H.R. 8476, "No Antisemitism in Education Act of 2026"; H.R. 4795, "Protect Economic and Academic Freedom Act of 2025"; H.R. 9203, "Student Protection and University Accountability Act"; H.R. 2555, "Freedom of Association in Higher Education Act of 2025"; H.R. 5505, "Equal Campus Access Act of 2025"; H.R. 2332, "States Handling Access to Reciprocity for Employment (SHARE) Act of 2025"; H.R. 4122, "Health Care for Energy Workers Act of 2025"; H.R. 8822, "Federal Workers’ Compensation Integrity and Care Act"; H.R. 8823, "Putting Patients First by Strengthening Provider Accountability in FECA Act"; H.R. 9381, "AI Workforce Assessment and Research Enhancement (AWARE) Act"; H.R. 9228, "Health Data Access, Transparency, and Affordability Act of 2026"
Legend
Transcript markers
- text Sentence being played
- text Search result
- text Intervention cited by the link you opened
Click a sentence to play the video from that moment. Select text to quote it with the speaker, timestamp and link.
More options
House Education and Workforce U.S. House of Representatives
Follow its sittings
Robert Scott
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, this committee has immense responsibility to pass legislation that ensures students receive a quality education, protects workers, and expands access to affordable, quality healthcare. While I appreciate the bipartisan work reflected in some of the measures before us, several of the bills, unfortunately, continue a pattern of advancing divisive political priorities, weakening protections that workers, students, and families rely on, and other divisive activities. Moreover, they do not address America's number one concern right now, and that is the rising cost of living. Now, we start with considering perhaps the most divisive proposal before us today, and I'd like to start the discussion by acknowledging that discrimination in any form has no place in America.
Currently, under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, religion is not considered a protected class, and the only exception is when one's religion is associated with a person's national origin or shared ancestry. However, H.R. 8476, the No Antisemitism in Education Act, seeks to add antisemitism to this exception and does so by using vague language that elevates a particular definition of antisemitism above others. And it's unclear how this would even work. Discrimination usually means treating one group of people different from another. For example, racial discrimination results when one group is treated differently from another on account of race.
No definition of motive is involved, just disparate treatment. For some reason, this bill uses one definition of antisemitism over others in an effort that does not even address the disparate treatment. Furthermore, it elevates antisemitism above anti-Sikhism, Islamophobia, which, like antisemitism, often presents a discrimination based on shared ancestry, or it elevates it above any other religious discrimination. If this bill is adopted as written, it would create preferential treatment to some within the protected class of religion over others and create serious constitutional questions involving the establishment clause and equal protection. For these reasons, I oppose H.R. 8476 and urge my colleagues to do so as well.
Next proposal before us is H.R. 4795, the Protect Economic and Academic Freedom Act of 2025. Title IV of the Higher Education Act is the largest source of federal funding for America's colleges and universities. However, this bill would strip schools of access to these federal funds if they're deemed to be engaging, I assume, in the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions movement, the BDS movement, although it doesn't say so in the bill. While there have been some faculty senates and some student organizations that support the BDS movement, their position does not represent that of their school. In fact, 38 states have some form of anti-BDS laws on the books.
There has not been a single documented case of a college administration adopting a BDS policy as described in this bill. Ultimately, this bill is obviously a solution in search of a problem and seeks to punish schools in an effort to curb free speech. Next, we consider H.R. 9203, the Student Protection and University Accountability Act.
The bill would amend the Higher Education Act to add transparency and compliance requirements in relation to Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. While I can appreciate the author's intended intent to improve Title VI investigations, the Office of Federal Student Aid is not the office who should be determining whether a school is living up to the civil rights obligations under Title VI. This is the work of the Department of Education's Office of Civil Rights. In the Trump administration's attempt to dismantle the department, they just made drastic cuts to the Office of Civil Rights and recently signed an interagency agreement to move most of its substantive work of OCR to the Department of Justice. The resulting chaos, confusion, and staffing shortages means that OCR will not have adequate resources to defend students' civil rights.
If we want to strengthen civil rights enforcement in education, having the Office of Federal Student Aid do the work is not the answer. Title VI has its own enforcement and sanction provisions. We need to fully fund OCR so it can do the work it's tasked to do. Next on the docket would be H.R. 2555, the Freedom of Association in Higher Education Act of 2025. The bill would amend the Higher Education Act to ensure that students receive the same academic, social, and athletic opportunities regardless of their membership or lack thereof in single-sex organizations.
This has long been a bipartisan priority and the bill as introduced was supported on both sides of the aisle. But at the eleventh hour, additional unnecessary poison pills in the amendment nature of a substitute call that bipartisan support into question. I hope the committee can work its will on the bill to get it back to where it was to begin with, and that is to making sure that colleges cannot punish students simply for exercising their rights to associate as they choose. The next bill is the Equal Campus Access Act of 2025, which would amend the Higher Education Act to prohibit public colleges and universities from denying religious organizations benefits afforded to other organizations because of their religious beliefs. While I understand the author's stated intents, its implications are potentially alarming because the bill would undermine an institution's other non-discrimination policies and potentially shield student groups that claim to be religious from consequences from discriminatory conduct.
For example, an organization could prevent women from holding leadership positions if it claims that that conduct is in line with religious beliefs. So I'll oppose H.R. 5505 and encourage my colleagues to do as well. The next would be 2332, States Handling Access to Reciprocity for Employment, the SHARE Act. The bill requires the FBI to provide criminal history information to states participating in occupational licensure interstate compacts. This bill would eliminate inconsistent interpretations by the FBI and allow these compacts to operate as intended and allow states to get access to criminal background checks whether or not they're in a compact.
I support the bill and urge my colleagues to do the same. Next we'll consider another bipartisan proposal, H.R. 4122, Health Care for Energy Workers Act.
Under the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program, only physicians may independently prescribe treatment and certify that care is medically necessary for beneficiaries, even in states where nurse practitioners and physician assistants are authorized to practice independently. This bill allows nurse practitioners and physician assistants to provide direct care under the program whenever state law permits them to practice independently. The bill does not alter any scope of practice laws. This common sense legislation expands access to care, particularly for workers living in rural areas, reduces treatment delays, and aligns the program with many other federal programs that already recognize qualified nurse practitioners and physician assistants as independent providers. So I support the bill and urge my colleagues to do the same.
The next two bills we will consider are HR 8822 and 8823. Under current law, agencies responsible for administering workers' compensation and disabilities, disability benefits do not consistently share data. As a result, injured workers might receive overpayments that are often discovered years later, long after the money has been spent. Additionally, while the Labor Department can exclude providers from the Federal Employees' Compensation Act program after fraud convictions, it lacks clear authority to suspend pending payments to these providers. HR 8822 authorizes data sharing between the Department of Labor, Social Security Administration, and the National Directory of New Hires to verify earnings and benefit information and improve benefit administration.
HR 8823 authorizes the Secretary of Labor to suspend FECA payments to providers convicted of criminal fraud involving FECA and other federal and state healthcare benefit programs, including Medicare and Medicaid. Together, these bills improve access to care, protect individual workers, safeguard taxpayer dollars, and help ensure that federal benefits are administered fairly and efficiently, and for those reasons I support both of those bills. Next bill we will consider is HR 9228, the Health Data Act. The bill addresses gag clauses that prevent health plan fiduciaries from overseeing their service providers. Regrettably, the majority has abandoned the committee's past bipartisan work on this issue and has made changes that do not include input from the bill's original sponsor during the 118th Congress, gentleman from California, Mr. Takano.
Due to these changes, the bill now lacks safeguards to ensure that the plan data is utilized for appropriate purposes. Instead, it provides an open-ended right for employers to access data, including employee medical records, without ensuring de-identification or that individuals are protected from discrimination. While I wholeheartedly agree with the goal of providing tools for plan fiduciaries to hold service providers accountable, this bill does not strike the proper balance between transparency and privacy. These goals can be achieved as they were in last bill's, last year's bill, but this version ignores the legitimate privacy rights that should be protected. I therefore oppose 9228 and urge my colleagues to do the same.
The last bill before us is HR 9381, the AI Workforce Assessment and Research Enhancement Act.
The bill will require the Bureau of Labor Statistics to collect data on how businesses use artificial intelligence. While we can all agree that using data to understand AI's impact on the economy is important, this bill, this bill tasks the already underfunded BLS with data collection work that is largely already being performed by other agencies and without providing any additional funds to do the work. For example, the Census Bureau's Bureau Trends and Outlook Survey already asks employers questions relating to AI and produces results every two weeks. Researchers already have an immense amount of data to continue monitoring the use of AI in our economy. This bill will force BLS to conduct duplicative work and divert resources from its core duties, and that is, uh, direct, diverting resources from currently devoted, currently devoted to their other responsibilities like employment and price data.
So I oppose H.R. 9381 and urge my colleagues to do the same. And lastly, Mr. Chairman, I'd like to address a troubling pattern. This is the second time that my colleagues across the aisle have taken bipartisan work, repackaged and altered bills in ways contrary to the bipartisan objectives and introduced bills under the same name with partisan results. It's my hope that this will not be a common practice by my colleagues, and with that, I yield back.
Tim Walberg
I thank the gentleman. Without objection, all members who wish to insert written opening statements into the record may do so by submitting them to the committee clerk electronically by the end of the day today. Pursuant to House rules, a copy of the text to be marked up was made available to members and the public at least 24 hours in advance. The bills being marked up today shall be open to amendment at any point, and the chair will allow members to offer amendments in a manner not prohibited by House or committee rules. Without objection, members who have more than one amendment to the bills and wish to offer their amendments en bloc may do so.
The committee will now proceed to consideration of bill H.R. 8476 for amendment. The bill was circulated in advance and printed copies are available. The clerk shall designate the bill.
Speaker 5
H.R. 8476, a bill to require each local educational agency and institution of higher education that receives federal financial assistance to treat discrimination motivated by antisemitism as vigorously as such agency or institution treats other forms of discrimination prohibited by Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and for other purposes.
Tim Walberg
Without objection, the first reading of the bill is dispensed with. Without objection, the bill will be considered as read and open for amendment at any point, and any amendment offered shall be considered as read. Does anyone seek to be recognized? Mr. Fine, for what purpose do you seek recognition?
Speaker 5
Amendment in the nature of a substitute to H.R. 8476 offered by Mr. Fine of Florida, identifier MU_ANS_8476_01.
Tim Walberg
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.
Randy Feenstra
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This ANS makes a minor technical change to the underlying bill.
I want to tell a story about an eighth-grade boy in Colorado. Last year in his PE class, students attempted to play a game in front of him called Jew Touch Tag and said Jews were dirty and contaminated, and the school did nothing. Eight months later, a classmate allegedly fashioned a Chromebook charging cord into a lasso, threw it around his neck, and dragged him backwards from a chair while calling him, and excuse my language, a stupid kike, and the school district did nothing. Just a few months ago, another classmate told the student Hitler should have killed all the Jews when he had the chance. I file this bill today, I bring this bill forward today because this is not an isolated incident.
Since October 7th, antisemitic incidents on college campuses and in K through 12 education have skyrocketed. Overall, there were 950 incidents in 2022, 1,150 in 2023, and 2,550 in 2024. In fact, in 2025, there were 531 antisemitic incidents in our education system around the country. Jews in America today are three times as likely to be the subject of a hate crime as any other group. So I tried to tackle this almost 10 years ago as a young legislator in the Florida legislature, and I came up with this idea.
I said, you know, when someone uses the N-word on campus, no one thinks about free speech. No one talks about let's understand what they're thinking, let's have a discussion. No, when someone uses the N-word on campus, they are invited to go get an education somewhere else. And by the way, that's exactly how it should be. But somehow when it came to Jews, everyone wanted to rediscover the idea of free speech.
So I came up with an idea. I said, let's define antisemitism and then let's not tell institutions how to deal with it. Let's just tell them they have to deal with it the same way they deal with racism. So this bill does that today. It uses a definition of antisemitism that is bipartisan in nature.
It is the definition of antisemitism used in 38 states. It is the definition of antisemitism used by the Obama administration. It is the definition of antisemitism used by the Trump administration. It is the definition of antisemitism that was used by the Biden administration. And then it simply says what I said before: you will treat antisemitism the same way you treat racism if you wish to obtain federal funding.
The good news is that it works. See, we can talk in this chamber, in this room, about ideas, will things work or will things not, but the good news is the framers intended a laboratory of democracy, 50 states to try ideas. And this bill passed in Florida in 2019. I'm wearing the kippah today that I wore the day that bill was signed. I wear the kippah today for that eighth-grade boy in Colorado who went through things he never should have.
And the bills worked. Last year in New York, there were 439 antisemitic incidents, the state with the largest Jewish population in America. In Florida, a state larger than New York, there were 55. See, when you pass the right bills, you can solve the problems. We have seven years of experience with this piece of legislation.
Seven years of it being used in K-12 education, seven years of it being used with our 12 state universities, seven years of experience of it being used in our 28 state colleges.
And with that seven years of experience, we have largely eradicated the problem. It's time to take this experiment from our laboratory of democracy and make it nationwide. This committee under the chair the leadership of Chairman Walberg and the former Chairman Chairwoman Fox has done an extraordinary job of illustrating the problem that plagues our education system. Today with this bill and the other two we will be hearing today, we will begin to advance legislation that will actually solve the problem. Thank you Mr. Chairman and I yield back.
Tim Walberg
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 gentlelady from North Carolina wish to be recognized?
