Pramila Jayapal

Ms. JAYAPAL

Ms. JAYAPAL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman so much for her leadership, and I thank her for sharing that. I think it is really important to remember that these are the workers who actually saved the auto industry by giving up defined benefit pension plans, by giving up salary increases, wage increases, benefit increases at that very time when we needed them to because they care so much about making sure that we have a competitive auto industry. I know that that has been everything that the gentlewoman has worked for, as well. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Mrs. Ramirez), who is also on our executive board for the Congressional Progressive Caucus and also has been a champion for workers and for justice throughout her career. We are so delighted she is now here in Congress to do that work.

Ms. JAYAPAL. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. DeSaulnier), a colleague who serves on the Education and the Workforce Committee with me and has been, again, at the forefront of championing labor issues.

Ms. JAYAPAL. Mr. Speaker, I thank Representative DeSaulnier for his comments. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Velazquez), the ranking member of the Small Business Committee and a member of the Congressional Progressive Caucus executive board, somebody who has truly seen around the world the plight of workers and the need for justice.

Ms. JAYAPAL. Mr. Speaker, I will take a minute, just in case anybody who is out there listening has been interested in the concept of strikes. I think it is important to say that striking is not an inherently bad or inherently good thing. It is not a failure of our system. In fact, it is a tool that is used to rebalance power between employers and workers. Employers don't have any right to pay unsustainable wages. They don't have any right to put forward unsustainable benefits. They don't have a right to keep families unstable by filling their workforce with workers that they just name as temporary, even though sometimes they work for 8 or 10 years. They don't have any right to put the burden of a worker's retirement on families or on governments, particularly when so many of these autoworkers have spent generations working for these companies and building these companies. Employers have no such rights. Striking is actually the noble way that workers can reset the power dynamic so that they and their families can get what they deserve. They make the decision to strike very soberly. If you listen to many of the autoworkers that are on the picket lines today, they talk about how they have been saving, preparing for this moment. They have not been going to movies. They have not been spending on things that they might otherwise spend on, because they know that in striking, what they are doing is fighting not only for their wages and benefits and working conditions, they are actually fighting for the wages, the benefits, and the working conditions of generations of workers to come, perhaps even their sons, their daughters, their children, their grandchildren, to be able to have good jobs. I think that is a really important thing to think about. For us, our job, I think, is as a community of those workers to support that decision, especially when inequality is hurting our society so badly. Here in Congress, I think our job as Members of Congress is to make sure that we strengthen the right to collectively bargain and to organize, to make sure that workers have that power, to work with management. In many parts of the world, it is not an adversarial relationship, and it is not an adversarial relationship because both management and workers understand that a company can do better when management supports workers, when workers are paid well. Of course, by the way, when workers' wages go up, they spend more. When they spend more, their communities do better, their businesses do better, and everyone does better. The tragedy of the last many decades really, accompanied by policy that has forced these changes, is that trickle-down economics doesn't work. What actually happens in trickle-down economics is a few people at the very top get rich and everybody else loses out. That is why we have the highest inequality in our country in half a century. It is why not just income inequality, but wealth inequality is at its highest. It is why in the wealthiest country in the world, we have 130 million people who are poor and low wage. When workers are striking, it is a reflection, a consequence of bad policy choices that have not furthered the goal of equity and equality and fairness, and it is also a rebalancing of power. I was interested, so as I was thinking about this Special Order hour, I looked up how many strikes we have seen recently. Just since the beginning of this year, there have been 247 strikes so far that involve 341,000 workers. When you look at what has happened out of some of the big contracts we have seen, from the port contracts to the graduate students and the research students in my home State of Washington, the UPS workers, what you are finally seeing with collective bargaining is the ability to move wages in the right direction. Of course, if that doesn't happen, then the tool of a strike is always on the table as a way to force people to listen to the demands of workers. I think today, as we think about the situation that we are in, everybody understands how important the auto industry is to us in this country. We all understand that we have competition from other countries around the world and that the way that we are going to make sure that we keep our industry strong is to bring back manufacturing to the United States. That is exactly what Democrats and President Biden have been pushing for with the bipartisan infrastructure bill, with the Inflation Reduction Act, with all of the bills that we have passed, with the CHIPS and Science Act. The reality is that we are trying to bring back jobs to the United States and to make sure that they are good union jobs. Unfortunately, there are people who are cynically using the UAW strike to try to say that they stand up for workers, like our former President. He is saying that he is going to go to Michigan, he is going to suddenly appear to speak to the autoworkers. I would just remind anybody who is watching that under the former President, we lost hundreds of thousands of jobs that were offshored. We didn't make the American economy more competitive. We didn't bring back good union jobs. In fact, my colleagues across the aisle have opposed us almost unanimously. We have some Republicans who have stuck with us on the PRO Act to advance collective bargaining. We have tried to move forward increases to the minimum wage. We have done all of the things on the Democratic side with very little, if any, Republican support, depending on the bill, to make sure that we are strengthening the middle class and the bottom, creating a bottom-up and middle-out economy that benefits all of us. Nobody is against people earning profits. What is wrong is to earn those profits at the cost of the workers who actually make those profits for you. That is wrong. That is why we are so proud to stand in solidarity with the autoworkers, with the United Auto Workers. We thank the president, Shawn Fain for his strength of negotiating and for his clarity of vision, for his moral call for everybody to do better, because when everybody does better, everybody does better. When only a few people at the very top do better, everyone suffers. Mr. Speaker, I hope that the striking autoworkers across the country know that the Congressional Progressive Caucus and that House Democrats stand with them in this very difficult time. We promise that we will continue to protect workers, to protect collective bargaining, to expand collective bargaining, and to make sure that workers everywhere enjoy the rights and the dignity that they deserve. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. JAYAPAL

