Valerie Hoyle

Ms. HOYLE of Oregon

Ms. HOYLE of Oregon. Mr. Speaker, my father was in the fire service when this was passed in 1983. He retired in 1991, and because of this wrong, he will get less than people who have private pensions simply because he chose to protect and serve our community. I agree with what has been said earlier. We need to fix what is broken and do it the right way. It is why I believe we should pass the Social Security Expansion Act, so that we can extend the solvency of Social Security. That is not what is on the floor today. I could say a lot of things, but I think my cousin said it best. He called me when I was on the way here. He is suffering permanent health effects from the time he spent at the World Trade Center after 9/11 and for the time he spent in the fire service running into fires when everybody else was running away. He said, public employees, police officers, teachers, firefighters, and their spouses are punished for our commitment to serve our community. While trust fund babies and day traders get their full benefits, we do not. This is only part of the solution.

Ms. HOYLE of Oregon

Ms. HOYLE of Oregon. Mr. Speaker, this week I voted against H.R. 8790. I support parts of this bill. For example, it would create a Community Wildfire Risk Reduction Program, in line with a recommendation from the non-partisan Wildland Fire Mitigation and Management Commission. It would also increase tribal inclusion in forest management. But I cannot overlook the unfunded mandates in H.R. 8790. For instance, I strongly support creating a Community Wildfire Defense Research Program within the Joint Fire Science Program (JFSP) to provide research that would improve the wildfire-resistance of structures and communities. However, JFSP is already oversubscribed and the bill ignores the Wildland Fire Mitigation and Management Commission's recommendation to significantly increase the program's funding. H.R. 8790 would greatly expand JFSP's responsibilities without a corresponding increase in funding, resulting in less applied research being provided to land managers. This is not the way to address the wildfire crisis. I am also concerned about what is not in H.R. 8790. Over 100 recommendations from the Wildland Fire Mitigation and Management Commission were not addressed, including many recommendations to support and expand the workforce. You cannot talk about the wildfire crisis without talking about the firefighters who do body-breaking work to protect our forests and communities. It is unacceptable that Congress has not passed a permanent solution to the firefighter pay cliff. There should be no question that federal wildland firefighters deserve at least $15 an hour and a daily pay supplemental when they are working on long-duration wildfires, prescribed fires, or deployed away from their duty station to a high-risk fire area. I am a cosponsor of bipartisan legislation, H.R. 5169, the Wildland Firefighter Paycheck Protection Act, which would finally ensure that these heroes are paid well for their work. This bill should have been included within H.R. 8790. For these reasons, I do not believe H.R. 8790 is sufficient for the communities I represent that have been experiencing record-setting wildfire seasons and expect Congress to approach the issue with the seriousness it deserves. I will be sending a letter urging Senate leadership to improve the bill and send it back for reconsideration in the House. I want to achieve a better outcome that can solve problems and make a difference in our forests. I stand ready to work with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to achieve that goal.

Ms. HOYLE of Oregon

Ms. HOYLE of Oregon. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to this unnecessary amendment that seeks to restrict the rights and interests of Federal employees by calling into question the role of official time. Forty years ago, Congress established official time to ensure that all employees entitled to union representation receive it regardless of whether or not they choose to join the union. Official time ensures Federal employees have a voice at the worksite to resolve disputes, address issues of discrimination or retaliation, and propose improvements to the workplace. The Federal Government covers the cost of official time activities because under Federal law, unions must provide fair representation to all employees at the worksite, not just those who pay dues, but also those who benefit from their unions bargaining for better wages, hours, and working conditions, even though they aren't union members. Opponents of public sector unions claim that official time is a waste of taxpayer dollars. This is false. The cost of official time amounts to just one-tenth of 1 percent of all the salaries and benefits paid to Federal employees in a given year. This amendment is an attack on official time and on public sector unions, plain and simple. I urge my colleagues to oppose any and all efforts to take rights away from workers and to oppose this antilabor amendment.

