H.R. 8781, "Title IX Clarification Act of 2026"; H.R. 4986, "Parents Opt-in Protection Act"; H.R. 8747, "K-12 AI Literacy and Readiness Act of 2026"; H.R. 8183, "Modernizing Access to Talents, Credentials, and Hiring (MATCH) Act of 2026"; H.R. 9723, "Fit Future Act"; H.R. 8660, "Valuing Employee Stock Today Act"; H.R. 8347, "Reinforcing Underserved, Rural, and Local (RURAL) Healthcare Act"; H.R. 6213, "Heat Workforce Standards Act of 2025"; H.R. 8775, "Ending Predator Access to Union Power Act"; H.R. 5267, "American Franchise Act"
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 sittingsRobert Scott
For these reasons, I'll oppose the bill, particularly as it just only thing it really does is narrow the scope of existing civil rights laws by writing transgender students out of the Title IX protections. The next bill before us, the Parents Opt-in Protection Act, similarly prioritizes slogans over solutions. It would amend the Protection of Pupil Rights Amendment to require that schools obtain written consent from parents for each individual survey covering sensitive topics. Current law already requires schools to obtain an annual written consent, provide advance notice to parents, and allow parents to review the surveys. This bill replaces that balanced approach with the burdensome opt-in requirement for each individual survey.
This bill would make it harder for schools to collect critical information on student mental health, school climate, and safety, while offering no new rights for parents. For these reasons, I'll be voting no and urge my colleagues to do the same. The next bill before us, the K-through-12 AI Literacy and Readiness Act of 2026, amends Title IV-A of the Every Student Succeeds Act to add artificial intelligence as an allowable use of student support and academic enrichment grants. It's curious because current law already allows Title IV-A funds to be used for artificial intelligence. Title IV-A has a wide variety of allowable uses that allow states and districts the flexibility they need to meet the needs of their communities.
In fact, districts are already using Title IV-A funds to incorporate AI literacy into their schools. What states and districts actually need is clear federal guidance on how to safely and effectively integrate AI while protecting students and supporting educators. Lack of guidance is particularly troubling given that the Trump administration has just eliminated the Office of Educational Technology, the very office that was best positioned to provide that leadership and guidance. While I'm in favor of ensuring that Title IV-A clearly and accurately describes allowable uses to meet the needs of states and school districts, I'm concerned that this bill's broad language could unintentionally create an environment where AI tools could cause more harm than good because the bill does not include any protection for student privacy. The fourth bill we'll consider is the Modernizing Access to Talents, Credentials, and Hiring, or the MATCH Act.
It would help states develop talent marketplaces using learning and employment records to better connect workers with education and employment opportunities. There's been bipartisan negotiations going on led by Representatives McBath and Owens, and so the bill was revised into a five-year pilot program with strong evaluation requirements and important worker protections. By helping workers better demonstrate their skills and credentials, this legislation has the potential of expanding access to quality jobs and strengthening our workforce system, and for those reasons I support the bill and urge my colleagues to do the same. The fifth bill before us, the Fit Future Act, codifies the President's Council on Sports, Fitness, and Nutrition. The Council currently exists through executive order.
While the bill largely codifies an existing advisory body, I believe that the Democratic amendments on affordability, accessibility, and inclusion and inclusivity will strengthen this bill by ensuring that efforts to promote youth fitness are more equitable despite students' differing abilities and disabilities. And while the bill is unnecessary since the Council has already existed for decades, with the improvements offered by my colleagues, I plan to support the bill. The sixth bill before us is Valuing Employee Stock Act. This bill will allow employers to pay employees less for overtime work by excluding restricted stock units, RSUs, when calculating overtime pay. RSUs are a company's promise to issue stock to employees through a vesting plan, typically after the employees remained with the company for a certain amount of time.
RSUs are not the same as stock programs, which are currently excluded when calculating workers' overtime pay under the Fair Labor Standards Act, and there's been no policy basis established in any committee hearing in this Congress for adding RSUs to the list of exclusions by which an employer can reduce the amount of overtime they pay. I oppose this bill and urge my colleagues to oppose it as well. The next bill and seventh bill we will consider is the Reinforcing Underserved, Rural, and Local Healthcare Act, the RURAL Healthcare Act. This bill would allow employers to misclassify healthcare workers as independent contractors and effectively strip them of their worker protections and benefits that their coworkers enjoy, such as access to overtime pay, unemployment insurance, workers' compensation, and the right to collectively bargain. Rural America faces serious and unique healthcare challenges, and too many communities struggle with provider shortages, hospital closures, and limited access to care.
These problems deserve serious discussion and real solutions, and unfortunately, this bill does not offer any. Stripping employees of their rights and reducing their compensation is not a solution. Instead, it is a distraction from the very real harms to rural healthcare created by the Big Ugly Bill, which will result in rural hospitals and clinics closing. For the sake of workers and patients, I urge my colleagues to join me in opposing H.R. 8347. Next, we'll consider the Heat Workforce Standards Act, which would block Occupational Safety and Health Administration from OSHA from finalizing and enforcing a nationwide heat safety standard.
According to Bureau of Labor Statistics, heat stress killed 907 U.S. workers between 1992 and 2019, but the true death toll is likely much higher and will continue to climb. This should go without saying, but workers should not have to risk their lives in order to perform their jobs. The Biden administration addressed this problem with a proposed rule that would require employers to recognize the risk and to provide workers with access to things like drinking water, periodic rest breaks in shaded or cooler areas, heat illness training, and emergency response plans. Mr. Chairman, after experiencing heat domes that have settled over large segments of this country, workers are more at risk now than ever. This bill would prevent the Department of Labor from finalizing a rule to do anything to address heat stress, and therefore I oppose the bill and strongly urge my colleagues to do the same.
The ninth bill we are considering is Ending Predator Access to Union Power Act. This bill would prevent those convicted of sex offenses against a minor from serving as a union official, staff in labor relations positions with employers, or other related roles. I'd be remiss if I did not point out that the title inaccurately implies that the restriction only applies to unions. It applies to anyone working in union management, either on the union side or the employer side. Any individual in a position of trust must be held to a high standard, so I'll support the bill and urge my colleagues to do the same.
Finally, we consider the American Franchise Act. This bill narrows joint employment roles for franchisees and franchisors under both the Fair Labor Standards Act and the National Labor Relations Act. More specifically, it would limit the finding of joint employment liability for franchises' direct and immediate control over their franchisees' workers' conditions, and even goes so far as to carve out an exception even when direct and immediate control might be found in certain cases. This is despite the fact that many large franchisors require their franchisees to uphold strict standards that affect the day-to-day lives of the franchisee employees and actually cause many of the violations that this bill would require the franchisee to pay for. This bill would protect large franchisors from any liability for violations that their franchisees may make based on the franchisors' standards, policies, and direction, and strip workers of their right to collectively bargain with the franchisor.
It lets the real decision-makers off the hook and makes it harder for workers to fight back when they are underpaid, mistreated, or ignored at the bargaining table. And for those reasons, I urge my colleagues to I'll be voting no and urge my colleagues to do the same.
As we've discussed today, there are areas where the committee can work together, but too many of the other bills before us fail to address the challenges that families are actually facing. Worst, the bills today will move us away from policies that expand opportunity, protect workers, and support students. As we head into the August recess, our constituents expect us to be focusing on lowering costs, supporting public education, and improving the lives of workers, and these bills do just the opposite. I hope that when we return this fall, the committee will redirect itself and devote its time to the appropriate priorities. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Tim Walberg
I thank the gentleman. Without objection, all other members who wish to insert written opening statements in the record may do so by submitting them to the committee clerk electronically by the end of the day today. Pursuant to House rules, a copy of the text to be marked up was made available to members and the public at least 24 hours in advance. The bills being marked up today shall be open to amendment at any point, and the chair will allow members to offer amendments in a manner not prohibited by the House or committee rules. Without objection, members who have more than one amendment to the bills and wish to offer their amendments en bloc may do so.
The committee will now proceed to consideration of bill H.R. 8781 for amendment. The bill was circulated in advance and printed copies are available. The clerk shall designate the bill.
Speaker 6
H.R. 8781, a bill to clarify that for purposes of federal non-discrimination requirements applicable to education programs or activities receiving federal financial assistance, discrimination prohibited under Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 is based on the biological reality of sex.
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. Miller, for what purpose do you seek recognition?
Mary Miller
Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment in the nature of a substitute at the desk.
Speaker 5
Amendment in the nature of a substitute to H.R. 8781, offered by Mrs. Miller of Illinois, identifier H8781ANS_001.
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. Miller for five minutes to explain the amendment in the nature of a substitute.
Mary Miller
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First, I want to thank Congressman Jody Arrington for introducing H.R. 8781, the Title IX Clarification Act of 2026, and I'm proud to offer this ANS, which makes minor technical changes to the underlying bill. Mr. Chairman, no one in 1972 thought Congress was enacting a law that would be used to force girls into the same bathrooms as boys, and change clothes in front of boys, and shower with boys, and compete with boys in athletic events. But this is exactly what happened when the Obama and Biden administrations turned Title IX into a weapon that exposed women and girls to danger, stripped them of their dignity, and robbed them of opportunity. Thankfully, President Trump restored Title IX to its original intent, first in his executive order titled Defending Women from Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government, and then through the Department of Education's announcement last year that it would interpret, quote, on the basis of sex, to mean biological sex.
And just last month, the Supreme Court definitively confirmed Congress's original intent in West Virginia versus B.P.J.
Writing for the majority, Justice Kavanaugh wrote, "The term sex in Title IX cannot plausibly be interpreted to refer to anything other than biological sex." "The ordinary meaning of the term sex at the time of enactment in the early 1970s was biological sex." Today, we have an opportunity to advance H.R. 8781, which codifies President Trump's executive order and the Department of Education's guidance. We have an opportunity to permanently secure the protections for women and girls that Title IX has always promised. The Supreme Court put an end to the madness last month, and today we have an opportunity to do our part.
I urge my colleagues to support Title IX Clarification Act of 2026, and I yield back.
Tim Walberg
The gentlelady yields. Are there any members who wish to be recognized for further discussion on the amendment in the nature of a substitute? I recognize the gentleman from California, Mr. Takano, for purposes of comments.
Mark Takano
Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word and rise in opposition to the amendment in the nature of substitute.
Mark Takano
Let's call this bill what it really is: the Bully Empowerment Act. I know every single member of this committee has seen a child being harassed for being gay. Every single person here has seen the fear, suffering, and anxiety LGBTQ+ kids face when walking into a classroom, a hostile classroom. I cannot imagine any member here would want to look a parent in the eye and tell them to send their child into a school that is not safe. We know what this bill will do.
It will empower the bully to harass LGBTQ+ students just for being who they are. It will empower the bully to force LGBTQ+ students out of classrooms because they fear for their safety. It will empower schools to ignore the rights of the very students they are supposed to protect. Every student deserves to be protected from discrimination no matter who they are. No student should be attacked, get beat up, or miss out on their education because another student or adult targets them for who they are.
And no responsible lawmaker, and I repeat, no responsible lawmaker should take the guardrails off of their legal protections. It seems every time Republicans bring up Title IX, it's to undermine Title IX's protections. Last Congress, they voted to overturn regulations that explicitly clarified Title IX's protections on the basis of sexual orientation, gender identity, sex characteristics, sex stereotypes, and pregnancy or related conditions, which had made significant positive changes in how schools address sexual harassment and violence. Since then, Republicans took control of the White House and gutted the entity that enforces Title IX, the Department of Education's Office of Civil Rights. Let me tell you what that has resulted in.
The Office of Civil Rights has resolved only 269 of nearly 12,000 pending civil rights complaints of 2025. That's one percent, the lowest number of case resolutions in a decade. It cost taxpayers 38 million dollars to pay for OCR employees to sit on administrative leave for 10 months while these cases went uninvestigated.
Since Republicans gained control of the Department of Education, it has reached zero, zero resolution agreements related to sexual harassment and sexual violence. And now with this bill today, they're trying to make it easier for schools to discriminate against students and turn a blind eye when students are being harassed and bullied. LGBTQ+ students already face challenges in school. According to a 2025 survey, more than 50% of LGBTQ+ students report facing discrimination at school. This bill would undermine LGBTQ+ students' protections under Title IX and make it harder for schools to be held accountable when discrimination against LGBTQ+ students occurs.
Republicans' attempts to narrowly define Title IX's prohibitions on sex discrimination to only refer to "biological sex" will undermine long-standing legal precedents that protect all students. All students. All students depend, their safety depends on not changing the definition. This is just one of seven anti-LGBTQ+ bills Republicans have marked up in this committee over the past year and a half. The majority is wasting everyone's time by attacking children instead of focusing on real solutions that would make our public education system better, much less address the more pressing concerns of Americans related to the cost of living.
A vote on this bill is a vote to remove the protections that exist to keep kids safe and able to go to school without fear. It is a vote to strip the consequences for students and adults that target kids who are different, allowing them to keep on doing so without punishment. A vote for this bill is a vote to empower those bullies. I don't know how certain people live with themselves. Thank you, 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? The gentleman from Virginia, the ranking member, Mr. Scott, wish to be recognized?
You're recognized for five minutes.
Robert Scott
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This bill is by no means a clarification. Last month, at the end of their term, the Supreme Court clarified to all that the definition of sex in Title IX means biological sex at birth. In the case that's already been mentioned, Justice Kavanaugh, writing for the 9-0 majority, noted that both the appellant and appellee conceded that sex as defined in Title IX meant biological sex at birth. So it appeared unnecessary to add this to the law.
That'd be until you realize that the enacting of the bill could threaten the rights of transgender students to be free from discrimination on the basis of sex in educational settings. Over the last two Congresses, the majority of this committee said that their goal was to protect women's and girls' sports. Well, the Supreme Court did that, ruling that states could pass laws that limit participation on women's and men's teams on the basis of biological sex at birth. Nine justices agreed to that, agreed that it did not violate Title IX. And six justices went so far as to say that it was specifically allowed under the Constitution's equal protection clause.
But the court did not go as far as the majority on this committee would like. The court limited their decision to sports and did not say what the majority apparently needed to say, and that is that transgender students are not protected by Title IX whatsoever.
Since transgender students may still have some rights under Title IX after the Supreme Court's rulings, the committee Republicans brought up H.R. 8781. And just like the President's executive order on so-called gender ideology extremism, H.R. 8781 attempts to write transgender students out of existence. Mr. Chairman, for that reason I oppose the ANS and the underlying bill and urge my colleagues to vote no on both. I yield back.
Tim Walberg
The gentleman yields. Are there any other members who wish to be recognized? The gentlelady from Connecticut, Mrs. Hayes, do you wish to be recognized?
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I move to strike the last word.
Jahana Hayes
I rise in opposition to this amendment in the nature of a substitute. This is really exhausting that we continue to revisit this on this committee. The representative from Illinois is hyper-focused on this topic and brings it up a lot. She talked about how when this law was passed, what it meant. But I remind you that when the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was originally passed, it did not include discrimination on the basis of sex.
That was added after, and there's been many court decisions and administrative guidance that talked about what that meant. I'd like to ask the gentlelady from Illinois, because she presented this as a clarifying amendment. My question is, what do you propose we do with these students? This legislation, no court decision is going to stop a young person from being gay or the feelings that they have. Are you proposing that educators, that programs, that federal funding, that legislation just erases these young people and say that we don't have an obligation to keep them safe as well?
I'll yield if the gentlelady would like to respond.
Mary Miller
Sure. First of all, we should be honest with our children and tell them the truth. And it has definitely diminished our girls' opportunities, equal opportunities in athletics. This is not about gay. This is about trans men going into girls' safe spaces and on their athletic teams.
