Suzanne Bonamici

Ms. BONAMICI

Ms. BONAMICI. Madam Speaker, I rise today in opposition to House Resolution 847 and to reiterate our commitment to equal justice under the law. As Members of this distinguished body, we all take an oath to support and defend the Constitution. Unfortunately, the Financial Services and General Government bill we will consider this week will undermine the constitutional rights of Americans. In this legislation, Federal public defenders face a steep cut--an underfunding of nearly $100 million. This is unacceptable and will disrupt equal access to justice. Nearly 90 percent of defendants in Federal criminal cases cannot afford an attorney, which is their constitutional right to have. If there are not enough Federal defenders, cases could be delayed, and the cost will be more in the long run. Defendants will be referred to private panel attorneys, who typically have less experience and cost more. That makes no sense. This is not a partisan issue, Mr. Speaker. This is an issue of constitutional rights, and it is smart fiscal policy. For several years, I have led bipartisan efforts to adequately fund Federal public defenders, and this year, I have led several bipartisan calls to fully fund our Federal defenders. We must defeat this rule and return the bill to committee so we can follow through on our constitutional responsibility to adequately fund Federal public defenders. It is their right to have counsel. If it is not afforded, they will be referred to panel attorneys, who cost more. That makes no sense, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to include in the Record a letter from the Defender Services Advisory Group, emphasizing that failing to adequately fund Federal public defense will inflict a cascade of dangerous and damaging consequences on their program, on clients, and on our criminal justice system.

Ms. BONAMICI

Ms. BONAMICI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member for yielding time. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this so-called Schools Not Shelters Act, which should be called the shutting out students act to reflect what this cruel legislation actually does. It would punish public schools and colleges and their students for showing humanity. This is the second time in less than a month that the majority is bringing legislation to the floor that discriminates against and scapegoats vulnerable people based on their identity. It is the continuation of a trend that, unfortunately, we have seen in this Congress. Republicans claim that there is a crisis in American education, but their legislation on the floor today would deepen disparities rather than improve public education. I am disheartened by the continued attempts by my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to delegitimize public schools, the only schools that are required to serve everyone and turn no one away. Mr. Speaker, public schools are often used as shelters. I hope this bill does not become law, but if it did, what would public schools have to do--check everyone for citizenship before offering shelter to those in need? I point out if this bill were to become law and schools lost Federal funding because of it, that hurts students--not the people making the decision; the students. Title I funding, for example, is designed to help schools with high populations of low-income students. Title II supports professional development for educators. IDEA helps students with disabilities. Losing any of that funding would be detrimental to students and educators for showing humanity toward those in need. I urge my colleagues to check their values before they vote on this. Mr. Speaker, I came to Congress to improve public education and to help all students succeed in school and in college and in life. I have said repeatedly in committee hearings and in this Chamber, I am ready to come to the table with my colleagues and work on serious solutions to the challenges faced by students and their families. Mr. Speaker, I know the ranking member talked about gun violence in schools. When I was home in June, a student said to me, I only have one more week of school, and then it means I got through the whole year without getting shot. Mr. Speaker, that is what is on students' minds. That is what they are concerned about. Mr. Speaker, the so-called Schools Not Shelters Act is not a serious solution. I urge my colleagues to reject this harmful legislation. Mr. Speaker, I want to note that words matter. Presence in the United States of America without proper documents is a civil offense, not a criminal one, and I object to calling people illegal. Mr. Speaker, again, this is not a serious solution to the challenges facing our schools today. I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to reject this harmful legislation.

Ms. BONAMICI

Ms. BONAMICI. Madam Speaker, I regret to inform you that I missed the vote on rollcall No. 290. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall No. 290.

Ms. BONAMICI

Ms. BONAMICI. Madam Speaker, I thank the ranking member for yielding. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H. Res. 461, a harmful resolution that condemns public schools for showing humanity in helping vulnerable people. Listening to this debate, it sounds like my colleagues are interested in working on some bipartisan migration reform. We would welcome that-- policies that would help our immigration system run more smoothly and effectively--but that is not what we are doing here today. Throughout this Congress, I have heard my colleagues on the other side of the aisle claim that American education is in crisis. Are there needs in our public schools? Absolutely. We need more mental health counselors, we need resources to address mislearning and policies to address gun violence, but is that what the majority is focusing on? No. When my Republican colleagues felt threatened by the accurate teaching of history, they passed legislation that provides a blueprint for book bans. When my Republican colleagues felt threatened by the Biden administration's inclusive interpretation of Title IX, what did they do? They passed legislation to ostracize trans students and allow discrimination in sports. When my colleagues felt uncomfortable about reducing the crushing debt burden faced by students who choose to go to college, they passed legislation to wipe out relief and plunge more borrowers into financial distress. What is their focus today? Picking on desperate people who are fleeing war, violence, and abject poverty in search of a better life for themselves and their children. Now, the Republicans are threatening Federal funding to schools. That is funding that is intended to support all students. I won't support the harmful scapegoating of migrants and repeated attacks on marginalized communities, and I won't support actions that delegitimize our public schools. These are the only schools that have an obligation to serve all students and families, regardless of race, ethnicity, disability status, ability to pay, sexual orientation, gender identity, religion, or any other characteristic. Our public schools are for everyone. What I will support and what I repeatedly expressed an eagerness and enthusiasm to work on are substantive, positive evidence-based solutions that make schools safer, improve opportunities for students from all backgrounds, and enhance the quality and frequency of parents' and families' involvement in their children's education. Madam Speaker, I welcome those conversations. I am disappointed that we keep finding ourselves engaged in culture wars with the majority putting politics over people instead of passing policies that help students, their families, and our communities. At a time when we have an opportunity to demonstrate compassion and empathy, this resolution takes us in the wrong direction. I strongly urge all of my colleagues to reject this resolution. Let's put humanity first. Let's focus on what really truly helps public education. General Leave

Ms. BONAMICI

Ms. BONAMICI. Madam Speaker, I rise today to call on Congress to reject the Republicans' reckless default on America act and to protect the progress that we have made in the very important transition to clean energy. The Inflation Reduction Act is a significant investment in our country's clean and healthy future. We are on the cusp of a major clean energy expansion, generating billions of dollars in private clean energy investments and thousands of clean energy jobs. In northwest Oregon, the Inflation Reduction Act has brought millions of dollars in funding for climate-resilient infrastructure, low- emission public transportation, and clean schoolbuses. Benefits are flowing to red, blue, and purple States, bringing cost savings to our constituents. Texas and Iowa, for example, are leading the U.S. in solar and wind production. It would be foolhardy and fickle to disrupt or delay this important work, just like it is foolhardy and fickle of the Republicans to try to force draconian budget cuts by threatening default. We must put our constituents first by passing a clean debt limit increase so we can turn our attention to the real work at hand, creating jobs, cutting energy costs, growing our clean energy economy for the sake of our vulnerable communities, future generations, and our planet. Madam Speaker, it would only take five brave Republicans to put country over party and sign the petition.