Ms. HOYLE of Oregon

Ms. HOYLE of Oregon. Mr. Speaker, on June 16, the Northwest Youth Corps will celebrate its 40th anniversary. This program, which is headquartered in my district, is the largest Youth Conservation Corps program in the Northwest. For over four decades, it has given over 27,000 teenagers and young adults the opportunity to participate in conservation stewardship in Oregon, Idaho, and Washington State. These teenagers and young adults work to improve our lands and waters, which helps to reduce the potential for catastrophic wildfires and maintain our outdoor recreational assets. The Northwest Youth Corps, which is well known nationally for its innovation and quality, was recently awarded $12 million from the Inflation Reduction Act to improve urban tree canopies and make urban forests more resilient to climate change across the Northwest. I am proud to celebrate the Northwest Youth Corps on their anniversary and look forward to their continued contributions in our local communities and our forests for years to come.

Ms. HOYLE of Oregon

Ms. HOYLE of Oregon. Mr. Speaker, yesterday I mistakenly voted Yea on Roll Call No. 202, passage of H. Res. 1210, the Resolution ``Condemning the Biden border crisis and the tremendous burdens law enforcement officers face as a result.'' I intended to vote Nay, as I've consistently done on similar politically-charged, non-binding resolutions that play politics instead of work to achieve a bipartisan solution to the border. I regret the error.

Ms. HOYLE of Oregon

Ms. HOYLE of Oregon. Mr. Speaker, last week I voted against H.R. 7109. This is yet another performative messaging bill brought by House Republicans. It would add a citizenship question in the census and then require congressional districts to be drawn based on the number of self- identified citizens. Previously in 2019, the U.S. Supreme Court rejected an attempt to add a citizenship question to the census. The fact is House Republicans want to use this bill to redraw congressional districts to their advantage. It's shameful that House Republicans continue to waste time pushing this unconstitutional bill as part of their nonsense conspiracy theory that non-citizens are voting in federal elections. Time and time again, post-election reviews have proven that our elections are secure and voter fraud is exceedingly rare. This bill is attempting to solve a problem that doesn't exist, all for political games. Even more concerning is the fact that actions like this undermine the public's confidence in our elections. This is a grave and dangerous issue. Elections are the foundation of our democracy, and the U.S. House of Representatives should be protecting the voice and vote of every American.

Ms. HOYLE of Oregon

Ms. HOYLE of Oregon. Mr. Speaker, last week I mistakenly voted Yea on Roll Call No. 191, passage of H.R. 2925, the Mining Regulatory Clarity Act of 2024. I intended to vote Nay. I regret the error. I oppose H.R. 2925 and I voted against this legislation on February 6, 2024 in the House Natural Resources Committee.

Ms. HOYLE of Oregon

Ms. HOYLE of Oregon. Mr. Speaker, on Monday, April 15, I will vote No on H.R. 5921, the No Financing for Iran Act. While I agree with the bill's stated goal of preventing the Iranian government from accessing the U.S. financial system, the bill goes much further than that and has several issues. Unfortunately, H.R. 5921 as written would likely inflict significant harm on small businesses in Oregon and across the country. The bill includes provisions to prevent the Export-Import Bank of the U.S. (Exlm Bank) from financing projects associated with Iran's government. However, under current U.S. policy, Exlm is already prohibited from doing business with the government of Iran and Iran-related sanctioned persons (as are all U.S. government entities and U.S. persons). As Ranking Member Waters has noted, H.R. 5921's duplicative provisions will impose overly burdensome requirements on the Exlm Bank, which would dramatically increase the cost, processing time, and resources needed to review transactions and help American small businesses. The bill would also put American small businesses at a disadvantage to foreign competitors when exporting their goods abroad. Given my own work with the Exlm Bank before holding elected office, I know how reliant small businesses engaging in international trade in Oregon and across the country are on the services provided. I cannot support legislation that undermines the Exlm Bank's ability to serve American businesses. In addition, the bill seeks to prevent Iran from accessing Special Drawing Rights (SDRs)--an international reserve asset that many developing countries around the world rely on--through the International Monetary Fund (IMF). However, Iran is already prevented from having access to SDRs thanks to current U.S. sanctions, meaning this bill is unnecessary. In practice, the bill would actually prevent increases of SDRs to all countries. This is because the IMF process for approving SDR distributions is a simple up-or-down vote on whether there should be a distribution of SDRs to all IMF member countries--there is no avenue at the IMF for SDR votes on individual member countries. As a result, this bill would likely cause significant hardship for many developing IMF member countries around the world. The U.S. Treasury Department is also opposed to these provisions, stating that this bill would deny the IMF and U.S. Treasury ``a tool for promptly responding to global economic crises and preventing spillovers to the U.S. economy.''

