But I also want to note, Mr. Chairman, that you said this should not be controversial. But it is. And in other years and other times it might not be, but it is because this administration is targeting immigrants and people of color in a vicious way, and so this is going to discourage people from applying to college, people who have the right to apply and the right to get financial aid and the right to attend depending on who their family is or what they look like. So I strongly support this amendment for the reasons Mr. Scott explained, and I yield back. And I yield the rest of my time to Mr. Scott.

I would just ask you a question. What effect would this have on a student who is eligible for student aid but has an undocumented relative that may be contributing, their citizenship status having nothing to do with their eligibility? Might the student not even apply if they have got to expose their relative?

Absolutely. That is my understanding, Mr. Ranking Member, based on conversations and what I have seen in the community where I live and the community I represent, for example. Yes, it very well could be that eligible students will not apply because they are afraid of their families being targeted. And that it is so frustrating and so concerning. We have right now in Oregon kids afraid to go to school because they are afraid ICE is going to come into their classroom. We have a lot of fear in the community from ICE raids and ICE showing up in places and targeting people. Our small businesses are suffering because ICE trucks are in their parking lots. People are not going to the restaurants or shopping at the stores. And Mr. Ranking Member and committee members, this is going to have some generational trauma on some of these kids. There is a lot of kids who are in fear right now about their own government targeting themselves or their families. And so I strongly support the amendment. I wish we were having a more serious conversation about the what's happening to students across the country with the fear of of ICE being violent in their community or the fear. We have we have kids afraid that when they go home their parents won't be there. That that is so wrong. Kids who are U.S. citizens. I have a a mother I'm trying to get out of detention right now who's been in detention for almost two months, never committed any crime. Her her church submitted letters on her behalf. She's loved by her church and her community and her friends and her and she's in detention and her kids are suffering in school. They were doing really well, U.S. citizen kids, they were doing really well in school, but now their dad is recovering from surgery, he can't help them, their mom is sitting with your taxpayer dollars in a prison-like detention center even though she has never committed a crime, paid her taxes, and this is wrong, Mr. Chairman, for many reasons, but I support your amendment. I hope we can have a more thorough conversation about what's happening in schools and to young people across this country because of this the violent actions of ICE and I yield back.

Does the gentleman yield?

The gentleman yields. I recognize the gentleman from Utah.

I'd like to yield my time to the Chairman.

I thank the gentleman. Let me reiterate. I appreciate the sensitivity, the compassion, the emotion, but again the underlying bill allows the department to use citizenship for identity verification without restricting, without restricting student aid based on the citizenship status of a student's parents, stepparents, or spouse. Full stop. Full stop. On the other issues, I would encourage us to ratchet down the venomous venomous statements about ICE, Customs and Borders, and about the law itself. There are people that are being scared to receive legal opportunities because of let me control myself and say inaccurate spin information being put out. It's time to stop that. I yield back to the gentleman from Utah. Does anyone else seek recognition on the amendment? The gentleman from California, do you wish to be recognized?

Mr. Chairman, I I recognize.

You're recognized for five minutes.

Yes. Thank you. I move to strike the last word. You know, Mr. Chairman, I have American citizens in my own district, some who hold public office, who feel compelled to carry a passport because they are being racially profiled and targeted, targeted by virtue of the fact that people who are Latino or of Hispanic descent or who may appear to be so are being targeted. The Supreme Court has green-lighted Kavanaugh stops. And so if you would to if the gentleman would walk in the shoes of someone who by virtue of just being who they are is afraid that immigration enforcement, whether it is border border patrol, whether it is ICE, can put them into detention for up to 72 hours. This has occurred with the guest of that I brought to the State of the Union, George Reddis, who was a army military veteran on his way to work. I don't think that we are being inflammatory when we tell the stories of these individuals or when we express the fear and anxiety of our constituents. This is the distrust that's been engendered by this administration and this legislation, which you purport to say is so simple, is not so simple. I wish that we could trust government agencies, but we've seen government agencies and their policies be responsible for the deaths of American citizens. And I would remind this committee and all Americans, it's not just American citizens who have rights in this country. Non-citizens are also recognized by the Constitution. The 14th Amendment does not say no citizen shall be denied life, liberty, or property except under due process of law. It says no person. No person. And the Constitution was written very intentionally in this case, this amendment. Every human being who walks within our borders is to be respected in terms of their legal rights, and their legal rights mean that they have a right to due process. I take exception to what Justice Kavanaugh did in green-lighting Kavanaugh stops and racial profiling. And so our underlying concern with this legislation is very real. It is not hyperbole and it is not inflammatory. Our concerns are very real. And with that I yield back.

Gentleman yields. Are there any others 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 aye. [Chorus of ayes.] All opposed no. No. In the opinion of the chair, the nos have it and the amendment is not agreed to. A roll call vote is ordered pursuant to the chair's previous announcement. This vote will be postponed. Are there any further amendments to the amendment in the nature of a substitute to H.R. 7893? Further action on H.R. 7893 is postponed. We will now move to consideration of the next bill. The committee will now proceed to consideration of the bill H.R. 7661 for amendment. The bill was circulated in advance and printed copies are available. The clerk shall designate the bill.

H.R. 7661, a bill to amend the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 to prohibit the use of funds provided under such act to develop, implement, facilitate, host, or promote any program or activity for or to provide or promote literature or other materials to children under the age of 18 that includes sexually oriented material and for other purposes.

Without objection, the first reading of the bill is dispensed with. Without objection, the bill will be considered as read and open for amendment at any point. And any amendment offered shall be considered as read. Does anyone seek to be recognized? Representative Miller, for what purpose do you seek recognition?

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment in the nature of a substitute at the desk, amendment 7661 ANS_01.

The clerk shall designate the amendment in the nature of a substitute.

Amendment in the nature of a substitute to H.R. 7661 offered by Ms. Miller of Illinois, identifier 7661 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 Ms. Miller for five minutes to explain the amendment in the nature of a substitute.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for including my bill in this week's markup. The COVID-19 pandemic response wreaked havoc on our education system by isolating children and cutting them off from in-person learning and school sports. Yet it was during the pandemic when parents began paying closer attention to what their children were being taught. When these parents showed up to school board meetings to voice their concerns or read excerpts from books, the National School Boards Association sent a letter to the Biden-Harris administration that accused engaged parents of domestic terrorism. Meanwhile, reading and math scores have stagnated or declined nationwide. Schools should be laser-focused on improving educational outcomes, not pushing sexually explicit material in the classrooms. Yet in many schools, inappropriate content is available to children in kindergarten. And I've seen and read some of this curriculum. I've been married 46 years. I am embarrassed to talk about what we are putting in front of our children, what we're talking about is obscene and it's being funded by taxpayer dollars. In fact, books like Gender Queer, Lawn Boy, and It's Perfectly Normal are so explicit that even their authors admit they were never intended for children. According to Max Eden from the American Enterprise Institute, if a stranger were to read these books to a fourth grader on the street, he might be arrested and prosecuted. Additionally, parents are frequently prohibited from reading these books at school board meetings. In Clay County, Florida, a father attempted to read from the book Lucky at a school board meeting but his microphone was cut off. A district spokesperson later explained, when addressing the board, since our meetings are televised, we must abide by FCC laws and regulations. So think about this. What we are using taxpayer-funded dollars to put in front of our children is prohibited under FCC laws and regulations. In Asheville, North Carolina, a local pastor was interrupted by school board officials while he read from It's Perfectly Normal, to which he replied, if you don't want to hear it in a school board meeting, why should children be able to check it out of the school system? In my home state of Illinois, Chicago Public Schools featured sexual education curriculum beginning in kindergarten. In the first grade, there were lessons on how to identify gender identity. In second grade, students were taught the concept of gender stereotypes and how to quote advocate for change. By fifth grade, there was an introduction to puberty blockers. I have seen this curriculum. It is it is obscene. I don't know what else to say. They are introducing our our first graders to how to masturbate with pictures. We go on into lower elementary schools introducing them to gross oral and anal sex. People I talk to do not believe me. I have to show them the curriculum. It is happening 100 percent. They are using taxpayer dollars for it. That is why I've introduced H.R. 7661, Stop the Sexualization of Our Children Act, to counteract students' exposure to inappropriate content by prohibiting the use of federal taxpayer dollars to promote sexually explicit materials. The ANS simply makes a technical change. Surely we can all agree this should not be a partisan issue, that pornographic content has no place in schools. And I can tell you as someone that spent time in a public school classroom and ended up homeschooling my children, there is not time in the day to be able to introduce our children to all the wonderful educational materials and wonderful literature there is. This is the other terrible thing about this is they are wasting precious classroom time. Therefore, I urge all of my colleagues to support this bill and I yield back. Thank you.

The gentlelady yields. Are there any other members who wish to be recognized for further discussion on the amendment in the nature of a substitute? The gentlelady from Georgia, Ms. McBath, do you wish to be recognized?

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I wish to speak in opposition to the amendment in the nature of substitute.

You're recognized for five minutes.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. This bill is not about protecting children. One of the first bipartisan bills that I got signed into law, the End Child Exploitation Act, extended the retention period of reported child sexual abuse material from 90 days up to one year, ensuring law enforcement has sufficient time to investigate, hold predators accountable, and get them off the street away from our families. That bill was about protecting children. This bill is about pressuring schools and teachers into conforming to this Republican majority's specific worldview. It's about erasing history and replacing difficult conversations about complicated issues like the Holocaust and slavery, two of the greatest evils ever to be inflicted upon the world, two evils whose victims' stories deserve to be told in this country. Yes, hearing about these things is very uncomfortable for all of us. The heinous acts of violence and degradation described and depicted should disturb every single one of us. That's part of how we know the things done to the victims were so wrong. Just reading or hearing what really happened to these people makes one simply recoil. But that doesn't mean that we should hide from them. People deserve to know the truth at the appropriate age, and this bill treats 16 and 17-year-olds the same as kindergartners or first graders, two ages that are completely different levels of maturity, that are prepared for vastly different levels of information and sensitivity. Just like public schools don't start off teaching math to kindergartners with trigonometry or calculus, they don't start off teaching history to our youngest children with nude photos of Holocaust victims or any other extremely sensitive part of history. This bill would ban programming for all students under the age of 18. That includes sexually oriented material, including any program, activity, literature, or material that exposes students to nudity. It then lists a variety of exceptions, including standard science coursework, but there's no mention of history, no mention of history whatsoever. Would this ban include learning about the forced stripping that was done to so many victims of the Holocaust before they were executed? Would there be a ban on 17-year-olds learning about the daily reality of female slaves in our country, about women who were unable to give consent, who lived under the constant threat of rape and assault? Should that history not be taught? These examples can't be dismissed as just sexual and cast aside. That's the history of what happened here. What a disservice to the victims that suffered to sum up what happened to them with one simple word and hide away their story is unconscionable. These stories are testaments to the lives that these people truly lived and the horrors that they were forced to endure, horrors that must be confronted if we are ever truly want to see them stop. It's easy for us to just turn away from these things because they're uncomfortable and they're hard for us to understand or hard for us to fathom, but that is not what Congress should be encouraging. I'm opposed to this bill, and I yield back.

