Suzanne Bonamici

Ms. BONAMICI

Ms. BONAMICI. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 7521, the Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act. I agree with my colleagues that we must do more to protect personal information online, safeguard national security from foreign adversaries, and protect our electoral system from foreign interference, but this bill is far from the comprehensive approach our increasingly connected world needs. I also have serious concerns with the scope of the legislation and open constitutional questions about the path forward for its implementation. Targeting only one foreign adversary-controlled application will not fully protect consumers' data in our nation. Energy & Commerce Committee Chairwoman McMorris Rodgers and Ranking Member Pallone have already advanced bipartisan, comprehensive data privacy legislation, and the Biden Administration has issued an Executive Order to Protect Americans' Sensitive Personal Data. Instead of addressing one company, as the bill we are considering today does, we could instead consider that bill or a related proposal that would improve how Americans access and control their data across all apps. The limited data safeguards in the Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act are not sufficient to justify what could amount to a ban on TikTok in our country. Civil liberties and legal experts have also raised concerns about potential constitutional questions regarding this bill. During his term former President Donald Trump issued several Executive Orders that would have had many of the same effects of this bill, but courts struck down those orders. Additionally, the state of Montana's legislation to ban TikTok and similarly prevent it from accessing application stores was recently put on hold for exceeding the authority of the state and potentially violating the First Amendment. I am also concerned that this bill limits legal challenges to just the first 165 days after the legislation is enacted and restricts challenges to actions taken under its authority to within 90 days of their implementation. These restrictions and ongoing constitutional questions about limiting consumer choice and speech could create significant uncertainty as the bill is implemented. We should not limit opportunities for Americans to protect their rights through our legal system. The First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution enshrines the protection of free speech and a press free from fear of retribution from the government. Protecting this right is a cornerstone of our democracy, and one that I am committed to upholding. I encourage my colleagues to vote against this bill so we can return to the table and negotiate a more comprehensive and effective approach to data privacy. Once again, I urge my colleagues to vote no.

Ms. BONAMICI

Ms. BONAMICI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of my bipartisan bill, the Save Our Seas 2.0 Amendments Act. Marine debris is a serious problem. Unfortunately, much of marine debris is made up of plastic pollution. The ocean is littered with plastic bottles, straws, grocery bags, cigarette butts, fishing gear, and abandoned vehicles. Additionally, there are tiny pieces of plastic, microplastics, that make their way into marine life, blocking digestive tracts, altering growth, and, in some cases, killing marine mammals and threatening fisheries. We still don't know how long it takes for plastic to biodegrade completely. Estimates range from 500 years to never. A 2020 study from The Pew Charitable Trusts found that, every year, more than 11 million metric tons of plastic garbage enter the ocean, harming marine life and destroying ecosystems. If we do nothing to minimize ocean plastic pollution, it will nearly quadruple by 2040. We need to fundamentally change our reliance on plastics. Not only do they pollute the ocean, but they also exacerbate the climate crisis. The fossil fuel and plastics industries are connected, and plastics contribute to industrial emissions in the United States. A global challenge of this magnitude cannot be solved with a single bill. We should not limit our action to removing existing plastic from the ocean, and we cannot recycle our way out of plastic waste that ends up on our shores. We need comprehensive action, but today, we have the opportunity to build on our strong, bipartisan foundation of bicameral efforts to strengthen the NOAA Marine Debris Program and enhance the work of the Marine Debris Foundation. The bipartisan SOS 2.0 Act, which I worked on and authored with the late Congressman Don Young and Senators Sullivan and Whitehouse, is the most comprehensive legislation Congress has passed to address marine debris that threatens coastal communities and ecosystems. The bill created a Marine Debris Foundation to support NOAA's work; advanced the removal and prevention of debris, including plastic waste; and established a pilot program to provide incentives for the proper disposal of marine debris collected at sea. Despite these important policies, current law does not effectively permit NOAA through the Marine Debris Program to assist and collaborate with foreign governments, international organizations, Tribal groups, and other organizations that may have the specific skills required to achieve the Marine Debris Act's goals. As co-chairs of the House Oceans Caucus, Representative Gonzalez- Colon and I introduced the Save Our Seas 2.0 Amendments Act. This bill would amend the Save Our Seas 2.0 Act and the Marine Debris Act to provide NOAA with greater flexibility to deliver Federal resources and enter into cooperative agreements to conduct marine debris prevention and cleanup. The ocean is resilient. We can help it heal, but we cannot afford to wait. We have significant work ahead of us to clean up and prevent marine debris, and the Save Our Seas 2.0 Amendments Act continues to build on our bipartisan foundation to protect the ocean. I thank the gentlewoman and co-chair of the House Oceans Caucus, Representative Gonzalez-Colon, for her partnership on this bill. I thank our Senate colleagues, Senator Dan Sullivan and Senator Sheldon Whitehouse. I also thank Chairman Graves and Ranking Member Larsen, as well as Chairman Westerman and Ranking Member Grijalva. Mr. Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to support this bipartisan bill to strengthen the Federal response to marine debris and to continue to make ocean health a priority for future generations.