Ms. HOYLE of Oregon

Ms. HOYLE of Oregon. Mr. Speaker, I will vote in support of H. Res. 883, a non-binding resolution that condemns the use of a slogan that has been used by some individuals and groups for antisemitic purposes, including as a rallying cry to deny the right to self-determination of the Jewish people or even to eliminate the State of Israel from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea. I believe the antisemitic use of this slogan should rightfully be condemned. For example, this slogan has been widely used by terrorist entities--including Hamas, the Palestinian Islamic Jihad and Hezbollah--to encourage future attacks on Israel, the Jewish community and Jewish institutions. With antisemitism and antisemitic attacks on the rise in the U.S. and around the world, we must swiftly condemn antisemitism in all its forms. However, this resolution should have been written better. For example, H. Res. 883, fails to acknowledge that some who use the phrase do so to advocate for Palestinian liberation and equality, and others-- including some members of the Jewish community--use the phrase to advocate for an end to the Israeli control and annexation of the West Bank and Gaza. The resolution should have noted that this slogan is not always intended to be used as antisemitic and not all who use the phrase are antisemitic. As with other resolutions this Congress, H. Res. 883 also fails to condemn antisemitic acts from those on the far-right, including white nationalists who have increasingly promoted antisemitic conspiracy theories and have threatened the lives and livelihoods of Jewish Americans. H. Res. 883 also treats the slogan ``from the river to the sea'' as one-sided. However, this phrase has also been used by right-wing Israelis--including by Prime Minister Netanyahu himself in January--to deny the right to self-determination of the Palestinian people. Let me be clear: I believe that both Israelis and Palestinians have a right to their own state. That's why I strongly support a two-state solution where Israelis and Palestinians recognize each other's right to live in peace and have prosperity. I also unequivocally condemn all forms of antisemitism, and I am appalled by the significant rise in antisemitism we've seen in recent years and especially after Hamas's October 7th terrorist attacks on Israel. If the House Republican majority were serious about tackling antisemitism, they would support President Biden's National Strategy to Counter Antisemitism, would quit trying to defund the Office of Civil Rights for Title VI enforcement which protects Jewish students, and would increase funding for the High-Risk Nonprofit Grant Program to secure Jewish institutions as a start. I urge House Republicans to prioritize real action to combat hate, rather than continue to waste time and resources on non-binding resolutions. That's why I've cosponsored legislation that thoughtfully and powerfully condemns the rise of antisemitism in the United States and calls on Congress to support the above substantive actions to tackle antisemitism, which congressional Republicans have so far refused to do.