They are not getting equal opportunities when they are participating against a man, who we all know can have way more bone mass, muscle mass, and it's 100% not fair. I mean, you know it. You guys are a bunch of liars. You're deceivers. First of all, the...
Call me a liar again! This is not about gay. Mr. Chairman, I demand the lady's words be taken down! Call me a liar again! Call me a liar again!
This is about... Call me a liar again! The lady... Call me a liar again! You say the truth!
Call me a liar again! The lady... The gentlelady will suspend. This bill is about men in girls' spaces and on girls' athletic teams. Representative, you will suspend.
They are not safe.
Speaker 14
I move that her words be taken down and that we not move on until they are.
Speaker 13
I move that you say the truth! This is about trans men in girls' spaces!
I answered the question!
Speaker 19
The committee will come to order. Does the gentlelady from Illinois withdraw her words?
Speaker 18
The gentlelady from Illinois may resume under the gentlelady from Connecticut's time and yielding.
Mary Miller
My intention was to speak the truth. This bill is not about being gay and lesbian. This is about protecting female spaces. Men should not be allowed in female spaces. Title IX must protect the safety and dignity of women and girls.
Women lose opportunities because of the trans agenda. We must tell the truth.
Tim Walberg
The gentlelady will suspend. The gentlelady from Connecticut reclaims her time.
Jahana Hayes
Thank you. I want to make sure we keep the main thing the main thing.
My question was about what do we do with these children. The Supreme Court has already decided that states should be able to rule on sports in their state, they should be able to rule on leagues, and those are local decisions. The Supreme Court has already said that. So there is no need for Congress, for this committee, to keep pressing this point. Our job, the job of educators, is to create inclusive environments where all students can learn, even trans students.
And we're not talking about men, we're talking about youth. We're talking about young people. My question remains, what do we do with those young people? That's the thing we need to figure out. If we are going to keep having hearings on this committee meant to erase the existence of youth, whether they are LGBTQIA, trans, gay, whatever, my question remains, where is our obligation to make sure that those students also have an inclusive educational experience?
That was the question I asked then, that's the question I ask now, that is the question that remains unanswered. This is not about men in youth sports. This is about youth in youth sports. What do we do with those children? I've asked this question many times, and as an educator, I will always pursue an answer to that question because we have an obligation, a responsibility, to make sure that every student, no matter how they identify, every student, no matter where they live or what school district they attend, every student has access to an appropriate educational experience.
And with that, I yield back.
The gentlelady yields. Does the gentlelady withdraw her point of order?
I withdraw.
Tim Walberg
The gentleman from California, Mr. Takano, do you withdraw your point of order?
I withdraw my point of order.
Tim Walberg
Points of order are withdrawn. Are there any other members who wish to be recognized for further discussion on the amendment in the nature of a substitute? I recognize the gentlelady from Oregon, Ms. Bonamici, for five minutes.
Suzanne Bonamici
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I move to strike the last word and speak in opposition to the bill and the ANS. Thank you. I do not understand Republicans' continued obsession with attacking transgender individuals. Only about 1% of Americans identify as transgender, and there are more than 500,000 athletes in the NCAA, and how many of those athletes are transgender?
Fewer than 10. Keep in mind also that Title IX applies to educational programs, not just athletics. Do you want to discriminate against trans students in chess clubs, dance classes? I don't understand it. This hysterical fixation with villainizing a small group of our nation's youth has become predatory and frankly is dangerous.
The number of hearings we have had and bills that we have marked up on this subject is staggering. Just last week, my colleagues peppered medical school professionals with questions about uteruses, pronouns, and how pregnancy works. Title IX was created to prevent discrimination. This bill turns the landmark federal statute into a tool to discriminate against a select few who are already underserved and under attack. According to the Trevor Project, more than 40% of transgender youth seriously considered attempting suicide every year.
That's two in five trans kids and young adults. It's abhorrent, and bills like this make things worse. Sadly, in this committee, we've heard too much hate and prejudice. Why does it matter so much to you how someone identifies and presents themselves? How does another person's identity harm you?
I can't believe I have to say this, but no human being is less worthy of respect and opportunity than any other human being, and no human being is inherently dangerous because of their gender identity. I urge my colleagues to vote against this bill and end the hatred toward individuals who happen to be different from you. I hope this committee can get back to focusing on education and making lives better for working people. And I yield back the balance of my time.
Tim Walberg
The gentlelady yields. Are there any other members who wish to be recognized?
Not an attack on anyone, but a clarification of reality. Before continuing my statement, I yield to the gentlelady from Illinois, Mrs. Miller.
Mary Miller
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My intention was to speak the truth. This bill isn't about being gay and lesbian. This is about protecting female spaces. Men should not be allowed in women's spaces.
Title IX must protect the safety and dignity of women and girls. Women lose opportunities because of the trans agenda. We must tell our children the truth. And we must protect our children. We must defend biology.
God created males and females, and we must accept that simple truth. My characterization of the bill is accurate, and the gentlewoman's characterization of the bill is inaccurate. And I yield back to the gentleman... or to the chairman. To the chairman.
Tim Walberg
Thank you. Having seen no others, I will go to my statement, my final statement. I reiterate the fact that this legislation is not about gay or lesbians. Not at all. There's actual biology there, fact and science.
They're not left unprotected in this legislation. They're not mentioned really in this legislation except that we define male and female according to biological science. That's it. We saw the ridiculous error in the performance of esteemed medical college leaders last week who couldn't even answer directly if a non-biological woman could give birth, or a non-biological woman had a uterus. I understand the concept of love.
I'm a grandfather. I understand the concept of love without truth is not love at all. And while some would want to continue loving without truth trans children, without truth it isn't love. Affirming who they are, encouraging them to understand, giving them the opportunity to grow and really come to a point of accepting who they are and moving through life with that reality of biological science, of DNA, of all that those esteemed professors in medical colleges were trained in when they went to school, I'm certain. And now have deviated away from it because of pressure from a small pressure group that's out there.
But nonetheless, this committee isn't based upon that.
This is the Education Committee and education is based upon fact and truth. For that reason, this legislation is necessary. And I believe this necessary it's necessary to protect biological females from being put in spaces that we would have never countenanced before. And we shouldn't be doing that now. With that I yield.
There be no further discussion on the amendment in the nature of a substitute. For what purpose does Ms. McBath seek recognition at this point in time? You're recognized for five minutes.
Lucy McBath
Thank you, Mr. Chair, I'm so sorry to see the devolving of this committee as such as it has happened today. But I'm I'm glad that we're kind of hashing this out and with that I'm more than happy to relegate the rest of my time to my esteemed colleague from Connecticut Representative Jahana Hayes. I yield to her.
Jahana Hayes
Thank you. I'm gonna go on the record again because we couldn't just leave it at that. Taking the words down, striking it. We have to go back for another bite at the apple on this same topic. There needs to be some consistency on this committee.
Decorum on this committee, the same expectation the same thing that is expected for Democrats on the dais should also be expected of Republicans on the dais. I'm very disappointed that it wasn't enough to just leave it alone and move forward. That the chairman had to then take time and yield to continue this discussion. I'm gonna say it over and over and over again. I will always on this committee fight so that all children all children every single one of them receives a high quality education.
And if we're talking about truth I think that there need some people who need to accept the simple truth that there are children who are different. There are young people who think different who feel different who are different and that's okay. And this fixation with that is absurd. To keep bringing people before this committee to have hearings on DEI and trans youth and all of these culture war issues while we are doing nothing nothing to I don't know fully fund IDEA. To make sure that students with disabilities have the resources that they need.
To hold not only our Department of Education but even local education agencies accountable for improving student success and outcomes. To make sure that teachers have the resources that they need. Nothing. Just the same hearings on the same topics over and over and over again. And this committee has gotten used to being able to say and do whatever they want unchecked.
Not today. Not any day moving forward. The respect I give is the respect I demand. We can debate on the issues, we can have differing opinions, we can have different viewpoints, we can have different pathways to the solution. But what you will not do is disrespect me and call me out of my name in pursuit of that path.
So once again I rise in opposition to this amendment. I encourage my colleagues to vote against this amendment and understand exactly what it's calling for.
And then to brace yourself for next week or the next time that this comes up, because it will come up again. Because when you have no policies, when you have no ideas, when you have no solutions, you punch down. I yield back to Ms. McBath.
Tim Walberg
There being no further discussion on the amendment in the nature of a substitute, the committee will move to consideration of amendments.
Tim Walberg
For what purpose does the gentleman from Virginia, the ranking member, request?
Robert Scott
I'd like to enter into the record a press release from the sponsor of the bill, Mr. Arrington, who says that it restores the original intent of Title IX and prevents future administrations from reinterpreting the law to include gender identity or sexual orientation without congressional approval. That's not what the bill actually does.
Tim Walberg
Without objection, it'll be entered. Are there any members who would like to offer amendments? There being no amendments, the question now occurs on the amendment in the nature of a substitute to H.R. 8781. 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. 4986 for amendment.
The bill was circulated in advance and printed copies are available. The clerk shall designate the bill.
Speaker 23
H.R. 4986, a bill to amend the General Education Provisions Act to ensure that a student is not required to submit to a survey, analysis, or evaluation that reveals personal information about such student or their family without prior written consent. Amendment in the nature of a substitute to H.R. 4986, offered by Ms. Miller of Illinois, identifier 4986_ANS_01.
Mary Miller
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am proud to sponsor both H.R. 4986, the Parents Opt-in Protection Act, and this ANS, which makes technical and clarifying changes to the underlying bill. This bill strengthens consent requirements to ensure that parents and students are fully informed before disclosing sensitive information through school-administered surveys and evaluations.
The Protection of Pupil Rights Amendment or PPRA prohibits educational institutions that receive federal funding from requiring students to submit to a survey, analysis, or evaluation without the parent's consent should such a survey or evaluation ask for sensitive information about the student. This includes the student's sexual behavior, income, political affiliations, or religious beliefs. This bill aligns consent provisions to ensure that any consent, whether offered by the parent or appropriate student, is in writing. This is a small but important change to ensure that parents and students are empowered by law to be fully aware of what they are consenting to when a child is offered a student survey or screening. Separately, PPRA also requires school districts to have policies in place that govern general administration of these student surveys.
However, those policies only allow parents to opt their children out of the surveys, not in. My bill inverts this practice by making the default opt-out of current law an opt-in, giving parents more control over the information collected about their students. Finally, this bill clarifies that prior written consent must be obtained each time a sensitive student survey is conducted. This will ensure that busy parents do not inadvertently expose their children to inappropriate evaluations if the school sends home a one-time consent request that the parents don't understand. Thank you again, Mr. Chairman, and I urge my colleagues to support this common-sense legislation and I yield back.
Tim Walberg
The gentlelady 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, Mr. Khanna, do you wish to be recognized?
Mark Takano
Uh, Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word and rise in opposition.
Mark Takano
Mr. Chairman, school surveys provide critical insights into the experiences of students so school districts, researchers, and policymakers can better understand and address the challenges students face. For example, a 2023 survey found that nearly three in 10 high school students report experiencing poor mental health in the previous 30 days. That survey revealed a crisis. That very same survey found dramatic disparities between the experiences of LGBTQ+ students and their peers. That survey found that 25% of LGBTQ+ students were bullied online or via social media during the previous year compared to 13% of non-LGBTQ+ students.
That 19% of LGBTQ+ students did not go to school because of safety concerns during the previous 30 days compared to 10% of LGBTQ+ students. This is just a small sample of the challenges LGBTQ students face as revealed by such a survey. Now, some advocates of this bill have specifically highlighted that this bill is meant to target surveys with demographic questions about sexual orientation and gender identity as well as mental health screenings. That is the goal of this bill: to decrease our understanding of LGBTQ+ students and student mental health. And let's be clear, this includes not only trans students but gay and lesbian students.
The animus behind this, I find reprehensible. Do my colleagues on the other side of the aisle really think that we shouldn't know about these kids' experiences in school?
I want to be very clear. As a former teacher, I know the critical role parents play in their children's education. I strongly support parents' rights, and our current federal system preserves their right to dictate when their child can participate in a covered survey, requiring schools to have opt-out policies. Put another way, parents already have a say in what surveys their child takes because they can opt their child out of covered surveys. This bill, by switching to an opt-in model, will just create more paperwork and more hurdles to administrator surveys, also inhibiting our understanding of what students experience in school.
For example, the CDC estimates that using an opt-in system as opposed to an opt-out system will reduce student survey response rates by about 50% in a youth risk behavior survey. The CDC says you can prevent this decrease by telephoning and emailing parents to follow up directly on the forms, among other actions. This suggests that the decrease isn't because parents don't want their children to participate, it's because filling out another school form isn't always at the top of every parent's list. So let me be clear. This bill is just creating more work for schools, more work for parents who want their children to participate in any surveys.
Those parents who used to have to take no action will now have to fill out a form for every survey. For me, this also comes down to who should make these decisions: politicians in Washington, D.C., or states and local school districts? States and school districts are best positioned to understand what permission system works best for their schools. As I've highlighted, opt-in systems require increased costs and create burdens on both parents and staff. States and school districts better understand if they have the resources and time to administer those systems.
Schools are already facing rising costs and an Education Department that's abandoned them. Parents already have enough on their plates. We don't need politicians in Washington, D.C. mandating a one-size-fits-all approach that will lead to more school forms for parents and schools. I urge my colleagues to vote no on H.R. 4986, and I yield back.
Speaker 26
Gentleman yields. Does the gentleman from California, Mr. Kiley, seek recognition?
Yes, Mr. Chair.
Speaker 28
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I think this is a very important bill and one that I'd be happy to co-sponsor. It follows a hearing that we held in the K-12 Education Subcommittee about a recent Supreme Court ruling upholding the constitutional right of parents to opt their children out of objectionable content in schools. And I don't want to minimize the issues at play here because there have been very fierce debates across the country about what content is appropriate in public school classrooms, whether that comes in the form of instruction or surveys. And I personally think there are a number of examples of schools and classrooms where things have gone too far in terms of curriculum that shouldn't be in schools, but I recognize that there are edge cases, there's a legitimate debate, different states, different districts will decide these questions differently.
But the very important fallback option that families have in order to assure that their kids are not exposed to content that interferes with the right of parents to raise their kids with the values that they choose is, number one, the ability to exercise choice as far as where your child goes to school within the traditional public school system, in the broader public school system including the charter sector, as well as options outside of that system.
And the second important fallback is the ability to opt your child out of objectionable curriculum, curricula at your, at their school. And this is the right that the courts, the Supreme Court recently upheld. We've seen some examples where districts are not adhering to the spirit, perhaps not even the letter of that decision. So this bill is very simple and it's something that I think the vast majority of parents would agree with. It says that if your child is going to be exposed to material that you as a parent find objectionable, then you should have the right to opt them out and in order for them to participate there should be a requirement of written consent.
And this also expands this standard for, for students who have the ability to consent on their own behalf as well. So I'm happy to support it today. I think it's a common sense measure. It doesn't require anyone to take a position on the propriety of a particular type of curriculum in one school or another. It simply says that regardless of what the curriculum is, parents should have a say in their child's education.
I yield back.
Speaker 30
Gentleman yields. Does the gentlelady from North Carolina seek recognition?
Speaker 29
Yes, Mr. Chair, I move to strike the last word in opposition to the bill.
You're recognized for five minutes.
Alma Adams
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Parents should know what is happening in their child's school. They should be informed, they should be involved, and they should have a voice. But let us be clear about what this bill actually does. Current law already protects parents and students.