Ms. BONAMICI

Ms. BONAMICI. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to this misinformed attempt by our Republican colleagues to deny some needed financial relief to about 43 million Americans. Education is the best investment we can make to give everyone the opportunity to be successful in school and in life. In this Congress, we have repeatedly seen how willing our colleagues on the other side of the aisle are to put politics over people and special interests over students. This CRA is no different. Facts matter. Let's set the record straight. President Biden's loan forgiveness plan helps a lot of borrowers with debt but no degree. Many were borrowers who were defrauded by their schools or who had to take on other responsibilities and couldn't complete their education. The President's plan directs 90 percent--let me repeat--90 percent of relief to borrowers earning less than $75,000 per year. This may be news to my colleagues who continue to misrepresent that student debt relief will be a bailout for the rich. It is not. Another fact. Because of interest capitalization and negative amortization, many student loan borrowers who are current on their payments still have loan balances that are the same as or even greater than when they first took out their loan. That is unfair. Beyond the numbers, we must humanize who will be hurt the most if we allow this CRA to pass: Our Nation's teachers in red and blue districts who work with students every day; healthcare workers and first responders in red and blue districts who keep our communities safe and healthy; caregivers in red and blue districts who support the work of raising and sustaining families; and our Nation's small business owners in red and blue districts who make communities vibrant and unique. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to show some humanity, compassion, and empathy. Let's pass good-faith policies that make college more affordable and recognize the intrinsic value of opportunity and possibility in every American. Mr. Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this regressive resolution that will harm people in Oregon and across the country.

Ms. BONAMICI

Ms. BONAMICI. Mr. Speaker, the House Republicans released their proposed agricultural funding bill this morning, and there is no doubt that they are ready to cut nutrition benefits. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to defend the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP. When I worked my way through college, I used assistance--called food stamps at the time--so I would have enough to eat. My experience is not unique. More than 34 million people in the United States are food insecure. Every day millions of Americans rely on SNAP to help them put food on the table for themselves and for their families. SNAP is our most effective anti-hunger program, and we should be improving its vital benefits. Unfortunately, my colleagues across the aisle are doing the opposite. Under the House Republicans' budget bill, which should be called the default on America act, many people across the country, including many seniors, will lose access to this critical assistance. My colleagues claim their benefit cuts will get people back to work and reduce our national debt, but taking food assistance away from vulnerable Americans will not help anyone find work, it will just make them hungry. Balancing the budget on the backs of low-income seniors is shameful. Unlike the default in America act, the bill I will soon introduce will increase access to SNAP benefits for our Nation's most vulnerable seniors. My Senior Hunger Prevention Act will reduce food insecurity and raise the value of SNAP benefits so seniors can live and age with dignity. Additionally, the first bill I introduced this Congress is designed to eliminate barriers for college students accessing SNAP benefits. Students of any age can't learn when they are hungry, and we know that they are more likely to succeed in the classroom when they are not worried about where their next meal is coming from. Mr. Speaker, strengthening SNAP should not be a partisan issue. I also support the bills that several of our colleagues have introduced that will improve our food security programs. Following last year's White House Conference on Hunger, and as we consider the farm bill, Congress must make it a priority to get assistance to those who need it most. Mr. Speaker, we are at a critical moment to take action to end hunger, and the default on America act is not the answer. We must strengthen SNAP, not cut it.