Alma Adams
Let me begin by saying what should be clear to every member of this committee. Antisemitism is real, it's dangerous, it has no place on a college campus or anywhere else in this country. Jewish students deserve to attend class, participate in campus life, and practice their faith without fear of harassment, threats, or discrimination. When a university fails to protect its students, it must be held accountable. But protecting civil rights requires more than a strong bill title.
It requires a policy that's workable, fair, and supported by the resources necessary to enforce it. And this bill does not meet that standard. H.R. 9203 would impose new Title VI procedures on colleges and universities and new reporting and investigation requirements on the Department of Education's Office for Civil Rights. At the same time, the Trump administration has cut OCR's staff, weakened its capacity, dismissed thousands of complaints, and begun moving portions of this work to the Department of Justice. So let me understand this correctly.
The majority wants to give OCR more duties while this administration is taking away the people, resources, and infrastructure it needs to perform the duties it already has. This is not serious civil rights enforcement. This is setting an office up to fail, then blaming the office when when students do not receive justice. As a former educator of 40 years, I know that a right is only meaningful when a student can enforce it. And when a black student faces racial harassment, when a Jewish student faces antisemitism, when a student with a disability is denied an accommodation, or when a student experiences sexual harassment, that student should be able to turn to an Office for Civil Rights that has the staff and the capacity to investigate the complaint.
And this bill does not rebuild OCR. It does not restore the regional offices that have been weakened and it does not provide more invest for more investigators. It does not address the thousands of students who are already waiting for their complaint to be resolved. Instead, the bill creates a separate and more favorable process for certain Title VI complaints while leaving other civil rights complaints behind. That is a serious equity problem.
Students waiting on complaints involving disability discrimination, sexual harassment, racial harassment, or retaliation should not be told that their cases matter less because Congress has created a new process that that places other complaints ahead of theirs.
Civil rights are not a competition. We should not protect one group of students by weakening the protections available to another. I am also deeply concerned that this bill would connect compliance with these new procedures to an institution's participation in federal student aid programs. Federal student aid belongs to students. Pell Grants, student loans, and work-study assistance should not be used as political leverage in a dispute between the federal government and a college administration.
And if an administration violates civil rights laws, then we should investigate the violation. We should require corrective action and hold the institution accountable. But we should not place access to college at risk for low-income students who had no role in the alleged misconduct. That does not punish a university president. It punishes the student who's trying to earn a degree.
There are parts of this bill that reflect reasonable goals. Colleges should have clear complaint procedures. Students should know where to report discrimination. Institutions should respond promptly and communicate with complainants. But those goals should apply fairly across civil rights laws, and they should be paired with a fully staffed and functional Office of Civil Rights.
The majority cannot claim to care about civil rights enforcement while remaining silent as this administration dismantles the agency responsible for carrying it out. And if we're serious about protecting students, then let us restore OCR staff. Let us address this backlog, and let us ensure that every student, regardless of race, religion, national origin, sex, or disability, can have their complaint fairly investigated. And let us stop using federal student aid as a weapon against the very students that we say we're trying to protect. Antisemitism demands a serious response.
This bill is not that response, and I urge my colleagues to vote no. And with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Yes, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Kiley, you're recognized.
Kevin Kiley
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Over the course of the last few years, this committee has focused a lot of its efforts on addressing the horrifying rise in antisemitism in education across this country. And a lot of the focus has been on the horrifying scenes that have played out on university campuses. But we have also looked at the perhaps even more shocking scenes that have played out on K through 12 campuses across the country. And I have spoken directly with many students who have been the subjects of targeting, of harassment, of discrimination.
These are high school students or younger who are just trying to go to school, get an education, just trying to be kids, and yet are subject to the most vile forms of discrimination and bullying and harassment simply on the basis of who they are. So this is heartbreaking, it is morally extremely troubling, and it's also illegal under our civil rights laws. Especially when you consider the fact that in connection with many of these incidents, there have been adults on campus who either failed to hold those responsible accountable, or were in some way complicit in what was going on. We have even seen overt antisemitism incorporated into curricula in the form, for example, of liberated ethnic studies, which became somewhat prevalent in California, and fortunately now we're starting to see those curricula removed from districts in San Francisco, for example. And the statewide version was condemned when they put out a model framework on that.
So, this bill simply reaffirms the legal obligations that exist in every educational institution in this country, and that is to comply with our civil rights laws. So I would hope that this can be the subject of strong bipartisan support today because there are many Jewish students across this country who have had to live through things that no child ever could. When you look at what's happened, you wonder how could this possibly be taking place in the United States of America in the 21st century, and this is an opportunity for all of us to say that it's unacceptable and that we want to assure that the full extent of our civil rights laws are enforced to protect these students. I yield back.
Gentleman yields, sir. Are there any other members who wish to be recognized for further discussion?
Mr. Chairman.
Does the gentleman from Virginia wish to be recognized?
The gentleman is recognized.
Robert Scott
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, H.R. 8476 is an attempt to rewrite civil rights laws in a manner that is grossly inequitable and probably unconstitutional. Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 does not include religion as a protected class. However, since 2004, there's been a bipartisan consensus that Title VI can and should be interpreted to protect individuals based on their actual or perceived shared identity or ethnic characteristics or their national origin, even if at first glance it appeared to be that discrimination was based on religion. And this has been found to apply most frequently to discrimination against Jews, Sikhs, and Muslims, but the Department of Education recognized as recently as 2024 that there are situations where others could be included.
And under this definition, the situation described by the gentleman from Florida would certainly come under current law. Enforcement of the laws is the responsibility of the Office of Civil Rights within the Department of Education. Now regrettably, the Office of Civil Rights is being dismantled and the Department of Education is being abolished. But so if you want to enforce the law, you can't enforce the law while you are dismantling the agency responsible for enforcing the law. The department has produced guidance over 20 years to help recipients of federal funds understand their duty to respond to discrimination in these cases, cases which are often highly fact-specific.
Now this bill would elevate the treatment of antisemitism above any other form of religious discrimination. Rather than amend Title VI directly, the bill attempts to piggyback on the provisions of Title VI, asking those provisions apply to religious discrimination as well, but only for antisemitic discrimination. This bill would position Jewish victims of discrimination differently than Christian, Muslim, Sikh, or other religions who are victims of discrimination. Now I don't believe it's the intent of the sponsor to have enacted a law that offers varying degrees of legal protections from discrimination based on a person's specific religious beliefs.
I don't believe it's his intent to write a bill that establishes one religion as having a higher priority over others, but the plain text of the bill is clearly construed, has to be construed in that way. Since October 7th, the committee has been focused on the issue of discrimination, religious discrimination, by only focusing on antisemitism. And this is not because it's the only kind of discrimination occurring on campuses. Now, whether it is the former FBI director's testimony to the Senate on the rise of Islamophobia, the hate crime statistics, or headlines of Palestinian students shot while wearing... shot as students, with them being violently attacked as counter-protests, it's been clear to everyone except the majority that there are others who are victims of discrimination. But to the extent the majority continues to ignore that fact, you're building a record that you are not considering equal protection.
This bill also defines antisemitism using the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance definition and working examples. This is the definition that one of its own authors has publicly testified that should not be used in educational settings. By equating certain statements of opinion about Israel as being antisemitic, it has the effect of chilling constitutionally protected speech, as a federal court in Texas, of all places, ruled in 2024. This definition is not the only one around. There are multiple definitions of antisemitism now in use, and the ones that make key distinctions that protect political speech.
It's also important to note, Mr. Chairman, how you define antisemitism is of little use in discrimination cases. Discrimination occurs when there is a differential treatment based on the protected class, in this case, religion. How you define religion is irrelevant. The operative question is, did you treat one group different from another on account of religion? So I just urge my colleagues to oppose the bill and yield back.
Speaker 14
Gentleman yields. Does the gentlelady from North Carolina seek to be recognized?
Virginia Foxx
Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield to the gentleman from Florida. First, let me say I associate myself with the comments from Representative Kali and Representative Fine, and I yield to Representative Fine for his comments.
Randy Feenstra
Well, thank you, Representative Fox, for that. We just heard that we have current law. The current law, the law of 20 years, exists to protect Jewish students. Tell that to the students who had to deal with this person on their campus. I'm glad there are words on paper that should solve the problem, but what is clear is that they are not.
And you don't have to take my word for it, look on just about any college campus that's not in the state of Florida. You know, we heard that we've got an Office of Civil Rights being defunded. They are the ones who are supposed to deal with this. They weren't defunded under Joe Biden.
No one was going after them then, and they failed abjectly to solve the problem. Interestingly, the number of recorded cases of antisemitism has fallen for the first time in years in 2025. All we needed was a new president. The what-aboutism about other groups and other faiths, no one should be discriminated against on college campuses. But what is clear is what is taking place every single day in our K-12 system, in our university system, in our community college system is unique to Jewish students.
And for those who are concerned that what I am proposing may be unconstitutional, I would issue the same warning I issued to those in Florida seven years ago. When you say you will treat antisemitism the same way you treat racism, and then you say you cannot go after those who engage in antisemitism, guess what that means to the groups that you actually do care about. Because if you're allowed to say anything you want, if every speech is protected, then get ready for things that none of us want. Get ready for someone to say the N-word is protected speech. I remind you, this bill does not elevate one group over another.
It does not say one group gets preferential treatment. It simply says that we cannot discriminate in how we deal with discrimination. And to object to that view means that you think that we should. It means that you think some minority groups deserve superior protection to others. My bill does the opposite.
It says they must all be treated the same. Lastly, we heard some words about the definition that is used. The definition that is used in this bill is pulled directly from executive orders used by Barack Obama, Joe Biden, and Donald Trump. Three men that don't really agree on all that much, but on this they did agree. 38 states agreed with this definition.
Over a thousand governmental organizations around the world have adopted this definition. Why? Because it was prepared over years of study, because you cannot solve a problem if you do not define it. Now I know there are those who will desperately use any excuse to justify what we see on this sign on college campuses. But for my two sons, for that eighth-grade boy in Colorado, and for the thousands of other Jewish students who are putting up with this stuff every day, I'm not going to stand by.
I'm not going to allow it. And I hope that all of my colleagues will support this good bill. I yield back.
Gentleman yields. Does the lady, gentlelady from Oregon seek to be recognized?
Yes, Mr. Chairman, I seek to be recognized.
You're recognized.
Speaker 15
Thank you. I'd like to yield my time to the gentlewoman from North Carolina, Ranking Member Adams.
Alma Adams
Thank you. I want to thank the lady for yielding. Mr. Chairman, I just want to make a correction that the bill I spoke on was for 9203. 9203, that was the bill that I was speaking on when I spoke earlier.
Tim Walberg
Gentlelady yields. Are there any other members who wish to yield time for discussion on this amendment in the nature of a substitute? There being no further discussion on the amendment in the nature of the substitute, the committee will move to consideration of amendments. Are there any members who would like to offer amendments?
There being no amendments, the question now occurs on the amendment in the nature of a substitute to H.R. 8476. 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. We'll now move to consider the next bill. The committee will now proceed to consideration of bill H.R. 4795 for amendment. The bill was circulated in advance and printed copies are available. The clerk shall designate the bill.
Speaker 5
H.R. 4795, a bill to amend the Higher Education Act of 1965 to prohibit an institution that participates in a non-expressive commercial boycott of Israel from being eligible for certain funds under that act, to require an institution that participates in certain programs under that act to certify that students are not unreasonably obstructed from participating in academic programs in Israel and for other purposes.
Tim Walberg
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? Mrs. Foxx, for what purpose do you seek to be recognized?
Speaker 5
Amendment in the nature of a substitute to H.R. 4795 offered by Ms. Foxx of North Carolina, identifier 4795 ANS_01.
Tim Walberg
Without objection, the amendment shall be considered original text for purposes of further amendment. The amendment in the nature of a substitute has already been distributed. I now recognize Mrs. Foxx, the gentlelady from North Carolina, for five minutes to explain the amendment in the nature of a substitute.
Virginia Foxx
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. For decades, the United States and Israel have maintained a strong partnership rooted in shared democratic values, economic cooperation, scientific advancement, and educational exchange. It's the reason Congress designated Israel as the "first major strategic partner" in 2014 via the United States-Israel Strategic Partnership Act. American universities and Israeli institutions have worked together on groundbreaking research, medical innovations, and programs that benefit students and faculty in both countries. Unfortunately, there's been an alarming rise in antisemitism on American college and university campuses, driven largely by anti-Israel radicals to coerce institutions into divesting from and boycotting Israel.
Boycotts of Israel have been weaponized to isolate Jewish students, silence Jewish faculty, and cut American universities off from invaluable intellectual and research partnerships with Israeli academic institutions. In one boycott example, this committee's investigation of Northwestern University found that faculty members and Northwestern's provost were openly willing to appease encampment organizers in their efforts to demand the university boycott Sabra hummus because of the brand's perceived association with Israel. In addition, while a concentrated academic boycott of Israel academic and cultural institutions has been pursued for decades, harmful academic boycott activity has increased since the October 7, 2023 attack. Title VI of the Higher Education Act authorizes funds "to promote access to research and training overseas, including through linkages with overseas institutions."
Some of the entities receiving this taxpayer funding have become hotbeds of calls for academic boycotts. For example, one leading professor of Georgetown's Title VI-supported National Resource Center has actively pursued a full academic boycott of Israel. In 2013, the American Studies Association, the largest academic group in the United States, adopted a policy endorsing an academic boycott of Israel. In 2014, six taxpayer-supported NRC directors signed a letter endorsing an academic boycott of Israel. These academic boycotts contravene the purposes of the Title VI funding they receive.