Schools must provide notice before certain surveys are administered. Parents have the right to inspect those surveys. They may not, they may opt their child out and for surveys involving sensitive subjects, schools must already obtain written parental consent. So this bill is not filling some major gap in the law. Instead, it would require a separate opt-out, opt-in for every survey involving topics such as mental health, student safety, bullying, substance use, or school climate.
That may sound simple here in Washington, but anyone who has worked in a school knows what will happen. Forms will be sent home and never returned. Working parents will miss an email. Families who speak another language may, may not receive clear information in time. And students whose parents simply forget to sign a form will be left out.
The CDC has warned that active opt-in requirements can reduce student survey participation by, by roughly half. When participation, participation drops that sharply, schools lose the information that they need to understand what students are facing. They may not see a rise in depression or suicidal thoughts. They may miss patterns of bullying or violence. They may not know whether students feel safe in the classroom or supported by the adults around them.
As an educator for more than 40 years, I know that teachers and school leaders cannot address problems they cannot see. These surveys help schools identify where support is needed. They help districts decide whether to hire more counselors, expand mental health services, improve school safety, or respond to a growing crisis before it becomes a tragedy. This is not about forcing students to answer personal questions. Participation is voluntary and parents already have rights under the law.
This is about whether schools will have reliable information to protect children and to help them succeed. I'm also concerned that this bill will not affect every community equally. Parents with more time, reliable internet access, and familiarity with school paperwork are more likely to return consent forms. Students from working families, families with limited English proficiency, or families facing housing instability are more likely to be excluded. And that means the students with the greatest needs may be the least visible in the data schools use to make decisions.
We can respect parents without making it harder for schools to understand the health and safety of their students. Current law already provides notice, transparency, access to survey materials, and the right to decline participation. This bill goes beyond protecting parents. It creates another barrier between students and the support they may need. For these reasons, Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to vote no, and with that I yield back.
Tim Walberg
The gentlelady yields. Are there any other members who wish to speak on the amendment in the nature of a substitute? The gentleman from Virginia, the ranking member, Mr. Scott, you wish to be recognized.
You're recognized for five minutes.
Robert Scott
Mr. Chairman, I oppose H.R. 4986, the Parents Opt-in Protection Act. This bill would amend the Protection of Pupil Rights Amendment, the PPRA, to make it more difficult for schools and districts to conduct surveys, including mental health surveys, under the guise of parents' rights. Under current law, the PPRA protects both parents' rights and student data, employing a balanced approach between this responsibility and the need for schools, districts, and states to conduct surveys to better serve students. Current law prohibits students from being required to take a survey that touches on eight enumerated sensitive topics, including political affiliations or beliefs, mental or psychological problems, sex behavior or attitudes, religious practices, affiliations, or beliefs. The law requires that school districts provide advance notice to parents about such surveys, allowing parents to review such surveys and provide parents the right to opt their child out of such surveys or provide annual written consent for such surveys.
This bill would replace the balanced approach with an opt-in requirement, for which schools would need to obtain written consent from parents for each individual survey conveying sensitive topics, making it harder for schools to collect critical information on student mental health, school climate, and school safety, while offering no new rights for parents. The sponsor of the bill specifically stated when introducing it for the first time in the 118th Congress that its purpose was to, and I quote, "create a barrier between our nation's school children and inappropriate influence from radical transgender ideology and big tech, including sexual orientation, sexual identity, and woke politics," unquote. Now, while the majority claims the bill is necessary to protect parents' rights, the bill represents yet another attempt to target transgender students, but in fact, it will harm all students by reducing the school district and state awareness of school climate, mental health, and other issues, and it would limit the ability of schools and districts and states to support students and addressing their needs.
Research shows that students who feel safe and supported at school have better educational outcomes, achieve more in school, and have better attendance and graduation rate rates and are better behaved. Efforts to improve school climate have been supported over the years by the US Department of Education and Institute of Educational Science. The danger in this bill is it could significantly reduce survey responses on school climate surveys and other surveys, including the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention voluntary biennial Youth Risk Behavior Survey, the YRBS, which has been conducted since 1991 using sampling of 9th through 12th graders. The CDC uses the survey to understand health and mental health-related behaviors as well as issues such as weight, obesity, and asthma, and to identify and evaluate programs to improve adolescent health. Opt-in requirements hinder participation in surveys in general and also affect who participates in the survey.
In a school setting, the opt-in requirement for each survey may make it less likely that working parents or parents who speak a different language submit a written consent form. According to CDC, requiring opt-in surveys could have significant detrimental effects. CDC stated that it expects the opt-in requirement to reduce the student response rate by about 50%. Excuse me. Research shows that students who feel safe and supported in school have better outcomes, as I indicated, and when you have less information, you have less ability to create those better situations.
Now, while it's imperative that parents be aware of what is happening in their schools, current law finds a reasonable balance between parental oversight of these surveys and the importance of conducting such surveys. The bill is opposed by the National Women's Law Center Action Fund, Advocates for Trans Equality, and the Human Rights Campaign. So I ask unanimous consent that letters in opposition from the Women's National Women's Law Center and the Human Rights Campaign be entered into the record.
Tim Walberg
Without objection, hearing none, they'll be entered. I yield back. 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? Seeing none, there being no further discussion on the amendment in the nature of substitute, the committee will move to consideration of amendments.
Are there any members who would like to offer amendments? There being no amendments, the question now occurs on the amendment in the nature of a substitute to HR 4986. 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 substitute is agreed to. We'll now move to consider the next bill. The committee will now proceed to consideration of bill HR 8747 for amendment. The bill was circulated in advance and printed copies are available.
The clerk shall designate the bill.
Speaker 6
HR 8747, a bill to amend the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 to include certain curriculum expenses as permissible uses of funds and for other purposes.
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.
Speaker 35
Does anyone seek to be recognized? Mr. Owens, for what purpose do you seek recognition? The clerk will designate the amendment in the nature of a substitute.
Speaker 5
Amendment in the nature of a substitute to H.R. 8747 offered by Mr. Owens of Utah, identifier 8747_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 Mr. Owens for five minutes to explain the amendment in the nature of a substitute.
Burgess Owens
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Artificial intelligence is becoming as fundamental to our economy as computers and the internet were in previous generations. The question is no longer whether students will use and encounter AI, it's whether schools will prepare them to use it responsibly and effectively. If America wants to remain the global leader in innovation, our education system must keep pace with technological change. Schools, educators, and industry leaders report growing demand for AI literacy programs.
Districts want to move forward but often lack clear authority to scale implementation and use existing federal education funds to prepare students and educators for this transformation. Title IV-A already offers schools broad flexibility, but it is not clear whether AI education is an allowable use of those funds. In many cases, school attorneys may advise caution if federal funds are being used for activities that are not specifically mentioned in law. The aim of this bill is to clarify that AI instruction is an allowable use for federal funds by amending Title IV-A of ESEA. It will give states and local districts flexibility to use existing federal education funds to prepare students and educators for the AI-driven future.
The bill focuses on safe, effective, and responsible implementation, emphasizing educators' leadership role rather than replacing teachers with technology. The bill does not create any new spending, nor does it impose any federal mandates on schools or state districts. H.R. 8547 does not require schools to adopt AI. It does not create a federal curriculum. It simply allows states and school districts to use existing federal education dollars, if they choose, to invest in AI education and educator preparation.
Successful implementation requires preparing educators and students together. This bill supports students. Students need to learn not just how to use AI, but how to think critically about it, evaluate its output, and use it responsibly to learn, create, and solve problems. This bill supports educators. One of the largest barriers of AI adoption in schools is educator preparation.
Teachers cannot teach students how to use AI responsibly if they themselves lack access to training and professional development. H.R. 8747 allows schools to invest in teachers, paraprofessionals, librarians, and institutional support staff and school leaders. AI has enormous potential in education, and schools need to approach it thoughtfully and responsibly. America led the computer revolution because we prepared students for the digital age. We must do the same for the age of artificial intelligence.
This bill modernizes education, strengthens workforce readiness, and does so without creating a single new federal spending program. This is about preparing students for the world they will inherit, not the world we grew up in. The ANS makes a minor technical change to the underlying bill. With that, I urge my colleagues to vote yes on this bill. I yield back.
Tim Walberg
The gentleman yields. Are there any members who wish to be recognized for further discussion on the amendment? I recognize the gentlelady from Oregon, Ms. Bonamici, for five minutes.
Suzanne Bonamici
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I want to speak in opposition to the bill and the ANS. This bill and the ANS amend the Student Support and Academic Enrichment grant program, that's Title IV-A of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, which already gives school districts flexible funding in three very carefully negotiated areas: providing a well-rounded education, improving school conditions for learning including safety, and supporting the use of technology.
I know this because I worked on drafting, negotiating, and passing Title IV-A, and I lead the Title IV-A appropriations letter. Title IV-A was bipartisan when we passed it and remains so today. Current law already gives districts the flexibility they need to use these funds for artificial intelligence and AI literacy and readiness. But what the Student Support and Academic Enrichment Title IV-A grant programs need is funding. But that doesn't address the challenges of AI.
What AI literacy and readiness need is a comprehensive strategy. The challenge is not a lack of flexibility in Title IV-A. Artificial intelligence is changing how Americans learn, teach, and work. Many students are using these tools without consistent standards or guidance. Educators need professional development to teach AI and to use these tools responsibly.
Workers need opportunities to develop the skills required for an economy that is changing because of AI. Our education and workforce systems need to keep pace, but that's not what this bill does. I'm leading the AI Education and Workforce Readiness Act. This draft legislation would establish a coordinated strategy to prepare students, educators, and workers to use artificial intelligence safely, responsibly, and age-appropriately. It would coordinate efforts across the Departments of Education and Labor and federal science agencies to support career pathways, evidence-based educational tools, research, and technical assistance.
My bill recognizes that AI literacy is about more than learning how to use a new tool. Students and educators need to understand the ethical questions that artificial intelligence raises. They need to consider its implications for civics and democracy. And with concerns about AI leading to cognitive stunting, especially in young children, we must grapple with how to protect critical thinking and perspective. Putting an AI tool in a classroom does not by itself improve learning.
Artificial intelligence should help students learn, create, and solve problems; it should not replace the productive struggle that helps students develop these skills. Artificial intelligence should be one of the many tools in the hands of a skilled educator, not a replacement for teaching. My bill would support professional development in AI literacy to address these issues, and it would also provide grants to support learners from communities that have historically faced barriers to educational and economic opportunity. We must not let artificial intelligence widen existing gaps in opportunity. Innovation requires responsibility.
Artificial intelligence is here; the question is whether we will prepare people to shape this technology or allow technology to shape their future without them. Students need to be prepared for the AI world, and they need to be protected from its risk. The bill we're considering today simply duplicates flexibility that schools already have without providing comprehensive strategy, investments, and safeguards that are so important for students, educators, and our future. So instead of passing this bill, we should work together on careful policies that recognize the complexity and risks involved with AI in educational settings. Thank you, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Yes, Mr. Chair.
You're recognized for five minutes.
Speaker 28
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'll be supporting today the K-12 AI Literacy and Readiness Act of 2026 because I think it will reinforce the work of our subcommittee, which has now held two hearings on the topic of the use of AI in schools: one focused on how it's being used to assist students and another on how teachers are using it to assist with their own lesson planning, instruction, assessments, and so forth. And, you know, we have highlighted in our hearings examples of how AI is being used at schools and in districts and in states across the country.
And we've highlighted both the extraordinary opportunity and the very real perils. I personally believe that these tools have the ability to make, to give every child in America access to a kind of education that no child had, you know, not that long ago. So there is just extraordinary opportunity. But we also see various issues connected with academic honesty, with increased screen time, with the potential to erode critical thinking skills, and many other issues that come up when we're dealing with tools that are continuing to advance at a very rapid pace. So I don't disagree with the ranking member of our subcommittee's comments about how we need to be doing more on this topic.
But I think that this bill is really helpful in the following sense: that the way that we're going to come up, I think, with the best solutions here, the best use cases, are empowering teachers and school leaders and districts to really respond to the challenges they're seeing in their classrooms and deploy the latest tools as they become available. And then we can see what is working and we can do what we've been doing on our subcommittee and in this full committee, which is to highlight the examples that have been really helping students and helping teachers. And so that's what this bill will do. It'll allow for greater flexibility in the use of funds in order to assist teachers with training related to AI and in order to assist students with being able to use AI in productive ways. I'm also working on legislation that will provide greater opportunities for professional development for teachers in order to learn best practices in this ever-evolving, rapidly evolving area, which I think will be helpful as well.
But I think this legislation is a good start and I'll be supporting it today. I yield back.
Speaker 36
Gentleman yields. Are there any other members who wish to speak on the amendment in nature of a substitute? I recognize the gentleman from Virginia, the ranking member, Mr. Scott, for the purposes of discussion.
Robert Scott
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, H.R. 8747 would include professional development instruction on safe, responsible, and effective use of artificial intelligence as an allowable use of funds under Title IV-A of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. Now, Title IV-A was carefully negotiated under Every Student Succeeds Act to ensure the school districts can, school districts can use the funds to support safe and health, safe and healthy students, well-rounded education, and effective use of technology. These are broad categories that allow school districts a wide range of flexibility to meet the needs of their students. Many districts across the district are already using Title IV-A funds to support AI literacy as it's already an allowable use.
Now, the last year, the Center on Reinventing Public Education released data revealing that the number of districts surveyed that are early adopters of AI jumped from 40% in 2024 to 2025 to 79% for the 2025-26 school year. That shows that schools and educators are opening to the use of updated technology, but they need support and guidance to ensure coherent usages that ensure educators and students understand the risks and potential dangers of AI. Now, I have concerns about, first of all, the attempt to specify a particular allowable use of IV-A funds as this bill does.
Highlighting AI in this way does nothing to help states figure out the approach to AI and may inadvertently lead states and districts to believe that this is a preferred use of the funds over other allowable uses. Additionally, it's not lost that we sit here today as the Office of Education Technology at the Department of Education is being dismantled. That office could be working directly with states and local districts to provide guidance and support needed to navigate the AI landscape safely. However, this administration has dismantled that office, leaving states and districts to fend for themselves. And while I fully support flexibility in Title 4A, this bill does nothing to strengthen the program or help districts support students, and we should be supporting research and initiatives that help states and districts better understand how to engage in the changing AI landscape.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Tim Walberg
The gentleman yields. Are there any other members who wish to be recognized? There being no further discussion on the amendment in the nature of a substitute, the committee will move to consideration of amendments. Are there any members who would like to offer amendments?
Mr. Chairman.
Speaker 41
I recognize the gentleman, the ranking member from Virginia, Mr. Scott, for purposes of amendment.
Clerk will report the amendment.
Speaker 5
Amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute to H.R. 8747, offered by Mr. Scott of Virginia, identifier SCOTT_8747AMD_02.
Tim Walberg
The gentleman from Utah reserves a point of order. A point of order is reserved. I now recognize the gentleman from Virginia, the ranking member, Mr. Scott, for five minutes in support of his amendment.
Robert Scott
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, this amendment would maintain the Office of Education Technology and restore the staffing capacity. As AI continues to expand and become more integrated into educational settings, it's important to recognize that OET had played a critical role in helping states and districts understand and evaluate these new technologies, including artificial intelligence, to improve student learning and teaching. It's worth noting that OET had developed key resources that help states and districts navigate the effective and responsible uses of AI, including a report, Artificial Intelligence and the Future of Teaching and Learning, which provided recommendations on AI integration in the classroom. However, this administration has since dissolved OET.
These actions eliminated the primary source of expertise and guidance at the department that has helped states and districts integrate AI. This amendment would reestablish that office and that capacity to provide critical resources and guidance that states and districts need to address the opportunities and challenges in integrating AI into education. So I urge my colleagues to vote yes on this amendment and yield back the balance of my time.