Gentlelady yields. Gentleman from North Carolina, Mr. Harris, do you wish to be recognized?

Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I rise today to support the Stop the Sexualization of Children Act because tax dollars should not be used to promote explicit material to minors. At its core, this legislation is about protecting children from content you would find in an X-rated movie. It's about curating good content for kids, not banning books. This bill guards against using federal taxpayer dollars to promote or develop sexually oriented materials for children. And let me be clear, what's often overlooked, this legislation defines this by referencing existing federal definitions of graphic sexual conduct. Just as importantly, it also makes clear what this bill does not do. It does not prohibit the teaching of legitimate science, such as biology. It does not restrict the study of classical works of literature or art. There's a profound difference between studying timeless works that have helped shape Western civilization and exposing children to modern materials that contain graphic and explicit sexual content. This bill draws that line. Students can still learn about great works that have shaped civilization, from Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet to masterpieces like Michelangelo's David. It also protects the study of major religious texts and other historically significant writings. The purpose of our schools should be clear: to equip young people with the tools they need to succeed by focusing on reading, writing, math, and science, not to expose them to content that would make adults blush. I thank my colleague, Representative Miller of Illinois, for leading on this issue, and I urge my colleagues to vote yes on the Stop the Sexualization of Children's Act. And with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.

Gentleman yields. I now recognize gentlelady from Oregon for five minutes.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I move to strike the last word and speak in opposition to the amendment in the nature of a substitute.

You are recognized.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Instead of focusing on federal issues that actually matter in K-12 education, like saving the Department of Education from extinction or fully funding IDEA or ESSA, this bill blatantly interferes with local control and would force a radical book-banning agenda on public schools across the country. Republicans have repeatedly denied any interest in banning books, we just heard that, but this bill does exactly that. This bill tramples on the rights of parents and educators and school board members and state legislators by setting a federal mandate on local curriculum. In 1969, the United States Supreme Court said students do not shed their constitutional rights at the schoolhouse gate. And yes, there are some limits on First Amendment rights. The Supreme Court ruled in the 1970s that obscenity is not protected by the First Amendment, but members of this committee don't get to decide what obscenity is. It uses this bill, in fact, doesn't even begin to meet Supreme Court tests. It uses the broadly defined sexually oriented material with its own overly broad definition that appears to apply equally to kindergartners and high school seniors. Additionally, I strongly object to defining classic works of art and literature as any works identified by Compass Classroom. This is a Christian homeschool curriculum developed by individuals who promote religious creationism over scientific evolution. This type of ideology has absolutely no place in public schools, which, as we should all know, serve students from many different backgrounds and religions. And additionally, if you spent time talking with teachers and visiting classrooms, then you know that educators, whether they be classroom teachers or school librarians, they're not interested in exposing their students to books that are not age-appropriate. Is there real quantitative data that shows this is an issue? We've heard anecdotes, discussions better raised with educators and school boards, but not to promote federal legislation that would apply to and interfere with virtually every public school in the country. We took an oath to defend the Constitution. The First Amendment states that Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion. Legislation that would limit public school curriculum to materials approved by a religious group, that's not at all consistent with the First Amendment. Also, and concerningly, this bill defines sexually oriented material to include gender dysphoria and transgenderism, which I'm not sure is a word, but there's no clarification of what these terms mean. Once again, my colleagues are stoking the flames of culture war issues, but in doing so, they are dehumanizing a group of individuals who happen to be different from them. The goal here is not an elimination of ideology, but of people, people who are just as deserving of dignity, respect, and love as anyone else, and I truly look forward to the day when my colleagues quit picking on trans students. This bill represents a sweeping overreach of congressional authority, fueled by narrow-mindedness and religious extremism. And as I've said many times, this is the United States Congress, not a school board. Let's leave local issues to local districts and end federal interference in school curriculum. And Mr. Chairman, I want to read briefly from a statement from the American Library Association, and I want to introduce this into the record as well, Mr. Chairman.

Without objection.

The American Library Association said H.R. 7661 isn't fundamentally about protecting kids, it's about giving politicians broad authority to restrict whose stories are allowed on our shelves. That should concern anyone who believes in the freedom to read and the right of families to make decisions for themselves. Rather than targeting librarians and teachers, Congress should invest in them. The Right to Read Act, which I note is a bill introduced by our colleague on the committee, Representative Grijalva, offers a better path, supporting well-staffed and well-resourced school libraries, strengthening evidence-based literacy instruction, and protecting the dedicated professionals who help young people discover books that open doors and expand horizons. When we trust families, support educators, and protect the freedom to read, our young people thrive. H.R. 7661 would modify the Elementary and Secondary Education Act by prohibiting the use of funds under the act to develop, implement, facilitate, host, or promote any program or activity for or provide or promote literature or other materials to children under the age of 18 that includes sexually oriented material and other purposes. I want to introduce that entire statement into the record because it agrees that parents, not politicians, should guide their children's reading. Mr. Chairman, I wish we were instead debating the Right to Read Act. I think it would be a much more positive thing for our communities. I urge all of my colleagues to vote against this amendment into the nature of the substitute and the underlying bill. It's harmful. I want to uphold the Constitution and free speech rights and reject H.R. 7661, and I yield back.

Gentlelady's time has expired, yields back. Are there any other members who wish to speak? I recognize gentleman from Florida, Mr. Fine, for five minutes.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm actually here and not across the hall in another committee hearing because I was waiting my bill to come up next. But sometimes there are times when you actually have to speak up. And to hear the Holocaust used as an excuse for why we shouldn't read books to kids that sexualize them and how to teach them how to engage in acts of sexual depravity is simply repulsive and disgusting. There is nothing about teaching the Holocaust that has anything to do with sexualization unless you're some kind of sicko who gets off on the death of people. I read these books when I was a little kid, and believe you me, there was nothing about them that would find that. And to use the Holocaust, the death of six million people under the most horrific circumstances possible, as an excuse to allow books that when I was in the legislature, I could not read out loud in committee. And when one member did it, the news media had to turn it off. There's no book that you will read about the Holocaust that the media is going to say, no, no, we must shut this down. You know, Democrats lie and they say these bills are about banning books. I ended this debate in Florida because every time I would hear this ridiculous argument, I would ask why my book was banned. I wrote a book when I was in college. I wrote the only academic work ever written on the office of the lieutenant governor. And I have news for you: it's not a book that should be in a school library or read in class, in part because it's pretty boring. Turns out there are tens of millions of books that have been published, and the average school library only has room for 15,000 of them. The average class can only read less than a dozen in a year. Someone gets to make the decision on who the what books should be in the library and what books should be read in class. And I will tell you this: the people who should be making that decision are ones who don't think reading the Holocaust about the Holocaust is going to be of sexual interest. We can't let these people have anything to do with what books our children read, that much has been made clear today. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I yield back.

Gentleman yields. Are there any other members who wish to speak? The gentleman from California, Mr. Takano, do you wish to be recognized?

Yes, Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word on the ANS.

You are recognized for five minutes.

Yeah, well, the very people who should not be determining what can and can't be read in our schools should not be members of Congress at the federal level. This is, you know, strictly something that curriculum decisions should be made by local school boards and the states. And this is, you know, traditionally and, you know, through precedent, something that we at the federal government just do not, you know, take jurisdiction over. But what I want to talk about is H.R. 7661, the so-called Stop the Sexualization of Children Act, which should be more aptly called the Don't Say Trans Act. It prohibits schools from receiving Elementary and Secondary Education Act funds from using those funds to develop, implement, facilitate, host, or promote any program or activity that includes or to promote, provide, or promote literature or other materials that include, quote, sexually oriented material to children under the age of 18. Now, sexually oriented material is defined to include, among other things, any materials that involve gender dysphoria or transgenderism, quote, unquote. Now, this bill would have far-reaching consequences, including barring any discussion of transgender people or topics in the classroom, banning books with transgender characters or that discuss the existence of transgender people, and banning gay, queer, straight alliances. This the prohibition on programs or activities that include, quote, sexually oriented oriented material could also be used to target other LGBTQI+ materials as well. Well, what I want to say is there is nothing taboo about being trans. This bill cannot erase the fact that trans people are a part of our communities. They are our family, our friends, our coworkers, and neighbors. Acknowledging the existence of transgender people is not sexual. Parents across the country want their children to learn in safe, affirming environments. This bill is meant to isolate and target trans kids and teachers. Bills like this one that censor the existence of trans people in our trans people in our society reinforce the negativity and hostility that many trans people, especially youth, already experience. Just to give an example, in 2021, 68.0 68 percent of all LGBTQI+ students surveyed by GLSEN reported feeling unsafe in their school environment due to their perceived sexual orientation, gender identity, or expression. In addition, more than three-quarters of LGBTQI+ students who attended school in person during the surveyed period reported experiencing in-person verbal harassment based on their sexual orientation, gender expression, or gender at some point this past year. In 2024, a peer-reviewed study found that state-level anti-transgender laws increased incidence of suicide attempts among transgender and non-binary youth by as much as 72 percent, a 72 percent increase. Attempts to erase trans people and content from schools and ban queer-straight alliances will only exacerbate the challenges trans students already face and further isolate them. Instead of addressing actual problems in our education systems, this what I call Don't Say Trans bill, which is what this bill really is, like this one, what they do, what this bill does is stigmatize trans youth, trans teachers, and the children of trans parents. You know, America is a country of freedom of speech and freedom of ideas, yet this bill seeks to censor curriculums and ban books in order to erase American history and erase the existence of transgender people. Censoring transgender-related materials and topics also sets a dangerous precedent that politicians can censor a range of school content based on pol on that politician's political ideology. Now, the last person we need dictating school curricula is a politician who quoted Hitler. Politicians who try to censor information and control education with bills like this one don't care about what's best for America's students, they care only about advancing their political agenda. States, school districts, and teachers know how to draft age-appropriate standards and curriculum for students. Let me say that again, states, school districts, and teachers know how to draft age-appropriate standards and curriculum for teachers. This bill's author seeks to, you know, use, I think, hyperbole and inflammatory language, which is really irrelevant to really what happens in most school districts around the country. I would say 99.9 percent of the school districts are very much focused on age-appropriate standards. There is no need for this overreach of a bill to to create an issue or create a solution to a problem that does not exist. And with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.