Such actions do not expand knowledge. They do not promote dialogue, and they do not advance the mission of higher education. The Protect Economic and Academic Freedom Act prohibits institutions participating in federal student aid programs from engaging in non-expressive commercial boycotts of Israel. It also requires universities receiving Title VI funds to treat partnerships, exchanges, and collaborations with academic programs in Israel in the same manner as academic programs in other states. This legislation does not dictate viewpoints, does not prohibit anyone from expressing their opinions.
Individuals remain free to advocate, protest, or engage in political speech protected by the First Amendment. Students can still choose to abstain from products made in Israel. But what Congress cannot and should not tolerate is taxpayer money being used to marginalize Jewish people and undermine Israel's major strategic partner status enshrined in law. This bill addresses conduct and sends a simple message: American taxpayers should support institutions that foster academic opportunity and international collaboration, not institutions that erect barriers and engage in discriminatory boycotts. At a time when antisemitism has risen on campuses across our country, Congress has a responsibility to reaffirm that discrimination and exclusion have no place in higher education.
Jewish students and faculty should not be denied opportunities for research or collaboration simply because these opportunities involve Israel. Knowledge flourishes through engagement, not isolation. Universities should be centers of inquiry, discovery, and open exchange, not vehicles for economic warfare against major academic partners, strategic partners. I will note this ANS includes changes to reflect technical feedback from the administration to ensure the most economical approach by encapsulating the bill's reforms within the frameworks of program participation agreements. Doing so will ensure colleges and universities do not face unnecessary burdens, even as Congress makes clear that these harmful, hateful weapons of antisemitism, these BDS campaigns, will not be aided by taxpayer funds.
I'd like to thank my Democratic colleague Representative Gottheimer for his work in co-authoring this legislation. He's a great partner in this chamber and a steadfast champion for safeguarding our interest against BDS boycotts at home and abroad.
Tim Walberg
Gentlelady yields.
Are there any other members who wish to be recognized for further discussion on the amendment in the nature of a substitute? Does the gentleman from Virginia, the ranking member, wish to be recognized?
Yes, Mr. Chairman.
I recognize you for five minutes.
Robert Scott
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, the sponsor of 4795 claims the bill is a direct response to the boycott, divest, sanctions, BDS movement against Israel. I too disagree with the aims of BDS and, like many others during the 116th Congress, voted in support of a resolution which opposed the efforts to delegitimize the state of Israel and the global boycott, divestment, sanctions movement targeting Israel. I supported that resolution in part because the global BDS movement does not favor a two-state solution and seeks to exclude the state of Israel and the Israeli people from economic, cultural, and academic life of the rest of the world. But if the goal is to defeat global BDS, I would argue that it's a solution in search of a problem.
My understanding is there is not an institution of higher education in this country that has joined the global BDS movement. There have been student assemblies or faculty senates who have expressed their legally protected First Amendment opinions that their school should join that movement, but those votes were invariably followed by the schools publicly stating that they weren't taking that action. As we've had to stipulate many times over the past three years, speech that offends is still constitutionally protected. Many states have found out this in their anti-BDS laws, which have been defeated on constitutional grounds, and I guess that's why BDS is not specifically mentioned in the bill. It claims to only regulate, quote, non-expressive commercial boycotts.
So, but I think there is common ground we can move forward on. The second half of the bill conditions HEA's international educational funding on schools certifying that they will not impede the ability to engage in academic programs, cultural exchanges, and so forth with Israeli students and faculty. The Higher Education Act international education funding is arguably very closely linked with the concept of cultural exchange, and I think bringing students together to learn from each other is something we should be promoting. So some of it is specific and easy to understand, the other is kind of garbled, but whatever, I yield back.
Tim Walberg
The gentleman yields. Are there any other members who wish to be recognized? The gentleman from Florida, Mr. Fine, do you wish to be recognized?
Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Recognized for five minutes.
Randy Feenstra
Thank you. I just want to say that I support this bill fully and I yield the balance of my time to Representative Foxx.
Virginia Foxx
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to just reassert that the framework is based on state law that has withstood challenges. I'm not sure if a colloquialism would work in this case, but I would say that I believe an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. I yield back to the gentleman from Florida.
I yield back.
Tim Walberg
Gentleman yields. Are there any other members who wish to continue to discussion on this 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 wish would like to offer amendments? There being no amendments, the question now occurs on the amendment in the nature of a substitute to H.R. 4795.
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 bill H.R. 9203 for amendment. The bill was circulated in advance and printed copies are available. The clerk shall designate the bill.
H.R. 9203, a bill to increase the transparency of colleges and universities in carrying out their civil rights responsibilities and for other purposes. Amendment in the nature of a substitute to H.R. 9203, offered by Mr. Fine of Florida, identifier MU9203ANS_01.
Randy Feenstra
Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. The ANS makes a minor technical change to the underlying bill. Federal tax dollars should never support discrimination. That's why Title VI of the Civil Rights Act prohibits targeting people based on who they are, their race, color, or national origin. Administrations of both parties have affirmed that Title VI protects Jewish students from antisemitic discrimination based on their shared ancestry and ethnic identity.
But since the terrorist attack against Israel on October 7th of 2023, we have seen an explosion of antisemitism on college campuses, as I talked about before. But students and families face confusing reporting processes and often don't even know whether their complaints are being investigated, why cases are dismissed, or what actions have been taken. This has raised questions about how institutions of higher education investigate claims of discrimination and harassment under Title VI. This legislation's needed because while Title VI theoretically provides protection against discrimination, the current Title VI statute and regulations provide very little guidance to colleges and universities on how those complaints should be handled. As a result, students are often left navigating inconsistent procedures and uncertain outcomes.
This bill strengthens transparency, accountability, and oversight of Title VI investigations by both institutions of higher education and the federal government. It requires colleges and universities to clearly communicate how discrimination complaints are investigated, to keep complainants informed throughout the process, and explain the reasoning behind the decisions that they make. The bill also ensures that students know where to turn if they experience discrimination. It requires institutions to widely communicate their Title VI complaint procedures, so students understand how to file a complaint and what to expect throughout the investigative process. But transparency should not end at the campus level, because as we have learned, we cannot necessarily trust what is happening at the campus level.
Therefore, this bill requires the Office of Civil Rights to brief this committee, as well as our counterpart in the Senate, on the status of investigations. This provision will give Congress an opportunity to hear directly about the progress being made while investigating Title VI claims. Finally, the bill ensures that Title VI complainants receive the review and attention they deserve.
The bill prevents complainants from being improperly dismissed or delayed simply because similar allegations have been raised elsewhere or by other people. It codifies long-standing OCR practices regarding class action complaints, helping to ensure these practices are applied consistently. While this was long OCR policy, the Biden-Harris administration abused its discretion and dismissed cases that should have been investigated. This provision will codify OCR's practice into law to ensure it is followed, and I'm certain my Democratic colleagues will support that given their concerns about the Office of Civil Rights. The bill also ensures that same office will not dismiss or delay an investigation of a complaint simply because the same allegations have been raised elsewhere.
If multiple people are making the same complaint, it probably means it's more likely that it's true, not that it should be dismissed. This bill is supported by the Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America, a leader in the efforts to increase the transparency of Title VI investigations on college campuses. At a time when antisemitism is once again rising on college campuses across the nation, this committee has a responsibility to ensure that our colleges and universities remain places of learning, not as they have too often become, hostility. This legislation is just one important step forward in our efforts to protect students' rights and guarantee equal access to educational opportunities for all students. I urge my colleagues to support the Student Protection and University Accountability Act, and I yield back.
Speaker 19
Gentleman yields. Are there any other members who wish to be recognized for further discussion on the amendment in the nature of substitute? The gentlelady from Oregon, do you wish to be recognized?
Recognized for five minutes.
Suzanne Bonamici
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I obviously agree with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle that antisemitism is a real problem that must be addressed. But I'm a little confused reading this bill because it makes frequent references throughout to the Office for Civil Rights of the Department of Education. As you all know, last week Secretary McMahon announced that she is, in my opinion, illegally transferring the Office of Civil Rights to the Department of Justice. Over the years, it's been clear that the Office of Civil Rights at the Department of Education is obligated to look at all complaints.
That's their case processing manual. They have to evaluate every complaint, and if they don't, of course, Congress should hold them accountable. That's not what the Department of Justice does. They do not work that way and they were never built to. So I'm just confused at this bill right now because of the attempt to move the Office of Civil Rights to the Department of Justice.
So I encourage my colleagues to join me in fighting that move and keeping the Office of Civil Rights at the Department of Education. But in the meantime, it doesn't make any sense to keep referring to it and giving it responsibilities when the Secretary is illegally transferring it to another agency. And I yield back.
Speaker 11
The gentlelady yields. Are there any other members who wish to be recognized for further discussion? The gentleman from Virginia, the ranking member, do you wish to be recognized?
Yes, Mr. Chairman.
Recognized for five minutes.
Robert Scott
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The issue of Title VI compliance in educational settings is one that I've been working on for some time. In the 116th Congress, I introduced and the House passed the Equity and Inclusion Enforcement Act, or EIEA, which would require all K through 12 schools and colleges that receive federal funding to designate at least one employee as the official Title VI monitor, just like we have Title IX monitors, to handle both investigation of complaints and institutional compliance. It also provides a private right of action for disparate impact cases under Title VI. This Congress, EIEA is H.R. 3606.
I encourage the committee to take it up and report it and to improve Title VI compliance in all settings. However, putting the merits aside for EIEA or this bill, I feel we have to address the elephant in the room, and that is it is hard to consider these bills from the majority that put affirmative responsibilities on the Department of Education when the department is illegally being dismantled while we're just as we're talking. I think that Title VI compliance should be handled by the department's Office of Civil Rights. That's the present law. 9203 would dictate that the Office of Federal Student Aid and the office that handles program participation agreements should play a role.
I think the Title VI compliance should be handled by the department's Office of Civil Rights. That's the present law. 9203 would dictate that the Office of Federal Student Aid and the office that handles program participation agreements should play a role in that. But regardless of which opinion is better, these two offices, the Office of Student Aid and the Federal Student Aid and the Office of Civil Rights, they're two education offices that lost the most employees in the Secretary's reduction in force last year. Both of these offices have entered into interagency agreements to transfer many of their duties to other executive departments, particularly Treasury and Justice.
GAO found that OCR paid staffers upwards of $38 million not to work last year as the backlog of cases grew. And a recent Senate HELP Committee report found that OCR reached zero resolution agreements last year in cases of sexual harassment, sexual violence, seclusion and restraint, racial harassment, and discriminatory school discipline. So frankly, why should we take any measure the majority offers regarding these directives seriously when this committee continues to ignore its offshoring and crippling to the point where it can't accomplish the tasks already mandated under current law? OCR is tasked with enforcing the nation's educational civil rights laws, including Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, among others. Currently, OCR has a backlog of approximately 25,000 pending cases.
We plan to offer an amendment to authorize funding necessary for OCR to get its arms around the problem and start doing the job it will require to chip away at that backlog. Finally, H.R. 9203 includes OCR case processing reforms that I fail to understand the purpose of. OCR relies on a uniform case processing manual to direct how its staff handles cases. That manual ensures that all cases are handled in the same manner, and the manual outlines multiple instances of where OCR shall dismiss or may dismiss claims that are pending with other agencies or with a court of law. OCR must make determinations that other agency or court in question will apply comparable legal standards and afford complainants comparable remedies that they would receive from OCR before dismissing such cases and complaints and have the opportunity to refile after their case has been handled by another agency.
At a time when the understaffed agency has a backlog twice as long as when we considered the bill in the last Congress, I don't understand who is advocating for a policy change that will exacerbate the current backlog of cases at OCR or changes that will result in longer times to resolution for all educational civil rights claims. Further, by elevating Title VI claims above others at the department, we run the risk of creating inequities in the enforcement of our educational civil rights laws. So I urge my colleagues to oppose the bill and yield back the balance of my time.
Tim Walberg
The gentleman yields. Are there any other members who wish to be recognized for further discussion? 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? Does the gentleman from Virginia, the ranking member, wish to offer an amendment?
Speaker 5
Amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute to HR 9203, offered by Mr. Scott of Virginia, identifier SCOTT_AMD_01.
Yes, I'd like to reserve a point of order.
Tim Walberg
A point of order is reserved. I now recognize the gentleman from Virginia, the ranking member, for five minutes in support of his amendment.
Robert Scott
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, this amendment simply requires the department to do the work this bill is asking it to do. HR 9203 is one of multiple bills we've marked up in committee this Congress that places affirmative duties on the Department of Education. The fact that the majority can bring these bills forward knowing full well that the duties Congress have already placed on the department are being sent all over Washington to other agencies with interagency agreements is shocking. Just this month, the department entered into an interagency agreement with the Department of Justice to transfer the investigative work of the Office of Civil Rights to the Department of Justice Civil Rights Division.
Begs the question, what will OCR be able to tell us about their Title VI work if that work is being done by another agency? Will DOJ have to brief OCR about what they're doing in OCR's name so OCR can then brief us? Is this the government efficiency that we were promised? My amendment would make clear that when we write a bill asking the Department of Education to do something, we expect them to do it and not farm it out to somewhere else. And I urge my colleagues to support the amendment.