The gentleman yields. Does the gentleman from Utah withdraw the reservation?
I withdraw my point of order.
Tim Walberg
The reservation is withdrawn. Does anyone else seek recognition on the amendment? The question then is on the amendment by the gentleman from Virginia, the ranking member, Mr. Scott.
All in favor say 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? I recognize the gentlelady from Connecticut, Ms. Hayes, for the purposes of amendment.
Speaker 5
Amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute to H.R. 8747, offered by Ms. Hayes of Connecticut, identifier HAYES_CT_071.
Does the gentleman from Utah reserve a point of order?
Jahana Hayes
Point of order is reserved and I now recognize the gentlelady from Connecticut for five minutes in support of her amendment.
Thank you. I fully support preparing students to navigate an AI-driven world, recognizing that AI literacy is an essential skill, and I understand the intent behind this legislation. My amendment to H.R. 8747, the AI Literacy and Readiness Act, would ensure that federal funds used to implement AI tools in classrooms come with fundamental safety guardrails. According to the CDC, firearm-related injuries are the leading cause of death for children and teenagers in the United States aged 1 to 19. And seven months into the year 2026, we have already witnessed 14 school shootings resulting in injury or death at K-12 schools across the country.
AI has found its way into this disturbing trend. The Center for Countering Digital Hate indicates that eight out of ten AI chatbots have regularly assisted teenage users in planning school shootings and other violent attacks. Hundreds of user tests have shown that these chatbots actively provide information that is directly applicable to planning and executing violent acts. For example, ChatGPT provided maps of a high school campus in Virginia to a user who had already engaged with content related to school shootings and misogyny. Additionally, Meta AI suggested nearby gun stores and shooting ranges without questioning the intent of the user.
My amendment requires any AI tool funded under this provision to have a documented policy disclosing their policy for notifying law enforcement when a user shares a credible plan to harm others. It also requires notification of school mental health professionals when a user discloses suicidal ideation or self-harm. Every school counselor who hears a student say they want to harm themselves is required to act. Every teacher who hears a student threaten someone else is required to act. By law, in all 50 states and Washington, D.C., educators are mandated reporters.
Teachers must report reasonable suspicion. These requirements exist because we recognize the responsibility schools have for the safety and well-being of children. Teachers see children daily and are often the first adults to notice warning signs. We hold every counselor, teacher, and staff member in a school building to a basic reporting standard. AI tools funded by federal dollars should be no different.
This amendment will make this bill stronger by ensuring the tools being funded are safe for the children using them. I know this committee does not want to address the issue of school shootings and what harm it does to children, but as we move forward with new legislation, we have to face this daunting reality that our children are dying because of firearm-related injuries and we have a responsibility to do something, or at least I know I do. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment and I yield back.
Speaker 43
The gentlelady yields. Does the gentleman from Utah withdraw his point of order?
Withdraw my point of order.
Tim Walberg
Point of order is withdrawn. Are there any other members who seek recognition on this amendment? I recognize the gentleman from Virginia, the ranking member. You're recognized for five minutes.
Robert Scott
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This amendment would require AI, it would prevent any funds from being used for any AI purpose unless there is in place a protocol that would reveal information about someone trying to harm themselves. It also adds a reporting clause and also limitations on what the AI can do. Now, we all know situations where school shootings have occurred and many of these involved information that should have been reported to law enforcement. Unfortunately, this amendment is not limited to situations where AI may be involved with interaction with students.
It covers all AI situations and these protocols would have to be done whether or not the individuals or whether or not the AI is involved with students. Furthermore, we have to be cautious about deploying law enforcement in situations involving students, preemptively involving law enforcement before you have all the necessary information could lead to unnecessary harm. For example, there have been reports of students being entangled with law enforcement unnecessarily because AI claimed to have caught something it believed to be suspicious when in fact it was innocuous. AI does not always have the ability to understand nuances and according to the amendment, keywords would have to be used and if a keyword is triggered then that information is revealed and results can wreak havoc on student lives. This amendment also implies that some kind of surveillance of students will be taking place, otherwise you wouldn't have the information.
The breadth of research shows that school surveillance measures disproportionately harm black and brown students instead of keeping them safe. So I appreciate the sentiment, it's imperative that we provide funding for mental health supports for students, resources for educators, counselors, and other school officials as they work with students among others. However, such an amendment needs to be narrowly tailored to achieve that goal and I would oppose this bill as it's overbroad. I yield back.
Tim Walberg
The gentleman yields. Are there any others who wish to speak to the amendment? Seeing none, I recognize myself for five minutes to speak on the amendment brought by the gentlelady from Connecticut. Student safety is paramount, period. That's why H.R. 8747 already requires that funds may only be spent for safe, effective, and responsible use of AI.
That said, there's much to support in this amendment and I would be happy to work with the gentlelady going forward to reach agreement on the language. Unfortunately, I must oppose the amendment because of its unclear implications for FERPA. The rule of construction at the end of the amendment initially ensures that none of the amendment's disclosure requirements would violate FERPA, but then adds an exception for federal and state laws. I'm not sure what the intent of that language is.
Apply FERPA, but then accepting any federal mandatory reporting obligations, which would include reporting obligations under this very amendment, will create confusion. Additionally, this language would allow state mandatory reporting laws to preempt FERPA. As I said before, I'm happy to work with the gentlelady going forward to work out language that adequately protects student safety, but we need the opportunity to vet implications of this amendment on FERPA. Protecting student safety and student privacy is a priority of this committee. So I urge my colleagues to vote no on the amendment at this time, and I yield back.
Are there any other members who wish to speak to the amendment? Seeing none, the question is on the amendment by the gentlelady from Connecticut. 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 the nature of a substitute to H.R. 8747? Seeing none, further action on H.R. 8747 is postponed. We'll now move to consider the next bill. The committee will now proceed to consideration of bill H.R. 8183 for amendment.
Speaker 6
H.R. 8183, a bill to amend the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act to provide for the establishment of talent marketplaces.
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. Owens, for what purpose do you seek recognition?
Speaker 5
Amendment in the nature of a substitute to H.R. 8183, offered by Mr. Owens of Utah, identifier H.R. 8183_ANS_2.
Burgess Owens
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm thrilled to offer the amendment in the nature of a substitute to H.R. 8183, MATCH Act. This bill will help our workforce system keep pace with a rapidly changing economy. Too many Americans have valuable skills they cannot easily articulate, while too many employers struggle to find the talent they need. This bill helps close the gap by supporting modern workforce data systems, talent marketplace, portable skill records, and voluntary job-related skills assessment.
For a veteran, this could mean translating military training and hands-on experience into skills a civilian employer might need. For a student, it could mean a much fuller understanding of what skills they possess and how those skills and others lead to a dynamic career pathway. The ANS makes several changes to the original bill. It converts what was a permanent codification of the Workforce Data Quality Innovation Initiative into a focused five-year pilot program with annual reports to Congress and independent evaluation by the Government Accountability Office. It also strengthens learning and employment records by requiring skills to be supported by verification or real-world experience as voluntary evaluated skills assessment tools, and it reinforces privacy protections by requiring an individual's consent before personal information may be disclosed.
The amendment gives individuals greater control over their information, protects privacy, and helps employers hire based on demonstrated abilities. The current version of the bill was crafted in a spirited partnership, and I'd like to express my thanks to my friend Representative McBath for reaching across the aisle and working in good faith to find common ground on this legislation. Her partnership reflects the bipartisan commitment we share in ensuring that every American has a fair opportunity to demonstrate his or her skills and succeed in the workforce, and that every child has a clear skills pathway to their dream career. MATCH Act is recognizing what people can do and giving them a fair shot at opportunity. I urge my colleagues to support this ANS and the underlying bill, and I yield back.
Tim Walberg
The gentleman yields. Are there any other members who wish to be recognized? The gentlelady from Georgia, Ms. McBath, do you wish to be recognized?
Lucy McBath
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I wish to speak in strong support of the amendment in the nature of the substitute.
You are recognized for five minutes.
Lucy McBath
Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you to my good friend and colleague, Chair of the Higher Education and Workforce Development Subcommittee, Burgess Owens. My staff and I are really proud to have worked with you and your team over these past few months on the MATCH Act, a bill that will ensure workforce data is interoperable and portable between states, explore and evaluate talent marketplaces, and make it simpler for every working adult in our country to get a good job and to keep it. Almost every good job today requires some sort of credential after high school. But even though most Americans will not go to college, our workforce system relies more on four-year traditional universities than it does on programs that working people are more likely to participate in, things like apprenticeships and competencies and other short-term licenses and credentials. Our workforce system has become too reliant on 16- to 24-year-olds making one-time, difficult-to-reverse decisions involving loans that they may never be able to pay back, decisions that are exorbitantly expensive, decisions that students and workers are told to make without knowing all of their options.
Credential registries and talent marketplaces help solve this problem by putting everything together in one place for students, families, workers, and employers. Whether you're a 17-year-old deciding what degree is going to set you up to pay back your loan at UGA or Georgia State, or a 50-year-old with a family that needs to know what short-term programs you can take part in as soon as possible to get back to work, there will be one uniform place that everyone can go see and compare credentials so that they can make the best decision for themselves. Getting a good job and keeping it takes time and effort. It is something that takes constant upkeep. It can't be solved by focusing too heavily on the front end of a person's working career, as we have seen.
Regular people will spend their entire working lives trying to keep up and stay relevant. We need a workforce system that meets people where they are and helps them adapt to the world around them. Talent marketplaces, credential registries, and bipartisan efforts like this make it so there's a single place for people to go to make these decisions instead of having to jump from place to place looking for what classes or jobs might show up on a quick Google search. It shows people exactly where to go to find good employment and helps them get there. No more just hoping that your credential will get you where you want to go.
Now people can see and compare the full universe of options that they have, that they've always had, but they didn't know about them.
As I've said so many times before in this committee, you don't have to go to college to be successful. It certainly helps, though, but there are so many other viable options and pathways to building a successful and fulfilling life for yourself in this country. This bill helps put all of these options together in one single place where people can make the best decision for themselves. I ask for unanimous consent to enter into the record this letter of support for the MATCH Act from Scott Cheney of Credential Engine, who testified before the Higher Education and Workforce Subcommittee hearing on labor and employment records late last year.
Lucy McBath
Thank you. I know that this committee can be contentious. But that does not mean that we can't find ways to work together to make life better for the American people. That is our charge. And my staff and I try to extend the same benefits of the doubt that we hope would be extended to us when working with offices belonging to the opposite party.
And this is what happens when members really listen to each other and not attack one another. I mean actually listen to hear what the other person is saying and working to comprehend what they're saying. Not just itching to come up with the best retort or waiting for a slip to take advantage to prove your point, but really listening to what is being expressed. So Representative Owens, I know that you don't have very many more months here left on this committee, but I want to thank you and I do want to commend you for working with me and my staff. And I encourage all of my colleagues to support this bill.
I hope that we can pass this unanimously through this committee today. And I hope that all members, all of us, would work to make sure that we get this signed into law before the end of this Congress. And I yield.
Tim Walberg
The gentlelady yields. Are there any other members who wish to speak on this amendment in nature of a substitute? I recognize the gentleman from Virginia, the ranking member, Mr. Scott, for purposes of speaking to this amendment in nature of substitute.
Robert Scott
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just very briefly, I just wanted to thank the gentlelady from Georgia, Ms. McBath, and the gentleman from Utah, Mr. Owens, for their work together on this bill. They made significant improvements on the original bill, including converting the bill's grant program into a five-year pilot, adding a substantive program evaluations, standardizing terminology to ensure that systems can work across states and institutions, and adding provisions that will give workers more control over what information is in their learning and employment record and how it's used. I would hope that we'd pass the bill and I yield back.
Tim Walberg
The gentleman yields. There being no further discussion on the amendment in nature of substitute, the committee will move on to consideration of amendments. Are there any members who wish to offer amendments? There being no amendments, the question now occurs on the amendment in the nature of a substitute to H.R. 8183. All in favor say aye.
Aye. All opposed no. In the opinion of the chair, the gentlelady from Georgia, Ms. McBath, has her wish, unanimous, and the amendment in the nature of a substitute is agreed to. We'll now move to consider the next bill. The committee will now proceed to consideration of bill H.R. 9723 for amendment.
Speaker 6
H.R. 9723, a bill to establish the President's Council on Sports, Fitness, and Nutrition and for other purposes.
Speaker 5
Amendment in the nature of a substitute to H.R. 9723 offered by Mr. McKenzie of Pennsylvania, identifier H.R. 9723 ANS_01.
Lewis McKenzie
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Today, I offer an amendment in the nature of a substitute, or ANS, to H.R. 9723, the Fit Future Act. The amendment makes a minor technical edit to the introduced text. America's youth face a growing crisis of declining physical fitness and increasing rates of chronic disease, undermining the health, strength, and future of our nation. A range of factors, including reduced school-based opportunities for physical activity, are pulling kids away from the exercise that they actually need.
Research has affirmed what we have always known is true: that regular physical activity builds stronger bodies, sharper minds, greater confidence, and lifelong resilience. For generations, our leaders have recognized that youth fitness is a cornerstone of national strength. President Eisenhower first created the President's Council on Youth Fitness in 1956, after reports showed that American children were falling behind. President Kennedy later famously warned in an essay titled "The Soft American" that physical vigor was one of our nation's most essential resources, and that neglecting it would actually weaken our ability to meet great challenges. Most recently, our nation has grappled with rising rates of chronic disease, threatening the quality of life of tens of millions of Americans and contributing to the rise of healthcare costs for everyone.
To restore a national focus on youth fitness, H.R. 9723 codifies President Trump's executive order reviving the President's Council on Sports, Fitness, and Nutrition as an advisory body focusing on improving youth physical activity, fitness, and nutrition. The council advises the President and the Secretary of HHS on progress toward improving youth health and recommendations for ways that they can have better outcomes. My bill directs the council to recommend strategies to implement the presidential fitness test, with appropriate improvements, extend opportunities for sports participation and physical fitness, set bold and innovative fitness goals to build a healthier, more active generation, and also launch campaigns and events that highlight American sports traditions. Additionally, to ensure that youth fitness remains a national priority, H.R. 9723 permanently establishes the council. Mr. Chairman, this is common sense and it's a measure that will help build a stronger, healthier, brighter future for millions of American children.
I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 9723, 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 gentleman from Virginia, the ranking member, for purposes of discussion.
Robert Scott
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, H.R. 9723 establishes the President's Council on Fitness, Sports, Fitness, and Nutrition. The bill requires the council to make recommendations related to youth fitness and the importance of an active lifestyle. For decades, versions of the President's Council have been expanded and rebranded through various executive orders since the initial creation of the President's Council on Youth Fitness under President Eisenhower in 1956. Notably, under the Obama administration, the name of the council was changed from the President's Council on Physical Fitness and Sports to the President's Council on Fitness, Sports, and Nutrition, expanding the mission of the council to focus on healthy eating.
The Trump administration's current executive order and the legislation being considered today follow President Obama's lead, maintaining nutrition as a focus of the council. We all agree that lack of physical exercise leads to and exacerbates health disparities that are well-documented, including heart disease, depression, and obesity. Given the benefits of increased access to recreational sports and physical activities, it is critical that we ensure consideration for all children, including those with differing abilities and disabilities. So amendments offered by my Democratic colleagues today will further ensure that students of all abilities are considered by the council, and I welcome those improvements to the bill. So I'll support the bill and I yield back the balance of my time.
Tim Walberg
The gentleman yields. Are there any others who wish to speak to this amendment in the nature of a substitute? Does the gentleman from California, Mr. Kiley, wish to be recognized?