Gentleman yields. I now recognize gentleman from California, Mr. Kiley, for five minutes.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. There is undoubtedly some truly horrifying examples of vile content being taught to children, very young children, in some schools across the country. And we discussed some of this at a recent hearing of the K-12 Education Subcommittee. And I know that the purpose of this bill is to protect our kids from that kind of content and to protect the rights of parents from having their kids exposed to it. That being said, I there I do want to sound a few notes of caution about how this bill is is currently written. And and the first relates to this idea of age-appropriateness, because that's really at the core of these concerns, is that kids are being taught content that is simply not age-appropriate. But this bill isn't really guided by that principle of age-appropriateness, insofar as its restrictions are categorical across all of K through 12. And some of these issues cut a lot differently depending upon the age of the child. You know, for example, we don't generally teach sexual education in kindergarten, but basic sex ed is taught in later grades. Or even if you take the language from the bill, which says that, you know, one form of this sexually explicit content involves gender dysphoria or transgenderism, certainly I would agree that under no circumstances is it appropriate to be bringing these issues into a kindergarten classroom. But if we're talking about seniors in high school reading a book that happens to have a minor character that identifies as transgender, whether that book should or should not be allowed strikes me as a much different issue that might better be debated at the level of the local school board. And, you know, that brings me to the second point is that the language here cuts quite broadly and it's sort of hard to avoid that when you're talking about trying to create language that encompasses the entirety of what could appear in in literature or art or or any other subject. And, you know, the the result of that is that, you know, you could have situations where you have, you know, forms of truly valuable or meritorious content that end up getting restricted or that create a kind of chilling effect, and this does in some sense come dangerously close to violating the principle of not dictating curriculum at the federal level. And and the bill seems to acknowledge this, which is my final point, which is that it does have this list of great books and so forth that are essentially exempted from the bill. And so acknowledging that these are works of such great merit that even if they do have some inappropriate content or some content that otherwise runs afoul of the proscriptions of this bill, the merit is so great of these particular works that it outweighs that harm. But if this is the case, if we can have, you know, recognize that there's a balance to be struck here, why should that only be possible with a specific circumscribed list of texts and that essentially freezes what are considered the great works in time? Why shouldn't that be an issue or a matter that is debated at at the local level with respect to individual works? So I might suggest approaching this from the perspective of the Mahmoud case, which we discussed in a recent hearing, which provides a fundamental right of parents to opt their children out of curriculum that runs afoul of deeply held religious convictions. We could even, you know, align the funding decisions with that, that, you know, districts that fail to adhere to Mahmoud, that don't provide parents with robust opt-out rights, potentially could see their funding put at risk. I think that might be a better approach that would address concerns that I have and that I think are likely to develop as this among others as this legislation progresses. So thank you, I very much do appreciate the intent of the author and I yield back.

Gentleman yields. Are there any others who wish to speak on... Yes. I recognize Mr. Scott for five minutes.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, first of all, I think it has to be said and it's been alluded to that the federal government does not control what is taught in schools. It's well established in statute that states and localities determine the curriculum without interference from the federal government. Now, we can revisit that and let's decide on a federal level what is taught in public schools. And we can have a debate on what history, what civics gets taught. If we're going to do that, let's do it. Let's not just do it when you want to do it or when somebody else wants to do it. Let's just get rid of the idea that the federal government does not control what is taught in schools. But so long as we have that, we ought to we ought to honor it. Now, apparently some legislator in Florida said something reprehensible at a at a hearing, but that does not justify wholesale book banning. And this bill doesn't even prevent sexualized material, it just says who gets to present it. We've heard the Supreme Court test. I mean, how do you how do you have a test when you can have certain things said if it comes from a major world religion? What about a minor world religion? Same thing, do they get to say the same thing or is is that material stricken? And where do we get this list from? If you're on this list of exemptions, you get to say anything you want about sex. If somebody says exactly the same thing, all of a sudden they're prohibited. This doesn't make any sense. These decisions have to be made under the present structure locally. And if we're going to get into making those decisions, let's get into making all of the decisions. How many years of math? How many years of science? How we teach the Civil War and civics all over the country, same curriculum. Let's impose it. Or we can keep things as they are, the localities get to decide. But this cannot possibly pass the Supreme Court test where some people get to say things and others can't say exactly the same thing because they're not on the list. I'd hope we'd defeat the bill.

Gentleman yields, and I now recognize the gentleman from Utah for five minutes.

Thank you. This is not one that I was actually planning on commenting on until I started listening to what's being said here. We're not talking about Civil War, we're not talking about Nazi Germany, we're talking about kids. Six, seven, eight years old that adults are talking about putting pornography in front of them and thinking that's okay. What in the world, where have we come to that we're having this debate? This should be of all things nonpartisan. We're seeing our children turned into crazy, sexual-focused people because we're starting off teaching them things they should not be even thinking about at that age. By the way, this is the only way we're going to get past this is choice. We're not going to convince some of these adults who think it's okay to talk this kind of crap, sorry, sorry, this kind of stuff to young people. We're not going to convince them that it's okay. There's something spiritually disconnected when we can say this is okay to do to our children. So here's the deal. Let's focus on choice. Let parents take a look at the curriculum. If they think it's okay for their children to go in this direction, which I don't think they will, they will pull them out. The more choice we have, the more this will fall in place. I don't think that we should have anything, no matter federal, state, that separates the parents to understanding what their children are being taught. If the parents understand this, they'll have a choice of moving them out. I think we're looking at really the culture of our nation at this point. If we can't figure out something as easy as this, that we need to protect our children's character, protect them from things that will impact them in a very, very different way, we can't do that, then we're going to have some problems. So again, let's bring choice to the process, let parents decide, and I think this will be taken care of in our process. So I yield back.

The gentleman yields. Are there any other members who wish to be recognized for further 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? I recognize the gentleman from California, Mr. Takano. Do you wish to offer an amendment?

Yes, Mr. Chairman, I do have an amendment at the desk.

The clerk will designate the amendment.

Amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute to H.R. 7661, offered by Mr. Takano of California, identifier TAKANO_7661_AMD_02.

Does the gentleman from Utah reserve a point of order?

I reserve a point of order.

Point of order is reserved. I now recognize the gentleman from California, Mr. Takano, for five minutes in support of his amendment.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My amendment would remove discussions of transgender identity from the bill's definition of "sexually oriented material." This bill is not about protecting children. It is yet another backdoor way to manipulate federal funds to force ideological compliance. This bill says that an entire population cannot be mentioned in books that students read in schools. This bill says that the existence of an entire population cannot be taught by teachers because some D.C. politicians dictated it so. This bill writes off an entire group of Americans, their history, and their contributions to American society as nothing more than "sexually oriented material." It uses the same tired excuse to politicize and erase transgender and other LGBTQI Americans from the curriculums and from the classrooms. In the style of Joseph McCarthy, this bill gives politicians the unilateral power to censor those who they don't understand or don't agree with. Acknowledging the existence of transgender people is not sexual. I will say that again, acknowledging the existence of transgender people is not sexual. Transgender people exist in communities large and small across the United States. They are your friends, your neighbors, your teachers, your colleagues, and everyday Americans. Transgender people have always been a part of American society and always will be. That is not ideology, that is reality. Transgender students are a small proportion of kids that already face significant hostility in their day-to-day lives. As already mentioned, in a 2021 survey, nearly 70 percent of LGBTQ+ students surveyed said they felt unsafe in their learning environment because of their identity. Another study found that anti-trans state laws have increased suicide attempts among transgender youth by as much as 72 percent. Those are huge percentages that paint a dire picture. But studies show correspondingly huge positive statistics when LGBTQ+ students are in environments that support, embrace, and affirm them. Rates of suicidal ideation were reduced by 62 percent when young people were surrounded by supportive loved ones. Across the board, young transgender people who had supportive school environments had significantly better mental health outcomes than their peers in unaccepting communities. Acceptance makes a massive difference in the lives of these children. And even if a little bit of support through a history book, a Gay-Straight Alliance, or an affirming teacher, these can help these children imagine a future for themselves when we have no right to stand in their way. Now, there isn't some conspiracy to turn kids trans. Children are born themselves and it's our job as educators to accept, include, and support them as they grow up. This is basic decency. For all the lip service my colleagues pay to "giving education back to the states" and letting school boards make their curricular decisions, they have an incredible zeal for handing down federal mandates on school curricula. Now, as a former teacher myself, I don't want a federal legislator telling me what the approved book lists or topics are for my classroom. As an American, I certainly don't want the mandate approving those book lists to be written by a member of Congress who has favorably quoted Hitler. Americans deserve better than this. I urge my colleagues to support my amendment and I yield back.

Does the gentleman from Utah reserve his point of order?

I withdraw my point of order.

The point of order is withdrawn. Does anyone else seek recognition on the amendment? I recognize myself for five minutes to speak in opposition to the amendment. This bill does absolutely nothing to promote bullying and mistreatment of transgender students. Students who are confused about their gender should be treated with love and respect. Bullying and mistreatment are wrong. Period. However, students who are confused about their gender should not be encouraged to undergo life-altering surgeries or hormone therapy by their school counselors. For years, that's exactly what many schools have been doing and are now being found out. Some schools have been remarkably irresponsible in how they've handled transgender issues. Many schools have exposed extremely young children to controversial teachings at the very least. In Chicago Public Schools, first graders are given lessons on how to define gender identity. By fifth grade, there was an introduction to puberty blockers. In Denver Public Schools, students are taught to support so-called gender-affirming care and encouraged to consider gender surgeries. If this isn't grooming, I'm not sure what it is. What's worse is that many school districts refuse to tell parents what they're doing. Just a few weeks ago in Mahmoud v. Taylor hearing, we heard testimony that Montgomery County, Maryland, introduced radical transgender teachings into its curriculum and refused, refused to allow parents to opt out. But it's not just Montgomery County. According to Defending Education, about 1,200 districts covering 12 million students have policies allowing the school to socially transition a child without, without parental consent or even parental knowledge. Under this bill, no federal funds, let me draw attention to that fact, what we're talking about here, no federal funds under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act may be used for transgender topics. I think that says if a school district wants to do it on their own and forego federal funds, I guess they have that option. This bill will also help ensure that federal funds are not used to groom vulnerable children into life-altering choices. I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment and support the underlying bill, and I yield back. Are there others who wish to speak on this amendment? I recognize the gentlelady from Oregon, Ms. Bonamici, for five minutes.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to rise in support of Mr. Takano's amendment and I yield to Mr. Takano.