Yield back.
Tim Walberg
The gentleman yields back. Does the gentleman from Utah withdraw the reservation?
I withdraw.
Randy Feenstra
The reservation is withdrawn. Does anyone else seek recognition on the amendment? Does the gentleman from Florida, Mr. Fine, seek to be recognized?
I do, Mr. Chairman.
You're recognized for five minutes.
Randy Feenstra
Thank you. I speak in opposition to the amendment. They don't want families to have more choices to escape low-performing schools. I understand that my colleagues across the aisle are fundamentally opposed to any effort to shake up the status quo in education. They apparently don't think any child was ever educated before the creation of the Department of Education in 1979, and they apparently think the Department of Education, despite all of the data to the contrary, was doing a great job right until 2025.
Their commitment to these beliefs, despite all the evidence to the contrary, is impressive in a sad way. Whatever happened to quote-unquote following the science? I oppose this amendment because it cements silos and prohibits collaboration between agencies to improve program delivery. Interagency agreements under the Economy Act have been used by many prior administrations, both Democrat and Republican, to deliver better results for program recipients and taxpayers. Eliminating this option for agency collaboration would only protect outdated systems that do not work.
I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment, support the underlying bill, and I yield back.
Speaker 22
The gentleman yields. Are there any other members who wish to speak? The gentlelady from Oregon, do you wish to be recognized?
Suzanne Bonamici
And and just wanted to note that at present there's at least 600 organizations that have signed a letter opposing the transfer of IDEA to HHS and OCR to DOJ. These organizations, particularly organizations that work with students with disabilities and other civil rights groups, they are the people on the ground and they are concerned about the importance of having these programs consolidated. This is not about finding a more efficient way to do things. In fact, transferring from the Department of Education to other agencies only adds more bureaucracy. So I support the amendment and I yield back.
Yes, I wish to be recognized in support of Mr. Scott's amendment.
Recognized for five minutes.
Tim Walberg
The gentlelady yields. Are there any other members who wish to speak on the amendment? Seeing none, the question now is on the amendment by the gentleman from Virginia, the ranking member. All in favor say aye. All opposed 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. 9203? The gentleman from Virginia wishes to be recognized for an amendment.
The clerk will report the amendment.
Speaker 5
Amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute to H.R. 9203 offered by Mr. Scott of Virginia, identifier Scott_AMD_02.
Reserve a point of order.
Tim Walberg
Point of order is reserved and I now recognize gentleman from Virginia, the ranking member, for five minutes in support of his amendment.
Robert Scott
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Florida just incredibly opposed an amendment requiring the Department of Education to do what his bill tells them to do. This amendment would give them the funding to do what his bill tells them to do, so we'll see how this works out. If we want to improve civil rights enforcement, we need to put our money where our mouth is. The Office of Civil Rights has been decimated under the Trump administration.
The reduction in force cut its staff nearly in half, essentially doubling case loads for the investigators who were left behind. The department was eventually forced by the dictates of reality to rehire some of those staff to help bring down the ever-growing backlog of cases. When the secretary came to us earlier this year, she insisted that the budget she submitted to Congress, a budget that contained less money for OCR than last year, that that was merely a floor and that she wanted an increase to she wanted to increase the hiring numbers. This amendment would provide the secretary with what she asked for. It would raise the floor she mentioned and authorize up to $280 million for OCR for each of the next four fiscal years.
And that's what it'll take to get this job done that the bill is asking the the department to do. So I urge the adoption of the amendment and yield back the balance of my time.
I withdraw my reservation.
Tim Walberg
The point of order, the reservation is withdrawn. Does anyone else seek recognition on the amendment? The gentleman from Florida, do you wish to be recognized?
I do, Mr. Chairman.
Recognized for five minutes.
Randy Feenstra
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Unfortunately, I must oppose this amendment. With all due respect to my colleague, this amendment doesn't advance the effort to increase the transparency of Title VI investigations on college campuses, nor does it help codify effective OCR investigative procedures. It just throws money at a problem, a problem I would note, as I shared before, antisemitism that went up during Joe Biden's presidency despite his concerns has gone down under President Trump's. This administration's made great strides combating antisemitism.
It's now taking steps to better align civil rights investigations with civil rights enforcement by formalizing a partnership with the Department of Justice.
Democrats have no substantive reason to argue with this administration's actions or with the actual substance of the bill, so they're raising smoke screens and just throwing money away. I urge my colleagues to ignore these distractions, reject this messaging amendment, and support the underlying bill. I yield back.
Speaker 29
Gentleman yields. Are there any other members that... the gentlelady from Oregon, do you wish to be recognized? Recognized for five minutes.
Suzanne Bonamici
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I strongly support this amendment. We cannot expect the Office of Civil Rights to do the work if they don't have the staff and if they don't have the funding. They're currently facing a massive backlog of somewhere between 11,000 and 24,000 cases pending across the country. It's not a smoke screen or messaging amendment to say that they need staff to handle those.
So I support the amendment and I yield back.
Tim Walberg
Thank the gentlelady. Are there any other members who wish to be recognized on this amendment? Seeing none, the question is on the amendment by the gentleman from Virginia, the ranking member. All in favor say aye. All opposed, 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 the substitute to H.R. 9203? Seeing none, further action on H.R. 9203 is postponed.
We'll now move to consider the next bill. The committee will now proceed to consideration of bill H.R. 2555 for amendment. The bill was circulated in advance and printed copies are available. The clerk shall designate the bill.
Speaker 5
H.R. 2555, a bill to amend the Higher Education Act of 1965 to provide for certain freedom of association protections and for other purposes.
Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
Speaker 5
Amendment in the nature of a substitute to H.R. 2555 offered by Mr. Harris of North Carolina, identifier MU2555ANS_01.
Tim Walberg
Without objection, the amendment shall be considered original text for purposes of further amendment. The amendment in the nature of a substitute has already been distributed. I now recognize Mr. Harris, gentleman from North Carolina, for five minutes to explain the amendment in the nature of a substitute.
Mark Harris
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm proud to cosponsor H.R. 2555, the Freedom of Association in Higher Education Act, which would uphold the freedom of association protections for students. Too often, students in single-sex social organizations, which range from Greek life to religious groups and others, face requirements that are not placed on other student groups. Students in fraternities and sororities, for example, have been barred from receiving college fellowships or holding leadership positions in other student organizations. Students are also often required to follow a deferred recruitment policy that prohibits them from joining Greek life even while they're allowed to join other campus organizations.
It's simply not fair to place additional requirements on single-sex student groups solely because they enforce single-sex membership standards.
Speaker 30
The Freedom of Association in Higher Education Act would ensure that any student can form a single-sex social organization or join one if selected for membership. The bill would prohibit colleges from taking action against a student or student organization because that organization is single-sex. It would also prohibit colleges from imposing additional restrictions on an organization because it is single-sex. And my amendment in the nature of a substitute makes a few changes to the bill that I'd like to take a moment and highlight. First, it allows private universities to take action against single-sex organization if the organization's purpose is incompatible with the religious mission of the university, ensuring that private universities can abide by their religious beliefs.
It also prohibits colleges from imposing additional requirements on advisors serving single-sex social organizations. And lastly, the ANS defines sex as biological sex, ensuring that protections in the bill would only apply to single-sex student groups that abide by this common-sense definition and are consistent with Title IX. I'm proud to support this bill to protect students in single-sex organizations on college campuses, and I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 2555, the Freedom of Association in Higher Education Act. And with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Tim Walberg
Gentleman yields. Are there any members who wish to be recognized for further discussion on the amendment in the nature of the substitute? Yes, Mr. Chairman. The gentlelady from North Carolina would she be recognized.
Alma Adams
I'm just amazed at what I just heard. I am a member of a single-sex sorority. I taught at a single-sex college for 40 years. But anyway, let me let me just make a few comments. I do support the right of students to associate freely.
I understand the importance of fraternities, sororities, and other student organizations. And on many campuses, especially our historically black colleges and universities, these organizations are more than social clubs. They're places of leadership, service, mentorship, scholarship, and lifelong community. For generations, black fraternities and sororities have helped students find belonging, serve their communities, and develop into leaders. So I understand why Congress would want to ensure that colleges do not unfairly punish students simply because they choose to join a single-sex organization.
That was the issue this bill was supposed to address. But the amendment in the nature of a substitute changes the bill. The majority inserted a definition of sex that has nothing to do with protecting a student from being denied a scholarship, a leadership position, or a letter of recommendation because they joined a fraternity or sorority. Instead, the bill now defines sex exclusively through reproductive biology and writes transgender students out of the protections the bill claims to provide. That language was not necessary to solve the problem before us.
It was added to turn a bill about freedom of association into another vehicle for the majority's political attacks on transgender Americans. And that's why I cannot support it. Freedom of association should mean freedom for all students. It should not mean that Congress protects the freedom of some students while using the same bill to question the dignity and the identity of others. Transgender students attend our colleges and universities, they join clubs, they participate in campus life, they form friendships and community, and they deserve the same respect, safety, and opportunity as every other student.
This committee has spent far too much time this Congress targeting a very small and vulnerable group of young people. At some point, we must ask what problem we are actually trying to solve. And if the goal is to protect fraternities and sororities from unfair institutional retaliation, then we can do that without inserting a definition designed to exclude transgender students.
If the goal is to protect freedom of association, we can write a bill that protects freedom of association. We do not need to legislate the bodies of students in order to do that. I'm so concerned as well about how broadly this bill defines adverse action. This bill reaches scholarships, housing, athletic participation, leadership positions, employment, recommendations, and institutional recognition. And some of those protections may be reasonable when an institution acts solely because a student belongs to a single-sex organization.
But schools must still be able to enforce rules against hazing, harassment, discrimination, violence, and other misconduct. A fraternity or sorority should not be punished simply because it is single-sex, but neither should an organization be placed beyond accountability because it claims its conduct is tied to its membership practices. Students deserve both freedom and safety. We can protect both. This bill also reflects a troubling pattern.
The majority takes a legitimate concern, adds divisive language that's not needed to address it, and then tells members that opposing the bill means opposing the original principle. Well, that's just not true. I support fraternities and sororities, proud member of Alpha Kappa Alpha. I support student leadership. I support the freedom of students to associate, and I support the right of every student, including transgender students, to be treated with dignity.
Those positions are not in conflict. The majority chose to create that conflict by adding this definition. It did not have to do that. If that language were removed, we could have a serious bipartisan conversation about protecting student organizations and preventing unfair institutional retaliation. But as written, this bill is no longer simply about freedom of association.
It's another attempt to use federal education policy to marginalize transgender students. And I'm not going to support that. I urge my colleagues to reject this bill and return to the bipartisan principle that every student deserves freedom, safety, equal treatment on campus. With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Tim Walberg
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? Does the gentlelady from Illinois wish to be recognized? The gentlelady is recognized for five minutes.
Speaker 34
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for your leadership on this critical bill. The First Amendment is clear: the right to peaceably assemble and express free speech is fundamental. And yet, federally funded colleges and universities have repeatedly violated this right for religious student organizations. For example, the University of Houston at Clear Lake... next bill. Oh, okay.
Okay, I'm waiting till the next bill.
Tim Walberg
The gentlelady yields. Okay, thank you. Are there any other members who wish to speak on the amendment in the nature of a substitute?
The gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Scott, you wish to be recognized.
Robert Scott
You're recognized for five minutes. Thank you, thank you, Mr. Chairman. As I mentioned in my opening remarks, I came here ready to recommend a yes vote on H.R. 2555. The student's right of a student to join a private social organization of their choice should not be impeded by an institution of higher education just because it's a sorority or fraternity. I happen to belong to two fraternities, Alpha Phi Alpha and Sigma Pi Phi.
Further, students should not be penalized for making similar choices. If a social organization is causing problems at the school, the school can and should deal with those problems on their face, but it shouldn't address a student or a student organization's actions, not the simple fact that the members choose to associate with each other. This bill makes it clear that fraternities and sororities are not being given some sort of get-out-of-jail-free card, they simply can't be penalized simply because they're single-sex organizations. Fraternities and sororities have long been part of the college experience and should not be arbitrarily create barriers in a way of students forming in what in some cases are the most meaningful lifelong friendships they may have. Language substantially similar to H.R. 2555 has been included in both Democratic and Republican bills to reauthorize the Higher Education Act since at least 2018.
It's been one of those things that most members agree on and if given its own up-or-down vote, it'd likely receive wide margins of support. However, in the last 24 hours before this markup, the majority released an amendment in the nature of a substitute that had known poison pill language in it, language that made no substantial improvements to the bill and in turn just turned it into another culture war bill. Committee Democrats will offer an amendment to strip this language from the bill and in hope that we can move the bill forward that many people can support. However, if this amendment fails, I'll urge members to vote no and oppose on the amendment in the nature of a substitute and the bill. Yield back.
Tim Walberg
Gentleman yields. Are there any other members who wish to be recognized in discussion of the amendment in the nature of the substitute? Seeing none, we will now move on to amendments. Are there any members who wish to offer an amendment on H.R. 2555? Does the gentleman from Virginia seek to offer an amendment?
Speaker 5
Amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute to H.R. 2555, offered by Mr. Scott of Virginia, identifier Scott_AMD_01.
Tim Walberg
Point of order is reserved. I now recognize the gentleman from Virginia for five minutes in support of his amendment.