Yes, Mr. Chair.
Speaker 28
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm very happy to support the Fit Future Act today. I think this is very important legislation on an issue that hasn't quite got, I think, enough attention, which is putting our young people on a track for, on a path to healthy lives. I think we've seen a diminishing emphasis on things like fitness and truly meaningful physical education and encouraging young people to be involved in youth sports and other forms of recreation. It's become even more of an issue as we've seen the amount of screen time that is spent by young people absolutely skyrocket.
And so I think this is very solid legislation that will help to reverse that trajectory. And it's really almost impossible to overstate the benefits that would accrue to young people, to our healthcare system, to our country if we could establish these habits early in life. And this bill will encourage that in a number of ways. I'd also note that we've been looking in our subcommittee now at a couple hearings on the issues of affordability in connection with youth sports across the country. And so I think that another piece of the equation here is assuring that we can make access to youth sports affordable for all families and broaden participation as much as possible.
But I think this is a very good piece of legislation. Thank my colleague from Pennsylvania for introducing it, and I'll be happy to support it today.
Tim Walberg
The gentleman yields. Are there any others who wish to speak 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 would like to offer amendments? I recognize the gentlelady from Georgia, Ms. McBath, for purpose of an amendment.
Speaker 5
Amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute to H.R. 9723 offered by Ms. McBath of Georgia, identifier MCBATH_9723AMD_03.
I reserve a point of order.
Speaker 47
Point of order is reserved. I now recognize the gentlelady from Georgia for five minutes in support of her amendment.
Lucy McBath
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm really proud to offer this bipartisan amendment to help ensure that every child, regardless of how much money their parents make, can afford to play the sports that they all love. Ozzie Smith, Hall of Fame shortstop and 13-time winner of Major League Baseball's Gold Glove Award, he learned to play as a child, but he used a paper bag instead of a baseball mitt. That's all that they could afford. He did that because his family just couldn't afford to buy him a baseball mitt.
And while that story is a testament to his commitment, that isn't something that any child should have to go through just to take part in America's favorite pastime, as they say, just play baseball. Before I came to Congress, I was a single mother working as a flight attendant, and during the Great Recession, I wasn't fired, but I took a pretty hefty pay cut. It was about $10,000 a year, and ouch, that really hurt. I remember worrying about being able to make ends meet. I had to pull my son Jordan out of baseball in the fall and swimming in the summer just because I couldn't afford all of those activities anymore.
So instead, he and I would every Monday night for about five years, we would go to the local skating rink, Sparkles. And I'd take him and his friends, and I was known as the skate mom. I picked up all the boys in the neighborhood. I was a single mom, but you would have thought I had about five or six kids because they were always in the SUV with me. And these were our homeschool kids, our homeschool group, and we would all go to Sparkles roller skating rink because it was a dollar to get in, it was a dollar for your skates, and it was a dollar for Coca-Cola and a dollar for pizza.
So they were cheap dates for me. So when families have to make tough decisions about their budgets, sports and other activities like music lessons, those are usually the first to go. Kids are often the first to feel the squeeze. And that's just simply wrong. Kids should be able to play the sports that they love without having to worry about their parents' finances, without having to worry about something that they are forced to deal with but have absolutely no control over.
This amendment would direct the Council to develop strategies to assist families with the rising costs by expanding access to recreational sport and athletic opportunities offered by nonprofit organizations like the YMCA or the Boys and Girls Clubs of America and so many other youth leagues that are run by Jewish community centers and churches and church groups all around the country. So I think we really need to emphasize making sure that our children are allowed to just be kids. Just let them be kids. Let them do what they love to do. And so I hope everyone would be in acceptance of this amendment, and I yield back.
Tim Walberg
The gentlelady yields. Does the gentleman from Indiana wish to withdraw?
I withdraw my reservation.
Tim Walberg
The reservation is withdrawn. Does anyone else seek recognition on the amendment? Recognize the gentleman from Virginia, the ranking member, Mr. Scott.
You're recognized for five minutes.
Robert Scott
And just to follow up with the gentleman from California, we know from our recent hearings that the involvement of private equity in youth sports has only added to the expenses associated with youth sports as these entities prioritize profits over participation. As a result, families are left with fewer affordability options for their children to participate in sports. And so we believe that supporting increased access to recreational sports programs and other physical activities run by nonprofits for all children should be a priority. So I urge my colleagues to join in supporting the amendment and yield back the balance of my time.
Tim Walberg
Gentleman yields. Are there any others who wish to speak on the amendment? Recognize myself, we will be accepting this amendment. The question is on the amendment by the gentlelady from Georgia, Ms. McBath. All in favor say aye.
Aye. All opposed, no. In the opinion of the chair, the gentlelady from Georgia gets another unanimous vote and the amendment is agreed to. Further action on... I apologize, I was basking in the sweet success of unity.
Does anyone else have an amendment to offer? The gentlelady from Connecticut, do you wish to offer an amendment? The clerk will report the amendment.
Speaker 5
Amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute to H.R. 9723, offered by Ms. Hayes of Connecticut, identifier HAYES_HAYESCT_072.
Tim Walberg
Does the gentleman from Utah wish to reserve a point of order? Point of order is reserved. I now recognize the gentlelady from Connecticut, Ms. Hayes, for five minutes in support of her amendment.
Jahana Hayes
Thank you. The Fit Future Act establishes the Council on Sports, Fitness, and Nutrition. This council is directed to make recommendations on reducing childhood obesity, improving nutrition, and promoting healthy lifestyles. There are important... these are all important goals that I fully support. However, there's a fundamental contradiction at the heart of this legislation that is being overlooked.
You cannot ask a hungry child to be fit. Currently, more than 4 million Americans face the risk of hunger and over 700,000 children have already lost access to federal food assistance. This situation directly results from H.R. 1, legislation that was passed and celebrated by my Republican colleagues. In Connecticut, since July 2025, more than 32,000 people have lost SNAP benefits, and it's projected that 58,000 additional Connecticut families will lose an average of $194 in benefits each month. For millions of children in this country, proper nutrition depends entirely on whether their families can afford food.
The National School Lunch Program, the School Breakfast Program, WIC, SNAP, and other federal nutrition programs form the foundation for any serious conversation about childhood nutrition. My amendment requires the council to make recommendations, recommendations on strategies to address food insecurity as a barrier to physical fitness and healthy nutrition. It also suggests ways in which federal nutrition programs can support these goals.
If my colleagues are genuinely serious about improving the health and nutrition of children in America, they will accept this amendment. I cannot understand how we can create a council promoting nutrition while simultaneously undermining the programs that keep children fed. Mr. Chair, you can continue the sweet success of unity by supporting my amendment. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment and I yield back.
Tim Walberg
Gentlelady yields. Are there any other members who wish to speak on this amendment? I recognize the gentleman from Virginia, the ranking member, for purposes of speaking to the amendment.
Robert Scott
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, we very well know that healthy nutrition and physical activity work in tandem and both are key to improving lifelong health. And since the big ugly bill was signed into law last year, there's been a drastic decline in the number of children receiving SNAP benefits, with more than 700,000 children no longer participating in the program. Taking away access to federal nutrition assistance programs, including free and reduced-price meals, is antithetical to our goals today of getting more children involved in recreational sports and physical activity. And that's why I support this amendment that would require the council to make recommendations on how federal nutrition programs, such as SNAP, supplemental nutrition program for women, infants, and children, that's WIC, and the school meal program, can work in tandem to improving physical fitness and childhood obesity.
So I urge my colleagues to support the amendment and yield back the balance of my time.
Tim Walberg
The gentleman yields. Are there any others who wish to speak on the amendment? Seeing none, I recognize myself. This amendment asks the council to take on food insecurity policy and coordinate major federal nutrition assistance programs. These responsibilities are well outside the scope and congressional intent of the Fitness Council.
The council was established to provide recommendations on sports, physical fitness, and nutrition in the context of promoting active and healthy lifestyles, not address food insecurities and inequalities. In fact, this amendment proposes to utilize the Fitness Council to duplicate efforts of existing programs that the Congress created to help address these issues. The very nutrition program this amendment wishes to analyze, SNAP, WIC, school meals, are already focused on helping communities with limited access to food. Furthermore, not all the nutrition programs cited here are within the committee's jurisdiction. Let's not put too many cooks in the kitchen, so to speak.
For this reason, I oppose the amendment and I yield back. The question is now on the amendment by the gentlelady from Connecticut. All in favor say aye. All opposed no. In the opinion of the chair, the amendment is not agreed to.
A roll call vote is ordered. Pursuant to the chair's previous announcement, this vote will be postponed. Are there any further amendments to the amendment in the nature of a substitute to H.R. 9723? I recognize the gentleman from New York, Mr. Mannion, for purposes of amendment.
Speaker 5
Amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute to H.R. 9723, offered by Mr. Mannion of New York, identifier MANNION_9723AMD_01.
Tim Walberg
Does the gentleman from Utah reserve a point of order? A point of order is reserved. I now recognize the gentleman from New York, Mr. Mannion, for five minutes in support of the amendment.
John Mannion
Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you to my colleague from Pennsylvania for bringing this bill through the committee.
I have an amendment that I believe makes sense to some important and includes some important additions to this bill to ensure that all kids, regardless of ability, can lead healthier and more active lifestyles. In this committee, we've talked before about the important physical, mental, and social benefits of youth sports participation. I want to thank my colleagues today for continuing that bipartisan dialogue. The bill we're discussing establishes a federal advisory council focused on school-based programs that improve physical fitness and address issues like childhood obesity and chronic disease. Those are important goals that I share.
My amendment simply builds on this legislation by adding recommendations to address barriers to participation so that many kids that face challenges, including children with disabilities, can meet these recommendations. We know that the lack of access to sports and fitness at a young age can lead to lifelong habits. According to the CDC, nearly half of all adults with disabilities get no leisure-time aerobic physical activity. For this reason, my amendment would require the council to make recommendations related to adaptive physical fitness, ensuring that exercises and activities are accessible and that kids with disabilities can participate. It also includes the promotion of recreational sports, which are not only healthy but are often a formative part of a child's upbringing.
In some communities, however, recreational sports programs have been crowded out or have struggled with gaining local funding, so protecting and promoting these should be the focus of this council. Lastly, my amendment recommends that we encourage participation in a wide range of sports activities, guarding against the sedentary lifestyles or excessive early specialization that research says is harmful in the development of our youth. I kindly urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this amendment, and I yield back.
The gentleman yields. Are there... does the gentleman from Utah withdraw his point of order?
Withdraw.
John Mannion
Withdraws his point of order. Are there any other members who wish to speak on the amendment? I recognize the gentleman from Virginia, the ranking member, Mr. Scott, to speak on the amendment.
Tim Walberg
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As my colleague mentioned, the amendment includes a requirement that the council recommend strategies to increase access to recreational sports and other physical activities for all children, including those who have barriers to access and youth with disabilities. It's imperative that we consider opportunities for our youth that are inclusive and adaptive to meet the varying needs of our students. This specifically includes kids with disabilities. Overall, this amendment makes an important improvement to the legislation by adding focus for children who face barriers to sports, be they financial, physical, or otherwise.
So I support the amendment and yield back the balance of my time.
The gentleman yields. Are there any other members who wish to speak on the amendment? Seeing none, I recognize myself to note that we plan to accept this amendment. The question is now on the amendment by the gentleman from New York, Mr. Manyon. All in favor say aye.
Aye. All opposed, no. In the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it, and the amendment is agreed to. Are there any further amendments to the amendment in the nature of substitute to H.R. 9723? Seeing none, further action on H.R. 9723 is postponed.
We'll now move to consider the next bill. The committee will now proceed to consideration of bill H.R. 8660 for amendment. The bill was circulated in advance and printed copies are available.
Speaker 53
HR 8660, a bill to amend the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 to protect worker access to employer equity and for other purposes.
I have an amendment at the desk.
Speaker 52
Amendment in the nature of a substitute to HR 8660 offered by Mr. McKenzie of Pennsylvania, identifier 8660 ANS_01.
Lewis McKenzie
Thank you Mr. Chairman, since 2000 hourly employees have benefited from the provisions of the Worker Economic Opportunity Act, WEOA, which exempts the value of employer provided stock options, stock appreciation rights, or bona fide employee stock purchase programs from employees' regular rate of pay. This means that Congress unanimously concluded that hourly employees who are considered non-exempt under the Fair Labor Standards Act or FLSA should be eligible for the same equity compensation as their exempt counterparts and employees should be able to exempt such equity compensation from the employee's regular rate of pay. Otherwise, the incentive for employers to provide this benefit is minimal and comes with significantly increased overtime costs. Unfortunately, there is uncertainty regarding the application of WEOA to restricted stock units or RSUs. These are a modern form of equity compensation arrangements in which employees receive company stock upon meeting certain tenure or performance requirements.
Current law is unclear about the treatment of these modern equity compensation arrangements when calculating an employee's overtime and many employers choose not to offer them to their non-exempt workers because of this lack of clarity. HR 8660 clears up that confusion, expands workers' access to this important benefit and aligns it with current compensation practices. A federal judge in California recently explained this perfectly during litigation in a related case. Judge William Orrick, appointed by President Obama, wrote that "it is hard to imagine that Congress would exclude stock options from FLSA overtime rate calculation but would choose not to exclude RSUs, which are almost identical in purpose, form and function." The amendment in the nature of a substitute makes a technical change and adds clarifying language from WEOA, I urge the adoption of the amendment and ultimately the underlying bill and with that I yield back.
Robert Scott
Thank you Mr. Chairman, Mr. Chairman under current law employers must pay their non-exempt workers time and a half overtime premium for working more than 40 hours in a work week.
That's not just one-and-a-half times their hourly wage, it's one-and-a-half times their what's called regular rate of pay, which includes some non-wage compensation. The bill would amend the Fair Labor Standards Act to remove the value of restricted stock units, RSUs, from the regular rate of pay calculation. As I mentioned in my opening statement, RSUs are a company's promise to issue stock to an employee in a future, in the future after the employee satisfies the requirement to stay with the company for a specified period. When overtime was originally established in the FLSA, the overriding purpose of overtime provisions was not to reward excessive work, but instead to discourage employers from demanding it. Any bill that exempts forms of compensation from the regular rate of pay chips away at the disincentive that makes a 40-hour workweek the rule rather than the exception.
The bill's proponents say that RSUs should be excluded from the overtime calculation because stock options and two other stock programs are already excluded from the FLSA's regular rate of pay, but RSUs are different from the other programs. For example, unlike stock options, employees do not purchase RSUs or pay a price when exercising them. RSUs function as a future promise that materializes or what's called vests if the employee meets a continued service requirement. Republican, Committee Republicans have failed to hold a hearing focusing on this bill and demonstrating any policy rationale for it, and at least the last time I checked, the bill had zero cosponsors. Unfortunately, Committee Republicans continue to think that bills like this are worth pursuing.
But earlier this year, Committee Republicans advanced legislation that would exclude certain job training programs from the regular rate of pay. Fortunately, the bill was defeated on the House floor in January. Committee Republicans also advanced legislation that would exclude child or dependent care services from the regular rate of pay under the guise of incentivizing more employers to offer child or dependent care services, but fortunately, the House Republican leadership pulled it off the floor when it was obvious it wasn't going to pass. This bill follows the same pattern and it should be similarly rejected. Mr. Chairman, I hope we defeat the bill and I yield back the balance of my time.
Tim Walberg
The gentleman yields. Are there any further members who wish to speak on the amendment? There being no further discussion on the amendment in the nature of substitute, the committee will move to consideration of amendments. Are there any members who wish to offer amendments? There being no amendments, the question now occurs on the amendment in the nature of a substitute to H.R. 8660.