Mr. Chairman, your opposition to my amendment went down a whole litany of things that I never addressed in my amendment. My amendment is simply about trying to make sure that a whole category of people are not prohibited from being ever discussed. That category of people is transgender people, transgender kids. Nothing about, and simply about making sure that curricular decisions are kept at the local level and not being dictated by the federal government, as is statutorily the case. But you chose to get into a whole range of topics that are simply falsehoods, not true, exaggerations, and highly inflammatory. And so anyway, I yield back and wish to get on with it.

I yield back.

Does the gentlelady yield?

I yield back.

Gentlelady yields. Are there any others who wish to speak on this amendment? Hearing none, the question is on the amendment by the gentleman from California, Mr. Takano. All in favor say aye.

Aye.

All opposed, no.

No.

Mr. Chairman, I request a recorded vote.

In the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. A roll call vote is ordered pursuant to the chair's previous announcement, this vote will be postponed. Are there further amendments to the amendment in the nature of a substitute to H.R. 7661? Does the gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Scott, wish to offer an amendment?

Yes, Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk designated 7661_AMD_03.

The clerk will report the amendment.

Amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute to H.R. 7661, offered by Mr. Scott of Virginia, identifier SCOTT_7661_AMD_03.

Does the gentleman from Utah reserve a point of order?

Reserve a point of order.

A point of order is reserved. I now recognize the gentleman from Virginia, the ranking member, Mr. Scott, for five minutes in support of his amendment.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, this amendment adds, quote, or historical accounts of discrimination against world religions, to the exemptions. It says that if it's an account from the texts of a major world religion, which is problematic in itself, but if you're going to use that, we want to include but not limited to antisemitism, but not limited to antisemitism, Islamophobia, or anti-Mormonism. This amendment would add the exemption for teaching historical accounts of discrimination against world religions, including but not limited to antisemitism, Islamophobia, and anti-Mormonism. This ensures that educators can continue to teach accurate, age-appropriate history about discrimination against religious communities without fear of penalty. History of religion and what people belonging to that religion have done or know is not always clean-cut, and at times includes references related to sex. For example, some religions in the past have allowed men to have multiple spouses. Does that mean that shouldn't be discussed in schools? The GAO report in 2021 found that one in four students experienced bullying related to their race, national origin, religion, disability, gender, or sexual orientation. And today we're seeing a disturbing rise in openly hostile, bigoted rhetoric towards religious communities, including from members of the Republican Party. Comments such as Muslims don't belong in American society, pluralism is a lie, and we need more Islamophobia. When leaders normalize such language, it filters down to classrooms, campuses, and communities. Antisemitism has been rising in recent years, and Jewish communities across the country have experienced increased threats, harassment, and violence. Teaching about antisemitism, its history, its consequences, and its modern forms is essential to combating it. Additionally, Muslim and Arab students, faculty, and staff have been subject to violence, discrimination, harassment, bullying, and online targeting in both K through 12 schools and higher education. Under the Biden administration, the first-ever U.S. national strategy to counter Islamophobia and anti-Arab hate and a national strategy to counter antisemitism were all released to help combat anti-Muslim and anti-Jewish hate across the country. And now we have leaders saying we need more hate, not less. This amendment protects teaching of religious discrimination to help prevent marginalizing vulnerable communities in our K through 12 schools. For these reasons, I hope we adopt the amendment, and I yield back.

The gentleman yields. Does anyone seek to address the amendment? I recognize the gentlelady from Illinois, Ms. Miller.

Thank you. We can all agree that religious discrimination is wrong. People of faith should be protected in the right to practice their faith. That's enshrined in the Bill of Rights. However, this amendment is unnecessary. This bill already clearly states that the texts of major world religions may be used, may be taught using federal funds. The history of religious discrimination may also be taught under this bill. What may not be taught is sexually explicit content. Why do you want it to be taught? Whether it's historical or modern, if this content should be taught at all, it should be at the decision of parents and families, not schools. Especially when, as we heard in the Mamoud hearing a few weeks ago, some school districts are actively hiding from parents what they teach. I urge my colleagues to vote against this amendment and in favor of the bill.

The gentlelady yields back. Does anyone else seek recognition on the amendment? The gentlelady from Oregon, Ms. Bonamici, you're recognized for five minutes.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I want to speak in favor of Mr. Scott's amendment, although I don't think amendments are going to fix this bill. But I want to support this amendment in particular. You know, just a short while ago, a colleague said that this bill won't affect teaching about the Holocaust, but I disagree. In fact, in Tennessee, a school board actually voted to remove Maus, which is a Pulitzer Prize-winning graphic novel, in part because of images of nudity despite its clear educational purpose as Holocaust literature. Holocaust education more broadly can also include documentary photographs of nude survivors or victims, not because the material is sexually provocative, but because it's historical evidence. What about Dr. Josef Mengele, for example, who did brutal medical experiments, especially on women? Is that banned or not? It is just not clear. I also want to point out in the definition in the bill, under rules of construction, it says the texts of major world religions. Maybe there's a disagreement about what a major world religion is. And classic works of art. Does that mean you can or can't include modern art? It's just very confusing and limiting to say that you can only use classic works of art as defined in this legislation. This bill is going to be a disaster for schools to implement. It's going to be confusing. It's going to violate First Amendment rights. And again, if you don't like the curriculum, go to your school board or your state officials. This is not something that is up to Congress. It is a local issue to set curriculum, and that's exactly what this bill does. I support the amendment even though it doesn't fix the underlying bill, and I yield back.

The gentlelady yields. Are there others who wish to? Representative Fine, you're recognized for five minutes.

Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to address a couple things that have been said in debate on this amendment. The first is we've heard that this bill is a bad idea because it will limit local control to put forward the books, the content that they want to hear. So it's a bad idea for us to be involved in this. And then the last speaker just talked about an example where said local control, which is supposedly such a great thing, they made what is objectively a bad decision in banning a book that never should have been banned. So I think they have to decide, someone gets to decide who makes these decisions. And clearly, is it a problem when the locals make a bad decision, the feds make a bad decision? I think the logical inconsistency is clear. But given that one of my comments was referenced, I wanted to address that. I think in this country, we're not only in a violent war at times, but we're also in a war of rhetoric. And I find it interesting that in one of the previous speakers, they sometimes used the word anti-Arab hate, which by the way, we shouldn't want. We shouldn't want anti-anyone hate. Anti-Arab hate, I think I heard anti-Muslim hate. But then we heard criticism of my description of the term Islamophobia. And I think it's a fascinating word as we are in a war over rhetoric in this country. You know, racism is when you don't like a race. It is bad. Sexism is when you want to discriminate against a sex. It is bad. So why is the word that is used most commonly to describe anti-Muslim Islamophobia? Well, if you dig into the word, it's fear. That's what it is. It's not hate. It's Islamophobia, Islam fear. It's not hate. And what's gone on in this world is we have conflated the idea of stopping discrimination, which is a good thing, with stopping criticism, which is not. And I think this is important because I think what we have seen is the fight against discrimination weaponized to stop discussion. Because by the way, it's not only, it's not only a fight about whether you can fear it, it's to say that all fear is irrational. And when we live in a world where in the last two weeks, five American Muslims in four states have used three guns, two bombs, and one truck to try to kill people, all while screaming the same prayer, I think some level of fear for an ideology that has inspired those people is justified. Which is why I've made the comments that I have made. So if we want to have open discussions about discriminating against people, we should, because discrimination is bad. But what we need in this country is not be afraid to lean into the fight, to lean into the discussion, to lean into the concern, and to make sure that the language that we use accurately describes a real problem, not trying to conflate it to solve a problem that does not actually exist. I oppose the amendment because frankly, I oppose the word. I would hope that at some point the Muslim community would come up with a word, would normalize a word, would put forth a word that says whatever they want to call it, anti-Islam, anti-Muslim, because that would describe the same as antisemitism or anti-Mormonism. But to say criticism is unreasonable, I think is something that's frankly un-American. And so I oppose this amendment, and I hope everyone will vote it down.

Are there any others who seek recognition on the amendment? Seeing none, the question is on the amendment by the gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Scott. All in favor say aye.

Aye.

All opposed, no.

No.

In the opinion of the chair, the nos have it, and the amendment is not agreed to. A roll call vote is ordered pursuant to the chair's previous announcement. This vote will be postponed. Are there any further amendments to the amendment in the nature of a substitute? For what purpose does the gentleman from Virginia, the ranking member, seek to be recognized?

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk, 7661_AMD_04.

The clerk will report the amendment.

Amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute to H.R. 7661 offered by Mr. Scott of Virginia, identifier SCOTT_7661_AMD_04.

Does the gentleman from Utah reserve a point of order?

Reserve a point of order.

A point of order is reserved. I now recognize the gentleman for Virginia, the ranking member, Mr. Scott, for five minutes in support of his amendment.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, this amendment adds, quote, teaching students how to protect themselves from sexual abuse and sex trafficking using real-world cases, to the exceptions under the rule of construction. This amendment would ensure that the bill would not prohibit schools from teaching students how to protect themselves from sexual abuse and sex trafficking. Real-world examples, such as cases, such as the case involving Jeffrey Epstein, matter because trafficking rarely looks like the sensationalized version people see on television or they imagine. We've also seen recent deeply disturbing examples of individuals with public visibility committing horrific abuse. News outlets have reported that a January 6th defendant who received a pardon from President Trump was recently convicted and sentenced to life in prison for sexually abusing two girls after he got out. Sex trafficking and sexual abuse are real, widespread dangers, and students deserve honest, practical education that can save lives. Furthermore, it's noting that evidence does not support claims that members of the LGBTQ community pose a heightened risk of sexual offenses against children. A 2022 UCLA School of Law survey of nearly 1,000 registered sex offenders found that less than one percent identified as transgender. Overwhelmingly majority identified as cisgender, straight, white men. Teaching accurate information helps prevent fear-based misinformation from distracting from real threats. This amendment ensures that educators can teach prevention using facts, not just theory. For these reasons, I support the amendment, and yield back the balance of my time.

The gentleman yields. I recognize myself in response to the amendment. We agree that students should be kept safe. Regrettably, this includes the need for age-appropriate instruction on crimes. Students should have the information they need to stay safe and identify dangers. This bill is not intended to prohibit that kind of instruction, and I have no issue with reiterating that. I'm prepared to support the gentleman's amendment, and I urge the gentleman, like all my colleagues, to vote in favor of the underlying bill. Are there any others who wish to speak on the amendment? Seeing none, the question on the amendment by the gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Scott. All in favor say aye.

Aye.