Robert Scott
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I think students should not be punished for choosing to join a fraternity or sorority. Either we want college students to have the freedom to associate with members they choose or we don't, and there's no need to insert our politics into this debate and putting it over their desire to celebrate brotherhood or sisterhood as they see fit. This amendment would strike the divisive poison pill language from the bill that many members on this side of the dais came here ready to support. If this amendment is defeated, the ANS is adopted in its current form, I regret that I will not be able to support the bill, but hopefully this amendment will be adopted and we can proceed with almost unanimous support.
Yield back.
Tim Walberg
The gentleman yields. Does the gentleman from Utah...
I'd like to withdraw my reservation. The reservation is withdrawn. Does anyone else seek recognition on the amendment?
Mark Harris
Mr. Chairman, I would like to unanimous consent... The gentleman from Virginia wishes to be recognized. For what purpose? Unanimous consent for the record. For the record? Yes. I'd like to have an article here from NBC News, "Seven Sorority Sisters at the University of Wyoming Sue Kappa Kappa Gamma to Challenge Induction of Transgender Member." I'd like to have that as part of the record.
Without objection, it will be entered. Are there any other members who wish to speak in discussion on the amendment?
Speaker 35
Mr. Chairman, we want to make clear that when you recognized the gentleman from Virginia, it was the gentleman from North Carolina that introduced that document.
Tim Walberg
I think it's now evident. We recognize that. Any others who wish to be recognized in discussion on the amendment from the gentleman from Virginia? Seeing none, the only thing I would say is that because of the inability for common sense and science to be followed, this legislation is in place and I oppose the amendment. The question is now on the amendment by the gentleman from Virginia. All in favor say 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. 2555? There being no further amendments, the question now occurs on the amendment in the nature of a substitute to H.R. 2555. Further action on H.R. 2555 is postponed. We'll now move to consider the next bill. The committee will now proceed to consideration of H.R. 5505 for amendment. The bill was circulated in advance and printed copies are available. The clerk shall designate the bill.
Speaker 5
H.R. 5505, a bill to amend the Higher Education Act of 1965 to ensure campus access at public institutions of higher education for religious groups.
Tim Walberg
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.
Speaker 5
Amendment in the nature of a substitute to H.R. 5505 offered by Mr. Walberg of Michigan, identifier MU5505ANS_01.
Tim Walberg
Without objection, the amendment shall be considered original text for purposes of further amendment. The amendment in the nature of a substitute has already been distributed. I now recognize myself for five minutes to explain the amendment in the nature of a substitute. This amendment in the nature of a substitute makes a small technical change to the bill. But I'd like to discuss the significance of the bill overall.
We know that religious student groups often face unique challenges on college campuses. In our April hearing, we heard examples of how religious student organizations nationwide have lost benefits afforded to other organizations due to their religious beliefs and practices. Religious student groups have lost access to funding, lost access to university space, and been required to invite speakers opposed to their views. Yet no other student organizations were held to these same standards. That simply isn't right.
My bill, Equal Campus Access Act, requires public colleges and universities that receive federal student aid to treat religious student groups the same as any other student organization on campus. This would ensure that religious student organizations can receive the full benefits afforded to them regardless of their beliefs, practices, speech, leadership standards, or standards of conduct. It's incredibly important that Congress supports students exercising their First Amendment rights on public college campuses. I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 5505, Equal Campus Access Act, and I yield back. Are there any members who wish to be recognized for further discussion on the amendment in the nature of a substitute?
I do.
Tim Walberg
No, we're on discussion purposes at this point in time. Are there any who wish to, the gentleman from California, for what purpose do you wish to be recognized?
Mark Takano
Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word and rise in opposition to the bill.
You're recognized for five minutes.
Mark Takano
Mr. Chairman, there are many pressing items that this committee could be focused on addressing today, like skyrocketing college costs, the declining purchasing power of the Pell Grants, or the student loan crisis. Instead, we are spending more committee time on another GOP ideological crusade. Colleges and universities have gone to great lengths to make campuses inclusive places where any student can participate in all aspects of student life, including in clubs and student organizations. These aspects of a student's life are foundational for young people seeking out community, professional networks, and groups that make college feel less overwhelming and more accessible. When these clubs are officially recognized by the institution, they receive support and certain benefits from that recognition.
And for that reason, non-discrimination policies are in place to ensure that all students who are enrolled at that university can participate or seek leadership positions regardless of their status or beliefs. Equal access is one of the core foundations of the university educational system. This bill, however, seeks to create a major carve-out for that equal access. H.R. 5505 would prohibit universities from denying religious student organizations recognition and benefit because of their beliefs, practices, speech, or other standards, even if those beliefs and practices include barring certain students from joining or removing them from membership.
What's worse is that these officially recognized clubs and organizations are generally funded by all student fees. That means that students who wouldn't be welcome in these organizations would still be required to subsidize them. The Republican majority is attempting to erode non-discrimination protections through death by a thousand cuts, or death through a thousand carve-outs is more is as more accurate. They are scraping away at the protections that allow students equal access to their campus and place to learn free from harassment and discrimination. Religious groups absolutely have a place on college campuses.
But their right to be recognized by the institution does not override other students' rights to be free from discrimination. What type of message does this send to the student in the closet who fears if they if they fully accept who they are, they will be cast out from the university recognized from the university recognized religious student organization they deeply care about? This legislation will tell that student to make an impossible choice: to conceal who they are in order to continue to participate and have access to their university-funded religious student organization. That's no way to live. And for some students, concealing who they are may not even be an option.
For this text, religious student organizations would have the right to discriminate on to discriminate based on race, disability, or any characteristic and still receive official institutional recognition, resources, including funding, and other benefits. Non-discrimination policies ensure all students have an opportunity to continue to worship and practice as they see fit. Conditioning federal funds on a university violating non-discrimination policies and practices does nothing to help students, including those in religious student organizations. We are facing a national affordability and access crisis in higher education. I would rather that the committee would focus on that.
I urge my colleagues to vote no on H.R. 5505, and I yield back.
Speaker 34
The gentleman yields. Does the gentlelady from Illinois wish to be recognized?
Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for your leadership on this critical bill. The First Amendment is clear: the right to peaceably assemble and express free speech is fundamental. And yet, federally funded colleges and universities have repeatedly violated this right for religious student organizations. For example, the University of Houston at Clear Lake barred a Christian student organization from officially organizing, leaving the students unable to reserve campus space, invite speakers, or access school funding. The First Amendment is not optional regardless of whether or not the university agrees with the group.
It protects the right of any person to speak and peaceably protest in a public place. Religious student groups should be treated like any other student organization when it comes to accessing the benefits provided to official student organizations. The Equal Campus Access Act does exactly that. It prohibits federally funded institutions of higher education from denying a religious student organization any right, benefit, or privilege afforded to other student organizations. As we've seen intolerance rise on college campuses, it's critical that Congress steps up to protect students who are attempting to exercise their First Amendment rights.
I urge my colleagues to support the Equal Campus Access Act to protect the rights of students in religious student organizations. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I yield back.
Tim Walberg
Gentlelady yields. Are there any other members who wish to be recognized for further discussion on the amendment in the nature of a substitute? I recognize the gentleman from Virginia, the ranking member, for the purpose of discussion.
Robert Scott
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, the Equal Campus Access Act prohibits funding under the Higher Education Act to public colleges and universities that refuse to recognize or provide benefits to religious student organizations because of the organization's religious beliefs, practice, speech, leadership standards, or standards of conduct. But the act does not, in fact, provide equal campus access, but instead gives preferential treatment to religious student organizations to preempt any number of institutional policies, including non-discrimination policies that otherwise apply to every other student organization. Public colleges and universities must comply with First Amendment protections related to speech, religion, and association, including as they apply to religious student organizations. Student groups contribute to the full measure of the college experience, providing students with added social and academic benefits.
The opportunity for students to both join and lead student groups is an essential part of that experience. Many colleges and universities have non-discrimination policies, and some have all-comer policies, which require recognized student groups to not discriminate against students seeking to join or lead the group. These policies prevent student groups, many of which are funded by student activity fees paid for by all students, from discriminating against students, including LGBTQ+ students. These policies treat religious student groups the same as all other student groups. Organizations of all stripes can become recognized groups to access funds and other benefits, provided they adhere to school's policy, including any non-discrimination policy.
All students deserve access to join and lead student groups free from discrimination. This committee should be working to end discrimination, not making it easier to discriminate against our students. It's important to understand the backdrop in which we're considering this legislation. The bill adds yet another requirement that a now-dysfunctional Department of Education would be responsible for administering when it is not even meeting its responsibilities to address claims by students facing discrimination under federal civil rights laws already. Just two months ago, we learned from the Senate HELP Democratic staff report that the Office of Civil Rights reached its lowest number of resolution agreements in 12 years, resolving just 1% of pending cases.
On Tuesday, a report from the Office of Inspector General at the Department of Education found that the staffing cuts at the department were so deep that the agency eliminated offices that performed statutory functions as well as conducted oversight and monitoring of programs. Worst still, we do not have a full picture of the dysfunction at the department because it refuses to comply with reasonable requests to assess its changes, such as one reported by the Department of Education's Office of Inspector General. Yet we continue to mark up legislation like this one, which adds yet another requirement to our educational laws with potentially no one at the department to enforce those conditions. This bill undermines the rights of our students and fails to address the underlying deficiencies at the Department of Education caused by this administration. So I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment in the nature of a substitute and the underlying bill.
Tim Walberg
Gentleman yields.
Gentleman yields. Are there any other members who wish to be recognized for purpose of discussion of the bill 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? I recognize the gentlelady from Georgia, Ms. McBath, for the purpose of amendment.
Lucy McBath
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I have an amendment at the desk. It is, let's see.
The clerk will designate the amendment.
Speaker 5
Amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute to H.R. 5505, offered by Ms. McBath of Georgia, identifier McBath_AMD_01.
Tim Walberg
Is there a point of order? Point of order is reserved. I now recognize the gentlelady from Georgia, Ms. McBath, for five minutes in support of her amendment.
Lucy McBath
Thank you, Mr. Chair. This amendment would close a loophole in the bill that could be used to allow members of student organizations to discriminate against students and excuse deadly hazing incidents. One of the things I'm most proud of during my time here in Congress was getting the Stop Campus Hazing Act signed into law. It's taken several years to do that, but I didn't do it alone. It was the result of years of work from families whose children were killed and a bipartisan coalition of members both on and off this committee coming together to get that done.
As written, the bill would prohibit HEA funding to public colleges and universities that refuse to recognize or provide benefits to student religious groups because of the group's standards of conduct. It would create blanket immunity for students in certain groups, exempting them from standards of conduct, making it possible for people to avoid being held accountable for specific conduct. Conduct like collegiate hazing that results in death or serious injury, excuse me. No student should be held liable solely for being a part of a student group, and I think that we all agree upon that matter. But the conduct of a student, the actions they personally choose to take on campus, that is what people need to be held accountable for.
Families who've had loved ones killed, they need accountability. And I know that feeling all too well. When people are killed or they're disabled and when law enforcement is involved, the stakes completely change. The people responsible for these crimes will do and say just about anything to avoid being held accountable. I experienced that myself when my own son was murdered, and I hear about it over and over again from the families who have not only lost their child, but now have to go through the multi-year process of a court case.
We cannot allow people to escape justice with blanket immunity like this. I am a woman of very deep faith, and I understand wanting religious organizations to be welcomed on campus, and they should. But that doesn't mean that we should provide blanket immunity for students for their specific conduct. Regardless of how you plan to vote on this underlying bill today, I encourage my colleagues to adopt this amendment to make sure that this legislation won't undermine an important bipartisan achievement of this committee that we've already done, a bill that saves lives. And I yield.
Tim Walberg
The gentlelady yields. The gentleman withdraws his reservation. Point of order is withdrawn. Does anyone seek recognition on the amendment? I oppose the amendment.
The question now is on the amendment offered by the gentlelady from Georgia. All in favor say aye.
All opposed no.
Tim Walberg
In the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. The amendment is not agreed to. A roll call vote is ordered. Pursuant to the chair's previous announcement, this vote will be postponed. Are there any further amendments to the amendment in the nature of a substitute to H.R. 5505?
Yes, Mr. Chairman.
Speaker 29
The gentlelady from Oregon, do you wish to be recognized for an amendment?
Yes, I have an amendment at the desk.
Thank you.
Speaker 5
Amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute to H.R. 5505, offered by Ms. Bonamici of Oregon, identifier BONAMI_AMD_03.
Speaker 15
Point of order is reserved. I now recognize the gentlelady from Oregon, Ms. Bonamici, for five minutes in support of her amendment.
Suzanne Bonamici
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, H.R. 5505 adds a requirement to the Higher Education Act, which normally would be enforced by the Department of Education. In fact, the bill actually says in its text, the enforcement shall be carried out by the Secretary of Education at the Department of Education. First of all, I want to align myself with the comments of Ranking Member Scott and Mr. Takano. But regardless of the merits of this policy, this committee cannot ignore the fact that the Secretary has spent the last year or so dismantling the department through illegal transfers of power that undermine the laws this body has written delegating those powers to the Department of Education.
Words matter. If my friends on the other side of the aisle wanted the Department of Labor or the Department of Justice or any other federal agency to handle the enforcement of campus access for religious groups, they could have drafted this bill to reflect that, but they did not. So, to make sure the Secretary follows what Congress has intended in this bill, my amendment makes the clear statement that would prohibit the Secretary from delegating the power to enforce campus access for religious student organizations in this bill to any other federal agency. My amendment reaffirms the intention of Congress that the Department of Education is the federal agency vested with the responsibility to enforce this provision. It says so right in the bill.