Ms. BONAMICI

Ms. BONAMICI. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 2-- this harmful, partisan, Republican legislation--for many reasons, but especially because it will endanger people seeking asylum. This bill takes us backwards after years of acknowledging the need for comprehensive immigration reform. The expansion of family detention in this bill will hurt children and families. It is costly, and it does not work as the majority claims. Mental health and medical experts agree that jailing immigrant families exposes children to high levels of trauma and distress. We should be expanding effective programs like Family Case Management, but this bill guts the program and will undermine its proven record of close to 90 percent compliance. We live in a country of immigrants, and our Nation is stronger because of its diversity. I urge all of my colleagues to oppose building walls and detention centers and support comprehensive, humane immigration reform that will strengthen our economy, enhance our security, and reflect our core values as Americans. Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record an article from Social Science & Medicine about the high levels of mental health distress experienced by children who are held in immigration detention. [From Social Science & Medicine, Apr. 29, 2019] Mental Health of Children Held at a United States Immigration Detention Center (By Sarah A. MacLean, Priscilla O. Agyeman, Joshua Walther, Elizabeth K. Singer, Kim A. Baranowski, Craig L. Katz) 1. Introduction Immigrant children who are newly arrived in the United States demonstrate more positive developmental outcomes, such as resiliency and positive academic attitudes, than their U.S.-born peers (Marks et al., 2014). However, several environmental factors could contribute to the development of psychological distress in these children and their families once in the U.S. In addition to exposure to acculturation stressors (Alegria and Woo, 2009; Suarez-Orozco and Suarez- Orovco, 2001), immigrants may also encounter deleterious medical and mental health outcomes associated with perceived discrimination (Pascoe and Smart Richman, 2009). Latinx immigrants also face health disparities driven by state-level immigration policies (Philbin et al., 2018). Furthermore, immigration policy and fears associated with deportation may increase the risk of emotional distress among immigrants who enter the U.S. without inspection or who remain without a valid visa (Cavazos-Rehg et al., 2007; Martinez et al., 2015). The forced dislocation from family, communities, and employment associated with deportation from the U.S. is also related to negative mental health outcomes (Bojorquez et al., 2015; Morris and Palazuelos, 2015). Beginning in 2014, there have been significant increases in the number of individuals and their families from Guatemala, El Salvador, and Honduras seeking asylum in the U.S. (Mossaad and Baugh, 2018). Many women and children fleeing these nations have reported experiencing human rights violations in their countries of origin associated with gang-related and intimate partner violence in the context of un-responsive law enforcement and government presence (UNHCR, 2014, 2015). Asylum seekers may experience a range of mental health outcomes associated with their experiences of persecution (PHR, 2012). They may continue to be emotionally affected by trauma experienced in their home countries, as well as the dangers and violence they often encounter during migration (Temores-Alcantara et al., 2015). In addition, the very process of seeking asylum may also contribute to their psychological distress, as survivors are required to participate in potentially retraumatizing asylum interviews or adversarial immigration hearings (Schock et al., 2015). The U.S. has also increased its capacity to detain immigrant families seeking asylum through the creation of more detention centers specifically designated for women and children over the past five years (Eagly et al., 2018). Asylum seekers in expedited removal are held in U.S. immigration detention while they await a screening interview for credible fear, where an asylum officer evaluates whether the asylum seeker has a credible fear of persecution or torture upon returning to their country of origin (HRF, 2018). This step is the first to determine eligibility for asylum. Adults and children being held in immigration detention demonstrate high rates of deleterious mental health outcomes such as depression and anxiety (Keller et al., 2003; Mares and Jureidini 2004). Studies conducted outside the U.S. have shown that detained immigrant children present with a high prevalence of depression/anxiety (10 percent) and post- traumatic stress disorder (PTSD, 20 percent) (Buchmuller et al., 2018; Sen et al., 2017). Research findings also indicate that children held in immigration detention settings may experience social, emotional, and behavioral difficulties at higher rates than those seen in the community (Sarkar and Gupta. 2007; Zwi et al, 2018). To our knowledge, there have been no large empirical studies that have evaluated the mental health of children in immigration detention in the U.S. Previous studies documenting the mental health of children in U.S. immigration detention, though compelling, have been largely qualitative and anecdotal (Brabeck et al., 2014), or have been from the perspective of lawyers in the field (Bailey et al., 2014). Furthermore, experts assert that the controversial policy of forcibly separating children from their parents at the U.S.- Mexico border is detrimental to children's health and wellbeing (MacKenzie et al., 2017), therefore prospective research on the effects of this policy is needed. Given the significant environmental factors that may contribute to the development of psychological difficulties in these children, we sought to understand the current state of mental health in this population. 2. method We conducted a cross-sectional evaluation study of children held at an immigration detention center over two months in mid-2018. This center detains women who are accompanied by at least one child under the age of 18 in U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) custody. We interviewed a convenience sample of 425 mothers who presented to the visitation center of the detention center. Mothers were eligible to participate if they spoke English or Spanish and if one of their children detained with them was between 4 and 17 years of age. The purpose of the study was stated explicitly to mothers, and they were informed that their participation and responses would not impact their legal proceedings. Mothers who volunteered to participate provided informed written consent and were interviewed in private rooms or other areas of the visitation center that ensured confidentiality. Nine mothers refused to participate. During the time period of this study, 17 percent of the children included in the sample had been previously separated from their mothers. At the time of interviews, a subset of these families had been recently reunited. All consenting mothers completed a demographic survey that included items related to country of origin, age of children, and date of arrival at the detention center. Mothers were then asked questions about their eldest child with them at the detention center. Each mother completed the English or Spanish parent-report version of the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ), a 25-question screening instrument widely used internationally in children age 4-17 years (Goodman, 2001) and among refugee children (Zwi et al., 2017). The survey includes items that assess the child's behavior and possible responses are recorded as ``not true'' (0), ``somewhat true'' (1), and ``certainly true'' (2). Based on these responses, each participant received a score indicating total difficulties and a score for the subscales of emotional problems (e.g., feeling unhappy or having excessive fears), conduct problems (e.g., being disobedient), hyperactivity (e.g., being restless or easily distracted), and peer problems (e.g., preferring to play alone). Participants also received a prosocial score, which assesses behaviors such as sharing with other children and volunteering to help others. Consistent with the scoring of the SDQ, the resulting scores were assigned to the ``normal,'' ``borderline,'' or ``abnormal'' category for total difficulties and each subscale. Cutoff scores were originally designed such that roughly 80 percent of children's scores fall within the ``normal'' range, 10 percent within the ``borderline'' range, and 10 percent within the ``abnormal'' range (Goodman, 1997). A subset of 150 children age 9-17 years also assented to participate in the study following the informed written consent for their participation by their mothers. These children were part of a convenience sample of children who were in the visitation center at the time of their mothers' interviews. The children completed the UCLA Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder Reaction Index (PTSD-RI) Symptom Scale, a 27- question screening tool used widely to assess symptoms of PTSD in children (Steinberg and Beyerlein, 2013), including refugee children (Ellis et al., 2006). Children were asked how frequently they experienced core symptoms of PTSD in the past month, with possible responses of ``non'' (0), ``little'' (1), ``some'' (2), ``much'' (3), and ``most'' (4). A symptom was considered ``present'' with a rating of 3 or 4. Participants met the criterion for Category B (reexperiencing) if ; 1 symptom was present and for Category C (avoidance) if ; 1 symptom alterations in cognition and mood) if ; 2 symptoms were present and for Category E (increased arousal) if ; 2 symptoms were present. A probable clinical diagnosis of PTSD was determined by meeting the criteria for all 4 categories (Steinberg & B Beyerlein, 2013). Because a clinical assessment to establish a formal diagnosis of PTDS was not included in this study, the term ``probable PTSD'' will be used when referring to prevalence. We describe sociodemographic characteristics with frequencies and percentages. We examined the prevalence of outcomes for the SDQ and PTSD-RI subscales. Cronbach's alpha for the SDQ and PTSD-RI were 0.768 and 0.908, respectively. Covariates included age, gender, country of origin, and previous separation from the child's mother. We considered results to be significant if p < 0.05. All analyses were performed using IBM SPSS (version 224). The research protocol, survey, and consent forms were reviewed and approved by the Institutional Review Board at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai. All participants provided written, informed consent. 