Ms. BONAMICI

Ms. BONAMICI. Mr. Speaker, I thank Representative Sanchez for yielding and for her leadership on this important issue. I rise today in opposition to the so-called Supporting Pregnant and Parenting Women and Families Act, which would prevent the Department of Health and Human Services from restricting funds to crisis pregnancy centers. We know, as we have heard, and is included in the report that Representative Sanchez just mentioned, that crisis pregnancy centers prey on people at a very vulnerable time. They often spread misinformation to further what is clearly an anti-choice agenda. They routinely use deceptive advertising to get people into the doors, and then they mislead them about the services they provide. In fact, a center in Ohio was caught making outlandish assertions, including that ``condoms were only 50 percent effective, the spread of STDs could only be prevented if people followed `God's plan' of avoiding sex before marriage, and that if a woman who has an STD gets an abortion, `your STDs travel up your cervix into your organs and could kill you.' '' This deception is outrageous, dangerous, and unconscionable, which is why I have introduced the Stop Antiabortion Disinformation Act, H.R. 2736, to direct the Federal Trade Commission to issue rules prohibiting unfair or deceptive advertising of abortion services. This, Mr. Speaker, will really make a difference because anyone seeking reproductive care should have access to a real healthcare provider that will provide them with comprehensive and accurate medical information.

Ms. BONAMICI. Mr. Speaker, anyone seeking reproductive care should have access to a real healthcare provider that will provide them with real, comprehensive, and accurate medical information. That is not what they get at pregnancy resource centers. I urge my colleagues to reject this bill.

Ms. BONAMICI

Ms. BONAMICI. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 6914, the so-called Pregnant Students' Rights Act. This legislation requires institutions of higher education to distribute information about some of the rights of and accommodations for pregnant students. I opposed this legislation in committee and do so again today because, among other reasons, what is required in this bill is incomplete and biased by not providing information about comprehensive family planning resources and a full range of reproductive healthcare options for pregnant students. Additionally, Republican amendments adopted in the committee added controversial misinformation to this bill, including the myth that having an abortion can lead to breast cancer. This claim has been refuted by the National Cancer Institute, the American Cancer Society, and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. These scare tactics unmasked the true intention of this bill, which is to further the Republican agenda about attacking reproductive healthcare in their attempt to pass a nationwide ban on abortion. As I mentioned to my Republican colleagues in committee, if you want to encourage pregnancy and childbirth, join with Democrats in passing legislation that will make childcare more affordable, support access to affordable healthcare and affordable housing, expand the Children's Health Insurance Program, and join the rest of the world in offering paid family leave. The intent of this bill is clear. It is another attempt to have politicians interfere in the very intensely personal decision of whether and when to have a child, a decision that should be made only by the pregnant student and their healthcare provider, not by judges, and certainly not by Members of Congress. Mr. Speaker, I oppose this bill. I encourage my colleagues to vote ``no,'' and I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. BONAMICI. Mr. Speaker, if my colleagues on the other side of the aisle truly cared about moms, they would join us in addressing the embarrassingly high maternal mortality rate in this country, which is especially concerning for women of color. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Ross).