Ms. HOYLE of Oregon

Ms. HOYLE of Oregon. Mr. Speaker, I will vote in opposition to H.R. 7521, the so-called ``Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act.'' This bill would force the sale of the social media application TikTok, whose parent company ByteDance is based in China. Let me be clear: I share the national security concerns of many that the Chinese government is collecting Americans' personal data via TikTok. However, I believe H.R. 7521 is an inadequate proposal that unconstitutionally singles out a specific company, setting a dangerous precedent. Additionally, by restricting access to a social media application, I believe this bill threatens Americans' constitutional rights to free speech, expression and a free press. I also believe the bill's provisions to force ByteDance to divest from TikTok within 180 days are unrealistic. In reality, a sale of this magnitude could trigger an antitrust acquisition review in the United States--a process that could take up to a year or longer. During this period, TikTok users in the U.S. could lose access to the app. This bill also ignores the fact that the Chinese government and other public and private entities around the world--including the U.S. government--are still able to purchase Americans' private information from third-party brokers. That's why I support comprehensive privacy reforms to protect Americans' constitutional right to privacy and close the data broker loophole. The United States has rightfully criticized other countries for infringing on the rights of their own citizens by restricting free speech and censoring access to the internet. However, H.R. 7521's restriction of Americans' free speech and singling out of one company makes us no better than our adversaries, and it invites reciprocal attacks from other countries on U.S.-based companies. We must not forget that the U.S. government also engages in what I strongly believe to be unconstitutional surveillance and collection of Americans' personal data and communications. If TikTok were sold to a U.S.-based company, I'm not convinced that American users' private data would be secure. Instead of rushing a vote on a bill that was written behind closed doors without proper debate, Congress should pass comprehensive data privacy and security reform legislation that protects Americans from unconstitutional data collection by all companies, governments, and digital applications--not just one.

Ms. HOYLE of Oregon

Ms. HOYLE of Oregon. Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, on Friday, March 8, 2024, I was unavoidably detained and missed a Roll Call vote. Had I been present, I would have voted: YEA on Roll Call No. 73.

Ms. HOYLE of Oregon

Ms. HOYLE of Oregon. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to mark the retirement of the National Transportation Safety Board's (NTSB's) ``Most Wanted List'' of Transportation Safety Improvements. Many of us have interacted with the NTSB in our own communities in the wake of transportation tragedies and know they are well-regarded for their world-class crash and accident investigations. Since 1990, the Most Wanted List has put a focus on needed transportation safety improvements across all modes of transportation, impacting communities across the country. It was introduced as a communications tool--before today's 24-hour news cycle and relentless social media--helping the NTSB focus its advocacy messages to policymakers. In its time, it was phenomenally effective. Since the creation of the List in 1990, the NTSB successfully promoted and saw significant policy changes that led to several transportation safety wins, including: Positive Train Control: legislation requiring full implementation of PTC on tracks with regularly scheduled intercity or commuter passenger rail service and Class I railroad main lines carrying poison- or toxic- by-inhalation hazardous materials. Fuel Tank Safety: implementation of safety recommendations on fuel tank inerting systems and enactment of a related FAA final rule. Occupant Protection: Child passenger safety laws requiring booster seat use and requiring that children ride, properly restrained by a child car seat or seat belt, in the back seat. Crashworthiness improvements across all modes, including the adoption of crash-resistant fuel tanks in helicopters. Seat belt laws--requiring that all occupants in all vehicles equipped with safety belts use them. Recreational Boating: implementation of alcohol-impaired boating laws, requirements for personal flotation devices, and requirements for boater education. Additional areas of safety improvement that the Most Wanted List addressed include human fatigue, runway safety, alcohol and drug impairment, the shipment of hazardous materials, rail tank car safety, as well as pipeline leak detection and mitigation. I also want to take a moment to acknowledge the agency's thorough and professional investigations that have led to safety recommendations which prevented future tragedies. America's transportation industry is among the safest in the world, and the NTSB is its conscience. But unlike Congress, the agency can only recommend, not require or implement these changes. For almost 35 years, the ``Most Wanted List'' focused the agency's advocacy efforts that led to the enactment of new safety policies. The NTSB feels now is the moment to change with the times. Its Board is calling for a more nimble safety advocacy program, freed from the structure of a formal list. As they embark on that change, I want to join the Board and the agency in celebrating the legacy of the ``Most Wanted List'' on the occasion of its retirement. It has served the nation well, and it has helped save many American lives.