All opposed, no.

No.

In the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it, and the amendment is agreed to.

Yes, we request a recorded vote.

A roll call vote is ordered. Pursuant to the chair's previous announcement, this vote will be postponed. Are there any further amendments to the amendment in the nature of a substitute? I recognize the gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Scott, for the purposes of an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk, 7661_AMD_05.

The clerk will report the amendment.

Amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute to H.R. 7661, offered by Mr. Scott of Virginia, identifier SCOTT_7661_AMD_05.

Does the gentleman from Utah reserve a point of order?

I reserve a point of order.

Point of order is reserved. I now recognize the gentleman from Virginia for five minutes in support of his amendment.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, this amendment adds teaching of world cultures and history and historical figures from historically marginalized communities as exceptions under the rule of construction. Mr. Chairman, history has not always been pleasant to learn about, but it's important to do it in an age-appropriate way, and the localities can figure out what age-appropriate material to present. But learning about certain atrocities, which sometimes include items that the bill would call sexually oriented material, though no reasonable person would want that excluded. Take, for example, figures like Sarah Baartman, whose body was on display to justify enslaving and objectifying African American women. Essential to understand the realities of the exploitation and dehumanization during the colonial era. Topics like this help us understand the history of race and gender stereotypes, some of which we still see today. This bill would allow for students to learn the history of different... this bill would question whether or not different dances from cultures would be allowed. The bill specifically prohibits, quote, lewd and lascivious dancing in schools. What exactly is prohibited? Is salsa prohibited? There's some cheerleading routines that might be questionable. I don't know. This amendment ensures that rich histories in our classrooms remain in places that are not prevented just because a school is genuinely confused about whether or not it is sexually oriented material according to the bill. We need this amendment, Mr. Chairman, and so I yield back the balance of my time.

The gentleman yields. Does the gentleman from Utah withdraw his point of order?

I withdraw my point of order.

Point of order is withdrawn. Does anyone else seek recognition on the amendment? For what purpose does the gentlelady from Illinois seek recognition?

Yes, I'd like to comment on this amendment.

You're recognized for five minutes.

Thank you. Under this bill, history can still be taught using federal funds. So can the impact of historical figures and events on marginalized communities. Salsa dancing and jazz can be taught. What is not allowed is sexually explicit content. That's totally different than teaching students about the value of jazz. The jazz music I hear isn't inappropriate, and there's value in students learning it. What's not valuable is schools indoctrinating students with sexually explicit dancing and music. And I think that if there's a question in their mind about whether an act is sexually inappropriate, that is a good sign that it is, and the school should be exercising caution. This bill forbids federal funding for sexually explicit dancing and music. This amendment also opens up a tremendous loophole that schools could exploit. Schools who want to indoctrinate children could deem all kinds of inappropriate content as, quote, history. The existing exceptions in the bill are narrowly tailored to ensure that legitimate curriculum can be taught while excluding inappropriate content. We have overwhelming evidence that some schools are teaching inappropriate content. We shouldn't give them an easy way to avoid the requirements of this bill and continue using federal funds for inappropriate content. I urge my colleagues to vote no on the amendment and in favor of the underlying bill, and I yield back.

The gentlelady yields. Are there any others who wish to speak on the amendment?

Mr. Chairman.

I recognize the gentlelady from North Carolina for five minutes.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to strike the last word in support of the amendment. And I want to support it. And let me say, Mr. Chairman, let me make it clear to the American people and to all of my colleagues here today that this is a dangerous bill. It would prevent teachers from teaching some of the most difficult parts of our history. But this amendment would ensure that this bill does not restrict instruction in the humanities, arts, culture, history, or the lived experiences of marginalized groups. It clarifies that the teaching about culture and history and artistic traditions is not sexually oriented material and remains fully permissible. And let me take a moment to highlight an issue particularly relevant to my home state. North Carolina had one of the most horrific, long-lasting sterilization campaigns of any state in our country. Almost 8,000 North Carolinians, primarily Black women, were sterilized against their will by the state government. This bill would hide the evils of sterilization from our students because any discussion of sterilization in most primary sources on the subject could be construed as sexually oriented material. I spent years working with my colleagues in the General Assembly to create the eugenics sterilization compensation fund. And I didn't spend that time fighting for justice only for Republicans in this committee to hide these horrors from the next generation. Is the story of forced sterilization disturbing? Yes, it is. Is the story of forced sterilization a difficult subject for younger students? Certainly. But the fundamental question before us is this: do students have the right to learn about the most disturbing moments in our history? You doggone right they do. By removing so-called sexually oriented material from historical discussions, this bill would whitewash centuries of sexual exploitation of Black women from history, from curricula throughout our country. These things happened. They are awful and disgusting, but they are nonetheless real. We are the United States Congress, not the Federal Censorship Bureau. I encourage all of my colleagues to support this amendment. I encourage everyone who supports this bill to take a moment to think about the ramifications of their actions today. I yield back, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.

The gentlelady yields. Are there any others who wish to speak on this amendment? Hearing none, the question is on the amendment by the gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Scott. All in favor say aye.

Aye.

All opposed, no.

No.

Mr. Chairman, request a recorded vote.

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. We will suspend for a moment here. Are there any further amendments to the amendment in the nature of a substitute? For what purpose does the gentleman from Virginia, the ranking member, seek to be recognized?

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk designated 7661_AMD_07.

The clerk will report the amendment.

Amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute to H.R. 7661, offered by Mr. Scott of Virginia, identifier SCOTT_7661_AMD_07.

Does the gentleman from Utah reserve a point of order?

I reserve a point of order.

A point of order is reserved. I now recognize the gentleman from Virginia, the ranking member, Mr. Scott, for five minutes in support of his amendment.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, my amendment would ensure that the bill cannot be misinterpreted to restrict the display of official government symbols, flags, monuments, or historically recognized landmarks that are routinely used in civic, historical, and cultural education. Sometimes flags, monuments, and other historical landmarks include material that most do not consider lewd but is admittedly something that we would not necessarily create today. However, this does not mean that we should ban it for fear that and I fear this bill would actually do it. For example, the Virginia flag's construction and history make it an essential teaching tool because its central image, which signifies Virtus standing over tyranny and happens to contain an exposed breast. It was deliberately designed to symbolize the Commonwealth's founding commitment to self-government, civic virtue, and resistance to oppression. Now, allowing teachers across the country to include Virginia's flag in classrooms in some way ensures students can learn how the state's symbol reflects political ideals, artistic traditions, and historical identity that shaped Virginia. But under the bill, it may be banned, as it was in a school district in Texas because the drawn figure on the flag shows an exposed breast. Now, this flag was adopted over 150 years ago. Similarly, the Arts of War sculptures on Memorial Bridge in Arlington, Virginia, also display nude men and women. However, these sculptures are federally commissioned monuments created in the 1930s to honor American service and symbolize national ideals of courage and sacrifice. Learning about them helps students understand how public art reflects the country's historical memory, civic values, and cultural identity. Teaching students about flags, monuments, and landmarks is a nonpartisan education piece, and I encourage my colleagues to vote in support of this common sense amendment.

Gentleman yields. Does the gentleman from Utah...

I ask the gentleman a question.

Does the gentleman from Utah...

It's already yielded. I withdraw.

Point of order is withdrawn. Does anyone else seek recognition on the amendment? For what purpose does the gentlelady from Illinois, Ms. Miller, seek recognition?

I'd like to comment on the amendment. I appreciate the Democrat amendment, but it's unnecessary. Despite all the rhetoric we've heard from the other side, let's talk about what the amendment actually says. The actual text of the amendment says that nothing in this act shall prevent a state local educational agency or school from displaying emblems like flags and seals. There's nothing in the bill that would prohibit state and local governments from making these choices. It's federal law that Congress cannot dictate curriculum. State and local governments can make whatever choices they like when it comes to classroom management and instruction. That includes, for example, hanging the Virginia flag. What this bill says is that federal funds under ESEA cannot be used for sexually explicit content. That term is defined by existing criminal code on child sexual exploitation. We define prohibited sexually oriented materials the same as existing criminal code. At any rate, we're certainly open to ideas to sharpen and enhance the bill. Unfortunately, my colleagues on the left don't seem to think inappropriate content is a real problem in our schools. They've shown little interest in voting for the underlying bill. Mostly they've only criticized us for trying to protect our children. I wish they would be more concerned about these issues. The majority has made a good faith effort to protect children from sexualization. That's what this bill does. Given the minority has shown little interest in actually protecting children and given that this amendment is unnecessary, I urge my colleagues to vote against the amendment and for the bill, and I yield back.

The gentlelady yields. Does the gentlelady from North Carolina, Ms. Adams, wish to be recognized?

I had a question. Yes, Mr. Chairman, I would like to speak briefly.

The gentlelady is recognized for five minutes.

It sort of got my attention. I'm an artist. I'm a professional artist. I'm an arts educator. I taught art for 40 years. I have my own gallery and I do my own, practice my own work. And I was very concerned about the classic works of art and the definitions in the subsection here that the term classic works of art means that the works of art depicted, referenced, or otherwise represented in the Smarthistory guide to, I'm not sure what they're showing, but I taught drawing and painting for many years. And many of the classic works of Leonardo da Vinci, Rembrandt, all those, and there are many figures there, men and women and even children, that are nude. Now, I guess I'm trying to understand if these things are going to be classified as inappropriate in this bill. And if so, not only am I offended, but that was the question I had for Mr. Scott.

Well, no, they are specific, those are specifically allowed because they are in the list of permitted sexual content because they are authored by an approved list of people. They describe what classical works of art means and they go through, if you're on that list, then you can promote sexual activity. If you're not on the list...

Yeah, so some of my...

So you can't, if you said exactly what the others said, your works would be prohibited.

So I guess we'll have to come up with another list or that's the list that's going to be...

Well, that's the, they have prescribed from Congress the list of permitted sexually explicit material. If it comes from these sources, these authors. If it comes from somewhere else, they don't want it.

Yeah, well, you know, Mr. Scott, I really think that we don't know what we don't know. And that's really unfortunate and I'd invite people to take my class. But I don't think we should have a list and that list basically is discriminatory. So folks like me and other folks...

Well, what do you mean by discriminatory?

Well, I mean that if you're only going to have that list and my work can't be a part of that list, you're discriminating against me.

Well, it's my understanding that it was not diverse at all.

Well, that's part of the problem. I support diversity, equity, and inclusion. When we talk about the arts, when we talk about culture, it is inclusive. It should be inclusive. And we should not have an, I don't know what this organization is that would create a list and say you can be a part but I cannot be a part. I just resent that and I oppose this bill overall, but I do support your amendment. Thank you.