Ms. BONAMICI. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I note that our colleagues on the other side of the aisle rejected an amendment to include information about comprehensive reproductive healthcare services. Mr. Speaker, it is now my honor to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Jeffries), the dynamic, distinguished, and dedicated Democratic leader.

Ms. BONAMICI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Georgia (Mrs. McBath).

Ms. BONAMICI. Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned in committee, a pregnant student is not just the only one affected. If whomever impregnated the student got some rights and notification about paternity and child support obligations, that might help this information be more complete, but that is not in this bill. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Michigan (Ms. Stevens).

Ms. BONAMICI. Madam Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from Minnesota.

Ms. BONAMICI. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. BONAMICI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Jacobs).

Ms. BONAMICI. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Michigan (Ms. Tlaib).

Ms. BONAMICI. Madam Speaker, it is clear from the debate on the bill that what my colleagues on the other side of the aisle want to happen is for every pregnant student to stay pregnant with consequences long beyond their time in college. That is why it is so important that we fund WIC, healthcare, childcare, and all the other things that are prowomen, prochildren, and profamily. This bill is not. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Minnesota (Ms. Omar).

Ms. BONAMICI. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Underwood).

Ms. BONAMICI. Madam Speaker, I yield an additional 15 seconds to the gentlewoman from Illinois.

Ms. BONAMICI. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Massachusetts (Ms. Clark), the Democratic whip.

Ms. BONAMICI. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott), the ranking member of the full committee.