Ms. HOYLE of Oregon

Ms. HOYLE of Oregon. Madam Speaker, today I rise in strong opposition to H.J. Res. 98 which would repeal the National Labor Relations Board joint employer standard. Under President Biden, this rule was issued to protect workers' rights. Unfortunately, House Republicans want to repeal this strong standard. Today, I have heard a lot of misleading claims about this joint employer standard. Simply put, this issue is about whether or not employers have to come to the bargaining table where the employer controls the means and manner of the workers' employment. As a member of the Congressional Labor Caucus and someone who has spent 25 years in the private sector putting food on the table for my family, I believe that when workers come to bargain over their wages and working conditions, then those employers who do control the means and manner of workers' employment--and that is a standard by which we determine whether someone is a direct employee or an independent contractor--should be at the bargaining table as required by law. When workers do better, employers do better, and our country does better. This is exactly what the Biden administration's joint employer rule does. What it doesn't do is impact the ability to utilize independent contractors when appropriate, and, as has been mentioned today, no franchisee has ever been categorized as a joint employer. This is more misinformation used to undermine the ability of workers to organize and bargain for better wages, hours, and working conditions. This strong standard overturns the Trump administration's rule, and it cracks down on corporations that outsource jobs and use independent contractors to walk away from their duties as an employer creating an unlevel playing field and unfair competition for those employers who are willing to provide fair wages, hours, and safe working conditions for their workers as per the letter of the law. In seeking to overturn the NLRB's new and stronger joint employer standard, House Republicans are working to help bad employers avoid their responsibility to employees and are undermining workers across this country. Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote against this antiworker resolution.

Ms. HOYLE of Oregon

Ms. HOYLE of Oregon. Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, I was unavoidably detained and missed some Roll Call votes during the first session of the 118th Congress. Had I been present, I would have voted: YEA on Roll Call No. 127; YEA on Roll Call No. 144; YEA on Roll Call No. 299; NAY on Roll Call No. 593; NAY on Roll Call No. 632; NAY on Roll Call No. 633; NAY on Roll Call No. 634; and NAY on Roll Call No. 637.

Ms. HOYLE of Oregon

Ms. HOYLE of Oregon. Mr. Speaker, last week, I voted in favor of H.R. 1147, the Whole Milk for Healthy Kids Act, which would allow schools the option of serving whole and 2% unflavored and flavored milk. Under current federal regulations, schools that participate in the National School Lunch Program (NSLP) can only serve low-fat or fat-free milk. H.R. 1147 would amend current regulations to allow schools to offer a wider range of dairy milk options, helping to ensure that students have freedom of choice. It would also help reduce the likelihood of students throwing out milk and missing out on beneficial nutrients. While I supported H.R. 1147, it was not perfect. I believe this legislation should have included options for children who cannot or choose not to drink dairy milk due to dietary, religious or personal reasons. Unfortunately, House Republican leadership did not allow for any amendments to be considered that would have extended freedom of choice for non-dairy beverage options. That's why I'm a cosponsor of H.R. 1619, the Addressing Digestive Distress in Stomachs of Our Youth (ADD SOY) Act, which would require schools to provide non-dairy beverage substitutes upon request of a student or parent/guardian and allow the U.S. Department of Agriculture to reimburse schools for providing non-dairy options. This issue is especially important for students who experience lactose intolerance, which disproportionately affects communities of color. Should the Senate take up H.R. 1147, I urge them to include the ADD SOY Act or similar provisions to allow for non-dairy options and broader freedom of choice for students. H.R. 1147 takes an important first step, but we must ensure that freedom of choice applies to all.