We must be clear. We expect the Department of Education to do this work, and we will not authorize more power to the Secretary unless the language reflects that expectation. The recent release this week of the Department of Education's Office of Inspector General report only underscores the need to rein in the powers of this department. To quote from a Politico Pro article, staffing cuts at the Education Department were so deep that the agency eliminated offices that may have been responsible for tasks required by law, the department's watchdog said in a report on Tuesday. And the department's failure to fully comply with OIG's requests for information to fulfill its inquiry means that this Congress and the committee of jurisdiction do not have a true picture of what is left of the Department of Education.
We have no idea whether they are currently able to meet the obligations required by federal statute. This bill would add more requirements. Only two months ago, the Senate HELP Committee Democratic staff released a report that the unprecedented cuts to the Office for Civil Rights have had devastating results.
I urge that we do not make things worse by giving the Department of Education unclear instructions when they're trying to shut it down. I we must adopt this amendment to make clear that this bill will be enforced by the actual Department of Education, not some elsewhere. I urge the adoption of the amendment and I yield back.
Tim Walberg
Reservation is withdrawn. Does anyone else seek recognition on the amendment? I recognize myself in opposition to amendment. It's not necessary. It provides no additional support that would be necessary to carry out the proposals in this bill.
Having said that, seeing no further are there the question is now on the amendment by the gentlelady from Oregon. All in favor say aye. All opposed no.
Tim Walberg
In the opinion of the chair, the noes have it and the amendment is not agreed to. Are there any further amendments to the amendment in nature of substitute to HR 5505? The gentleman from Virginia seek to be recognized.
Robert Scott
Have a unanimous consent request to enter into the record a letter from about two dozen civil rights and religious organizations that says in part, the bill would actually force public institutions of higher education to allow clubs to discriminate. Public colleges and universities will lose federal funding under the Higher Education Act unless they exempt religious student groups from non-discrimination rules that apply to all other student groups. School should have to schools would have to give funding and recognition to a religious student group that turned away a student who is gay or a single mother. This is wrong. Discrimination has no place in our public university campuses.
Tim Walberg
Without objection, the letters will be entered. Are there any other amendments that wish to be offered? Further action on HR 5505 is postponed. We'll now move to consideration of the next bill. The committee will now proceed to consideration of bill HR 2332 for amendment.
The bill was circulated in advance and printed copies are available. The clerk shall designate the bill.
Speaker 5
HR 2332, a bill to authorize the use of Federal Bureau of Investigation criminal history record information for administration of certain licenses.
Speaker 47
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Oh, I have a I'm sorry, I have an amendment at the desk.
Speaker 5
The clerk will designate the amendment.
Amendment in the nature of a substitute to HR 2332, 2332 offered by Mr. Owens of Utah, identifier MU2332ANS_02.
Burgess Owens
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Proud to support H.R. 2332, States Handling Access to Reciprocity for Employment, or SHARE Act. Across the country, states have voluntarily entered into interstate licensure compacts to help qualified workers practice across state lines while maintaining state oversight and public safety protections. These compacts have become an increasingly important tool for addressing the workforce shortages, expanding access to services in healthcare, counseling, and other licensed professions. However, many interstate licensure compacts require participating state licensing authorities to conduct criminal background checks before granting compact privileges.
Due to the ambiguity in existing federal law, some state licensing authorities have faced challenges obtaining the criminal history information necessary to determine eligibility for compact participation. The SHARE Act addresses this issue by clarifying the authority to access that information for compact purposes. By ensuring states can continue implementing these compacts as intended, this legislation helps qualified professionals work where they are needed most, expands access to critical services, and preserves the authority of states to establish and enforce their own occupational licensing standards. My amendment in the nature of a substitute makes technical corrections to the bill and does not change the underlying policy or general purposes of the legislation. The SHARE Act is a common-sense measure that supports state-led solutions to workforce shortages, reduces unnecessary barriers to employment, and strengthens the effectiveness of interstate occupational licensure compacts.
I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 2332, the SHARE Act, and I yield back.
Tim Walberg
The gentleman yields. Are there any other members who wish to be recognized for further discussion on the amendment in the nature of a substitute?
Mr. Chairman.
Alma Adams
The gentlelady from North Carolina is recognized. Recognized for five minutes.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As we are all aware, our country faces a healthcare provider shortage, and our rural communities are most impacted. Over 90% of rural counties are designated as primary care health professional shortage areas. Nearly 40% of residents have reported using emergency department care that could have been handled in a primary care setting. The average ratio in rural areas is one physician per 2,881 residents.
This situation is already unacceptable, and it's only going to get worse in the next decade. The Association of American Medical Colleges 2024 report found that our country will face a physician shortage of up to 86,000 physicians by 2036. According to HRSA, by 2038, non-metro areas will experience a 58% shortage of physicians. It is urgent that Congress exhausts all options to improve patient access to healthcare providers. The SHARE Act would improve the effectiveness of occupational licensure interstate compacts, an important component in this accessibility crisis.
Medical interstate compacts reduce the administrative burden for medical professionals interested in practicing in other states. It makes the process for out-of-state health professionals more streamlined and reduces administrative burden. However, it is currently way too difficult for employers to gain access to criminal history record information when they are hiring and onboarding new healthcare workers from across state lines.
This bill would allow the FBI to share background checks across state lines and expedite the licensure process for providers in states participating in interstate compacts. While this would apply to all occupational licensure interstate compacts, this change is especially relevant to the healthcare field. Seventeen of the 21 compacts are for healthcare professionals. North Carolina is one of the most recent states to join in participation in the Interstate Medical Licensure Compact at the start of this year. Forty-three states and Washington, D.C. and Guam currently participate.
With North Carolina having the second largest rural population in the country, this is especially helpful for our state in gaining new providers in our rural communities. We in Congress must do everything that we can do to make this mechanism as effective as possible. When we talk about how to increase recruitment of new talent in rural and underserved areas, this has to be a part of the conversation. For that reason, Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to vote yes on this bill and I yield back.
Tim Walberg
I thank the gentlelady. Are there any other members who wish to be recognized for further discussion on the amendment in the nature of substitute? The gentleman from Virginia, the ranking member, is recognized.
Speaker 42
Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to enter a statement into the record.
Tim Walberg
Without objection, the statement will be entered. Are there any other members who wish to discuss the amendment in the nature of the substitute? There being no further discussion on the amendment in the nature of the substitute, the committee will move to consideration of amendments. Are there any members who would like to offer amendments? There being no amendments, the question now occurs on the amendment in the nature of a substitute to H.R. 2332.
Speaker 46
H.R. 4122, a bill to permit nurse practitioners and physician assistants to furnish necessary services, appliances, and supplies to individuals receiving medical benefits for illness. Amendment in the nature of a substitute to H.R. 4122 offered by Mr. Allen of Georgia, identifier 4122_ANS.
Rick Allen
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I introduced H.R. 4122 along with my colleague from Georgia, Mrs. McBath. This bill amends the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act to allow nurse practitioners and physician assistants to order care for patients eligible under the Energy Workers Program within their scope of practice under state law. Under the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act, Department of Energy contractors and subcontractors as well as uranium miners, millers, and ore transporters, as well as the survivors of these workers, can receive compensation for certain occupational illnesses that are linked to the work environments through the Energy Workers Program. Under current law, only physicians may order care for eligible program patients.
Unfortunately, in many parts across many parts across the country where these DOE sites are located, particularly in rural areas, workers can experience long delays in receiving essential healthcare services. This physicians-only policy also conflicts with Centers of Medicare and Medicaid Services and the Department of Veterans Affairs guidelines, which allow NPs and PAs to order care within their scope of practice. H.R. 4122 helps address these delays and aligns the program with CMS and VA policies. This bill also requires NPs and PAs to act within their scope of practice under state law. These providers play a significant role in America's healthcare system, and it's time that they play a greater role in the Energy Workers Program.
H.R. 4122 mirrors the policy in H.R. 3170, Improving Workers' Compensation for Injured Federal Workers Act, which Chairman Walberg and Representative Courtney introduced. H.R. 3170 would allow NPs and PAs to order care for workers under the Federal Employees' Compensation Act program within the scope of their practice under state law. I was happy to see the committee approve that bill unanimously exactly one year ago. The amendment in the nature in in the nature of a substitute to H.R. 4122 makes a technical change to the bill, and I urge my colleagues to adopt the ANS and approve the underlying bill. And with that, I yield back.
Tim Walberg
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 gentlelady from Oregon.
Suzanne Bonamici
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I move to strike the last word and speak in favor of the amendment in the nature of the substitute.
Recognized for five minutes.
Suzanne Bonamici
Thank you. I support the Health Care for Energy Workers Act as a necessary step to increase access to care for the hundreds of thousands of Americans who were exposed to dangerous toxins while working on our country's nuclear weapons program, and I thank my colleagues on both sides of the aisle for introducing this bill. The bill will allow nurse practitioners and physician assistants to order care for current and former workers under the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program. Nurse practitioners and physician assistants provide a vast range of quality care, but their ability to serve patients is often unfairly constrained by outdated restrictions. This bill will remove barriers and allow these essential healthcare providers to care for more patients, which will improve care and reduce costs.
This bill aligns with the current state policies that already allow NPs and PAs to provide care for patients independently. It in no way changes scope of practice laws for states that haven't provided this expanded care. As co-chair of the Bipartisan Nursing Caucus, I want to thank the sponsors of this bill for working to expand access to quality care for patients. I encourage all of my colleagues to support this important policy through the ANS and the underlying bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Robert Scott
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The bill simply allows beneficiaries under the energy workers program to receive services from nurse practitioners and physician assistants if the state allows them to work independently. It bears repeating that this bill would not change the state's scope of practice laws in any way. It's the same change we've made in other programs, and I want to thank the gentleman from Georgia and the gentlelady from Georgia, Ms. McBath, for their hard work on this bill. I urge my colleagues to support it and yield back the balance of my time.
Tim Walberg
The gentleman yields back. Are there any other members who wish to be recognized? Seeing none, there being no further discussion on the amendment in the nature of a substitute, the committee will move to consideration of amendments. Are there any members who would like to offer amendments? There being no amendments, the question now occurs on the amendment in the nature of a substitute to H.R. 4122.
The committee will now proceed to consideration of bill H.R. 8822 for amendment. We will go to a short recess. A momentary recess.
I'll proceed, come to order again, and we'll now proceed to consideration of the bill H.R. 8822 for amendment. The bill was circulated in advance and printed copies are available. The clerk shall designate the bill.
Speaker 37
H.R. 8822, a bill to amend the Federal Employees' Compensation Act to permit the Secretary of Labor to obtain certain information relating to earnings and employment.
I have an amendment at the desk.
Speaker 41
Amendment in the nature of a substitute to H.R. 8822, offered by Mr. McKenzie of Pennsylvania, identifier 8822_ANS.
Ryan Mackenzie
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. H.R. 8822 amends the Federal Employees' Compensation Act, also known as FECA, to permit the Secretary of Labor to obtain earnings and employment information from the Social Security Administration and the Department of Health and Human Services, or HHS, related to the FECA program beneficiaries for the purpose of preventing fraud. I would like to thank the gentlewoman from Minnesota and the ranking member of the Workforce Protection Subcommittee, Ms. Omar, for co-sponsoring this bill with me. For 110 years, the FECA program has been a critical resource for federal employees who are injured or become ill on the job. The FECA program provides benefits to approximately 2.6 million federal civilian employees, postal workers, and Peace Corps volunteers.
The last meaningful changes to this program were made more than 50 years ago. Today, we have an opportunity to strengthen the program by prioritizing patients, improving program integrity, and delivering much-needed medical care more efficiently. The Workplace Protection Subcommittee has held two hearings on federal workers' compensation programs, which produced recommendations to improve FECA. In May 2025, the subcommittee heard from DOL's Acting Inspector General, who recommended strengthening information sharing efforts among DOL, HHS, and the Social Security Administration. Doing so would help DOL identify claimants who may be accepting FECA disability payments while failing to report income that they have earned elsewhere.
The Government Accountability Office has also made this same recommendation. Resources intended to support injured workers should go to the workers who need them. As the Acting Inspector General testified, OWCP is currently limited in their ability to determine which claimants are receiving outside income. H.R. 8822 addresses that problem and helps strengthen the FECA program for the workers it is intended to serve. The amendment in the nature of a substitute makes technical changes to the bill, and I urge its adoption.
With that, I yield back.
Tim Walberg
The gentleman yields. Are there any members who wish to be recognized for further discussion? Does the gentlelady from Minnesota wish to be recognized?
You're recognized for five minutes.
Ilhan Omar
I want to thank Chairs Walberg and McKenzie for their work on H.R. 8822. I am proud to co-lead the Federal Workers' Compensation Integrity and Care Act. When federal workers are injured on the job, they end up navigating a very complicated landscape. They might be receiving wage loss compensation through FECA while also being eligible for SSDI benefits. Those two programs have overlapping rules and requirements, and for far too long, the agencies administering them have been operating without enough data to get payments right in real time.
The lack of interagency data sharing has led to excessive administrative burdens for beneficiaries. This is what happens. Injured federal workers will receive their workers' compensation and disability payments and end up using that money to pay for medical care and to support their families while they recover. And then sometimes months later, even years later, workers will receive a notice telling them that they were overpaid and have to pay back the government. These workers are not committing fraud, they are simply spending the payments they received.