3. results Most mothers were from Honduras (50 percent), El Salvador (23 percent), or Guatemala (22 percent), which is consistent with the overall population of residents at this detention center. The average age of the mothers and children were 33 (SD = 7) and 10 (SD = 4) years, respectively. At the time of interviews, families had been detained at the center for between one and 44 days, with an average detention of nine (SD = 6) days. Based on their mothers' responses to the SDQ, the children in this study demonstrated high rates of emotional problems (32 percent), peer problems, (14 percent), and total difficulties (10 percent) that fell within ``abnormal'' range. Rates of conduct problems and hyperactivity were each 8 percent. Children did not differ significantly based on gender or country of origin. Children aged 4-8 years showed higher rates of conduct problems (15 percent), hyperactivity (14 percent) and total difficulties (21 percent) that fell within the ``abnormal'' range compared to older children (all ps < 0.001). Compared to children who never had been separated from their mothers, children who had been separated showed higher rates of emotional problems (49 percent vs. 29 percent, p = 0.003) and total difficulties (15 percent vs. 9 percent, p = 0.015) that fell within the ``abnormal'' range. Notably, the majority of participants' scores (98 percent) fell within the ``normal'' range on the prosocial scale. Among the subset of 150 children who completed the PTSD-RI, the mean age was 13.4 (SD = 2) and 37 (25 percent) had been previously separated. Many met the criteria for avoidance (57 percent), reexperiencing (52 percent), negative alterations in cognition and mood (42 percent), and increased arousal (22 percent). Based on the presence of symptoms of these 4 subscales, 17 percent of the children had a probable diagnosis of PTSD. An additional 19 percent and 18 percent met two and three of the criteria, respectively. Results of the PTSD-RI did not differ significantly based on age, gender, previous separation from mother, or country of origin. Based on overall responses to both the SDQ and PTSD- RI, we found that 44 percent of children presented with symptoms that fell within the ``abnormal'' range on at least one of the SDQ subscales or a probable PTSD diagnosis. 4. Discussion The children of mothers who were interviewed at this detention center showed higher rates of emotional and behavior difficulties, as well as PTSD, compared to children in the general U.S. population; notably, the mean emotional symptoms subscale and total difficulties scores for the participants were higher than those seen in U.S. primary care populations (Biel et al., 2015; Simpson et al., 2005; Youthinmind, 2004). While approximately 5 percent of children in the U.S. have emotional or behavioral difficulties, the rate of abnormal total difficulties in the study population was 10 percent (Simpson et al., 2005). Furthermore, the lifetime prevalence of PTSD among adolescents in the U.S. is estimated at 4.7 percent, far below the 17 percent seen in this sample (McLaughlin et al., 2013). Average total difficulty scores for the participants (8.90 [SD 5.88]) were higher than those seen in Spanish-speaking Latinx Americans who are not in detention (6.80 [SD 5.001]) (Strand et al., 2015). The high rates of abnormal emotional (32 percent) and peer problems (14 percent) seen in this sample are consistent with high rates of abnormal scores for these subscales in refugee children in Australia (23 percent) and 21 percent, respectively) (Yalin Sapmaz et al., 2017; Zwi et al., 2017). The high rate of probable PTSD (17 percent) in this study group is also consistent with a high rate (20 percent) among children held in immigration detention in the United Kingdom (Sen et al., 2017). Of note, 98 percent of children had normal scores on the prosocial scale, which includes items such as being considerate of others' feelings and volunteering to help others. Due to the cross-sectional nature of this study, we cannot draw causal connections between arrival in the U.S., time in immigration detention, and the development of behavioral or emotional difficulties. Regardless of cause, the distress seen in these children highlights the need for immediate mental health treatment, as early intervention in children who demonstrate signs of psychological difficulties is shown to improve long-term emotional health (Terr, 2013). Of particular concern, these results demonstrate heightened distress among detained children aged 4 to 8. Young children are particularly vulnerable to the effects of their environment, and trauma experienced early in life has a significant effect on emotional and behavioral development (Oral et al., 2016). These children, especially, would benefit from early, developmentally-appropriate, and specialized interventions to address these significant stressors. Given the range of exposure to violence reported by children fleeing Honduras, Guatemala, and El Salvador (UNHCR, 2014), as well as the high rates of violence experienced by migrants from these countries during their journey to the U.S. (MSF, 2017), it is essential that these young people receive treatment specific to ameliorating the impact of posttraumatic stress. Children who had been separated from their mothers demonstrated a significantly greater number of emotional symptoms and total difficulties when compared to detained children who had not been separated from their mothers, suggesting that separation is associated with an increase in psychological distress. When the U.S. government began separating more migrant children from their parents in May 2018, the American Academy of Pediatrics, American College of Physicians, and American Psychological Association each released statements condemning the policy (Kraft, 2018; Lopez, 2018; Stewart, 2018). These professional organizations, as well as individual clinical practitioners, warn of the deleterious mental health outcomes associated with forcibly removing children from the security of their families in both the short and long-term (Mackenzie et al., 2017). Our results, although correlational in nature, appear to confirm these findings, at least in the short-term, and reinforce expert opinion that separating immigrant children from their parents causes emotional harm. Current published guidelines from ICE, last updated in 2007, indicate that each person held in immigration detention should receive an intake screening and referral to a mental health provider, either in the detention center or at an outside location if deemed necessary (ICE, 2007). Given that some of the children in this study expressed severe emotional distress and anecdotally expressed difficulty obtaining further mental healthcare within the facility, current screening methods and/or current treatment services are likely inadequate in quality and scope. Therefore, further clarification from ICE is required regarding the nature of available treatment, as well as the extent to which clinicians who receive referrals have training in child psychology or psychiatry, demonstrate cultural-competence, and integrate a trauma-informed lens in their interventions. Moreover, given the continued stressors associated with detention, these children would benefit from specialized mental health treatment outside of immigration detention settings. Indeed, many experts recommend that children be placed in the community while their immigration cases proceed and we believe our findings add further credence to this position (Linton et al., 2017). Limitations. Given the design of this study and the restrictions of conducting research in an immigration detention center, our results must be interpreted in the context of several limitations. The participants represent a convenience sample of the population of families, and only those mothers who presented to the visitation center could be recruited for participation. In addition, due to the nature of the setting, some mothers completed the SDQ in their child's presence, which may have influenced the mothers' responses. Additionally, only a subset of older children was asked to complete the PTSD-RI, as many were attending classes at the facility's school at the time of their mothers' interviews. 5. Conclusions Despite the limitations, this is one of the first studies of the mental health of a particularly vulnerable population of children being held in immigration detention in the U.S. Our results demonstrate that detained children, and especially those previously separated from their mothers, experience significant psychological distress. Prior studies have demonstrated that detention is deleterious to the mental health of immigrants (Keller et al., 2003; Sen et al., 2017). We theorize that the trauma in this population is observed as a continuum, involving the premigration experiences of the subjects in their countries of origin, their migration experiences, and their subsequent detention in the U.S. Against this background of trauma, detention and denial of adequate mental health treatment are detrimental to the development of these children.