Ms. HOYLE of Oregon

Ms. HOYLE of Oregon. Mr. Speaker, last week I voted No on H. Res. 927, a resolution that purports to condemn antisemitism on college campuses. Several of my Jewish colleagues voted against this resolution as well. I strongly agree that Congress must condemn all forms of antisemitism, including on college campuses. Since Hamas's horrific October 7th attacks on Israel, the U.S. House of Representatives has voted in favor of several resolutions condemning antisemitism on college campuses and throughout the world, multiple of which I've supported and cosponsored. However, this latest resolution, H. Res. 927, is yet another disingenuous resolution that weaponizes the real scourge of antisemitism, uses Jewish people as pawns to play partisan political games, and represents another attack in the extreme right- wing's war on higher education. For this reason, I could not support the resolution. Among other items, H. Res. 927 calls on specific college presidents to resign, referencing a made-for-TV congressional hearing orchestrated by congressional Republicans last week. I believe it is inappropriate for Congress to inject itself into leadership and personnel decisions at colleges and universities. Doing so creates a slippery slope of Congress meddling in local decisions that the federal government should not be involved in. H. Res. 927 also appears to be another attempt to police and silence the free speech of Americans on college campuses. Again, while some demonstrators on college campuses have disturbingly engaged in antisemitic actions that should rightfully be condemned. H. Res. 927 is too broad. H. Res. 927 also fails to condemn antisemitic acts from those on the far right, including white nationalists who have increasingly promoted antisemitic conspiracy theories and have threatened the lives and livelihoods of Jewish Americans. The lead sponsor of H. Res. 927 has also publicly engaged in antisemitic tropes in the past, including the disgusting ``great replacement theory.'' This resolution appears to be an attempt to cover up extremist right-wing Republicans' flirtation with antisemitic ideology, as well as their support for antisemitic public figures. Let me be clear: I unequivocally condemn all forms of antisemitism, and I am appalled by the significant rise in antisemitism we've seen on college campuses in recent weeks. Many Jewish college students and faculty do not feel safe on campus, and many Jewish Americans feel unsafe in public. This is absolutely unacceptable. The university presidents who participated in last week's congressional hearing gave insufficient and appalling answers relating to campus speech calling for the genocide of Jewish people. I'm glad that they've since apologized for their statements, and I encourage other colleges not to make the same mistake these presidents did. However, if the House Republican majority were serious about tackling antisemitism, they would support President Biden's National Strategy to Counter Antisemitism, would quit trying to defund the Office of Civil Rights for Title VI enforcement which protects Jewish students and would increase funding for the High-Risk Nonprofit Grant Program to secure Jewish institutions as a start. That's why I've cosponsored H. Res. 927, introduced by Representatives Nadler, Raskin, and Goldman. H. Res. 927 thoughtfully and powerfully condemns the rise of antisemitism in the United States-- including on college campuses--and calls on Congress to support the above substantive actions to tackle antisemitism, which congressional Republicans have so far refused to do. I call on my congressional Republican colleagues to put politics aside and work in a bipartisan way to substantively tackle antisemitism.

Ms. HOYLE of Oregon

Ms. HOYLE of Oregon. Mr. Speaker, yesterday, I voted in favor of H.R. 5378, the Lower Costs, More Transparency Act, which passed the House with a bipartisan vote of 320-71.

Ms. HOYLE of Oregon

Ms. HOYLE of Oregon. Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, I was unavoidably detained and missed rollcall No. 712 today. I strongly support S. 788, and had I been present I would have voted ``yea.''