Ms. BONAMICI. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. I include in the Record a letter from the Coalition for Pregnant and Parenting Students Advocacy, signed by 60 organizations, opposing H.R. 6914 because this legislation ``would not address the key barriers to pregnant students' educational attainment, and instead would further shame and stigmatize people for their pregnancy outcomes.'' January 18, 2024. Hon. Mike Johnson, Speaker, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Hon. Hakeem Jeffries, Minority Leader, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Speaker Johnson and Leader Jeffries: The Coalition for Pregnant and Parenting Students Advocacy is a diverse group of advocates and experts dedicated to advancing civil rights protections and institutional resources for pregnant and parenting students. We are joined by the undersigned organizations in voicing our opposition to H.R. 6914, the Pregnant Students' Rights Act--a thinly veiled anti-abortion law which would not address the key barriers to pregnant students--educational attainment, and instead would further shame and stigmatize people for their pregnancy outcomes. This latest bill to ``protect the rights of pregnant students'' falls far short of the protections that are actually necessary for pregnant and parenting students and their children. Students who are pregnant and/or parents deserve to complete their education free from bias and harassment, in environments that support them on their educational journeys. Unfortunately, pregnant and parenting students are routinely stigmatized, discriminated against, and denied the resources, accommodations, and support they need to thrive in their educational institutions. More than 5.4 million college students in the United States are parents, which is nearly one quarter of undergraduate students and nearly one third of graduate students. Despite earning higher GPAs than non-parenting students, parenting college students are less likely to graduate. This is not due to personal failing, but rather a lack of institutional support and recognition of the unique barriers to college completion for parenting students. Pregnant and parenting students often experience feeling disconnected from the larger education community and are not aware of who they can speak to when they experience discrimination because of their pregnancy or parenting status. The proposed bill relies on anti-abortion language and seeks to limit students' reproductive healthcare decisions. This type of language is part of a deliverate strategy by the anti-abortion movement to further legal grounds for a national abortion ban now that th Supreme Court has overturned the constitutional right to abortion care as established in Roe v. Wade. Furthermore, the bill language contrasts with existing legal protections for pregnant students experiencing a range of outcomes related to their pregnancies. Our belief in personal autonomy and respect for every person's capacity to make their own decisions--including whether to continue their pregnancy or not--is at the core of our work to support pregnant and parenting students. This bill does not contain any meaningful supports that would actually help pregnant and parenting students be able to remain enrolled and meet their educational goals. Such supports are critically needed, and include: Strengthened Title IX protections; Nondiscrimination protection at the state and local level; Accessible and affordable child care, and increased funding for on-campus child care; Access to early education and pre-kindergarten services; Transportation access; Basic needs security (including food, housing, clothing, etc.); Flexible school attendance policies; Lactation accomodations; Less stigma and shame around young parenthood; Increased accountability measure for institutions who fail to protect pregnant and parenting students; Federal funding to support campus Title IX offices' work to prevent and investigate discrimination against pregnant students; Mandatory data collection on students' parenting statuses. Student Parent Outcomes Act of 2023, which would allow essential data collection on the barriers to college graduation for pregnant and parenting students. But sweeping legislation is necessary to ensure that pregnant and parenting students and their families are protected. Although pregnant and parenting students face many roadblocks, they can thrive when their educational institutions listen to them, support them, and prevent discrimination against them. While balancing their health, caregiving responsibilities, and educational goals is challenging, these added responsibilities often renew students' dedication to their studies. While the decision to parent and/or continue pregnancy is a personal one, the barriers that pregnant and parenting students face are not. This proposed bill would reinforce structural and institutional bias and scrutiny of the decisions students make regarding their personal lives. We welcome the opportunity to have an open dialogue with the sponsors of the ``Pregnant Students' Rights Act'' and with any other members of Congress who are ready to step up as the champion that pregnant and parenting students in our nation need and deserve. Sincerely, The Coalition for Pregnant and Parenting Students Advocacy: A Better Balance; Generation Hope; Healthy Teen Network; Institute for Women's Policy Research; Justice and Joy National Collaborative; National Women's Law Center; New America Higher Education Program; Pregnant Scholar Initiative at the Center for WorkLife Law; UNITE-LA. Joined by: Advocates for Youth; American Association of University Women; American Federation of Teachers; American Humanist Association; BreastfeedLA; California Women's Law Center; Center for Freethought Equality; Center for Reproductive Rights; Clearinghouse on Women's Issues; Colorado Teen Parent Collaborative; End Rape On Campus; Equal Rights Advocates; Family Equality; Feminist Majority Foundation; Guttmacher Institute. Hadassah; Harvard Law School; If/When/How: Lawyering for Reproductive Justice; Indivisible, Ipas; League of Women Voters of the United States; Legal Momentum, The Women's Legal Defense and Education Fund; Michigan Organization on Adolescent Sexual Health (MOASH); National Asian Pacific American Women's Forum; National Association of Nurse Practitioners in Women's Health; National Association of Social Workers; National Center for Lesbian Rights; National Center for Parent Leadership, Advocacy and Community Empowerment; National Center for Transgender Equality; National Council of Jewish Women; National Education Association; National Family Planning & Reproductive Health Association; National Latina Institute for Reproductive Justice. National Network to End Domestic Violence; National Partnership for Women & Families; National Women's Health Network; National Women's Political Caucus; Partners in Abortion Care; Physicians for Reproductive Health; Planned Parenthood Federation of America; Positive Women's Network- USA; Power to Decide; Public Justice; Reproductive Freedom for All (formerly NARAL Pro-Choice America); SIECUS: Sex Ed for Social Change; Southeast Asia Resource Action Center; Stop Sexual Assault in Schools; The Hope Center at Temple University; Union for Reform Judaism; Women of Reform Judaism; Won't She Do It; YWCA USA.

Ms. BONAMICI. Madam Speaker, the so-called Pregnant Students' Rights Act does nothing to strengthen pregnant students' existing protections and freedoms, and it leaves pregnant students in the dark about their rights under Federal civil rights law. In fact, when committee Democrats tried to include information that would meaningfully support pregnant and parenting students in our committee's markup, Republicans voted down our amendments. Democrats submitted amendments that would have included information about programs that promote the health and well-being of mothers and children, such as Medicaid and WIC. Coincidentally, these are the very programs Republican appropriators are right now actively working to roll back and defund. The bill provides partial information, but no help. That is why dozens of health and reproductive rights organizations, the National Women's Law Center, the National Partnership for Women & Families, and the American Civil Liberties Union have stated that H.R. 6914, ``falls far short of the protections that are actually necessary for pregnant and parenting students and their children.'' In fact, I have a bill to get students information about their SNAP eligibility. I wish we were doing that right now. Madam Speaker, college is hard enough already, and we should do our part to ensure that all pregnant students have the resources they need to succeed. The legislation before us does nothing to achieve that goal. Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose this bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. BONAMICI