Ms. BONAMICI

Ms. BONAMICI. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to this regressive, shortsighted, and cruel default on America act that would devastate programs that are critical to Oregonians and Americans. We have a housing affordability and homelessness crisis, but this bill would eliminate affordable housing assistance for many families and seniors. Our constituents can't find or afford childcare, but this bill would take away access to Head Start. The cost of higher education keeps rising, but this bill would cut Pell grants and slash additional funding to support millions of disabled and low-income students. Instead of addressing the climate crisis, this legislation would entrench reliance on fossil fuels; undermine renewable, sustainable energy options; and raise taxes for middle-class Americans. This bill could cause millions of low-income seniors and veterans to lose access to nutrition assistance, and up to 10 million people could lose Medicaid coverage. There is a simple solution to prevent these harmful outcomes: Bring a clean debt ceiling bill to the floor so we can end this MAGA Republican-created manufactured crisis. Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a report from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities on how up to 10 million people could be at significant risk of losing health coverage under Speaker McCarthy's bad, backward bill. [From the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, Apr. 21, 2023] McCarthy Medicaid Proposal Puts Millions of People in Expansion States at Risk of Losing Health Coverage (By Gideon Lukens) A Republican proposal led by House Speaker Kevin McCarthy would take Medicaid coverage away from people who do not meet new work-reporting requirements. The McCarthy proposal would apply to all states, but in practice it would heavily impact people covered by the Affordable Care Act (ACA) Medicaid expansion. Of this group, more than 10 million people in Medicaid expansion states would be at significant risk of losing coverage under the McCarthy proposal. This group would be subject to the new Medicaid requirement, and they are not part of a group that states could readily identify in existing data sources and exclude from burdensome reporting. The McCarthy proposal could jeopardize coverage for millions more, by prompting some states to drop the ACA Medicaid expansion or dissuading states that have not yet taken the expansion from adopting it. Nationwide, we estimate that over 10 million Medicaid expansion enrollees--more than 1 in 5 of all Medicaid enrollees in expansion states--would be at risk of losing Medicaid coverage under the policy in McCarthy's debt limit bill, using 2019 (pre-pandemic) data. Some 74 percent of all expansion enrollees and 21 percent of all Medicaid beneficiaries in the states that have adopted the expansion would be subject to the new requirements and, thus, at risk of losing coverage. People in every expansion state would be affected, with the share of total Medicaid enrollees at risk ranging from 15 to 37 percent. (See Table 1 and Methodology.) Because we use 2019 data, the national estimate does not include the nine states that expanded coverage after that date and therefore very likely understates the number of enrollees at risk. If those states were included, it would likely add upward of 1 million more enrollees at risk of losing coverage. While not all of those at risk under McCarthy's proposal would lose coverage, many would, including people who are working or are eligible for an exemption but would be disenrolled due to administrative burdens and red tape. This was the experience in Arkansas, which is the only state that briefly took people's Medicaid coverage away for not meeting work-reporting requirements, until a federal court halted the program following massive coverage losses. In just seven months of implementation, some 18,000 people--1 in 4 subject to the requirements--lost coverage. Moreover, research found that the new requirements had no impact on employment outcomes. The McCarthy Medicaid provision draws heavily from the failed Arkansas experiment but is harsher in some respects, applying to somewhat older adults, for example. The more than 10 million estimate (looking just at the states that had expanded Medicaid prior to 2019) does not fully account for the sweeping impact the Medicaid work- reporting requirement could have. For example, while the bill directs states ``whenever possible'' to use electronic data sources to verify whether people meet the criteria for continued Medicaid coverage, the extent to which this would protect people from losing coverage or from onerous reporting would depend on implementation decisions at both the federal and state level. Proponents of the new requirements argue that they give states an option to take Medicaid coverage away from people who don't comply with the new work-reporting requirement. This is misdirection at best. The bill terminates federally funded Medicaid coverage for those who don't meet the work-reporting requirements. In theory, states could provide fully state-funded coverage to those whose federal Medicaid coverage is taken away, but with the federal government currently covering 90 percent of the cost of coverage for expansion enrollees, states are exceedingly unlikely to continue coverage for large numbers of people who don't meet the requirement. (It is worth noting that states did not provide state-funded coverage for this group prior to the ACA's expansion, though they were able to do so.) Moreover, administering these new requirements would be complicated for state and local governments, which would have to pick up a significant portion of the costs associated with implementing the complex systems to verify work, determine who meets automatic exemption criteria (such as those with children), and assess applications for exemptions based on criteria, such as an illness, that the state doesn't know through its eligibility system. States also would have to absorb the costs associated with higher caseload churn--that is, people losing coverage and then having to reapply or seek to have their coverage reinstated, all processes that require caseworker staff time. And uncompensated care costs would increase because people have lost coverage, adding further to the costs that states and safety net health care providers would have to pick up. Without a doubt, adding work-reporting requirements to Medicaid would cause many low-income adults to lose coverage due to bureaucratic hurdles and would leave people without the health care they need, including life-saving medications, treatment to manage chronic conditions, and care for acute illnesses. People's access to health care and other basic supports, such as housing, food, or child care, should not hinge on whether they meet a work-reporting requirement or successfully navigate a complicated system to either report work hours or claim an exemption. McCarthy Medicaid Provision Builds on Failed Arkansas Experiment The Arkansas plan, implemented in 2018, required that Medicaid expansion enrollees aged 19-49 document at least 80 hours of work or other qualifying activities (e.g. job training, volunteering) per month. Exemptions were available for various groups including pregnant people, certain types of caregivers, and people with certain health conditions, but qualifying for these exemptions required that enrollees successfully navigate the reporting system or that the state use available data to determine exemption status. As a result, more than 18,000 people (about one-quarter of those subject to the requirements) lost coverage in just seven months, before a federal court blocked the policy. The McCarthy plan is similar to Arkansas' but applies to a broader set of Medicaid enrollees. First, it applies to enrollees aged 19-55, a wider age range that includes more older adults. Second, it is not explicitly limited to Medicaid expansion enrollees, unlike the Arkansas policy. While all states would have to set up new processes to validate exemptions, we assume that because existing state data sources could readily be used to exempt the bulk of Medicaid enrollees who are not part of the expansion group, the impact would be largely on expansion enrollees. Third, some groups exempt under the Arkansas plan, including postpartum people, people identified as ``medically frail,'' and people receiving unemployment benefits, are not exempt under the McCarthy plan. A KFF study estimated that under a nationwide Medicaid work-reporting requirements policy similar to policies implemented in Arkansas and proposed by other states, most people losing coverage would be complying with or exempt from the requirements but would be disenrolled due to administrative burdens and red tape. Using conservative assumptions about disenrollment based on a survey of the research literature, the study found that 62 to 91 percent of those losing coverage would be people who qualify as eligible under the policy. Coverage losses would be concentrated among those eligible because the overwhelming majority of Medicaid enrollees already meet the requirements or an exemption criterion, yet they would still be at risk due to the bureaucratic complexity of reporting and proving exemption status. Overall, between 1.4 and 4 million people would have lost Medicaid coverage if Medicaid work-requirements were imposed in 2016, the KFF study estimated. This estimate is roughly in line with the Congressional Budget Office's projection that a nationwide policy similar to Arkansas' would result in a reduction in Medicaid enrollment of 2.2 million adults per year for the 2023-2031 period. Our analysis is not a projection of the number of people who will lose coverage, but rather shows that more than 10 million people would be subject to these requirements and, thus, at risk of losing coverage from a policy that would erect burdensome requirements to report work or claim exemptions. A large share of the 10 million people subject to the requirements would have to navigate complex work- reporting and verification systems each month while others would have to navigate the exemption process periodically to retain coverage. Research suggests that some populations would be especially harmed by these work-reporting requirements, including people with disabilities, women, people who are experiencing homelessness, and people with mental health conditions or substance use disorders. Even though exemptions would apply to some in these groups, states often lack the capacity to hire sufficient staff to respond to people's questions or manage work-reporting systems and the exemption process. People who have fewer transportation options or live in rural areas, face language or literacy barriers, are in poor health or have limited mobility, or have limited internet access would face particular barriers to understanding the new requirements and navigating reporting systems, applying for exemptions, and collecting the verification needed to prove that they meet an exemption criterion. There is no upside to Medicaid work-reporting requirements. Research has not found any impact of the requirements on employment, and data from Arkansas show that few enrollees engaged in new work-related activities. Instead, work- reporting requirements strip health coverage from people with low incomes--most of whom are already meeting or exempt from the requirements-- leading to gaps in care that damage their health and financial security and make it harder for them to find or keep a job. In this paper, we estimate the number of Medicaid expansion group enrollees at risk of losing coverage using administrative data on Medicaid expansion enrollment for 2019, combined with American Community Survey (ACS) data and state enrollment policies. We use 2019 Medicaid expansion group enrollment to avoid including the large increase in Medicaid enrollment that began in 2020 as a result of the requirement that Medicaid provide continuous coverage during the public health emergency. This continuous coverage requirement ended on March 31, 2023, and while estimates of coverage loss during the unwinding of the requirement are highly uncertain, enrollment declines are potentially large. By using 2019 data, we avoid overstating our estimates of expansion enrollees at risk in each state once unwinding is complete. Methodology As stated above, our estimates are based on a combination of administrative data on Medicaid expansion enrollment, ACS data, and state enrollment policies. Because our data are based on 2019 (pre-pandemic) Medicaid expansion enrollment, they do not include expansion enrollees at risk in states that expanded in 2019 or later, including Idaho, Maine, Missouri, Nebraska, Oklahoma, Utah, and Virginia. We also cannot produce expansion group estimates for North Carolina and South Dakota, which have enacted but not yet implemented expansion. Our national total estimate is therefore likely to understate the number of enrollees at risk. Finally, by shifting costs to states, the McCarthy proposal could result in some states deciding to drop the ACA Medicaid expansion, jeopardizing coverage for millions more. Similarly, these new requirements could dissuade some states that have not yet adopted the expansion from doing so. We consider Medicaid expansion enrollees aged 19-55 and exclude from this group people who live with dependent children aged 0-17. States should be able to exclude this group automatically (without requiring them to apply for an exemption) using existing administrative data, so they are less likely to be at risk. We do not estimate other exemptions or work status because these individuals would be more likely than parents to have to report their employment or earnings monthly or to apply for and submit documentation to receive an exemption. Research indicates that most people who would lose coverage under work-reporting requirements would be disenrolled despite working or qualifying for an exemption due to the complexities of proving that they are working or meet an exemption criterion. Publicly available administrative data on Medicaid expansion enrollees do not include detailed enrollee characteristics. We therefore use data from the U.S. Census Bureau's American Community Survey as well as state-level eligibility rules to estimate the share of expansion enrollees who are aged 19-55 and who do not have dependent children in each state.