Ms. JAYAPAL. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

Ms. JAYAPAL

Ms. JAYAPAL. Mr. Chair, Congress should invest in supporting an aviation sector that puts people first to enhance passenger experience, bolster the aviation workforce, and promote safety for all. I am concerned that several meaningful measures proposed as amendments and supported in principle on both sides of the aisle, were not given fair consideration or debate on the floor. Although I will be voting in favor of this legislation, I urge the Senate to make improvements to the bill, including to maintain the current retirement age for pilots at age 65. Raising pilot's retirement age would put the U.S. in conflict with international standards, which require pilots to retire at 65. Commercial pilots aged 65 or older will be ineligible to fly internationally. Junior pilots, who have endured financially burdensome trainings, will be displaced by their more senior colleagues, and have to return to a backlog of pilot training to requalify for new roles. These complications will likely result in higher costs to airlines and increased ticket prices to consumers. Our Nation's premier aviation package should also include protections for the travelling public. The Biden Administration led the way in proposing measures to combat junk fees from airlines. These include banning family seating junk fees, requiring transparency in add-on fees, and generating automatic refunds for flight cancellations and delays within an airline's control. Taxes and fees can pad as much as 40 percent of a ticket's cost, and the administration's proposals would help reduce flight costs for travelers. Instead of building off those protections, this bill would interrupt the administration's work towards establishing these important protections. It also erases transparency protections that have been in place for more than a decade regarding disclosing taxes, fees, and surcharges. America needs the stable, long-term funding provided by this reauthorization. It also needs reforms for safety, transparency, and workers which were excluded from the bill. I urge the Senate to address these shortcomings as this bill moves forward.

Ms. JAYAPAL

Ms. JAYAPAL. Mr. Speaker, this is an outrage. Republicans want to drive us over the cliff into default and catastrophe, cut off healthcare and Social Security payments, and drive up interest rates so more people are homeless and hungry. Five Republicans could join all 213 Democrats and lift the debt ceiling right now, but they went home. My constituent Amy called me absolutely terrified that she is going to miss her Social Security payment. If that happens, then she can't pay her rent and won't have a place to live. Amy heard Republicans yesterday say the quiet part out loud. They said: We don't want to negotiate with our hostage. Well, Amy is your hostage. She and millions like her--teachers, firefighters, seniors, veterans--are demanding that Republicans stop playing games with their lives. Donald Trump presided over the third largest deficit increase in the debt ever because they spent almost $2 trillion on tax cuts for the wealthiest billionaires, and now they want poor and working people to pay that bill. Stop it. Pass a clean debt ceiling right now.