Ms. HOYLE of Oregon

Ms. HOYLE of Oregon. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, today I rise in support of H.R. 2839, which would amend the Siletz Reservation Act to address the hunting, fishing, trapping, and animal gathering rights of the Confederated Tribes of the Siletz Indians. The Siletz Tribe should be able to freely hunt, fish, and gather on their ancestral lands, just like every other Tribe in Oregon, except one, and in this country. Today, the Siletz have over 5,000 enrolled members, and they are concentrated in Oregon's Fourth Congressional District, which I am honored to represent. The Siletz Tribe was stripped of its land and status in 1954 through the Western Oregon Termination Act. In 1980, the Siletz Tribe was forced to give up their rights to hunting and fishing on Tribal lands in order to have their reservation restored. This restriction is called a consent decree. It is an unjust and racist policy that should have never happened, and it needs to be changed immediately. This is a bipartisan bill, and I thank my colleagues for their support. It provides the legal ability for the Siletz Tribe to renegotiate a hunting and fishing agreement with the State of Oregon. While the Oregon Fish and Wildlife Commission recently approved a historic new hunting and fishing agreement with the Siletz Tribe, the State can choose or be forced by litigation to return to the previous unconscionable agreement at any time. That is why this bill is greatly needed. The bill is necessary to invalidate the consent decree, and it does not impact the treaty rights of any other Tribe. The Siletz Tribe has worked in good faith with other Tribes in the region to avoid contested areas, which is reflected in my bill. There was a lot of hard work that went into making this happen and making this right. I am proud that H.R. 2839 passed out of committee with strong bipartisan support. In fact, it was unanimous. That is pretty strong bipartisan support. I thank my colleagues in the Oregon delegation for their support of this bipartisan bill. I particularly thank Senator Merkley, who has a companion bill in the Senate and who has worked tirelessly to right this historic wrong. The Siletz is one of only two Tribes in the entire country that was forced to give up their sovereign rights in order to have Federal status renewed. The other Tribe is the Confederated Tribes of the Grand Ronde Community of Oregon. I support similar legislation to allow them to renegotiate fishing and hunting rights with the State of Oregon, as well. I hope to see this legislation move forward. H.R. 2839 is about fairness. Siletz members should be able to hunt, fish, trap, and gather on their ancestral lands as they have traditionally done. They should be treated as other Tribes are. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this important legislation. Mr. Speaker, I urge support for this bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. HOYLE of Oregon

Ms. HOYLE of Oregon. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, the duck stamp, or Federal Migratory Bird Hunting and Conservation Stamp, is the only Federal conservation revenue stamp. This means that 98 percent of the sale price is used to purchase conservation easements and to acquire wetland habitats for the National Wildlife Refuge System. The duck stamp also provides an opportunity to showcase wildlife art, with the Fish and Wildlife Service hosting an art competition each year and the winning piece selected for next year's design. Sportsmen and women, artists, and conservationists purchase duck stamps as a collectible to cover entry fees to any National Wildlife Refuge System unit, as a hunting license, or as a donation to conservation. Millions of stamps have been sold in recent years, contributing tens of millions of dollars toward conservation each year. This bipartisan bill would modernize government services by allowing online access to the Federal duck stamp. It would save applicants and agency officials time and money and make it more accessible for hunters, conservationists, and collectors to purchase duck stamps and to support wetland conservation. Mr. Speaker, I support this bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. HOYLE of Oregon. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleagues from Arkansas and Louisiana, who represent great States to go hunting in if you can't make it all the way out to Oregon. I welcome you all there. Mr. Speaker, this is a good bill, and it should pass. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation. I hope this can be unanimous, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. HOYLE of Oregon

Ms. HOYLE of Oregon. Mr. Speaker, I will vote Present on H. Res. 894, a resolution that aims to condemn antisemitism throughout the world. Several of my Jewish colleagues voted Present as well. I strongly agree that Congress must condemn all forms of antisemitism. The House of Representatives has voted in favor of several resolutions condemning antisemitism since Hamas's horrific October 7th attacks on Israel, multiple of which I've supported and cosponsored. However, this latest resolution, H. Res. 894, contains overly broad language that weaponizes the real scourge of antisemitism and uses Jewish people as pawns to play partisan political games. For this reason, I could not support the resolution. For example, H. Res. 894 suggests that ``anti-Zionism is antisemitism.'' While some forms of anti-Zionism are antisemitic, there are many members of the Jewish community that identify as anti-Zionist. Lumping together factions of the Jewish community as ``antisemitic'' is clearly problematic. Some language in H. Res. 894 also appears to be a veiled attempt to police the free speech of Americans who have demonstrated in favor of human rights for Palestinians. Again, while some demonstrators have disturbingly engaged in antisemitic actions that should rightfully be condemned, H. Res. 894 is too broad. H. Res. 894 also fails to condemn antisemitic acts from those on the far right, including white nationalists who have increasingly promoted antisemitic conspiracy theories and have threatened the lives and livelihoods of Jewish Americans. Let me be clear: I unequivocally condemn all forms of antisemitism, and I am appalled by the significant rise in antisemitism we've seen in recent years and especially after Hamas's October 7th terrorist attacks on Israel. If the House Republican majority were serious about tackling antisemitism, they would support President Biden's National Strategy to Counter Antisemitism, would quit trying to defund the Office of Civil Rights for Title VI enforcement which protects Jewish students and would increase funding for the High-Risk Nonprofit Grant Program to secure Jewish institutions as a start. That's why I've cosponsored H. Res. 907, introduced by Representatives Nadler, Raskin, and Goldman. H. Res. 907 thoughtfully and powerfully condemns the rise of antisemitism in the United States-- including on college campuses--and calls on Congress to support the above substantive actions to tackle antisemitism, which congressional Republicans have so far refused to do. Had H. Res. 894 been written as carefully as H. Res. 907, I would vote in support.