Ms. BONAMICI

Ms. BONAMICI. Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor the celebration of Muslim- American Heritage Appreciation Month, which the City of Beaverton, Oregon and its communities and community partners across Oregon recognized in March of 2023. I honor the many contributions of the more than 20,000 Muslim Americans in Beaverton and throughout the State of Oregon who have made many valuable contributions to the city and community. The Muslim community in Oregon compromises different races and ethnicities and includes those both in the United States and those who immigrated from all over the world. Muslim-American Heritage Appreciation Month is an opportunity to spread awareness of the many facets of the Muslim Community and to condemn the islamophobia they have faced. The month of March also includes the holy month of Ramadan on the Islamic lunar calendar, where observing Muslims fast from sunrise to sunset for 30 days starting March 22nd and concluding the evening of April 21st. At the end of this holy time, Muslims celebrate Eid Al- Fitr, one of the most significant holidays of the year. I celebrate the many community events that were held throughout this month, including cultural night dinners, Ramadan food box distribution, toy drives for refugee foster youth, and Iftar community meals. I also recognize the many contributions of community organizations that have built this effort. Some include Cool Islam, which offers youth programming, toy drives, and assistance to help children learn about being Muslim; and The Islamic Society of Greater Portland, which works to develop continuing relationships in the greater community and confront the islamophobia that Muslim people living in the United States face too often. I appreciate the dedication of these organizations and community partners and join with them in honoring the contributions of Muslim Americans in the Beaverton community as we recognize March 2023 as Muslim-American Heritage Month.

Ms. BONAMICI

Ms. BONAMICI. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this bill, a bill that puts politics over participation. I am deeply concerned about the increase in and apparent normalization of attacks against trans students. Contrary to what my Republican colleagues say, this legislation will diminish civil rights, discriminate against students, and dismantle relationships of trust between students and their coaches and educators. Trans rights are human rights. Denying trans students the opportunity to play on sports teams that are consistent with their gender identity sends a clear message to those students that they don't matter. If my Republican colleagues are interested in protecting women and girls, I have a long list of priorities that I am eager to work on. Let's pass commonsense gun violence prevention legislation. Let's pass legislation protecting reproductive freedom. Let's pass paid family leave and medical leave and close the gender pay gap. We should be working together to create opportunities for every student to thrive with a focus on those who are most vulnerable, especially trans youth. I want every trans student out there to know I see you, and I will never stop fighting for you. I urge my colleagues to show some humanity, stop attacking trans people, and vote ``no'' on this bill.

Ms. BONAMICI

Ms. BONAMICI. Mr. Speaker, as a fellow Oregon Ducks fan, an Oregonian, I am really grateful to be here today with my colleagues to honor an exceptional staffer, Jenn Wickre. Jenn is a longtime, dedicated, and invaluable staffer for the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, on which I have had the honor of serving since I joined Congress in the beginning of 2012. Jenn has been a tireless public servant, supporting members of the Science Committee in our efforts to craft and advance meaningful legislation. I know her unwavering commitment, her expertise, and her bipartisan approach have really left an indelible mark, and we are honored to pay tribute to her exceptional contributions this evening. Committee staff plays a crucial role in supporting the work of the committee. They are really essential to the functioning of the legislative process. I learned when I went from the Oregon legislature to Congress how important our committee staff members are. Jenn has been working diligently behind the scenes, providing her valuable expertise, her research, and her assistance to help Members fulfill their responsibilities on the committee. She, like many of our staff, possesses specialized knowledge in policy and really plays a pivotal role in helping us understand complex issues. Many of us who serve on the Science Committee are not scientists. We don't have that expertise. Our committee staff really helps us identify potential pitfalls, because we occasionally run into those, and develop effective strategies to achieve our goals. Her expertise and dedication have really contributed to the development of well-informed and evidence-based policy decisions, leading to more effective policymaking that benefits the American people. I had the honor of traveling with Jenn on a bipartisan delegation to the Galapagos Islands in 2018. When you travel with somebody, you get to spend time together. We conducted oversight of NSF-funded research and observatories. The primary subject of the trip and a significant area of cooperation between the United States and each of the nations we visited was our scientific research enterprise. The trip was noteworthy because it really gave a unique insight into the bipartisan cooperation that lay ahead. It was great to have Jenn on that trip. It was one of those Science Committee trips that you will never forget for the lessons learned and the relationships made. In addition to her exceptional expertise, she has been a model of bipartisan collaboration. I have heard stories from her friends across the aisle about how she has continued to foster a culture of inclusivity, cooperation, and mutual respect, transcending political differences and working with her colleagues on both sides of the aisle to achieve common goals. That is something we know we desperately need in this institution. Her ability to find that common ground to build consensus was crucial to the passage of important legislation like the recent CHIPS and Science Act. Many have suggested this would not have been possible without her unwavering commitment to the underlying policy, which helped bridge divides and really led to significant results for our Nation's economy, research and technology sectors, and, of course, our scientific research enterprise. Mr. Speaker, I am really honored to be able to join my colleagues in extending our deepest appreciation and gratitude from both sides of the aisle for Jenn's exceptional service to the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology and to the American people. I thank Jenn for her unwavering dedication, kindness, and extraordinary contributions. I can't end without saying: Go Ducks. I know what a wonderful Ducks fan Jenn is, so I had to get that shout-out to my alma mater. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for the opportunity to honor Jenn Wickre this evening.

Ms. BONAMICI

Ms. BONAMICI. Madam Chair, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 1, which should be called the polluters over people act. This is a critical moment. Just last week, the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change released its sixth and final assessment, which presents our most comprehensive understanding of climate science to date. It is not, as my colleague suggested, that you can go outside and breathe fresh air and decide that there is no climate change. Scientists have made it abundantly clear, there are two options: significantly cut emissions now or face catastrophic challenges ahead. Future generations will look back and scrutinize the decisions we make as leaders. Did we have the political courage to take action or did we ignore science, stifle the most vulnerable voices in our community, and leave a climate catastrophe for our children and grandchildren? In northwest Oregon, my home, smoke from raging wildfires made the air unhealthy to breathe, and in the summer of 2021 hundreds of people in the Pacific Northwest died from a 1 in 10,000 year heat dome event where temperatures reached 118 degrees. Acidic oceans are harming our fishing industries. That is from carbon pollution. Droughts and extreme weather patterns jeopardize the livelihoods of our farmers. Warmer temperatures in the Columbia River are further endangering salmon that are so vital to the region and indigenous peoples. H.R. 1 is a dangerous move in the wrong direction under the guise of promoting lower energy costs. It would do no such thing, and the American people will not be fooled. Instead, this bill is a package of anti-climate and anti-public lands policy that would undermine recent environmental protections, destroy the National Environmental Policy Act, and take a significant step back in the fight against climate change. The bill will also raise, not lower, costs for working families by repealing tax cuts the Democrats passed last year for home efficiency upgrades. It even repeals the methane emissions reduction program. While Americans faced higher gas prices, make no mistake, the top five big oil companies made record profits--more than $196 billion last year--that is more than the economic output of most countries. These companies abuse billions of dollars in taxpayer-funded subsidies, stockpiled thousands of unused leases on millions of acres of public lands and engage in price gouging at the pump. This bill? It advances policies that allow Big Oil to increase their profits, even more at the expense of our constituents. The bill would expedite dirty mining operations, exempt oil, gas, and drilling industries from adhering to important environmental regulations, shorten public review timelines, and limit public engagement. We must protect our bedrock environmental laws that safeguard communities and allow the public to have a say in local projects. We must continue the implementation of the Inflation Reduction Act, which finally, after so many years, will make significant investments we need to save our planet. Addressing the climate crisis cannot be delayed. We must defeat this bill and turn our attention to investments that create jobs.