Ms. JAYAPAL

Ms. JAYAPAL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this cruel resolution that will force low- and middle-income student loan borrowers to face severe financial hardship. In a reckless reversal of the payment pause, this measure sends an average of $1,000 in surprise student loan bills to over 40 million Americans. This absurd approach to block President Biden's student debt relief plan hurts those who are most at risk. Older Americans owe a fifth of all student debt. Their debt has increased fivefold in the last 20 years. Black Americans owe an average of $44,800 in student debt. Over 6 million Americans living in rural areas owe an average of $35,000. Reversals to the Public Service Loan Forgiveness would put 260,000 public servants and 46,000 servicemembers back under the thumb of these crushing payments. Those who receive that Public Service Loan Forgiveness have played by the rules for years and sacrificed too much to have partisan efforts steal relief that they were already given and counting on. Our job is to protect working people, and that should mean ensuring that no one goes into unpayable debt just to get a degree to pursue their dreams. This Republican plan would increase the likelihood of defaulting for teachers, for law enforcement, for public servants across the board, and it would be a drop in the bucket toward actually addressing the deficit. Yet Republicans took $1.9 trillion from taxpayers and handed it to corporations in tax cuts, and dozens of them have absolutely no qualms in pocketing over $22 million in PPP forgiveness just in this body across the aisle. Congress should be prioritizing aid to seniors and borrowers from working families, not the wealthy. Vote ``no'' on this extreme, unworkable, and cruel resolution. Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a letter signed by over 260 organizations, including labor, civil rights, and consumer protection groups calling on Congress to reject this harmful resolution. May 8, 2023. Hon. Chuck Schumer, Majority Leader, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC. Hon. Kevin McCarthy, Speaker, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Hon. Mitch McConnell, Minority Leader, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC. Hon. Hakeem Jeffries, Democratic Leader, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Leader Schumer, Minority Leader McConnell, Speaker McCarthy, and Minority Leader Jeffries: The undersigned 261 organizations representing millions of students, workers, people of color, veterans, people with disabilities, consumers, and people of faith write in strong opposition to bicameral efforts to use the Congressional Review Act (CRA) to overturn President Biden's actions to pause student loan payments and provide student debt relief for low-income and working-class Americans continuing to recover from the deadly COVID-19 pandemic and its devastating economic fallout. In March, policymakers in the House and Senate unveiled a CRA resolution to retroactively overturn the pause of federal student loan payments and interest accrual, and President Biden's debt relief plan. If successful, these CRA efforts would immediately force tens of millions of borrowers into abrupt and unplanned repayment with devastating effects, including adding thousands of dollars of payments and interest onto their loan balances. It will also force the Department of Education to unwind loans forgiven under Public Service Loan Forgiveness for first responders, nurses, educators, servicemembers, and hundreds of thousands of other public service workers across the country. These actions are a clear attack on millions of the most vulnerable workers and families who are still reeling from the devastating impact of

Ms. JAYAPAL

Ms. JAYAPAL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this resolution, and I do so sadly because there are many things that my good colleague across the aisle from Colorado and I agree on and work on. This is unequivocally not one of them. The reason I am so distraught by this resolution is because I am the proud chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus. We are a caucus of 102 Members in this body. We have done many wonderful things for our constituents and people across the country. In fact, we have even worked with the Freedom Caucus, the gentleman from Arizona, to take on some things around accountability of law enforcement, surveillance, privacy rights--many issues that we agree on. The characterization of progressives within this resolution makes it absolutely impossible to support the resolution. I think, unfortunately, that is the point that my friends are trying to make. They are trying to make us vote against a resolution that supports law enforcement by inserting these provisions that are characterizations that are absolutely harmful and encourage hate against us as progressives representing our constituents. Now, we already passed a resolution honoring law enforcement this week, but this resolution literally makes it impossible for us to support. I want to raise a couple of points about this. My colleague from Arizona said we want to hold Federal law enforcement accountable. Well, that is exactly what Democrats sought to do when we passed the George Floyd Justice in Policing Act, which not a single Republican voted for. We need accountability of all of our agencies at all levels. That doesn't mean we don't appreciate the work that those agencies do. We absolutely do. As somebody who experienced violent threats against my life and my family's life from a man showing up with a gun at my house, I was defended by our local law enforcement, and I am incredibly grateful to them. I resent the characterization that somehow we progressives do not support law enforcement just because we want to have accountability in our communities so that Black and Brown people can walk down the streets and feel safe. In addition, this is not about honoring law enforcement because, last week, I tried to introduce an amendment in committee that said if we are going to honor law enforcement, then let's honor the brave men and women of the United States Capitol Police and all levels of local, State, and Federal law enforcement that defended us in this body on January 6, 2021, when a violent group of rightwing MAGA extremists came and launched an insurrection against this body. I was trapped in the gallery right there, right there in those seats.