Ms. BONAMICI. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Ms. BONAMICI

Ms. BONAMICI. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of workers and franchisees and in opposition to this harmful resolution. The joint resolution we are debating today would reverse a rule of the National Labor Relations Board that clarifies who or what is a joint employer. Under this rule, employers can no longer use subcontractors or a staffing or temporary agencies to block the opportunity for hardworking Americans to bargain for fair wages or safer workplaces. The Biden administration's joint employer rule will help workers and grow the middle class by restoring the NLRB's ability to consider an employer's control over an employee when determining joint employer status. This is not new. It was the law for decades. Also, I want to push back on the arguments that some of my colleagues continue to make that a strong joint employer rule threatens the franchise model. It does not. As a lawyer who formerly represented franchisees, I know the franchise model, and I know how it works. A franchisor does not have an employer relationship with the franchisee's employees. Additionally, franchisors do not determine the terms and conditions of their franchisee's employees. It is the franchisee who runs the business and controls the employees. That is freedom. In fact, the rule actually helps franchisees, because it discourages franchisors from trying to micromanage the franchisee's employees. In fact, as Ranking Member Scott has made clear, the NLRB has never found a franchisor to be a joint employer. Now, the chair mentioned this increase in expenses. Well, they certainly are not the expenses of the franchisees. I would expect that a significant amount of that money has been lobbying against this rule and spreading misinformation about how the sky is falling for franchisees when, I repeat, there has never been a franchisor who has been found to be a joint employer. The rule works. Let's stand with workers and defeat this joint resolution. For these reasons, I oppose H.J. Res. 98, and I encourage all of my colleagues to vote ``no.''

Ms. BONAMICI

Ms. BONAMICI. Mr. Speaker, I thank Representative Crockett for organizing this Special Order. I am grateful to join my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to remember our esteemed former colleague, the late Congresswoman Eddie Bernice Johnson. I expect to see her sitting over there, where she always sat. Affectionately known as EBJ, Congresswoman Johnson showed tremendous leadership, and that is especially true on the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology. I have been on the Science Committee since I first joined Congress about a dozen years ago. I learned a lot from her example of hard work, civility, and perseverance. EBJ was a civil rights trailblazer, as we heard from Mr. Horsford. She led with the philosophy that building compassionate relationships, fostering curiosity, and working in good faith can yield successful, long-term policies. Her leadership left a lasting, positive influence on the Science Committee, which continues to shine as a refreshingly bipartisan body in this Congress today and should continue to serve as an example of collaborative work for years to come. In the last Congress, as the committee chair, she oversaw the passage of the bipartisan Chips and Science Act, some of the most significant scientific research and manufacturing legislation the committee has ever passed. I will be forever grateful for her support of several issues I brought to the committee, issues important to the district I represent, including ocean health, conservation of marine life, and investing in clean energy technologies that will protect our planet and address the climate crisis. I share in mourning Congresswoman Johnson passing. I send condolences to her family and friends. I know her legacy will live on through the many people she inspired and mentored throughout her storied career and through the legislation and policies she helped craft to help improve our country. Colleagues, please remember, with open hearts and fond memories, Congresswoman Eddie Bernice Johnson.

Ms. BONAMICI

Ms. BONAMICI. Mr. Speaker, I regret that I missed the vote on rollcall No. 722. Had I been present, I would have voted ``nay'' on rollcall No. 722.

Ms. BONAMICI

Ms. BONAMICI. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that I may hereafter be considered to be the first sponsor of H.R. 822, a bill originally introduced by Representative Stewart of Utah, for the purpose of adding cosponsors and requesting reprintings pursuant to clause 7 of rule XII.