Ms. BONAMICI. Madam Chair, we must defeat this bill and turn our attention to investments that create jobs, cut costs for working families, and grow our clean energy economy for the sake of our planet, our vulnerable communities, and for future generations to come.

Ms. BONAMICI

Ms. BONAMICI. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong opposition to H.R. 5, which should be called the politics over parents act. After spending 15 years as a very involved public school parent, I can say without hesitation that I strongly support parental involvement in education. You won't meet a Member on this side of the aisle that disagrees with that. The bill before us today misses the mark. This could have been an opportunity to address the real challenges facing education, to make changes that would involve parents in a constructive way, and also make a positive difference in education. I am disappointed that we aren't doing that. House Democrats have shown time and time again that we are committed to providing all parents--including those who traditionally face barriers to engagement--with meaningful involvement in their kids' schools. Indeed, it is becoming increasingly clear that the Democratic Party is the party of parental rights and family values. We have put forward a substantive plan that will actually increase the frequency, quality, and accessibility of parental involvement and engagement in schools; a substantive plan that invests in evidence- based models and support systems that have been shown to increase family engagement and improve student achievement; a substantive plan that encourages parents to be partners, not adversaries, in their children's education; a substantive plan that roots out discrimination based on race, disability, socioeconomic status, sexual orientation, or gender identity in our public schools; a substantive plan that, unlike H.R. 5, doesn't carry dangerous, authoritarian undertones encouraging book bans, discouraging the teaching of scientifically and historically accurate curricula, and leading to the micromanagement of the work of educators. We welcome a conversation about how to empower parents, and urge our friends and colleagues on the other side of the aisle to abandon their politically motivated attacks on schoolteachers and students. We should instead be working together on these issues in a bipartisan manner. Our Nation's students and families deserve that. We need more parents, including those from diverse backgrounds, to feel included, supported, engaged, and welcomed at their kids' school. This bill does not even begin to do that. I am leading more than 45 of our colleagues on a Bill of Rights for Students and Parents, a resolution that is supported by more than 250 education, civil rights, and parents' groups, including the National PTA. I have heard colleagues on the other side of the aisle say that history will judge us on how we respond to the needs of students and families at this moment, and I agree with them. Will we succumb to an extremist, discriminatory, narrow-minded, anti- public-education agenda, or will we work together to advance commonsense, meaningful policies that will support parents, students, and educators? Mr. Chair, I urge all of my colleagues to take the approach that still sees public education as the great equalizer for all students regardless of who they are or where they are from, essential to our communities, the economy, and our democratic Republic. Please join me in rejecting this bill. Mr. Chair, I include in the Record a statement from the National PTA in opposition to H.R. 5. Dear Representative Bobby Scott: National PTA and our network of millions of parents and educators across the country urge you to support adoption of the Bonamici Substitute Amendment and oppose the underlying legislation, H.R. 5, on the House Floor tomorrow. PTA opposes the underlying bill, H.R. 5, because it has the potential to cause significant harm to children and families. If passed as written, H.R. 5 could: Prevent mental health support for students in need; Limit access to learning-enhancing technology and educational materials; Lead to inappropriate and harmful book bans and curriculum censorship; Create confusion for school staff and burdensome opt-in requirements for families; Impair relationships between educators and parents; and Undermine efforts to create safe, welcoming, supportive, and inclusive learning environments for all students and families. PTA supports Representative Bonamici's Substitute Amendment to H.R. 5 as the ONLY PATH forward to ensuring supports and services are in place for true family-school partnerships. We stand behind our National Standards for Family-School Partnerships that have been in place for over 20 years. The Substitute Amendment provides the opportunity for meaningful and inclusive family engagement in K-12 education and if adopted would replace the current H.R. 5 and enable our Nation's public schools to: Create a parent coordinator position in public schools; Reinforce existing parents' rights under federal law; Prohibit the federal government from curriculum censorship and banning books; and Invest in full-service community schools and Statewide Family Engagement Centers Program (the new authorization level of $60 million would allow all states to participate). As the Nation's oldest and largest child advocacy association, we know what meaningful family engagement looks like and what parents want from their policymakers. We ask you to join us in supporting the Bonamici Substitute Amendment and opposing the underlying bill, H.R. 5 on the House Floor. We thank you for consideration of this request and if you have any questions, please reach out to our Director of Government Affairs, Kate Clabaugh.