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 substitute is agreed to.
Speaker 53
H.R. 8347, a bill to classify qualified locum tenens professionals and advanced care practitioners as independent contractors for the purposes of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1939 and the National Labor Relations Act.
Speaker 52
Amendment in the nature of a substitute to H.R. 8347, offered by Mr. Owens of Utah, identifier 8347ANS_01.
Burgess Owens
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Locum tenens, Latin for placeholder, refers to arrangements in which medical providers temporarily fill critical workforce gaps at hospitals and health systems around the country. These workers choose to operate as independent contractors, much like millions of other self-employed American workers. While independent work varies greatly across many more than 100 occupations, what all independent workers have in common is that their classification is constantly in question due to a vague definition of employee in the Fair Labor Standards Act. Last week, the Workforce Protection Subcommittee heard directly from expert witnesses on locum tenens.
We heard from an expert in Utah's healthcare industry who works to place locum tenens medical providers in health facilities to fill critical workforce gaps that occur more frequently than we would like to see. The reality is that physicians, nurse practitioners, and other medical providers offer our communities a critical service, but burnout in healthcare is a serious issue. These are stressful workplaces, so personnel need to have an ability to step away, spend time with family, and recharge. When that happens, the need for healthcare services does not disappear or decrease. We need temporary locum tenens clinicians to hold the place of full-time medical providers as needed to allow hospitals and health systems to continue treating patients and delivering high-quality care, particularly in rural and underserved communities.
Importantly, studies show little difference in patient satisfaction or health outcomes whether patients see a full-time provider or a locum tenens clinician. Frequently, the choice is not between locum tenens providers and a full-time provider, but rather between locum tenens provider and no provider at all. Unfortunately, the lack of clarity in FLSA makes it more difficult to work as locum tenens provider. H.R. 8347, the Reinforcing Underserved, Rural, and Local Healthcare Act, is a logical solution. The bill simply defines locum tenens medical providers as independent contractors under FLSA and prevents them from being reclassified as employees.
Upwards to 80% of independent contractors prefer their current status, and well over 90% of locum tenens medical providers have access to benefits. This bill is pro-worker, pro-patient, and supports healthier communities. The amendment in nature of substitute makes a technical change to the bill. I urge support for the amendment and the underlying bill, 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 substitute? The gentleman from New York, Mr. Mannion, you wish to be recognized.
John Mannion
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I move to strike the last word. This is yet another bill that concerns me related to weakening essential labor laws by carving out certain types of workers. This time, it's locum tenens providers, including physicians, nurse practitioners, PAs, and CRNAs who are contracted to work in temporary staffing arrangements. This is not solving any real widespread problem, nor is it solving any of the rural health crises that the other side has created over the last year.
Most of the time providers in these temporary staffing arrangements are independent contractors anyway. So what this bill really does is remove any labor protections and collective bargaining rights from these providers when their employers violate the contractual relationship and are in fact treating them as employees. In cases like this, the providers can depend on our existing labor framework to provide them with a legal recourse. Arbitrarily carving them out from these laws is unnecessary and certainly does nothing to support rural health. If anything, it just fills our hospitals and clinics with more temporary staff rather than full-time providers with a real attachment to their place of work and the community.
I urge my colleagues to oppose this bill, and I yield back.
The gentleman yields. Are there any others who wish to be recognized on this amendment? The gentleman from Virginia, the ranking member, Mr. Scott, you're recognized for five minutes.
Speaker 41
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Although the bill is titled Rural Healthcare Act, the bill will not actually improve access to healthcare in rural communities. The bill simply allows employers to misclassify healthcare workers as independent contractors and effectively strip them of their rights and protections under our labor and employment laws, such as access to overtime pay, unemployment insurance, workers' compensation, and the right to collective bargaining. Those benefits go to employees. Once they're misclassified as independent contractors, they lose access to overtime, unemployment insurance if they lose their job, workers' compensation, and the right to collective bargaining.
And they don't agree to lose those benefits. They agree to get the job, and if the job doesn't, if they say they have to be an independent contractor to get the job, they want the job, they have to forego the benefits. This reach covers any temporary assignment of a doctor, nurse practitioner, physician associate, physician assistant anywhere in the United States. But then it defines the position as a temporary position, counting temporary as continuous up to a year at one place. As a result, it could shield a healthcare business in New York or Boston or telehealth provider anywhere in the United States from accountability for misclassifying medical professionals as independent contractors.
It would allow big healthcare conglomerates to reduce some of the highest paying jobs into perms. For example, although the bill limits its coverage to placements of less than a continuous year at a single site of service, keep in mind that there are very large healthcare networks with multiple sites. Large healthcare networks could as a result create permanent staffing lines occupied exclusively by independent contractors, provided only that a staffer be shuttled around at least once a year. In fact, some may actually form out their human resources office and make everybody a temporary employee. All you got to do is change the site once a year or lay them off for a few days once a year to end the continuous service.
And they could be working side by side of people working exactly the same job, except those working the same job get benefits, these independent contractors lose all of those benefits. Additionally, the bill could allow these large powerful businesses to undermine organizing and collective bargaining efforts.
Robert Scott
If you're an independent contractor, you do not have the right to join a union. The nation's labor laws do not apply to independent contractors. Enabled by this bill to set aside any number of staffing positions for any period of time for any reason just by calling them independent contractors. In that case, the large healthcare businesses could effectively be able to divide and conquer an organizing effort effort by pushing many positions outside of the reach of the labor law. Ultimately, this bill is a distraction from the very real healthcare crisis in rural communities, which are reeling from the aftermath of the Republican big ugly bill attack on the Affordable Care Act and Medicaid coverage and professional education, which which will jeopardize the financial viability of many hospitals and clinics in rural areas.
Meanwhile, by giving healthcare businesses the power to erode job quality, the bill could also erode quality of healthcare itself. Experience of nurses placed through gig platforms is instructive. Some of these gig nurses report being given no orientations, leaving them in the dark about such essential facts as where supply closets are located, how to access patient information, or whom to contact in the chain of command. Patients deserve better, rural communities deserve better, and the nation's healthcare professionals certainly deserve better. I urge my colleagues to oppose the bill and yield back the balance of my time.
Tim Walberg
The gentleman yields. Are there any any other members who wish to speak on the amendment in the nature of a substitute? Seeing none, there be 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 HR 8347.
We'll now move to consider the next bill. The committee will now proceed to consideration of bill HR 6213 for amendment. The bill was circulated in advance and printed copies are available. The clerk shall designate the bill.
Speaker 53
HR 6213, a bill to prohibit the Secretary of Labor from finalizing, implementing, or enforcing a proposed standard with respect to heat injury and illness prevention.
I have an amendment at the desk.
Tim Walberg
The clerk shall designate the amendment in the nature of a substitute.
Speaker 52
Amendment in the nature of a substitute to HR 6213 offered by Mr. Messmer of Indiana, identifier heat_safety_ANS.
Mark Messmer
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. At the end of the Biden-Harris administration, OSHA proposed a terrible rule to establish an all-encompassing federal heat injury prevention regulation. The misguided intention was to create a one-size-fits-all framework for all workers and all businesses across all 50 states for those performing work in outdoor and indoor environments where heat fluctuates.
The Biden-Harris suggested rule must be stopped before it causes significant harm to American businesses without any evidence that it will create one iota of improvement for existing workplace safety efforts. It's not fair to propose a one-size-fits-all federal mandate that applies to very disparate industries, climates, and workplace environments. A construction company in South Florida should not face the same requirements as a manufacturer in Indiana or a landscaping business in Michigan because they all operate under very different conditions. The Biden-Harris administration's proposal also ignores the collaboration already going on between workers and businesses to address any workplace challenges. The number one focus for any responsible employer is the safety of their most important resource, which of course is their workforce.
Responsible employers already take heat-related safety very seriously, and for any business which does not do so, states already have strict regulations in place to deal with those bad actors. OSHA already has a general duty clause which requires employers to protect workers in heat situations with needed flexibility for climate, setting, industry, and other circumstances. More than 50 organizations representing millions of small businesses across the nation have voiced their concern over this destructive proposed rule. Support of H.R. 6213 sends a clear message that the Biden-Harris proposal is a bad approach to a problem that doesn't need solving. The amendment in the nature of a substitute makes a technical change to the bill, and I urge the committee to adopt it and approve the underlying bill.
And I yield back.
Speaker 65
The 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 New York, Mr. Mannion, is recognized for five minutes.
John Mannion
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I move to strike the last word. In the middle of this summer, just after a dangerous heat wave earlier this month, the committee is now marking up legislation that actively makes workers less safe on the job while exposed to extreme heat. Specifically, this bill prevents OSHA from finalizing, implementing, or enforcing a proposed standard with respect to heat injury and illness prevention. And not only does it object to the basic protections proposed under the previous administration, but it also prevents any similar rule from taking effect in the future.
Let's be clear on exactly what we're talking about here and what the majority objects to. Simply, that employers have a plan in place to protect workers from excessive heat, and that includes things like drinking water, rest breaks in the shade, and fans to control indoor heat. Basic standards around occupational heat exposure are just a common-sense measure to keep workers safe. This is critical for construction, agriculture, and other industries where workers are spending significant time outside or around heavy heat-generating machinery. Instead of advancing this bill, we should have approached this in a bipartisan way and talked through any concerns with the heat standard.
When it comes to any OSHA standard, I too want to make sure that it's workable for businesses to understand and to follow. But throwing out the entire standard altogether is wrong and puts people at continued risk. I oppose the bill and urge my colleagues to do the same, and I yield back.
Robert Scott
According to the Washington Post, for every low temperature record set this year, there've been around 19 high temperature records. Exposure to heat stress in the United States has increased 21% since the 1940s, according to one new study. And the same study found that if global warming reaches 2 degrees Celsius above the 20th century levels, exposures could increase 273%. As always, if everyone is suffering in the heat, workers feel the brunt of it. And people are dying every year because of heat stress, and there are thousands more who are injured or made ill because of occupational heat stress.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. All over the United States, we've had one record-breaking high temperature after another.
This is nothing new. People have recorded the dangers of heat stress going back to ancient Greece and the Old Testament. For centuries, people have realized that there are simple steps to prevent heat illness: rest, water, shade, taking care to gradually get used to the heat conditions. And this bill would make requiring these simple life-saving steps impossible. The American military has taken the threat so seriously that it has invested for decades in research and policies to protect our troops.
The Biden administration stepped up in 2024 with a proposed OSHA rule so that we can apply these simple measures for workers at risk. This Republican bill, however, would take us backwards. Instead of allowing OSHA to complete work on the Biden proposal, this bill would flatly forbid OSHA from getting the job done. Worst, it would prohibit OSHA from ever developing a workplace heat rule that looks anything like the Biden proposal in the future. And we can do better than that.
We can't just sit back and ignore the risks, especially when they are so easy to address. So I urge my colleagues to oppose the bill and yield back the balance of my time.
Tim Walberg
The gentleman yields. Are there any other members who wish to be recognized for discussion? Seeing none, there being no further discussion on the amendment in the nature of substitute, the committee will move to consideration of amendments. Are there any members who would like to offer amendments?
Mr. Chairman.
Tim Walberg
I recognize the gentlelady from North Carolina, Ms. Adams, for purposes of amendment.
I have an amendment, 6213 ADAM. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Speaker 52
Amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute to H.R. 6213 offered by Ms. Adams of North Carolina, identifier ADAMS_ADAMNC_612.
I reserve a point of order.
Tim Walberg
Point of order is reserved. I now recognize the gentlelady from North Carolina, Ms. Adams, for five minutes in support of her amendment.
Alma Adams
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let me start by saying that this bill, the Heat Workforce Standards Act, is cruel and it's deadly. Every year, tens of thousands of workers experience heat-related injuries in the U.S. And every year, there are around 50 confirmed heat-related deaths in American workplaces. And that's almost certainly an underestimate.
When a worker dies on the job, their health, their death certificate lists the immediate cause of death. Well, maybe it's kidney failure or maybe it's cardiac arrest, but these conditions are too often brought on by heat stress. Mr. Chairman, I'd like to submit for the record a report from Public Citizen entitled Boiling Point, which estimates that between 600 and 2,000 workers die from heat-related illness in the U.S. every year.
Alma Adams
Thank you. Whether it's 50 deaths a year or 600 or 2,000, all of these deaths are preventable. They are policy choices. My colleagues on the other side of the aisle are condemning working Americans to death so that big corporations can save a few dollars. Working Americans like Wendy Johnson.
She was a postal supervisor from Fayetteville, North Carolina, who lost her life to heat illness in 2024 after spending hours in the back of a postal truck on a 95-degree day without air conditioning. She was a mother of five, a grandmother of four, and a dedicated public servant, and now she's gone. If we had a heat safety standard, she would still be here today. She could give advice to her children and spoil her grandchildren. And if this bill is passed, it will leave more dead mothers, grandmothers, fathers, and grandfathers in its wake.
By supporting this bill, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are reminding the American people of who they stand for. They'll do whatever they can to save big business a few dollars, even if that means sacrificing workers' lives. Frankly, that's pretty sickening. At a time when every summer seems hotter than the last, my colleagues are telling working Americans that they don't even deserve a cool glass of water. As everyone in this room knows, it's a hot week in Washington, and it was last week as well.
I encourage everyone in this room, go outside and stack boxes on Independence Avenue for a few hours without water and without shade, and come back after you're done and tell me how you feel about the heat standard. My amendment is simple. It would replace the text of this cruel and senseless bill with the text of the Asuncion Valdivia Heat Illness, Injury, and Fatality Prevention Act. My amendment would direct OSHA to continue its work on a heat safety standard and would establish common-sense requirements on what the standard should contain. For example, employers must provide workers with cool water, periodic rest breaks, and access to shade.
Is that so radical? And we know these policies work. California implemented heat standards in 2005 and expanded its standard to include indoor workplaces in 2024. After implementing its standard, heat-related work injuries declined by 30 percent, and businesses still thrive in California. The research is clear.
We know heat standards save lives, and we know that heat illness reduces economic productivity. My amendment supports workers, it supports the economy, and supports any American who values the sanctity of human life over corporate profit. I encourage all of my colleagues to oppose the underlying bill and support my amendment like their constituents' lives depended on it, because they do. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
I withdraw.
Speaker 64
The point of order is withdrawn. Does anyone else seek recognition on the amendment? For what purpose does the gentleman from Texas seek recognition?
You're recognized for five minutes.
Speaker 63
We're here in the Education and Labor Committee where House Republicans are voting to try to kill protections for Americans who are working in extreme heat. And I think we need to clearly lay out what we're trying to talk about. The rules that we've been advocating to get put in place are if it's 90 or 100 degrees out, workers should have a right to get a little bit of water or sit in the shade every once in a while. And I'll admit, it's strange to be talking about getting rid of those baseline protections here in Congress, where hundreds of us being paid six figures to work inside feel the need to kill these kinds of basic worker protections.
But I want to ask Mr. Messmer, the author of the bill, questions if he wants me to yield him some time. Because, for example, when we recently had a hearing on this question, one of the Republican witnesses, Jack Parson from the National Association of Manufacturers, said he would not oppose rules like making sure workers could get water and a break when they're working in 90-plus degree heat. And so I'm interested to hear from the sponsor of this bill that would block those sorts of rules, whether the sponsor would agree that we should require that workers get some water and a break if it's 90 degrees or 100 degrees outside. Mr. Messmer.
Speaker 61
The general duty clause, in your view, requires regular water breaks in 90-degree and 100-degree heat?