Ms. JAYAPAL. Mr. Speaker, long after other people were evacuated from the gallery, some of my friends and I were trapped there. We saw everything happen. I introduced an amendment to honor those Federal law enforcement people, and do you know what? Republicans could have taken it and voted against it if they wanted to show where they stand, but they didn't. They hid behind a ridiculous assertion of germaneness and essentially silenced our voices. I think we have to be real about what this resolution is, and with great respect to my friend from Colorado, we want accountability of all agencies. They want to defend Federal law enforcement. We want to honor all law enforcement, including those who defended us here at the Capitol on January 6. Let my Republican colleagues call out that it was an insurrection on January 6 and that our Federal law enforcement and local law enforcement that defended us here deserve the same honor that they are planning to give to local law enforcement. Let's honor all law enforcement, and let's take out the references to progressives, which I take great offense to. Mr. Speaker, I vote ``no'' on this resolution, and I call on my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this partisan and, frankly, hypocritical resolution.

Ms. JAYAPAL

Ms. JAYAPAL. Mr. Chair, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 2494. Once again, the majority has put forward an extreme and unworkable piece of legislation. No one condones serious assaults against law enforcement officers. However, H.R. 2494 goes well beyond serious crimes to include minor offenses and would even allow people to be deported without an arrest, let alone a conviction. We hear a lot about the border from my Republican colleagues, but let's remember that this bill has absolutely nothing to do with the border or with undocumented immigrants. All this bill does is add a new way for people who are living here lawfully in the United States to be deported. Most importantly, we are talking about the ability to deport lawful, permanent residents, people with green cards. My Republican colleagues like to say that they support legal immigration, that these immigrants did things the ``right way.'' Do we really want to be deporting people with lawful status, many of whom are eligible to apply for citizenship for low-level offenses without a conviction, without due process, without a day in court? Let's remember that convictions for serious assaults on law enforcement are already offenses that make someone deportable under current law. Our immigration laws can be very unforgiving and many times capture actions that we do not intend to include. Under current law, if an individual is convicted of a crime of violence and sentenced to a year or more in prison, that is an aggravated felony and that person is deportable. The same is true for someone who is convicted of what is called a crime involving moral turpitude, where the crime is punishable by imprisonment of 1 year or more. Both of these deportability grounds are already invoked when someone is convicted of a serious, intentional assault on a law enforcement officer, where bodily injury occurs or is intended. Under this bill, no conviction is required at all. Merely committing the ``essential elements'' of an assault makes someone deportable. Who is to say what an essential element is? This bill certainly doesn't define it. I just want to give a couple more examples to what the ranking member already gave of what could happen under this bill and the unintended consequences of not requiring a conviction. Let's say someone gets a parking ticket. They are upset about getting a parking ticket. They crumple up the ticket, they throw it on the ground, and it lands in front of the feet of a police officer. That would actually be considered assault. Let's say an EMT is on the scene of an accident and they are going to give someone medical care, but that person is in the throes of having just been in a serious situation, they are afraid, they have pushed the hand of that EMT away, and it seems like they are pushing that person away. That action would be an assault against a law enforcement officer, a deportable offense, both of them, under this bill. Unfortunately, during our markup, which was lengthy, we learned that our Republican colleagues are completely fine deporting people for this kind of conduct. In fact, one Republican colleague even said that he is fine deporting someone if there is no contact at all with law enforcement. They referred to lawful, permanent residents--which I was a lawful, permanent resident, probably one of the few in this body that actually knows what that means--many of whom have lived here for decades as mere ``guests'' in this country and rejected any attempt to institute any due process or basic parameters around this unworkable piece of legislation. Instead of attempting to score cheap political points during National Police Week, my colleagues should be working with us on real bipartisan solutions to achieve humane and just immigration reform. I urge my colleagues to reject this bill.