The gentlelady yields. Are there any others who wish to speak on this amendment? The gentlelady from Oregon, Ms. Bonamici, is recognized.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to speak in support of the amendment. But again, I don't think an amendment is going to save this bill, which is again going to be a catastrophe for schools to try to administer, risking constitutional violations and mass confusion. But I also want to respond to my colleague who said that Democrats are not interested in protecting children, because nothing could be farther from the truth. The number one cause of death for children is gun violence. We haven't had a single hearing in this committee about gun violence. The number two cause of death for children is accidents like motor vehicle accidents, childhood cancer. There are a lot of things that are threatening children more than a book in a school. So we should focus on what is truly important in protecting children, making sure they have access to quality early childhood education, for example. That's protecting children. Making sure they have access to healthcare, that's protecting children. Making sure that they have housing, that's protecting children. Addressing gun violence, concerns about ICE raids, that is protecting children. I tell you, I was just at a gala for childhood cancer over the weekend. And I talked to parents who had lost their child to cancer. I talked to cancer researchers who do everything they can for childhood cancer. Not one of them complained to me about any sort of book that was in any kind of school and what risk that was to kids. Let's focus on what really matters to protecting children and address those real issues, and I yield back.

Are there any others who wish to be recognized to speak on this amendment? Hearing none, then the question on the amendment by the gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Scott. All in favor say aye.

Aye.

All opposed, no.

No.

In the opinion of the chair, the noes have it and the amendment is not agreed to. A roll call vote is ordered. Pursuant to the chair's previous announcement, this vote will be postponed. Are there any further amendments to the amendment in the nature of a substitute? Further action on H.R. 7661 is postponed. We'll now move to consider the next bill. The committee will now proceed to consideration of H.R. 6084 for amendment. The bill was circulated in advance and printed copies are available. The clerk will designate the bill.

H.R. 6084, a bill to amend the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 to strengthen the pleading standards for certain claims and for other purposes.

Without objection, the first reading of the bill is dispensed with. Without objection, the bill will be considered as read and open for amendment at any point, and any amendment offered shall be considered as read. Does anyone seek to be recognized? Representative Fine, for what purpose do you seek recognition?

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

The clerk shall designate the amendment in the nature of a substitute.

Amendment in the nature of a substitute to H.R. 6084 offered by Mr. Fine of Florida, identifier H.R. 6084_ANS.

Without objection, the amendment shall be considered original text for purposes of further amendment. The amendment in the nature of a substitute has already been distributed. I now recognize Mr. Fine for five minutes to explain the amendment in the nature of a substitute.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. For more than a decade, employers across the country have faced a growing wave of frivolous class action lawsuits targeting ERISA benefit plans. These lawsuits drain time, money, and attention from where that money is supposed to go, to protect the retirement security of American workers, retirees, and their families. Now look, if people do engage in fraud in ERISA benefit plans, they need to be held accountable. But every dollar that's spent defending against meritless claims is a dollar not invested in strengthening the retirement plans or expanding employee benefits. Employers and plan fiduciaries face serious financial and reputational costs. Resources that should be used to serve workers and retirees are instead diverted to create a cottage industry of trial lawyers. Now over time, this trend's creating a booming class action industry because the challenge is this, under current law, it's often cheaper for the fiduciary to settle than to fight. Even if they win, they lose because of all the money that they have to spend on lawyers to fight back, even when the claims have no merit. This creates a powerful incentive to file speculative lawsuits and to extract settlements. Now again, ERISA was designed to protect seniors, to protect their retirement savings, not to create a cottage industry that uses litigation to exploit ERISA plan fiduciaries. When legal costs soar and settlements mount, workers ultimately pay the price. My bill H.R. 6084, the ERISA Litigation Reform Act, takes a balanced and targeted approach to address the problem. It does not shield bad actors. Let me say that again, if you engage in bad behavior, you should be held accountable, and this bill does not stop that. But it strengthens fairness at the earliest stages of litigation to ensure that only well-supported claims move forward. The bill has three common sense reforms focused on the early stage, the pleading stage, not the whole thing, just the beginning. First, it addresses excessive fee claims, the most common type of ERISA lawsuit. Under current law, plaintiffs can often survive a motion to dismiss simply by alleging that a plan paid fees to a service provider and labeling the payment as a prohibited transaction. The burden then shifts to the fiduciary to prove the fees were reasonable and necessary. They have to prove their innocence, they're assumed to be guilty, and again, it is the employees who pay the price. H.R. 6084 restores balance. If a lawsuit claims that fees are excessive, then the plaintiff must bear the burden of proving that those fees were unreasonable and unnecessary. That's a straightforward and fair standard. You think you're getting paid too much, they're getting paid too much, then prove it. Second, the bill addresses lawsuits involving employee stock ownership plans, or ESOPs. Today a lawsuit can often proceed by simply alleging that an ESOP purchased employer stock, again shifting the burden to the fiduciaries to prove the price was fair. My bill simply restores balance. A lawsuit must plausibly allege and ultimately prove that the plan paid more than fair value for the stock. This ensures legitimate cases can proceed while the frivolous ones are dismissed early, and it ensures plaintiffs can back up their claims. Again, there's no desire to stop when that bad actor occurs. Third, my bill temporarily stays litigation discovery until the court rules on motions to dismiss. You still get to do the discovery, you just have to wait until the motions to dismiss are over. Because discovery is often the most expensive phase of a lawsuit. In many cases, the fiduciaries just settle because they don't want to deal with the cost of discovery, even when the claims lack merit. This reform modeled after the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act helps prevent that type of coercive pressure. Taken together, these three reforms reduce frivolous lawsuits while preserving strong protections for workers and retirees because again, when a frivolous case is settled, it is the seniors that we are trying to protect that are hurt. The amendment in the nature of a substitute makes a small technical change to the original bill. I urge my colleagues to vote yes on the ANS and to support the ERISA Litigation Reform Act of 2026, and I yield back.

The gentleman yields. Are there any members who wish to be recognized for... The gentleman yields. Are there any members who wish to be recognized for further discussion on the amendment in the nature of a substitute? I recognize the gentleman, Mr. Courtney, for five minutes.

Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Move to strike the last word. So we had a hearing on this measure, and as we heard from the witnesses, this bill is really this bill is directly aimed at a decision by the U.S. Supreme Court that actually was handed down less than a year ago, Cunningham versus Cornell, which slightly opened the door to plaintiffs in terms of having their day in court in terms of dealing with for many people is probably the pillar of either their retirement security or their health coverage. Again, what the court did, and again, I want to emphasize, it was a unanimous decision of the court. Samuel Alito to Justice Sotomayor agreed and everyone else in between that allowing plaintiffs to actually move forward with a case and not get shut out with a motion to dismiss before they can even get the bare bones of an allegation flushed out in their litigation was unfair. And they and they again laid out a roadmap for both parties to to make sure that the fairness which the gentleman from Florida just described is actually protected. And what they laid out was that under the federal civil procedure, a Rule 7 motion can be filed by a defendant corporation which does not trigger massive discovery, but rather forces the plaintiff to flush out more of an allegation in terms of a claim going forward. That's what the court did. And again, they did it unanimously. I mean, think about it right now in terms of just where we are with the U.S. Supreme Court to have a case where again, the all sides of the court came together with this holding is rare. And and that doesn't mean we automatically rubber stamp it, but it does suggest that we should sort of handle it with care. And again, this was what we heard from the witnesses at the hearing on this bill. So, you know, we've heard that now there's going to be this, you know, avalanche of new litigation that again is going to be filled with frivolous lawsuits against corporations. But what we've actually heard from the corporate bar, the people who again are defending corporations from frivolous lawsuits is that there hasn't been an avalanche since Cunningham versus Cornell has has handed down. The law firm Mayer Brown stated quote, "the the court's decision has not yet resulted in a material increase in recordkeeping fee challenges or excessive ERISA fee lawsuits." We've had actually cases right now where district courts are enforcing that Rule 7 procedure which was suggested by the court, the Eastern District of California in an ESOP case basically ordered the plaintiffs to comply with a Rule 7 motion that the corporations filed again to protect against frivolous lawsuits, which was precisely what the court laid out in its decision. So again, we're at a moment right now where the ink is barely dry where the court clearly identified an unfairness in terms of the way the motion to dismiss process was being used in this type of litigation, again involving people's retirement security and their health insurance, and said that we need to let we need to let the parties go a little further and we need to have the parties, particularly the corporate bar, do a little bit more in terms of flushing out their cases. And I would just note, Mr. Chairman, as I did at the hearing that we had here, is that the corporate bar pointed to the fact that the Rule 7 pathway which the court explicitly laid out in its decision is is a potential boon for corporate defendants in terms of protecting their rights against frivolous litigation. Again, I would ask this article from June 20, 2025 to be admitted into the record.

Without objection, hearing none.

So again, I think this is legislation is unbelievably premature again given the the recent age of this new decision, which the court came together to issue. Again, I'll have an amendment in a in a minute to again further hone down the the what's at stake here for plaintiffs who again really are at risk to being shut out of court in an unfair way, which again the Supreme Court agreed with in Cornell and the Cornell case, and with that I yield back.

The gentleman yields. Are there any other members who wish to be recognized for further discussion on the amendment? I recognize the gentlelady from Oregon, Ms. Bonamici.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I move to strike the last word and speak in opposition to the amendment in the nature of the substitute. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First I want to align myself with the remarks of of my colleague Mr. Courtney and as Representative Courtney explained, this bill seeks to overturn a unanimous Supreme Court, recent Supreme Court decision allowing a class action in an ERISA case. And I just want to note that if we're talking about overturning Supreme Court decisions, this is not the one I would pick. And and in the opening remarks, Mr. Chairman, you said that these cases are are brought regardless of merit and the bill's sponsor seems to agree with that, and I just don't see that that's so. Because attorneys who bring cases without merit, they face sanctions, they face a whole lot of work with no income. And also in this type of situation, Mr. Chairman, and I think this bill is intended to to discourage class actions, but it makes sense and it's most appropriate to allow a class action when employees who participate in a plan are wronged. And it's very unrealistic to expect individuals to each find counsel and to seek justice. It's also it's expensive, it's inefficient and unrealistic. Also there is a very rigorous process that takes place under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 to allow a class certification. And if the case if it's a class is not appropriate, then the class is not certified. So there are protections in the system to to address the concern that I think my colleagues are are raising improperly. So I want to stand with workers today and employees who have been wronged and deserve retirement security and also stand with the United States Supreme Court and their unanimous decision and oppose this bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

The gentlelady yields. Are there any other members who wish to speak? There being no further discussion on the amendment in the nature of a substitute, the committee will move to consideration of amendments. Are there any members who would like to offer amendments? I recognize the gentleman from Connecticut, Mr. Courtney, for an amendment.

Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The clerk has an amendment at the desk, H.R. 6084_AMD_01.

The clerk will designate the amendment. Amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute to H.R. 6084 offered by Mr. Courtney of Connecticut, identifier COURTNEY_H.R. 6084_AMD_01.

Does the gentleman from Florida reserve a point of order?

Yes, Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order.

Point of order is reserved. I now recognize the gentleman from Connecticut, Mr. Courtney, for five minutes in support of his amendment.

Great. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My amendment would narrow H.R. 6084 to ensure that workers and businesses are able to hold their health plan service providers accountable. As we all know on this committee, ERISA has a scope that includes also private and employer-based health insurance. And I'm opposed to this bill because it fundamentally weakens enforcement of ERISA and needlessly imposes burdens on workers, retirees, and their families seeking to enforce their rights. Again, I think a lot of the discussion that we heard at the public hearing earlier this Congress and today has been focused on retirement plans because that was what the Supreme Court case involved. But as drafted, this bill applies not just to retirement plans but also to healthcare plans covered by ERISA. That is not a small detail. There are about 2.8 million health plans that are subject to ERISA. The plans cover more than 135 million Americans, more than half of the working-age population. Undermining enforcement of ERISA could not come at a worse time. Healthcare costs continue to rise and now account for 18 percent of GDP. This squeezes both workers and employers who often do not even have the tools they need to know if they're getting a fair deal from their health plans. That's why we have worked in a bipartisan way in recent years to enact legislation that would improve transparency throughout the healthcare system. This includes bills addressing pharmacy benefit managers, PBMs, which again we've done a lot of good work on this committee, third-party administrators, brokers, consultants, and many others who provide services to ERISA-covered plans but often charge opaque and unreasonable fees. As drafted, this bill would weaken enforcement of much of the legislation that we've supported on a bipartisan basis. It would impose novel burdens on both workers and employers when they seek to hold their service providers accountable. This would undermine, as I said, important bipartisan work that we have done at this committee. Moreover, I would note for my Republican colleagues, this is not just about private lawsuits. Their legislation also undercuts the provision of ERISA that the Department of Labor is relying on to issue its proposed rule regarding PBM fees. Again, the Trump administration in in this area where I think there's support on both sides is actually moving forward in terms of oversight of PBM fees. In doing so, this bill would make it harder for the Trump administration to enforce its own policy priorities. While my amendment does not fix all of the harm done by this bill, it would address this issue that I believe my Republican colleagues have not fully considered when drafting this legislation. I encourage my colleagues to support my amendment and I yield back.

The gentleman yields. Does the gentleman from Florida insist on his point of order?

Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my point of order.

The reservation is withdrawn. Does anyone else seek recognition on the amendment? I recognize the gentleman from Florida, Mr. Fine, to speak on the amendment, five minutes.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I oppose the amendment. Look, ERISA is a uniform national statute. I don't think pleading standards should vary by the type of plan. Fragmented standards could create confusion. Fair pleading rules protect all employee benefit plan participants equally, regardless of the type of plan. So I just don't think we should split it up. I want a uniform federal law with uniform pleading standards, ensuring all plans and all participants are granted the same protections. This bill does not undermine workers' rights. I believe it restores balance at the pleading stage, at that early stage where defendants will go, "Well, it's going to cost me a bunch of money to defend it, I should just pay it and minimize the damage." This is just restoring balance at the early stage. It prevents discovery abuse, which is used to drive settlements. It ensures that ERISA does what it's supposed to do: protect retirement savings, not enrich lawyers. Again, under the bill, meritorious claims proceed. There's no change to what happens in the end, but speculative claims do not. As it relates to the point that Mr. Courtney made about the Supreme Court, while I respect his argument, he said the Supreme Court ruled unanimously that under the current law, these things can go forward. Well, that's the Supreme Court doing what it's supposed to do, you know, interpret the current law the right way. Well, if we don't like the current law, which is what my bill is about, then we have the right to change that law. The Supreme Court's not opining that that's what the law should be. They're opining that that's what the law is, and under it, they can go forward this way. Our view is that therefore we should change the law. But I would not conflate the Supreme Court interpreting what the law currently is as them saying what the law actually could be. And so that's why, as respectful as I am of that unanimous Supreme Court decision under current law, that's why I think that we should change the law. So I oppose the amendment, and I hope my colleagues will join me in that. Mr. Chairman, I yield back.

The gentleman yields. Are there... The gentleman yields. Are there any others who wish to speak on the amendment? Hearing none, the question is on the amendment by the gentleman from Connecticut. All in favor say aye.

Aye.

All opposed no.

No.

In the opinion of the chair, the nos have it, and the amendment is not agreed to. A roll call vote is ordered. Pursuant to the chair's previous announcement, this vote will be postponed. Are there any further amendments to the amendment in the nature of a substitute? Does the gentleman from Virginia, the ranking member, seek to offer an amendment? I have an amendment at the desk, Mr. Chairman, designated Scott VA 055. The clerk will report the amendment.

Amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute to H.R. 6084, offered by Mr. Scott of Virginia, identifier Scott VA_055.

Does the gentleman from Florida reserve a point of order? Does the gentleman, Mr. Fine from Florida?

Yes sir, Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order.

A point of order is reserved. I now recognize the gentleman from Virginia, the ranking member, Mr. Scott, for five minutes in support of his amendment.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, this bill undermines ERISA's private right of action and places needless burdens on individuals who seek to hold fiduciaries accountable for mismanagement of employee benefit plans. Instead of making it harder for workers, retirees, and their families to enforce their rights, we should be taking steps to make the system fairer. My amendment would do just that by ensuring that participants and beneficiaries are able to bring an action for fiduciary breach before it's too late to protect their earned benefits. Unfortunately, the 2020 Supreme Court decision in Thole v. U.S. Bank made it difficult for individuals who have been harmed by mismanagement by their fiduciaries to show that they have standing under Article III of the Constitution. In that case, the court held that so long as participants and beneficiaries are currently receiving their pension benefits and have not suffered a concrete injury that would allow them to show they have standing to sue for fiduciary breach under ERISA, they cannot bring a case. In other words, even if a plan fiduciary is recklessly mismanaging plan assets in a way that guarantees future loss of vested benefits, a worker may not be able to show that they have actually been injured until the manager has frittered away all the money and there's nothing left. This is fundamentally unfair because it forces plaintiffs to wait until it's too late to prevent the problem from occurring. The plan could be completely out of assets to pay promised benefits when simple intervention years earlier could have prevented that from happening. My amendment would address this issue just by allowing participants and beneficiaries to bring an action for fiduciary breach under ERISA as assignees on behalf of their plan. If they ultimately prevail, they'll be granted a small award of up to one percent of the recovery amount, which will be distributed equitably amongst the plaintiffs. This is analogous to awards provided to whistleblowers who bring actions on behalf of the federal government under the False Claims Act. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this amendment, which will allow plaintiffs to take action to protect their benefits before it's too late. I yield back.

The gentleman yields.

Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my point of order.

Point of order is withdrawn. Does anyone else seek recognition? Gentleman from Florida, Mr. Fine, do you wish to speak on this amendment?

Yes, Mr. Chairman, I would.

You're recognized for five minutes.

Thank you. I understand the amendment sponsor's concern about people in these plans getting hurt. And it's a reasonable concern, which is why this bill doesn't affect the ultimate outcome of legislation. It's focused on what happens in the early pleadings and to eliminate the incentives for unscrupulous attorneys to file lawsuits knowing that it's so expensive to defend them that the fiduciary will just settle, basically pay a tax, which comes at the expense, not necessarily of the fiduciary, it comes at the expense of the people in the plan in order to avoid it. That's what we're trying to fix, not the ultimate outcome. ERISA's remedies are robust. The standard of review has been settled by five decades of judicial precedent designed for uniformity. This amendment creates undue complexity, raises administrative costs of ERISA plans. Without the original text of this bill, as we've talked about before, the result of the Supreme Court decision in Cunningham v. Cornell is that an employee benefit fiduciary is guilty until proven innocent. And that creates this incentive to settle frivolous claims, which again ultimately harms the people that we all say we care about. This amendment, if it were to pass, would create a litigation bonanza for opportunistic class action attorneys praying on employers who voluntarily provide benefits to their employees by replacing the original text of H.R. 6084. We need to make sure ERISA benefit plans are for the benefit of employees, not lawyers, and that is why I oppose this amendment, and I yield back.

The gentleman yields. Does anyone else seek recognition on the amendment? The gentleman from Connecticut.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I seek recognition.

I do.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield to Mr. Scott.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think the gentleman from Florida is just making stuff up. There's no evidence that there's any widespread litigation problem. I think there are about 500 and some cases and you've got millions of plans. There is a problem, however, when somebody's running a plan and has invested in maybe conflicts of interest and speculative things that obviously constitute a breach of fiduciary duty and they can't even get in the court until the money actually evaporates. Well, by then the people doing it don't have the money. You want to be able to protect the assets when you can clearly make a case. So I would hope we would adopt this amendment so that people can protect their assets before it's too late. I yield back to the gentleman from Connecticut.

The gentleman yields. Does anyone else seek recognition on the amendment? Hearing none, then the question is on the amendment by the gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Scott. All in favor say aye.

Aye.

All opposed no.

No.

In the opinion of the chair, the nos have it, and the amendment is not agreed to. A roll call vote is ordered pursuant to the chair's previous announcement. This vote will be postponed. Are there any further amendments to the amendment in the nature of a substitute to H.R. 6084? Seeing none, further action on H.R. 6084 is postponed pursuant to the previous order. The chair declares the committee in recess subject to the call of the chair. We expect to reconvene promptly after the last vote in the 3:00 PM vote series has been called. So the committee stands in recess. The committee will reconvene and come to order following our recess, and thanks for coming back as quickly as you all did. Before we proceed to postponed requests for recorded votes, I'd like to make a statement I don't really want to make, but I have to. I want to take a moment to thank James Whitaker, our general counsel, for his service in that capacity to the Committee on Education and Workforce over the past year. James has been an incredible member of our team, and his work on behalf of American families, students, taxpayers, and workers cannot be overstated. As both a military and Hill veteran, James brought not only sharp legal expertise, but also integrity and a tireless work ethic. I can tell you that for certain, trying to keep beside him, let alone in front of him. From the service as a judge advocate in the U.S. Army to his work on Capitol Hill, he's built a career defined by public service. Those qualities have been instrumental in helping this committee deliver real results for the American people. James has also been instrumental in elevating the work of this very special committee. And perhaps most importantly, at least on Capitol Hill, James has been a fierce and effective defender of this committee's jurisdiction. Sometimes we have to just do that. He made sure our issues were respected, our voice was heard, and that no one blurred the lines of responsibilities, that others stayed in their lane. While we'll certainly miss his presence, we're fortunate James won't be far. I'm confident that he will bring the same level of excellence to his next role and try to elevate their service as well on Financial Services Committee. James, Mr. Whispers, as we lovingly call you, we wish you continued success, and I think I speak for all of us when I say thank you. [Applause.] Mr. Chairman. Yeah. Yeah, well, we'll leave that in Chile, won't we, Lucy? Mr. Scott, I recognize you.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just wanted to echo your sentiments. I'd like to thank James for his service to the committee. It's tough, and we've got a tough committee with a lot of contentious issues, but he was able to work cooperatively with our team, maintained the dignity of this committee. I have it on good authority that he was a wonderful travel partner to faraway places on CODELs, even the, as I've been told, the deep, dark Peru. We wish you best of luck in Financial Services. I know you'll do the good job that you did here. Thank you so much. [Applause.]