Mark Messmer
With flexibility for the employers on how they do it, not strictly mandated standards that apply across all industry sectors and all 50 states.
Speaker 63
My question, Mr. Messmer, is: is there reason for there to be any OSHA rules then, if you think the general duty clause just applies clearly to everything?
Speaker 63
I think my question, sir, is you recently said in your testimony, and I understand, you know, that we may have disagreements on different sides of the aisle, but you laid out that you think that this is a trend to address a problem that doesn't exist. But Colin Bondy, American citizen, died while working in 95-degree heat in Glendale last year. Leonard Purser died working in 106-degree heat in Phoenix last year. Danny Lasco, an 18-year-old construction worker, died working in 104-degree heat near my district in Austin recently. Don't you think that this is a real problem, that so many workers are dying from heat, and isn't there a problem if employers don't give workers a chance to take a water break?
Speaker 63
And so what you're laying out here is that you think that because you think that this is already against the law, so, sir, could you lay out why you think we should pass a bill then to block these rules that make it specific and clear that at 90 degrees workers need a water break? Why, if you think this is already against the law, are we passing an entire law in the United States Congress to try to get rid of these water break protections?
Mark Messmer
It doesn't prohibit OSHA from adopting rules in the future, but it has to be done with congressional authority.
Speaker 63
Well, that congressional authority has been passed through the OSHA Act. Your bill actually says that it stops OSHA from putting out a quote, substantially similar rule without defining what that means. It seems to me that this bill... It also says without congressional authority. So what you are doing essentially, just to lay out here clearly, is that the executive branch is moving forward a rule to make it illegal, against the rules, to say a worker has to stay up on a scaffold all day.
You could put forward a bill to clearly say that that's not allowed, but instead what we're doing is just wiping out the executive's authority to protect workers. Mr. Messmer, I respect your ability to bring forward this bill. I see all of the large lobbying industry associations trying to wipe out these heat protections for decades. For decades, workers have been asking for protection from heat and the sun, and to me it's just so sad to see here in Congress, where we get to work indoors, get paid a fat salary, us prioritizing wiping out those heat protections basically because industry lobbies are asking for it.
I yield back.
Tim Walberg
The gentleman's time has expired. A vote has been called in the House pursuant to previous order. The chair declares committee in recess subject to call of the chair. We'll plan to plan specifically to reconvene promptly 10 minutes after the last vote has been called, has been called, not finished, but has been called in the series. The committee now stands in recess.
Does anyone else want to speak on the amendment, the Adams amendment? I recognize the gentleman, the ranking member from Virginia, Mr. Scott, for five minutes.
Robert Scott
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentlelady from North Carolina, Ms. Adams, for this amendment because it protects workers from excessive heat with sensible measures like ensuring breaks in cool spaces and access to water. There's nothing radical about offering a little rest, shade, and water to workers when it gets hot. If this amendment passes, they'll be protected, and I'd urge my colleagues to support the amendment and yield back the balance of my time.
Tim Walberg
Gentleman yields. Are there any other members who wish to speak on the Adams amendment? Seeing none, then the question is on the amendment by the gentlelady from North Carolina. All in favor say aye. All opposed no.
In the opinion of the chair, the noes have it.
Tim Walberg
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 H.R. 6213? Seeing none, further action on H.R. 6213 is postponed. We'll now move to consider the next bill.
The committee will now proceed to consideration of bill H.R. 5267 for amendment, the American Franchise Act. The bill was circulated in advance and printed copies are available. The clerk shall designate the bill.
H.R. 5267, a bill to preserve the franchise business model. Amendment in the nature of a substitute to H.R. 5267 offered by Mr. Moylan of Guam, identifier H.R. 5267_ANS.
James Moylan
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Over the last decade, the National Labor Relations Board, NLRB's joint employer rule has changed four times and the Department of Labor's standard has been revisited three times. The Biden-Harris NLRB rule considered a business to be a joint employer if it shares or co-determines the employee's essential terms and conditions of employment, even when that power was indirect or reserved. By creating a liability for entities with indirect or reserved control of another entity's employees, the 2023 rule raised costs for franchisors. This means thousands of franchisors share legal liability for the actions of people they do not actually supervise or even see on a regular daily basis.
It means that franchisees, many of whom are first-time business owners, get less support from their franchisors because more support might mean more liability. And it means that fewer Americans get to own their own business and be their own boss. Basically, the American dream becomes harder to obtain. While the 2023 rule harmed businesses across the country, we are here today to discuss its impacts on the franchise industry specifically. Franchises are critical to our economy and the franchise model is an engine of upward mobility for many Americans who would not be able to own their own businesses outside the franchise model.
We must protect this industry and its workers from massive pendulum swings of joint employment standards. The American Franchise Act provides that clarity and stability. This is why I'm proud to support H.R. 5267, the American Franchise Act. This bipartisan bill amends the National Labor Relations Act and Fair Labor Standards Act to establish that a franchisor may only be considered a joint employer with a franchisee if it shares the employees with them and directly, actually, and immediately exercises significant control over the essential terms and conditions of employment for those shared employees. This direct and immediate control standard is a standard that the Trump administration and administrations of both parties both have traditionally used.
I thank Representative Hern for his leadership on this important bill, and I urge adoption of the amendment in the nature of a substitute, which makes a technical change to the bill. I yield back.
Robert Scott
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, the American Franchise Act seeks to radically rewrite the long-standing law by narrowing the standard for finding joint employment liability for franchisors. This bill would severely curtail workers' ability to enforce their rights under the Fair Labor Standards Act, or the FLSA, and the National Labor Relations Act, the NLRA, and frustrate the ability of workers' unions to bargain with all of the companies that control their working conditions in the franchise industry. The bill also harms small business franchise owners by leaving the franchisees liable for unlawful practices and procedures that are outside of their control and set by the large corporate franchisors. The bill would limit the finding of joint employment liability to a franchisor's direct and immediate control over the franchisee's workers' working conditions, such as pay, hiring, firing, and scheduling.
While this extremely narrow standard is problematic enough, the bill goes a step further and also creating explicit safe harbors in which certain actions that could normally be considered direct and immediate control are explicitly carved out from being indicators of joint employment. It's common practice for franchisors to indirectly set the working conditions for the franchisee's workers, even if they do not directly supervise the workers themselves. These commonly take the form of operational requirements, franchise agreements, and brand standards. While these sorts of agreements may not reflect "direct and immediate control" over the franchisee's workers, they do allow a franchisor to set up operating hours and scheduling practices, mandate staffing levels, require specific payroll software, and provide detailed rules and restrictions on how work must be performed under the franchise agreement. It stands to reason that this level of control and supervision would meaningfully constrain and direct how franchisees conduct their day-to-day businesses and worker supervision.
Yet the American Franchise Act explicitly shields the franchisors from any sort of liability for these sorts of practices when determining joint employment liability. The bill would weaken enforcement under the FLSA, which includes federal wage theft and child labor laws, by limiting FLSA liability to only franchisors that exercise direct and immediate control.
The American Franchise Act would allow franchisors to evade liability for unlawful business practices and technology requirements they mandate that their franchisees follow, which would result in wage theft and child labor violations. This bill would also severely limit how unionized workers could effectively bargain. By narrowing joint employment liability to only franchisors that exercise, quote, direct and immediate control, workers at a franchise would be unable to bargain with the franchisor over any conditions they have indirect or direct control over, such as wages or hours. The franchisee would be unable to meaningfully bargain with the employees. The American Franchise Act would also create a safe harbor for franchisors to engage in worker retaliation.
The bill allows franchisors to supervise a franchisee's workers and inform the franchisee of their opinion on the performance of employees and whether they meet acceptable standards. Through this safe harbor, a franchisor could strongly encourage a franchisee to terminate a worker engaged in union organizing activities or who raises concerns about unlawful practices in the workplace and faces zero consequences. In sum, the American Franchise Act is bad for workers, bad for small business franchisees, and writes a blank check to big businesses to control small businesses and their workers without any accountability. So I oppose the legislation, urge my colleagues to do the same, and yield back the balance of my time.
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?
Mr. Chairman.
Tim Walberg
The gentlelady from North Carolina, Ms. Foxx, is recognized for five minutes.
Virginia Foxx
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I very much support this piece of legislation. Franchising is one of America's greatest success stories. It empowers entrepreneurs to own and operate businesses, create jobs, and strengthen local economies. Unfortunately, over the past several years, uncertainty surrounding the federal government's interpretation of the joint employer standard has threatened that opportunity.
When franchisors are held responsible for employment decisions they do not make or control, it discourages investment, increases costs, and makes it harder for entrepreneurs to open or expand their businesses. This is also a problem with how the courts are interpreting the joint employer standard. The American Franchise Act provides certainty for franchise employers and employees by making clear that a franchisor may only be considered a joint employer of the employees of a franchisee if the franchisor exerts direct control over one or more essential terms and conditions of employment. The bill preserves the independence of locally owned franchise businesses while ensuring that the actual employer remains responsible for employment decisions.
This common sense legislation protects small business owners, supports job creation, and reinforces the franchise model that has helped so many Americans achieve the dream of owning a business. I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 5267, and I yield back the balance of my time.
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? Seeing none, there being no further discussion on the amendment in the nature of substitute, the committee will move to consideration of amendments. Are there any members who wish to offer amendments? There being no amendments...
Does the gentleman from Virginia, the ranking member, Mr. Scott, wish to offer an amendment?
The clerk will report the amendment.
Speaker 53
Amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute to H.R. 5267, offered by Mr. Scott of Virginia, identifier Scott_AMD_01.
Reserve a point of order.
Robert Scott
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, H.R. 5267 allows the large corporate franchisors to evade accountability when they violate labor and employment laws and leave small business franchisees on the hook, even if the franchisees were following mandated franchisor policies. It would also weaken the ability of workers' unions to negotiate a full and fair contract to improve their working conditions because franchisors who are controlling the terms and conditions of employment in one way or another would have no obligation to come to the bargaining table, leaving the franchisee with little to say or authority to effectively bargain. My amendment replaces the narrow joint employment standard in the bill with the more robust and even-handed standard established in the bipartisan Protecting the Right to Organize Act, the PRO Act. In particular, my amendment codifies the joint employment standard under NLRB's 2015 Browning-Ferris decision, which considers direct control, indirect control, reserved authority to control, and control exercised in fact when determining joint employment liability under NLRA.
My amendment also strikes the bill's joint employment standard under the Fair Labor Standards Act, which keeps its current fact-specific and holistic test for establishing joint employment liability. Labor and employment laws have long protected workers who have joint employers, and a strong joint employment standard under the NLRA ensures that workers can collectively bargain with all of the parties that control the terms and contracts of their employment. Maintaining a strong pro-worker joint employment standard under the FLSA ensures that franchisors can be held accountable for maintaining policies that result in violations pertaining to everything from wage theft to equal pay to oppressive child labor. Strong joint employment standards also protect small business franchisees by ensuring that franchisors will be held liable for any policies or practices that could coerce a franchisee into potentially breaking the law. A strong joint employment standard will provide an effective deterrent to franchisors placing pressure on their franchisees to engage in low-road and potentially illegal practices.
So I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this amendment which serves the interests of workers and small business franchisees rather than large corporate franchisors. I yield back.
I withdraw.
Tim Walberg
Point of order is withdrawn. Does anyone seek recognition on the amendment?
Mr. Chairman.
Tim Walberg
Gentlelady from North Carolina, do you wish to speak to the amendment?
I do.
Virginia Foxx
Thank you. Mr. Chairman, this is not a good amendment. We need to go with the bill and I want to express opposition to the amendment and say we need to have a really strong vote on the original bill. Thank you very much. I yield back.
Tim Walberg
The gentlelady yields. Are there any other members who seek recognition on the amendment? Seeing none, the question is on the amendment by the gentleman from Virginia, the ranking member, Mr. Scott. All in favor say 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 H.R. 5267? The gentleman from Virginia, the ranking member, Mr. Scott, do you offer an amendment?
This is AMD 04.
Speaker 53
Amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute to H.R. 5267 offered by Mr. Scott of Virginia, identifier Scott_AMD_04.
Reserve, reserve point of order.
Tim Walberg
Point of order is reserved. I now recognize the gentleman from Virginia for five minutes in support of the amendment.
Robert Scott
Mr. Chairman, my amendment would provide franchisees with the right to sue their corporate franchisor for damages when the franchisee is found to have violated the NLRA or the FLSA as a result of the franchisor's mandated policies or guidance. Franchisors regularly engage in a level of control over their franchisees' businesses that meaningfully impact workers' terms and conditions of employment through operational requirements, franchise agreements, and brand standards. Franchisors can set operating hours, scheduling practices, mandate staffing levels, and require specific payroll software or provide detailed rules and regulations on how the work must be performed under the franchise agreement. With that level of control, franchisees are left with little to say on how they conduct their day-to-day businesses and worker supervision. So if enacted as written, this bill would create a situation where a franchisee who is obligated to follow unlawful practices mandated by the franchisor if he wishes to keep his agreement, he's left fully liable for any damages and other consequences under the NLRA or FLSA caused by the franchisor's required policies and guidance.
My amendment would correct this injustice and guarantee that franchisees may hold franchisors accountable for their illegal behavior. No business should be above the law and we should not require our small businesses or franchises to take all the blame for the unlawful practices forced upon them by their franchisors. I urge my colleagues to vote for the amendment and protect the franchisees. I yield back.
Does the gentleman from South Carolina...
Does anyone else seek recognition on the amendment?
Speaker 73
Mr. Chairman. Yes, I would like to speak in favor of Mr. Scott's amendment.
Okay, gentlewoman from Washington.
Suzanne Bonamici
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to speak in support of Ranking Member Scott's amendment. Some of you know that before I came to Congress, I was a lawyer, and one of my roles was to represent franchisees in disputes with franchisors. I've also said many years, over many years on this committee, that the franchise model is a good one. It helps oftentimes individuals who want to start a small business, it helps them get into the business.
But if the franchisor is acting like an employer, they should be held responsible like an employer, which is the reason why I do not support the underlying bill. But I absolutely support this amendment, and I think back to the clients I represented who were franchisees who had invested sometimes their life savings and put everything on the line because they wanted to have a small business. If they are held responsible because they were directed to do something by the franchisor, there is no way in the world that we should hold these small business owners responsible for whatever they were directed to do by a franchisor. This is an amendment that's about fairness. Think about the small business owners who run franchises.
They should not be held responsible for being directed to do something in violation of the law by a franchisor. So I support the amendment, I do not support the underlying bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Speaker 80
Thank you. Does anyone else seek recognition on the amendment? The question on the amendment...
James Moylan
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I object to the amendment. Franchisees operate their own businesses and make their own management decisions. The American Franchise Act reinforces this independence by clarifying that franchisors and franchisees are joint employers only if they directly control essential employment matters. This targeted fix brings back stable, predictable legal framework that empowers local entrepreneurs and protects the integrity of the franchise model.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Burgess Owens
Does anyone else seek recognition on the amendment? The question on the amendment by the gentleman from Virginia. 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 is ordered. Pursuant to the chair's previous announcement, this vote will be postponed. Are there any other amendments to the amendment in the nature of a substitute for H.R. 5267? Further action on H.R. 5267 is postponed.
Further action on H.R. 5267 is postponed. We will now move to consider the next bill. The committee will now proceed to consideration of bill H.R. 8775 for amendment. The bill was circulated in advance and printed copies are available. The clerk shall designate the bill.
Speaker 53
H.R. 8775, a bill to amend the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959 to provide that individuals who have been convicted of sex offenses against minors may not serve in certain positions.