I am proud to support this bill, which fixes this issue by giving OWCP, SSI, and HHS the clear authority to share earnings and benefits data so that payment calculations happen automatically and accurately from the start. Federal workers will get what they are owed and they can plan their lives accordingly. When we work towards improving program delivery, we are not only saving taxpayer dollars, but we are also making sure the federal workers who serve our communities every day are quickly receiving the benefits they need. I urge my colleagues to vote for this bill. Thank you and I yield back.
Tim Walberg
The gentlelady yields. Are there any other members who wish to be recognized for further discussion on the ANS? There being no further discussion on the amendment in the nature of a substitute, the committee will move to consideration of amendments. Are there any members who would like to offer amendments? There being no amendments, the question now occurs on the amendment in the nature of a substitute to H.R. 8822.
Speaker 37
H.R. 8823, a bill to amend the Federal Employees' Compensation Act to allow the Secretary of Labor to suspend payments to medical providers who have been convicted of fraud.
I have an amendment at the desk.
Speaker 41
Amendment in the nature of a substitute to H.R. 8823 offered by Mr. McKenzie of Pennsylvania, identifier 8823_ANS.
Ryan Mackenzie
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. H.R. 8823 amends the Federal Employees' Compensation Act, also known as FECA, to allow the Department of Labor to suspend payments to medical care providers who have been convicted of fraud with respect to the program. I thank the gentlewoman from Minnesota, Ms. Omar, for co-sponsoring this bill. Each year, the FECA program provides benefits to hundreds of thousands of injured federal workers, and we know that the program serves these workers best when it runs efficiently and with strong safeguards against fraud. That's why it's essential that when we strengthen accountability and ensure taxpayer dollars are used to deliver the much-needed care, they are not wasted on medical providers who are trying to game the system.
When a provider is convicted of fraud, the Department of Labor, or DOL, should have clear authority to stop them from receiving taxpayer dollars. During the Workforce Protection Subcommittee hearing in May of 2025, we heard testimony about fraud schemes that cost taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars, money that could have gone towards providing quality care to our federal workers. Currently, DOL may suspend payments to medical care providers who are convicted of fraudulent activities, but this is necessary to protect both injured workers and taxpayers who fund the program. However, regulations can be revised or rescinded by future administrations. That's why the policy should be explicitly included in the statute, and that is what H.R. 8823 does.
This bipartisan bill is also consistent with existing FECA provisions that allow for the suspension or denial of payments to those who are convicted of fraud. H.R. 8823 does not aim to restrict access to medical care for injured federal employees; instead, this bill helps ensure care is delivered to providers who meet basic standards of professional and ethical conduct. The amendment in the nature of a substitute makes a technical change to the bill, and I urge its adoption. With that, I yield back.
Tim Walberg
The gentleman yields. Are there any members who wish to be recognized for further discussion? I recognize gentleman from Virginia, the ranking member.
Robert Scott
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I rise in support of the ANS. Providers are at greatest, providers are the greatest source of fraud in the FECA program. For example, during this committee's oversight in the opioid crisis, we learned about corrupt compounding pharmacies that were crushing up pills and putting them into creams, even though the medicines in those pills were not absorbed through the skin, and an 15-ounce tube of this useless cream got charged to the FECA program for $15,000. Existing rules allow the Department of Labor to strike a provider from the list of eligible providers in the FECA program when they are convicted of criminal fraud for any public health program.
But those rules, rules don't enable the department to stop payment on any pending claims that a convicted provider has already submitted prior to the conviction. That would amount, that could amount to millions of dollars in claims with a higher risk of fraud moving through the system. There are, of course, due process issues that could arise, but this bill already contemplates those by empowering the Department of Labor to develop appropriate rules for implementing the new, new authority. And it's, you have to restate that these are convictions, those are criminal convictions, not disputes over billing disputes, these are criminal convictions. All in all, the bill closes an important gap and protects taxpayers.
I want to thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. McKenzie, and the gentlelady from Minnesota, Ms. Omar, for their work on this, on this issue. Urge my colleagues to support the bill and yield back.
Tim Walberg
The gentleman yields. The gentleman yields. Are there any 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 wish to offer amendments?
There being no amendments, the question now occurs on the amendment in the nature of a substitute to H.R. 8823. 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.
Speaker 46
H.R. 9381, a bill to direct the Bureau of Labor Statistics to report on the uses of artificial intelligence in the workplace. Amendment in the nature of a substitute to H.R. 9381 offered by Mr. Walberg of Michigan, identifier 9381_ANS_01.
Tim Walberg
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 a nature of a substitute. My bill H.R. 9381 directs the Bureau of Labor Statistics, BLS, to incorporate questions related to workplace artificial intelligence adoption into existing surveys. It also requires BLS to begin incorporating these questions within 18 months of enactment. BLS is the federal government's principal agency for collecting labor market and workplace data.
Through a variety of monthly, quarterly, annual, and multi-year surveys, BLS has played an important role for more than a century in helping policymakers understand how industrial advances and technological innovations affect the nation's workplaces. AI in the workplace is the next technological frontier. The BLS must continue to play its vital role in helping us understand the impact of this technology. We're already seeing AI's adoption in our workplaces, but we should not rush to pass sweeping laws when we lack crucial information. H.R. 9381 is not prescriptive and does not dictate specific questions for BLS to incorporate into its surveys, nor does the bill specify surveys in which these questions must be added.
Instead, the bill relies on the expertise of BLS and the Department of Labor to determine the most effective questions and the best surveys in which to incorporate them. The 18-month timeline gives BLS sufficient time to create questions and determine the best surveys in which to incorporate them. Throughout this committee's building on AI-ready America hearing series, witnesses and members have stated that it is critical for us to strengthen data gathering so that we can better identify trends, opportunities, and potential disruptions related to AI in the workplace. Better information will help policymakers, educators, and end-user employers make informed decisions about workforce development, job training, and skills development. There is a balance we can strike with policies that benefit workers without hampering innovation and without America losing its edge in the AI race, and H.R. 9381 can play a critical role in achieving that goal.
The amendment in the nature of a substitute makes technical changes to the bill and I urge my colleagues to support the ANS and the underlying bill, with that I yield back. Are there any members who wish to be recognized for further discussion on the amendment in the nature of a substitute? The gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Scott, do you wish to be recognized?
You're recognized for five minutes.
Robert Scott
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, the Bureau of Labor Statistics, or BLS, is charged with, and I quote, producing objective quality measures and analyses of labor market activity, working conditions, price changes, and productivity of the US economy to support public and private decision-making, unquote. Unfortunately, tight budgets have stymied attempts to modernize the BLS's data products and surveys in recent years. As recently as fiscal year 2025, BLS required an increase in funding simply to maintain the current population survey sample and begin to take steps towards modernization plans that are already more than a decade old. And BLS has never restarted several data series which had to be cut due to sequestration in 2013, including the elimination of the mass layoffs statistics program, which crucially provided, and I quote, information that identifies, describes, and tracks the effects of major job cutbacks in the economy.
This is information very relevant to today's conversation. Nevertheless, the BLS maintains an irreplaceable source of information about health of the labor market, wages, prices, and industry trends. This bill, the Workforce Assessment and Research Enhancement Act, would amend the Department of Labor's organic statute to require BLS to collect information on issues of artificial intelligence among businesses in a way that is on par with BLS's collection of wage and employment information. However, the bill does not authorize any funding to conduct this work. The risk of redirecting the existing data resources seems doubly reckless given the Department of Commerce is already collecting statistics on the use of a variety of technologies used by employers.
For example, the Business Trends and Outlook Surveys, or BTOS, administered and published by the Census Department, collects information on AI amongst employers. That survey fields questions to approximately 1.2 million businesses each year, asking them to report information on a staggered, rolling basis every 12 weeks over the course of a year. As a result, data collection occurs every two weeks, providing for near real-time estimates. This survey asks businesses about their current and future projected use of AI, and results are broken down by state, sector, and firm size. Separately, the Census Bureau's Annual Business Survey, the ABS, has historically been used to understand business trends and applications of new technologies, allowing for ongoing analysis that can adapt to look at new technologies as they arise.
Only time will tell how AI and other future technologies will be deployed in workplaces, but existing data resources, when sufficiently funded, are well-suited to continue to meet the demand for more information. Researchers have more than enough data to continue to monitor technology use among firms alongside of trends in employment. This bill would duplicate efforts and significantly draw resources away from other BLS products. And so I urge my colleagues to oppose the bill and yield back the balance of my time.
Tim Walberg
The gentleman yields. Are there any 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?
There being no amendments, the question now occurs on the amendment in the nature of a substitute to H.R. 9381. 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. We'll now move to consider the next bill. In light of the fact that the votes have now been called and there's one vote, we would ask that we would recess and come back at 1:30 to resume our markup. Having said that, we stand in recess.
Let's do it. The committee will again come to order. The committee will now proceed to consideration of bill H.R. 9228 for amendment. The bill was circulated in advance and printed copies are available. The clerk shall designate the bill.
Speaker 37
H.R. 9228, a bill to amend the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 to ensure plan fiduciaries have access to de-identified information relating to health claims and for other purposes.
Tim Walberg
Without objection, the first reading of the bill is dispensed with. Without objection, the bill will be considered as read and open for amendment at any point, and any amendment offered shall be considered as read. Does anyone seek to be recognized? Mr. Onder, for what purpose do you seek recognition? The clerk shall designate the amendment in the nature of a substitute.
Speaker 41
Amendment in the nature of a substitute to H.R. 9228 offered by Mr. Onder of Missouri, identifier ONDER_030.
Tim Walberg
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. Onder for five minutes to explain the amendment in the nature of a substitute.
Robert Onder
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Today we are considering H.R. 9228, Health Data Access, Transparency, and Affordability Act. This legislation is based on a simple principle: employer-sponsored health plans should have access to the information they need to oversee the health plans they sponsor so workers and their families are receiving high-quality, affordable care. Employer-sponsored health plans provide healthcare coverage for over 135 million Americans. The employers sponsoring these plans and the fiduciaries responsible for overseeing them rely on network service providers, including third-party administrators, pharmacy benefit managers, insurers, and other vendors to perform critical administrative functions.
Plan fiduciaries must have access to information in order to effectively oversee those service providers and evaluate whether plan participants are receiving high-quality benefits at a reasonable cost. Unfortunately, some service providers continue to restrict access to claims information, audit rights, payment methodologies, administrative fees, and other data needed to oversee plan operations and evaluate performance.
In these cases, employers and plan fiduciaries face significant barriers to obtaining basic information about benefits they are paying for. These barriers prevent oversight necessary to evaluate plan performance, identify waste and improper payments, and ensure participants receive value from the benefits offered through the plan. This lack of transparency is currently costing American employers and workers billions of dollars in hidden fees and inflated costs. Look no further than the lawsuit filed by Kraft Heinz against its insurance carrier. Kraft Heinz discovered that its administrator was providing only edited data reports while blocking access to the raw medical claims.
Why? Because the carrier was using its market power to negotiate lower prices from doctors, but not passing those savings back to the employer and its workers. Instead, it was pocketing the difference. They hid the spread and they used data suppression as a shield to get away with it. We see similar behavior in prescription drug pricing.
Employers face excessive costs because they cannot audit what they are actually being charged. In a recent federal lawsuit involving Johnson & Johnson, it was revealed that because of a lack of transparency, a corporate health plan paid over $10,000 for a 90-day prescription of a common generic drug. The actual retail cash price for that same drug at a community pharmacy is about $28. That is a 36,000% markup passed straight onto the health plan, hidden entirely behind a wall of proprietary secrecy. Bringing these prices into the light is the right thing to do for patients, and it is the right thing to do for small business and the employees themselves paying for coverage.
My bill, the Health DATA Act, builds on existing law by ensuring that group health plans and their fiduciaries have timely access to claims and encounter data, supporting documentation, fee information, payment methodologies, and information necessary to conduct meaningful audits. The bill also makes clear that service providers must provide this information and may not prevent or delay access. Importantly, this legislation establishes meaningful enforcement mechanisms to ensure compliance. The bill also strengthens the attestation requirements and gag clause protections previously enacted by Congress. Unfortunately, some have interpreted that previous legislation simply to prevent gag clauses in contracts, rather than as an obligation to actually give the employer health plans access to their own information.
At its core, this legislation is about transparency and accountability. Plan fiduciaries cannot effectively oversee health plans, evaluate network service performance, identify improper payments, or fulfill their responsibilities to plan participants if they are denied access to basic information about how those plans are being administered. Workers and their families deserve health plans that are well-managed, transparent, and accountable. H.R. 9228 helps achieve that goal. This is substantially similar to H.R. 4527 passed through this committee on July 11th in the 118th Congress, sponsored by Representative Chavez-DeRemer and Representative Takano.
This amendment in the nature of a substitute makes non-substantive technical changes to the bill, and I urge my colleagues to vote yes on the amendment in the nature of the substitute and the underlying bill. With that, I yield back.
Tim Walberg
Gentleman yields. Are there any members who wish to be recognized for further discussion on the amendment in the nature of a substitute? The gentleman from California, do you wish to be recognized?
Yes, Mr. Chairman.
Speaker 11
Are there any others who wish to be recognized? The gentleman from Virginia, the ranking member, you're recognized for five minutes.