James, remember we have those dancing pictures of you on the train to Machu Picchu. Dangerous. [Laughter.] We'll now be voting on two amendments to the amendment in the nature of a substitute to H.R. 7894, the amendment offered by Ranking Member Scott, identified as 7894_AMD_01. A recorded vote is requested. Members will record their votes using electronic voting system. Please open the vote. Have all members been recorded who wish to be recorded? Do any members wish to change their vote? Hearing none, will the clerk please close the vote and announce the tally.

Mr. Chairman, on this vote, there are 13 yeas and 18 nays.

The amendment is not adopted. Now we move to the amendment offered by Mr. Scott, titled 7894_AMD_02. A recorded vote is requested. Members will record their votes using an electronic voting system. Please open the vote. Have all members recorded the vote? Do any members wish to change their vote? Hearing none, will the clerk please close the vote and announce the tally.

Mr. Chairman, on this vote, there are 13 yeas and 18 nays.

The amendment is not adopted. The question now occurs on the amendment in the nature of a substitute to H.R. 7894. All in favor say aye. Aye. All opposed, no. No. In the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it, and the amendment in the nature of a substitute is agreed to. I hereby move the committee report the bill H.R. 7894 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 aye. Aye. All opposed, no. No. In the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it, and the motion is agreed to. A recorded vote is requested. Members will record their votes using electronic voting system. Open the vote, please. Have all members been recorded who wish to be recorded? Do any members wish to change their votes? Hearing none, will the clerk please close the vote and announce the tally.

Mr. Chairman, on this vote, there are 19 yeas and 13 nays.

The ayes have it, and the motion is agreed to to H.R. 7894 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 now report the bill H.R. 7890 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 aye. Aye. All opposed, no. No. In the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it, and the motion is agreed to. Recorded vote is requested. Members will record their votes using the electronic voting system. Please open the vote. Have all members been recorded who wish to be recorded? Do any members wish to change their vote? Hearing none, will the clerk please close the vote and announce the tally.

Mr. Chairman, on this vote, there are 33 yeas and zero nays.

The ayes have it, and the motion is agreed to H.R. 7890 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 H.R. 7891 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 aye. Aye. All opposed, no. No. In the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it, and the motion is agreed to. A recorded vote is requested. Members will record their votes using electronic voting system. Please open the vote. Have all members been recorded who wish to be recorded? Do any members wish to change their vote? Hearing none, will the clerk please close the vote and announce the tally.

Mr. Chairman, on this vote, there are 33 yeas and zero nays.

The ayes have it, and the motion is agreed to H.R. 7891 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. House of Representatives. The chair notes for the record that a quorum is present. I hereby move that the committee report the bill H.R. 7892 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 aye. Aye. All opposed no. In the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it and the motion is agreed to. A recorded vote is requested. Members will record their votes using electronic voting system. 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 30 ayes and three nays.

The ayes have it and the motion is agreed to. H.R. 7892 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. We will now be voting on two amendments to the amendment in the nature of a substitute to H.R. 7893. The amendment offered by Ranking Member Scott identified as Scott FAFSA AMD 04. A recorded vote is requested. Members will record their votes using the electronic voting system. Please open the vote. Have all members been recorded who wish to be recorded? Do any members wish to change their vote? Hearing none, will the clerk please close the vote and announce the tally.

Mr. Chairman, on this vote, there are 13 yeas and 19 nays.

The amendment is not adopted. The next amendment offered by Ranking Member Scott entitled Scott FAFSA sub 01. A recorded vote is requested. Members will record their votes using the electronic voting system. Please open the vote. Have all members been recorded who wish to be recorded? Do any members wish to change their vote? Hearing none, will the clerk please close the vote and announce the tally.

Mr. Chairman, on this vote, there are 13 yeas and 19 nays.

The amendment is not adopted. The question now occurs on the amendment in the nature of a substitute to H.R. 7893. All in favor say aye. Aye. All opposed no. No. In the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it and the amendment in the nature of a substitute is agreed to. I hereby move the committee report bill H.R. 7893 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 aye. Aye. All opposed no. No. In the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it and the motion is agreed to. A recorded vote is requested. Members will record their votes using the electronic voting system. Please open the vote. Have all members been recorded who wish to be recorded? Do any members wish to change their vote? Hearing none, will the clerk please close the vote and announce the tally.

Mr. Chairman, on this vote, there are 19 yeas and 13 nays.

The ayes have it and the motion is agreed to. H.R. 7893 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. We will now be voting on five amendments to the amendment in the nature of a substitute to H.R. 7661. The amendment offered by Mr. Takano titled Takano 7661 AMD 02. A recorded vote is requested. Members will record their votes using the electronic voting system. Please open the vote. Have all members been recorded who wish to be recorded? Do any members wish to change their vote? Hearing none, will the clerk please close the vote and announce the tally.

Mr. Chairman, on this vote, there are 13 yeas and 18 nays.

The amendment is not adopted. The next amendment is offered by Ranking Member Scott identified as Scott 7661 AMD 03. A record vote is requested. Members will record their vote using the electronic voting system. Please open the vote. Have all members been recorded who wish to be recorded? Do any members wish to change their vote? Hearing none, will the clerk please close the vote and announce the tally.

Mr. Chairman, on this vote, there are 13 yeas and 18 nays.

The amendment is not adopted. We now move to Ranking Member Scott, Scott 7661 AMD 04. A recorded vote is requested. The chairman intends to vote yes. Members will record their votes using the electronic voting system. Please open the vote. Have all members been recorded who wish to be recorded? Do any members wish to change their vote? Hearing none, will the clerk please close the vote and announce the tally.

Mr. Chairman, on this vote, there are 31 yeas and zero nays.

The amendment is adopted. The next amendment is offered by Ranking Member Scott identified as Scott 7661 AMD 05. A recorded vote is requested. Members will record their vote record their votes using the electronic voting system. Please open the vote. Have all members been recorded who wish to be recorded? Do any members wish to change their vote? Hearing none, will the clerk please close the vote and announce the tally.

Mr. Chairman, on this vote, there are 13 yeas and 18 nays.

The amendment is not adopted. The next amendment is from Ranking Member Scott entitled Scott 7661 AMD 07. A recorded vote is requested. Members will record their votes using the electronic voting system. Please open the vote. Have all members been recorded who wish to be recorded? Do any members wish to change their vote? Hearing none, will the clerk please close the vote and announce the tally.

Mr. Chairman, on this vote, there are 13 yeas and 18 nays.

The amendment is not adopted. We finished amendments. The question now occurs on the amendment in the nature of a substitute to H.R. 7661. All in favor say aye. Aye. All opposed no. No. In the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it and the amendment in the nature of a substitute is agreed to. I hereby move that the committee report the bill H.R. 7661 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 aye. Aye. All opposed no. No. In the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it and the motion is agreed to. A recorded vote is requested. All members will record their votes using the electronic voting system. Please open the vote. Have all members been recorded who wish to be recorded? Do any members wish to change their vote? Hearing none, will the clerk please close the vote and announce the tally.

Mr. Chairman, on this vote, there are 18 yeas and 13 nays.

The ayes have it and the motion is agreed to. H.R. 7661 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. We will now be voting on two amendments to the amendment in the nature of a substitute to H.R. 6084. The amendment offered by Representative Courtney entitled Courtney H.R. 6084 AMD 01. A recorded vote is requested. Members will record their votes using the electronic voting system. Please open the vote. Have all members been recorded who wish to be recorded? Do any members wish to change their vote? Hearing none, will the clerk please close the vote and announce the tally.

Mr. Chairman, on this vote, there are 13 yeas and 19 nays.

The amendment is not adopted. We now move to the amendment by Ranking Member Scott entitled SCOTTVA 055. A recorded vote is requested. Members will record their votes using the electronic voting system. Please open the vote. Have all members been recorded who wish to be recorded? Do any members wish to change their vote? Hearing none, will the clerk please close the vote and announce the tally.

Mr. Chairman, on this vote, there are 13 yeas and 19 nays.

The amendment is not adopted. The question now occurs on the amendment in the nature of a substitute to H.R. 6084. All in favor say aye. Aye. All opposed no. No. In the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it and the amendment in the nature of a substitute is agreed to. I hereby move that the committee report the bill H.R. 6084 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 aye. Aye. All opposed no. No. In the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it and the motion is agreed to. A recorded vote is requested. I recognize Mr. Scott.

As we're just before we vote, I ask unanimous consent to enter the two letters in opposition to H.R. 6084, one from a group of former Department of Labor officials who worked in Democratic and Republican administrations, and another from the Alliance of Retired Americans, Americans for Financial Reform, Committee for Fiduciary Standard, Economic Policy Institute, National Committee to Protect and Preserve Social Security and Medicare, National Retiree Legislative Network, and the Pension Rights Center.

Without objection, and hearing none, they'll be entered. A recorded vote is requested. Members will record their votes using the electronic voting system. Please open the vote. Have all members been recorded who wish to be recorded? Do any members wish to change their vote? Hearing none, will the clerk please close the vote and announce the tally.

Mr. Chairman, on this vote, there are 19 yeas and 13 nays.

The ayes have it and the motion is agreed to. H.R. 6084 as amended and the accompanying materials shall be transmitted to the House of Representatives. The chair notes for the record that a quorum is present. I 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 dissenting views. Without objection, so ordered. Without objection, any member who wish to insert materials into the record may do so by submitting them to the committee clerk electronically by the end of the day today. If there is no further business before the committee, without objection, the committee stands adjourned.