Ms. HOYLE of Oregon

Ms. HOYLE of Oregon. Mr. Speaker, I rise today with a heavy heart to honor the memory of Chief Donald ``Doc'' Slyter, a revered leader of the Confederated Tribes of Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw Indians. Chief Slyter's life was a testimony to his unwavering commitment to his people and the cherished land he called home. For 39 years following the Tribe's recognition, Chief Slyter stood as a guardian of their resurgence, nurturing hope for generations to come. Mr. Speaker, may his spirit and memory leave a legacy of resilience and hope, leaving an indelible mark on the community that he cherished. During his tenure with the Tribal Council and as chief, he tirelessly advocated for the restoration of lands, water, fish, and wildlife. Chief Slyter's passing is a profound loss, not only to his family but to all members of the CTCLUSI Tribe, the Oregon community, and beyond. As we mourn his passing, let us remember his spirit, his commitment to community, his kinship, and his enduring legacy of hope and resilience. My thoughts are with Chief Slyter's family and all those touched by his remarkable life. Mr. Speaker, may his memory be a blessing.

Ms. HOYLE of Oregon

Ms. HOYLE of Oregon. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from California for yielding time. I rise in strong support of the Protecting Hunting Heritage and Education Act, which passed unanimously out of the Education and Workforce Committee by a 42-0 vote. This is how Congress is supposed to work. The bill would ensure that archery, hunter safety, culinary, and related outdoor education programs will continue to receive Federal funding through the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, or ESEA. For decades, schools across the country in districts like mine have provided archery and hunter safety education classes with funding provided by the ESEA. These programs get kids off of their phones, out from behind the TV, into the outdoors. They learn focus, physical agility, and a respect for the outdoors. In many districts like mine, people hunt for food. Again, we want to promote gun safety, and, again, hunter training. Unfortunately, the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act, an important gun violence prevention law that Congress passed last year, contained language that mistakenly cut off the Federal funding from these programs. It was no one's intent. The Federal funding prohibition was not the original intent of the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act. I was proud to lead a bipartisan letter along with Representative Mike Thompson from California urging support for continued Federal funding for these programs. The Protecting Hunting Heritage and Education Act will clarify that Federal funding for these programs will continue. I thank Representative Mark Green, Chairwoman Virginia Foxx, and Ranking Member Bobby Scott for their bipartisan work on this issue that matters so much in districts like mine. I call on the Senate to swiftly pass this legislation and ensure our young people can continue to have access to these vital programs. Our rural communities can't wait any longer.

Ms. HOYLE of Oregon

Ms. HOYLE of Oregon. Mr. Speaker, when the U.S. auto manufacturers were suffering during the recession, the UAW workers took pay cuts, were willing to forgo pay raises for the greater good of U.S. manufacturing, believing that U.S. auto manufacturers would repay their sacrifice once they were earning good profits. That didn't happen. Today, I rise in support of the United Auto Workers, and I urge the Big Three auto manufacturers to treat their employees fairly in these negotiations and share the wealth that is earned from their labor. The UAW is leading the charge to make green jobs good union jobs. The UAW organized the first battery plant in this country in Ohio. They are willing to move forward and work with manufacturers to get the job done. We need those jobs.