Burgess Owens
Without objection, the first reading of the bill is dispensed with. Without objection, the bill will be considered as read and open for amendment at any point. Any amendment offered shall be considered as read. Does anyone seek to be recognized? Mr. Wilson, what's the purpose for your amendment?
Speaker 53
Amendment in the nature of a substitute to H.R. 8775, offered by Mr. Wilson of South Carolina, identifier H.R. 8775_ANS.
Burgess Owens
The amendment in the nature of a substitute has already been distributed. Without objection, the amendment shall be considered original text for purpose of the further amendment. I now recognize Mr. Wilson for five minutes to explain the amendment in the nature of the substitute.
Joe Wilson
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. H.R. 8775, the Ending Predator Access to Union Power Act amendment amends the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act, LMRDA, to prohibit individuals convicted of sex crimes against minors from being employed by labor organizations. Specifically, the bill bars these individuals from serving in leadership or decision-making roles within labor organizations, acting as employer-labor consultants, or representing employers in collective bargaining. This prohibition applies for 13 years after the conviction or the end of imprisonment. Critics might say this bill is unnecessary or fixing a problem that doesn't exist.
But sadly, just recently, the committee investigated a Service Employees International Union's SEIU local chapter, which hired a convicted child molester and a long-time registrant of California's sex offender registry to be a member of the leadership team. This is particularly troubling because SEIU represents public service employees who work closely with children, including public school employees, bus drivers, and childcare providers. In this case, holding a union leadership position could provide a child molester access to children. The hiring practice of unions and their leadership are important to the committee as it relates to the integrity of a union. Union dues should not fund the salaries of those convicted of these horrible crimes.
The LMRDA already prohibits individuals convicted of many crimes, including rape and serious forms of assault, from holding office in labor unions, so it only makes sense to add sexual abuse of a minor to the list. The bill closes this loophole in current law by adding sex offenses against minors to the list of disqualifying crimes. The bill ensures that union power cannot be exploited by those who have committed serious offenses against children. I urge adoption of the amendment in the nature of a substitute, which makes a technical change to the bill and passage of the underlying bill.
I yield back.
Speaker 86
Are there members who wish to be recognized for further discussion on the amendment in the nature of a substitute?
I'm sorry. We're still debating.
Mr. Chairman.
Robert Scott
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Speaking to the amendment in the nature of a substitute, we know that labor unions are one of the most regulated entities in the country and the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act requires unions to submit extensive financial disclosures of their assets, liabilities, payroll, and other expenditures. That act also regulates internal governance of unions, including restrictions on who can hold office or be employed. Specifically, Section 504 of the act prohibits individuals convicted of certain crimes from holding union office, being employed by a union, or serving as a consultant to a union, among other positions. Disqualifying convictions include robbery, bribery, extortion, embezzlement, murder, sexual assault, and other offenses, including violations of the union disclosure and trustee requirements.
But the bill does not just apply to unions. It also imposes certain requirements on employers and their labor relations consultants. These requirements include transparency around union-busting consultants hired to fight unions' organizing efforts, which their employers and consultants often fail to comply with, and follow the restrictions of Section 504 for labor relations positions and roles. The bill we're considering today, H.R. 8775, would amend Section 504 to include a sex offense against a minor to the existing list of convictions that bar individuals from serving in union and employer-side positions and roles. As written, the bill is balanced by having it apply to both sides, both unions and employers.
However, Republicans often unfairly criticize the labor movement and exaggerate the prevalence of a little problem this bill addresses by highlighting a singular incident from four years ago regarding an individual who was immediately fired by a local union. The reality is that this is not a widespread issue among unions. The reality is that this is not a widespread issue as unions remain subject to Section 504, conduct background checks for job applicants, and have codes of conduct. Nevertheless, it remains imperative that any individual in a position of trust must be held to a high standard, which is why I intend to vote in favor of the bill. I yield back.
Speaker 85
Thank you. Are there other members who wish to be recognized for further discussion on the amendment in the nature of a substitute? Gentlelady from North Carolina.
Virginia Foxx
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just want to lend my support to the bill from the gentleman from South Carolina and in response to my friend from Virginia, one of these situations deserves being corrected. We don't need children being sexually abused. Thank you.
Speaker 89
Any other members who wish to be recognized for further discussion on the amendment in the nature of a substitute? Gentlelady from Washington.
Suzanne Bonamici
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just want to state that nobody here wants a sex offender in any position of leadership. And as Ranking Member Scott said, the individual who was named was separated from SEIU as soon as the union learned she was a registered sex offender. That was taken care of. I also want to note, Mr. Chairman and committee members, that we still do not have all the Epstein files.
And we're sitting here talking about one instance years ago about a situation that was corrected, but we're here in Congress still without the Epstein files. So let's be real here about what we're looking at. Again, nobody wants sex offenders in office, but also we want to know the connection of everybody who was involved with Mr. Epstein and all of his horrific, horrific abuse. And I also notice that we have somebody in the White House who's been convicted of sex offenses as well. And I yield back.
Burgess Owens
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 now move to consideration of amendments. Are there any other members who would like to offer amendments?
Mr. Chairman.
The clerk will report the amendment.
Speaker 53
Amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute to H.R. 8775 offered by Ms. Adams of North Carolina, identifier ADAMS_HR8775AMD_03.
Does the gentleman from South Carolina...
Alma Adams
Point of order is reserved. I now recognize the gentlewoman from North Carolina, five minutes.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I do support the underlying goal of the bill to prevent sexual predators from managing collective bargaining and labor relation processes. Having said that, my amendment builds on the underlying bill by ensuring that all business associates of Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell are barred from serving in labor relations roles for employers and from serving in labor unions. By including business associates of Maxwell and Epstein in section 504 of the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act, we can disqualify individuals from leadership who have no place representing the interests of workers or corporations. Because as I hope everyone in this room can agree, business associates of Jeffrey Epstein cannot be trusted with positions of power.
I do know, I believe that my colleagues on the other side have discussed the case in California in which a union local unknowingly hired a sexual predator who was promptly terminated once their history became known. To me, this incident shows an organization taking accountability and moving quickly with corrective action to address an abuser who had infiltrated their organization. I wish that Congress and the administration showed the same urgency in rebuking a sexual predator who had infiltrated the highest offices in our government. A predator who hosted business and political leaders at his home, who enabled powerful men to abuse women and even young girls in the privacy of his estate and his island. But this amendment presents an opportunity to continue seeking accountability and to ensure that the labor relations process is not dominated by individuals affiliated with sex trafficking.
Those associated with Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell cannot be trusted to manage anything, let alone Americans' working conditions. And while I support adding convicted sex offenders to section 504, those involved in the most notorious sex trafficking ring in recent history shouldn't get a hall pass. Sexual predators do not deserve special treatment because their wealth, their power, and their status shield them from legal accountability. And with that, Mr. Chairman, I'll withdraw my amendment.
I withdraw my reservation.
Tim Walberg
The reservation is withdrawn. Does anyone else seek recognition on the amendment? For what purpose does the gentlelady from Oregon, Ms. Bonamici, seek recognition?
Suzanne Bonamici
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I understand that my colleague has withdrawn her amendment, but I want to clarify a comment that I made, just so the record is clear. Although the President has been found criminally liable for financial crimes, he was found civilly liable for sex abuse, and I just want the record to be clear. And I yield back.
Tim Walberg
Gentlelady yields. Are there any other members who wish to be recognized to introduce an amendment? Gentleman from Virginia, the ranking member, Mr. Scott, do you wish to offer an amendment?
Speaker 53
Amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute to H.R. 8775, offered by Mr. Scott of Virginia, identifier Scott_HR8775AMD_01.
Tim Walberg
Is there a point of order? Does the gentleman from Utah reserve a point of order? Point of order is reserved. I now recognize the gentleman from Virginia, the ranking member, Mr. Scott, for five minutes in support of his amendment.
Robert Scott
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As I mentioned before, Section 504 of the LMRDA currently prohibits those convicted of certain crimes, such as bribery, extortion, embezzlement, arson, murder, from serving as a union officer and staff and in specific roles for employers. The underlying bill adds sex offense against a minor to the current list of disqualifying offenses. It is vital that anybody in a position of trust and power should be held to a high standard, which is why this amendment would prohibit individuals convicted of certain crimes detailed under the LMRDA from serving as executives of corporations that are dealing with labor organizations, Director of the Office of Labor-Management Standards, Secretary of Labor, Inspector General of the Department of Labor, any other important political appointees at the Department of Labor, and the President. This bill, this act, holds union officials and labor relations advisors and consultants to certain standards.
Corporate executives, including and public officials, including the President, who are dealing with the law, should be held to the same standard. So I urge my colleagues to support the amendment, and I yield back.
Tim Walberg
Reservation is withdrawn. Does anyone else seek recognition on the amendment? Seeing none, the question is on the amendment by the gentleman from Virginia, the ranking member, Mr. Scott. All in favor say aye. All opposed, no.
In the opinion of the chair, the noes have it, and the amendment is not agreed to. Are there further amendments to the amendment in the nature of a substitute, H.R. 8775?
01 AMD 01.
Speaker 106
Gentleman from Virginia. We'll pause for a moment. Would the clerk clarify which amendment was passed previously?
That was Scott_HR8775AMD_01.
That was the previous one?
Okay, that's 02.
This one 02.
Speaker 104
No, that was a Norcross 02. Okay, the amendment at the desk we want brought up now is... Could the clerk redesignate the former, the bill we just voted on, can you redesignate that amendment?
Speaker 103
Amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute to HR 8775 offered by Mr. Scott of Virginia, identifier Scott_HR8775AMD_02.
Speaker 41
02. That's right. Okay. In light of that, we call for the vote again. All those in favor of the...
This is a motion to reconsider. You're going to accept the motion to reconsider by unanimous consent. Accept the motion to reconsider by unanimous consent and now to revote on the Scott, identify the amendment again.
Speaker 53
Amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute to HR 8775 offered by Mr. Scott of Virginia, identifier Scott_HR8775AMD_01.
Amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute to HR 8775 offered by Mr. Scott of Virginia, identifier Scott_HR8775AMD_02.
02. No, no, no, 02 is what we want to be voting on right now.
Tim Walberg
The question now then is on the amendment by the gentleman from Virginia, the ranking member Mr. Scott. All in favor say aye.
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. 8775?
Speaker 53
Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk, and this is AMD 01.
Does the gentleman from Utah reserve a point of order? The clerk will report the amendment. 01.
I reserve a point of order.
Tim Walberg
Point of order is reserved. I now recognize the gentleman from Virginia, the ranking member, to address his amendment.
Robert Scott
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I'm proposing a simple amendment to eliminate potential misinterpretation of what this bill accomplishes. My amendment would simply strike the short title of the bill because it is misleading and inaccurate. This bill amends section 504 to add another offense to the list of disqualifying convictions. It does not apply only to unions, it also applies to labor relations positions and roles with an employer or a group of employers or union-busting consultants.
The current title of this bill suggests that it only applies to unions, which is not right. So I urge my colleagues to accept this straightforward amendment to eliminate the misleading title. I yield back.
I withdraw my... withdraw the point of order.
Tim Walberg
Does anyone else seek recognition on the amendment? Seeing none, the question is on the amendment by the gentleman from Virginia, the ranking member. All in favor say 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. 8775?
Further action on H.R. 8775 is postponed pursuant to previous order the chair declares the committee in recess subject to the call of the chair. We expect to reconvene at 3:30. The committee stands in recess.
The committee will reconvene and come to order following our recess. We'll proceed to postponed requests for recorded votes. I hereby move the committee report the bill H.R. 8781 to the House of Representatives with amendment and with recommendation that the amendment be agreed to and the bill do pass. The question now occurs on the chair's motion. All in favor say aye.
Aye. Opposed no. No. In the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it and the motion is agreed to. A recorded vote is requested and 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? 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. 8781 as amended and accompanying material shall be transmitted to the House of Representatives. The chair notes for the record that a quorum is present. I hereby move that the committee report the bill H.R. 4986 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. Opposed no. No. In the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it and the motion is agreed to.
Recorded vote is requested and 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? 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. 4986 as amended and 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. 8747. The amendment offered by Mr. Scott of Virginia titled Scott_8747AMD_02.
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.
Tim Walberg
The amendment is not adopted. The question now occurs on the amendment in the nature of a substitute to H.R. 8747. 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.
Speaker 111
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. 8747 as amended, and the accompanying material shall be transmitted to the House of Representatives. The chair notes for the record that a quorum is present. I hereby move that the committee report the bill H.R. 8183 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. 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.
Tim Walberg
The ayes have it and the motion is agreed to, H.R. 8183 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. 9723, the amendment offered by 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 amendment is not adopted. The question now occurs on the amendment in the nature of a substitute to H.R. 9723. 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. I hereby move the committee report the bill H.R. 9723 to the House of Representatives with amendment and with recommendation that the amendment be agreed to and the bill do pass. The question now occurs on 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 the electronic voting system. The clerk will open the vote.
Have all members been recorded who wish to be recorded? Do any members wish to change their vote? Hearing none, will the clerk please close the vote and announce the tally.
Mr. Chairman, on this vote there are 33 ayes and zero nays.
Tim Walberg
The ayes have it and the motion is agreed to, H.R. 9723 as amended, and the accompanying material shall be transmitted to the House of Representatives. The chair notes for the record that a quorum is present. I hereby move that the committee report the bill H.R. 8660 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.
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.
Tim Walberg
The ayes have it and the motion is agreed to, H.R. 8660 as amended, and the accompanying material shall be transmitted to the House of Representatives.
The chair notes for the record that a quorum is present. I hereby move that the committee report the bill HR 8347 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. The ayes have it and the motion is agreed to HR 8347 as amended and the accompanying material shall be transmitted to the House of Representatives.
The chair notes for the record a quorum is present. We'll now be voting on one amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute to HR 6213 enumerated as Adams underscore Adam NC underscore 612. A recorded vote is requested. Members will record their votes using electronic voting system. The amendment is not adopted.
The question now occurs on the amendment in the nature of a substitute to HR 6213. All in favor say aye. Aye. All opposed no. No.
In the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it and the amendment in the nature of a substitute is agreed to. I hereby move that the committee report the bill HR 6213 to the House of Representatives with amendment and with the recommendation that amendment be agreed to and the bill do pass. The question now occurs on the chair's motion. All in favor say aye. The ayes have it and the motion is agreed to HR 6213 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 two amendments to the amendment in the nature of a substitute to HR 5267. The amendment offered by Mr. Scott titled Scott underscore AMD underscore 01. A recorded vote is requested.
The amendment is not adopted. We'll now be voting on a second Scott amendment titled SCOTT_AMD_04. 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?
The ayes have it and the motion is agreed to, H.R. 5267 as amended and the accompanying materials shall be transmitted to the House of Representatives. The chair notes for the record that a quorum is present. We'll now be voting on one amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute to H.R. 8775, the amendment offered by Mr. Scott titled SCOTT_HR8775AMD_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.
Mr. Chairman, on this vote there are 33 yeas and 0 nays.
Tim Walberg
The yeas have it and the motion is agreed to. H.R. 8775 as amended and accompanying materials shall be transmitted to the House of Representatives. The chair notes for the record that a quorum is present. I ask unanimous consent that staff be authorized to make necessary technical and conforming changes to today's bills. Without objection, so ordered.
Pursuant to House Rule 11, Clause 2L, I give notice that all members have the requisite number of days to file supplemental, minority, additional, or dissenting views. Without objection, so ordered. I would request that we take the joyous celebrations off the floor. Without objection, any members who wish to insert materials in the record may do so, submitting them to the committee clerk electronically by the end of the day today. If there is no further business before the committee, without objection, the committee stands adjourned.