Robert Scott
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. All oppose this information, this legislation. I share the goal of H.R. 9228, the Health Data Access, Transparency, and Affordability Act. This bill seeks to address the issue of so-called gag clauses that block group health plan fiduciaries from accessing data that is necessary for auditing their service providers. Service providers that block this type of information include third-party administrators and pharmacy benefit managers.
Now, we have a long history of working on this issue in a bipartisan manner, beginning with the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2021, in which the Congress prohibited contracts that contain these gag clauses. However, despite this prohibition, service providers still erect barriers that impermissibly block fiduciaries from auditing plan data. To correct this, during the 118th Congress, the committee advanced legislation, also called the Health Data Act, which was introduced by several members of the committee, including the gentleman from California, Mr. Takano. This legislation reflected a bipartisan effort to ensure that service providers are not engaged in self-dealing or other practices that increase the cost of care. I would have hoped that we could have continued this bipartisan work through today's markup.
Regrettably, this bill abandons that process. Instead of improving the fiduciary oversight of service providers, the bill grants employers open-ended access to far more data than necessary, including employee medical records. It also lacks adequate guardrails to protect sensitive information and ensure that workers are not subject to discrimination by their employer or health plan. Moreover, as drafted, the bill does not clearly ensure that the data is de-identified in a manner consistent with HIPAA. In fact, language in the bill requiring the data to be unmodified could be read to imply that the data should not be de-identified at all.
Additionally, the legislation places no limits on why data needs to be made available to employers and for what purpose it can be used. The bill extends data access to a range of other individuals acting on behalf of the employer who may not actually need such access. Now, I share the goal of this legislation, and I believe the more effective approach would have been to build off our previous bipartisan efforts while working to include safeguards for workers and their families. Troubling, Mr. Chairman, I also worry about this pattern demonstrated by the majority where Democrats are shut out of the process in areas where we have a bipartisan history in this committee. So I oppose the bill and urge my colleagues to do the same until we can get back on track to the bipartisan efforts that we started.
Yield back.
Tim Walberg
The gentleman yields. 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 wish to offer an amendment? I recognize the gentleman from California for the purpose of an amendment.
You're recognized for five minutes.
The clerk will identify the amendment.
Speaker 41
Amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute to H.R. 9228 offered by Mr. Takano of California, identifier TAKANO_HD_ACCESS_01_AMD.
Is there a point of order?
Point of order is reserved.
Tim Walberg
I now recognize the gentleman from California for five minutes in support of his amendment.
Mark Takano
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Traditionally, healthcare data transparency has been an area of robust bipartisan agreement, as Ranking Member Scott mentioned. Last year, I introduced the Health Data Transparency Act of 2023 with Representatives Lori Chavez-DeRemer and Kathy Manning. I was excited to work productively with my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to make healthcare more affordable for everyday Americans. After our bill passed out of committee favorably, it went through months of bipartisan negotiation.
The Health Data Transparency Act of 2023 became a stronger product that strengthened data transparency while effectively protecting the privacy of plan participants. It was included in the bipartisan Lower Costs, More Transparency package that passed the House. When Republicans and Democrats work together in good faith, we can create legislation that makes our healthcare system fairer. So I was surprised when this bill, H.R. 9228, was introduced, which shares the name of our past bipartisan legislation but does not reflect our bipartisan work. Instead, it dramatically broadens the scope of data that is shared through employer-sponsored health plans, including by needlessly granting employers access to workers' medical records.
There are essentially no guardrails under H.R. 9228 on why the data needs to be shared and what it is to be used for. Now, this approach does not reflect the careful thought that should be put into such an important issue. Due to the speed of the markup and lack of notice, it has been impossible to have an in-depth conversation with my Republican colleagues to ensure this bill is effectively safeguarding patients. My amendment reflects both the bipartisan work that was done last Congress and timely updates to ensure patient privacy and security. Rather than providing an open-ended right for employers to examine data and information of their employees, my amendment ensures that plan fiduciaries' access to data is for the purpose of conducting audits of their service providers.
It also clarifies that individuals with authority over plan data must handle that data in a manner consistent with ERISA's fiduciary standards. This will ensure that companies like PBMs and third-party administrators can be held accountable when they overcharge or engage in self-dealing. And it will help ensure that data is handled prudently in a manner that ensures privacy and cybersecurity. It provides additional clear protections for workers from discrimination and retaliation based on plan data, including enhanced enforcement tools and remedies for workers and the Department of Labor. While I regret that the underlying legislation has moved away from our previously bipartisan process, I hope that my amendment will help bring us back on track.
I think if we work together, we can strike the right balance and address this issue in a constructive manner. I've been encouraged by my recent conversations with my Republican colleague that have reiterated their commitment to creating a bipartisan bill. I look forward to working with them on this important issue, and I urge my colleagues to support the amendment, and I yield back.
Robert Onder
Point of order is withdrawn. Does anyone else seek recognition on the amendment? The gentleman from Missouri.
Speak on your amendment, five minutes.
Robert Onder
Well, I look forward to working with my Democratic colleagues, including Representative Takano, on this, on this important bill. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would point out that nothing in this bill preempts HIPAA, nothing in this bill would give employers access to medical records. It gives employers much-needed access to claims data. H.R. 9228 builds upon and improves the framework established last Congress in the Health Data Act of 2023 by expanding the scope of data, increasing the timeliness and frequency of reporting, and specifying the format in which the data must be provided.
The bill closely tracks section seven of the Patients Deserve Price Tags from the, from this Congress, incorporating only minor changes based on technical assistance from the Department of Labor and feedback from employers, patient advocates, and other stakeholders. Section seven is the only portion of the Patients Deserve Price Tags Act that falls solely within the jurisdiction of this committee, and H.R. 9228 allows the committee to advance these provisions independently. The policies in H.R. 9228 have broad stakeholder support. More than 150 organizations, including bipartisan economists, employer and union health plan sponsors, consumer advocates, and trade associations, have expressed support for the Patients Deserve Price Tags Act and its transparency provisions. The amendment in the nature of the substitute offered by Mr. Takano lacks important features of H.R. 9228 by eliminating important requirements for timing and formatting of the data provided, eliminating protections against contractual language restricting claims data, and eliminating other important protections in the event providers violate the rules.
Adopting this amendment in the nature of a substitute would eliminate key improvements that strengthen data access and transparency for employers, researchers, and consumers. So I urge my colleagues to vote no on this amendment, and I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Tim Walberg
The gentleman yields. Are there any others who seek recognition on the amendment? The gentleman from Virginia, the ranking member. You're recognized for five minutes.
Robert Scott
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just, I wasn't going to speak. The gentleman from California said all that needed to be said, except for the fact that the question of medical records on page two, it says that on line 22, no contract or arrangement service, no renewal between a group health plan and any other person, including a network, is reasonable within the meaning of this paragraph unless such contract allows, and then it goes down on line 12 on page three, access to any documentation, including medical records. So looks like you can get people's medical records under the, under the bill.
Tim Walberg
Does anyone else seek recognition on the amendment? Seeing none, the question then is on the amendment by the gentleman from California. All in favor say aye. All opposed 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. 9228? Seeing none. Further action on H.R. 9228 is postponed. We'll now proceed to postponed requests for recorded votes.
We'll suspend for a moment while the clerks prepare for the voting.
I hereby move that the committee report the bill H.R. 8476 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, the motion is agreed to. Roll call vote is requested. Members record their votes using electronic voting system. The clerk will open. Have all members been recorded who wish to be recorded?
Do any members wish to change their vote?
Hearing none, will the clerk please close the vote and announce the tally.
Tim Walberg
The ayes have it, and the motion is agreed to. H.R. 8476 as amended and the accompanying material shall be transmitted to the House of Representatives. The chair notes for the record that a quorum is present. I hereby move the committee report the bill H.R. 4795 to the House of Representatives with amendment and with recommendation that the amendment be agreed to and the bill do pass. The question now occurs on the chair's motion.
All in favor say 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. The clerk will open the vote. Have all members been recorded who wish to be recorded? Do any members wish to change their vote? Hearing none, will the clerk please close the vote and announce the tally.
Mr. Chairman, on this vote, there are 24 ayes and 9 nays.
Tim Walberg
The ayes have it, and the motion is agreed to. H.R. 4795 as amended and the accompanying material shall be transmitted to the House of Representatives. The chair notes for the record that a quorum is present. We'll now be voting on one amendment to the amendment in nature of a substitute to H.R. 9203. A recorded vote is requested.
Members will record their votes using the electronic voting system. We're voting on the Scott AMD 01. We're voting on the amendment to H.R. 9203, the Scott amendment AMD 01. The clerk will open the vote. Have all members who wish to be recorded been recorded?
Do any members wish to change their vote? Hearing none, will the clerk please close the vote and announce the tally.
Tim Walberg
The amendment is not adopted. We'll now be voting on the Scott AMD 02 amendment to H.R. 9203. The clerk will open the vote. Have all members been recorded who wish to be recorded? Do any members wish to change their vote?
Hearing none, will the clerk please close the vote and announce the tally.
Tim Walberg
The question now occurs on the amendment in the nature of a substitute to H.R. 9203. All in favor say aye. Aye. All opposed no. No.
The amendment is not adopted.
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. 9203 to the House of Representatives with amendment and with a recommendation that the amendment be agreed to and the bill do pass. The question now occurs on the chair's motion. All in favor say 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.
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.
Tim Walberg
The ayes have it and the motion is agreed to. H.R. 9203 as amended and the accompanying material shall be transmitted to the House of Representatives. The chair notes for the record a quorum is present. We'll now be voting on an amendment to H.R. 2555. It is Scott AMD 01.
A recorded vote is requested. Members will record their votes using the electronic voting system. The clerk will open the vote. Have all members been recorded or wish to be recorded? Do any members wish to change their vote?
Hearing none, will the clerk please close the vote and announce the tally.
Tim Walberg
The amendment is not adopted. The question now occurs on the amendment in the nature of the substitute to H.R. 2555. 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 the substitute is agreed to. I hereby move that the committee report the bill H.R. 2555 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. The clerk will open the vote. 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.
Tim Walberg
The ayes have it and the motion is agreed to. H.R. 2555 as amended and the accompanying material shall be transmitted to the House of Representatives. The chair notes for the record that a quorum is present. We will now be voting on one amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute to H.R. 5505, the amendment offered by Mrs. McBath entitled McBath_AMD_01. A recorded vote is requested.
Members will record their votes using the electronic voting system.
The clerk will open the vote. Have all members been recorded who wish to be recorded? Do any members wish to change their vote? Hearing none, will the clerk please close the vote and announce the tally.
Speaker 63
The ayes have it, and the motion is agreed to. Let's go back. Clerk will open the vote. The last vote. Now announce the tally.
Tim Walberg
The amendment fails. Okay, where are we at? The question now occurs on the amendment in the nature of a substitute to H.R. 5505, 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 vote using electronic voting system. The clerk will open the vote. Have all members been recorded who wish to be recorded?
Tim Walberg
The ayes have it, and the motion is agreed to. H.R. 5505 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 hereby move that the committee report the bill H.R. 2332 to the House of Representatives with amendment and with a recommendation that the amendment be agreed to and the bill do pass. The question now occurs on the chair's motion, all in favor say aye.
Aye. All opposed, 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 electronic voting system.
The clerk will open the vote. Have all members been recorded who wish to be recorded? Do any members wish to change their vote? Hearing none, will the clerk please close the vote and announce the tally.
Mr. Chairman, on this vote, we have 33 yeas and zero nays.
Tim Walberg
The ayes have it, and the motion is agreed to. H.R. 2332 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 hereby move that the committee report the bill H.R. 4122 to the House of Representatives with amendment and with the recommendation that the amendment be agreed to and the bill do pass. The question now occurs on the chair's motion, all in favor say 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 assistant.
The clerk will open the vote. Have all members been recorded who wish to be recorded? Do any members wish to change their vote? Hearing none, will the clerk please close the vote and announce the tally.
Mr. Chairman, on this vote, we have 32 yeas and zero nays. Mr. Chairman, on this vote, there are 32 yeas and zero nays.
The ayes have it and the motion is agreed to. H.R. 8822 as amended and the accompanying materials shall be transmitted to the House of Representatives. Chair notes for the record that a quorum is present. I hereby move that the committee report the bill H.R. 8823 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.
Mr. Chairman, on this vote, there are 33 yeas and zero nays.
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.
Tim Walberg
The ayes have it and the motion is agreed to. H.R. 9381 as amended and the accompanying material shall be transmitted to the House of Representatives. The chair notes for the record that a quorum is present. We'll now be voting on one amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute to H.R. 9228. The amendment offered by Mr. Takano identified as TAKANO_HD_ACCESS_01_AMD.
A recorded vote is requested. Members will record their votes using the electronic voting system.
The clerk will open the vote. Have all members been recorded who wish to be recorded? The ayes have it, and the motion is agreed to. H.R. 9228 as amended and the accompanying material shall be transmitted to the House of Representatives. The chair notes for the record that a quorum is present and thank you.
I ask unanimous consent that the staff be authorized to make necessary technical and conforming changes to today's bills without objection so ordered. Pursuant to House Rule 11 clause 2L, I give notice that all members have the requisite number of days to file supplemental, minority, additional, or dissenting views without objection so ordered. Without objection, any members who wish to insert materials into the record may do so, submitting them to the committee clerk electronically by the end of the day today. If there's no further business before the committee, without objection, the committee... Are we okay?
If there's no further business before the committee, without objection, the committee stands adjourned.