Ms. BONAMICI. Madam Chair, I rise today to urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support my amendment in the nature of a substitute to H.R. 5. My amendment in the nature of a substitute is a commonsense piece of legislation that makes tangible investments in parental involvement. It enhances the ability of school districts to involve all families, not just the privileged few. By adopting this amendment in the nature of a substitute, we will invest in evidence-based, full-service community schools, public schools that coordinate closely with community organizations to improve the integration, accessibility, and effectiveness of services for students and families; provide families with access to critical wraparound services; and, importantly, improve student achievement. We will be able to hire dedicated parent coordinators in public schools to work directly with parents, connecting them with the resources and support they need to help their children succeed and ultimately improve parental involvement and student success. We will direct more investments toward the Department of Education Statewide Family Engagement Centers program so States can share best practices on parental engagement, and school districts can receive the support and training they need to increase parental participation and involvement. Madam Chair, I was a very involved parent, and I talked to parents who wanted to come to school and wanted to participate, but they were working extra shifts, didn't speak English, or didn't have transportation. Let's break down those barriers. Importantly, we will prohibit the banning of books and curricula in our public schools and restore the ability of students to receive a historically accurate, well-rounded education. Madam Chair, I worked on this substitute with the input of stakeholders who are in our public schools each and every day, who are parents themselves, and who represent diverse communities in red and blue States across our Nation. I am proud to introduce this amendment in the nature of a substitute for consideration on the House floor because, unlike the bill it seeks to amend, it reflects the true diversity of our Nation and embodies the approach we should be taking to make lasting improvements to public education, an inclusive, collaborative, and evidence-based approach. On behalf of all students and parents, I encourage all of my colleagues to vote for this amendment and soundly reject H.R. 5, a bill that should be named the politics over parents act. Madam Chair, I thank the staff of the Education and the Workforce Committee for all of their help with this amendment in the nature of a substitute. I also thank my own staff in my office, Sujith Cherukumilli and Dr. Alfonso Garcia, both of whom have spent time as classroom teachers. I acknowledge the work of the staff on this important work, as well. Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. BONAMICI. Madam Chair, today, the National Parents Union released a poll that supports an alternative version of H.R. 5 and does not support H.R. 5 in the least. In fact, the majority of people believe that the bill of rights should guarantee that students should have access to a high-quality, well-rounded education with resources to support their individual needs. They overwhelmingly agree that parents' own personal beliefs should not prevent other students from accessing certain curricula and materials. The majority encourage the teaching of topics like women's history, Black history, Native American history, and Latino, Latina, and Hispanic history. The majority of parents want Congress to focus on issues like anti- bullying measures in schools and providing students with access to career and technical education and academic tutoring. They rank requiring public schools to provide parents with a list of books and reading materials in the library as the least important priority for Congress compared to other issues. They say that public schools should teach about and discuss concepts like kindness, empathy, cooperation, and collaboration. Ninety percent say that students should have access to high-quality, well-rounded education. Ninety percent say that students should be protected from any form of discrimination against them at school. Eighty-nine percent say that students should be taught using educational materials that are historically accurate. Eighty percent say students should be taught using educational materials that reflect the diversity of the United States. Eighty-three percent say students should be taught about how government works so they can be prepared to participate in democracy. My colleagues, H.R. 5 misses the mark. Please, vote it down. I will be offering a substitute amendment. We have something we can stand for that will really, truly address the needs of students and parents. Madam Chair, I include in the Record a letter from the Council of the Great City Schools in opposition to H.R. 5. Council of the Great City Schools, Washington, DC, March 23, 2023. House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Representative: The Council of the Great City Schools, the coalition of the nation's largest central city school districts, writes to offer our perspective on H.R. 5, the Parents Bill of Rights Act pending before the Committee. Urban schools have long supported and encouraged family involvement in our students' education and view parental engagement as an invaluable tool to further school improvement. Yet H.R. 5 includes excessive and redundant federal requirements that are costly, time-consuming, and unnecessary to improve student performance. The bill also contains problematic requirements, such as provisions that impede school districts' ability to operate effective instructional programs and ones that may deter the identification of students that need mental health support. The Council does not support H.R. 5 and urges House leaders to develop legislation that focuses on the instructional improvements and supports that provide our students with the best opportunity for success in school and life. Urban school districts provide an endless number of engagement opportunities and have longstanding local policies and state laws to foster this connection. Parental involvement on school-based committees is routine in urban schools, with positions designated specifically for parents and family members to review library materials and textbooks, budget expenditures, school safety procedures, and school improvement plans to increase student learning. The inclusion of federal requirements in H.R. 5 that, for example, mandate a specific number of in-person teacher meetings per year, the annual disclosure of library and reading materials at each school, and detailed budget publications needlessly duplicate commonplace practices in districts that customarily have multiple parent-teacher meetings, online card catalogs, and regular public meetings for developing annual district-level and school-level budgets that are posted on the districts' websites. We also do not support provisions that hinder districts' ability to provide the instruction and support that our students need to succeed. Urban school districts have worked hard to ensure that the benefits of content-rich resources are available to our children and have invested in online tools to promote an ``anywhere/anytime'' approach to learning. Encouraging parental objections to the use of such technology will likely prove extremely disruptive for all students and creates avoidable strictures for school and district staff. Similarly, any restrictions on access to school psychologists and counselors to support mental health will unsettle school districts that are prioritizing the well-being of those students that need it most. Urban school districts are committed to their students, parents, and families and have long worked to keep them informed, inspired, and ready to partner with their local schools. Authentic parent engagement is essential to increasing student achievement and readiness for college, career, and life. The Council urges a NO vote on H.R. 5 and encourages Congress to develop legislation that will help our districts and school communities reach these goals. Sincerely, Raymond Hart, Executive Director.

Ms. BONAMICI. Madam Chair, I have a substitute amendment at the desk.

Ms. BONAMICI. Madam Chair, in response, again, I reiterate that every single Democrat on our side of the aisle absolutely supports parental involvement and parental engagement. We talked about that in the debate on the bill. About costs, it is my understanding that the so-called Parents Bill of Rights Act doesn't have any additional funding with all the extra obligations that are put on our schools, districts, and teachers. There is no effort to silence parents. We want parents to be involved, peacefully, and peacefully state their concerns. I know that Ranking Member Scott talked about how Democrats tried to put an amendment in to put some reasonableness in there. If you have 200 parents show up at a school board meeting, and each one of them wants to speak for 2 hours, that is not reasonable. We absolutely support parental involvement. We want to do that. We want to provide that evidence-based engagement and, again, make the relationship collaborative, not adversarial. That is why I encourage colleagues to support this collaborative, evidence-based approach to involve all parents in education. Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. BONAMICI. Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. BONAMICI. Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Ms. BONAMICI

Ms. BONAMICI. Mr. Speaker, I regret to inform you that I missed the vote on rollcall No. 144. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall No. 144.

Ms. BONAMICI

Ms. BONAMICI. Mr. Chair, I regret to inform you that I was unable to attend today's legislative session. Had I been present, I would have voted: ``yea'' on rollcall No. 61, ``yea'' on rollcall No. 62, ``yea'' on rollcall No. 63, ``yea'' on rollcall No. 64, ``yea'' on rollcall No. 65, ``yea'' on rollcall No. 66, ``yea'' on rollcall No. 67, ``yea'' on rollcall No. 68, ``yea'' on rollcall No. 69, ``yea'' on rollcall No. 70, ``yea'' on rollcall No. 71, ``yea'' on rollcall No. 72, ``yea'' on rollcall No. 73, ``yea'' on rollcall No. 74, ``yea'' on rollcall No. 75, ``yea'' on rollcall No. 76, ``yea'' on rollcall No. 77, ``yea'' on rollcall No. 78, ``yea'' on rollcall No. 79, ``yea'' on rollcall No. 80, ``yea'' on rollcall No. 81, ``yea'' on rollcall No. 82, ``yea'' on rollcall No. 83, ``yea'' on rollcall No. 84, ``yea'' on rollcall No. 85, ``yea'' on rollcall No. 86, ``yea'' on rollcall No. 87, ``yea'' on rollcall No. 88, ``yea'' on rollcall No. 89, ``yea'' on rollcall No. 90, ``yea'' on rollcall No. 91, ``yea'' on rollcall No. 92, and ``nay'' on rollcall No. 93.

Ms. BONAMICI

Ms. BONAMICI. Mr. Chair, I regret to inform you that I was unable to attend today's legislative session. Had I been present, I would have voted: ``yea'' on rollcall No. 37, ``yea'' on rollcall No. 38, ``yea'' on rollcall No. 39, ``yea'' on rollcall No. 40, ``yea'' on rollcall No. 41, ``nay'' on rollcall No. 42, ``yea'' on rollcall No. 43, ``nay'' on rollcall No. 44, ``yea'' on rollcall No. 45, ``yea'' on rollcall No. 46, ``yea'' on rollcall No. 47, ``yea'' on rollcall No. 48, ``yea'' on rollcall No. 49, ``yea'' on rollcall No. 50, ``yea'' on rollcall No. 51, ``yea'' on rollcall No. 52, ``yea'' on rollcall No. 53, ``yea'' on rollcall No. 54, ``yea'' on rollcall No. 55, ``yea'' on rollcall No. 56, ``yea'' on rollcall No. 57, ``yea'' on rollcall No. 58, ``yea'' on rollcall No. 59, and ``yea'' on rollcall No. 60. Amendment No. 84 Offered by Ms. Lee of California

Ms. BONAMICI

Ms. BONAMICI. Mr. Speaker, I regret to inform you that I was unable to attend today's legislative session. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall No. 32 and ``yea'' on rollcall No. 33.