Ms. JAYAPAL

Ms. JAYAPAL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 2, the Secure the Border Act. From day one, Republicans made clear that they would pursue an unworkable enforcement-only approach. I was encouraged when I saw some of my Republican colleagues courageously standing up to their caucus to fight to protect access to asylum. Yet, here we are today, debating a cruel, extreme, and unworkable bill that guts asylum for everyone who does not live in a neighboring country or cannot afford to fly directly to the United States to seek protection. It is a bill that bars anyone who seeks protection by entering the country between ports of entry from ever being able to obtain asylum, even if they are an unaccompanied child or fleeing from a totalitarian dictatorship. It is a bill that decimates Customs and Border Protection's ability to process people for asylum at ports of entry. It is a bill that mandates indefinite family detention and the detention of children. One Republican colleague told us that ``trying to ban legitimate asylum claims . . . is very anti-American.'' His words, not mine. Another Republican said: ``It will never pass the Senate if we are only talking border security.'' Yet another Republican cautioned against only moving border security legislation, saying: ``It is immoral. . . . And it is wrong that we as a society allow for millions and millions of people to live in the shadows.'' Mr. Speaker, I was encouraged by those comments because it showed me that there were people on the other side who understood, at least at some level, that what happens at the border is simply a symptom of an improper immigration system that desperately needs to be modernized to meet the needs of our economy and our families. I thought that perhaps we would be able to work together in a bipartisan way on those pieces instead of trying the same 30-year-old failed strategy of cruel enforcement-only methods that can continue to destroy legal pathways and violate our values. We all know those simply don't work. Unfortunately, it sounds like the Speaker has tempted those individuals who were talking with their values to now vote ``yes'' with a few meaningless concessions and promises. Their constituents will still know exactly what they are doing when they vote ``yes'' on this bill. The bill before us today has only gotten more extreme than when those initial comments were made. It still ends asylum. It still strips protections for unaccompanied children. It still mandates the detention of families and children. It will still wreck our economy. What Democrats are committed to, what our families and our country need, is to have an updated, orderly process for people to come to America, to stay, to work here, to be with their families and their loved ones, to have the ability to travel back and forth, to be seen in a country that too often uses immigrants without giving them full dignity and respect. The immigration system is made up of many different legal pathways-- whether you are a refugee fleeing war and economic devastation, an asylee who is fleeing persecution, or a worker who is seeking to come here and work in the many fields that demand immigrant labor and skills, from agriculture to healthcare; whether you are a child, a parent, or a sibling who seeks to be reunited with your immediate family; or whether you are somebody who wants to start a small business or lead a major company. Unfortunately, the previous administration stripped so many of those pathways, decimated the funding to process those who seek to come in, and did nothing for those who have been here often for 15 years or more. That is why Democrats have put forward real, bipartisan solutions to humanely fix and modernize the immigration system, including the recently introduced comprehensive bill by Linda Sanchez to reform our immigration system in a humane way. Immigration has been the unique genius of America's history, necessary to our economic vitality, necessary to the success of the country. We know what we need to do to fix the system, Mr. Speaker. That is not a question in terms of policy. In fact, just 10 years ago, a bipartisan, comprehensive immigration bill passed the U.S. Senate with 68 bipartisan votes only to come to this floor, the floor of the House, where the Republican majority refused to bring it to a vote. Why? Why, Mr. Speaker, did it not come to a vote in the House with that huge of a bipartisan majority in the Senate? Because Republicans in the House knew that it would pass in a bipartisan way, and somehow my friends on the other side think that it benefits them to have an immigration system that is broken so they can continue to vilify and demonize immigrants who are here and stop them from doing the work they need to do and from being respected. We need to call this hypocrisy out over and over again.

Ms. JAYAPAL. Mr. Speaker, the American people support immigration. We are ready to work with serious Republicans to pass meaningful reforms, not an enforcement-only strategy that will continue to be a failed strategy no matter who is in the White House, but actually a strategy that allows people to come to this country that upholds our values and that is not un-American but is the very essence of what America stands for, for so many people around the United States, including me, somebody who came here at 16 years old by myself to this country. Now, after so many years of fighting for this country, I am able to be here as a United States Congress Member. Those are the values that we need to remember. Vote ``no'' on this extreme, unworkable, cruel bill. It is a patchwork of overlapping and contradictory bills that are just about enforcement only, not about real solutions. Mr. Speaker, it is clear that my friends on the other side do not have real solutions to this issue and just want to keep this out there so we can continue to demonize immigrants. Democrats will not stand for it. Vote ``no.''

Ms. JAYAPAL

Ms. JAYAPAL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this rule to advance this cruel, extreme, and unworkable default on America act that will throw us into a recession, that will crash our economy, and that will throw 1.7 million women and children off of nutrition assistance and seniors off of Medicare. It is hypocrisy for my Republican colleagues to say that they somehow suddenly care about the debt when they passed the 2017 tax scam that increased the deficit by $2 trillion. Nearly half of those tax cuts went to the top 5 percent, but now, all of a sudden, they care about debt and want to cut nutrition assistance to nearly 3 million women, children, and seniors. Democrats cut child poverty in half, and we taxed the wealthiest billionaires and corporations to pay their fair share. We are building our economy while MAGA Republicans are threatening to throw us into chaos, and that is on the pocketbooks of regular, working Americans, who are going to suffer if we go into default, if we go into recession, and if we lose millions of jobs. This is a bad bill. Vote ``no.''

Ms. JAYAPAL

Ms. JAYAPAL. Mr. Chairman, I rise in deep opposition to this bill. We should rename it the cancel kids trans hate bill. This bill fuels a virulent hate campaign against kids who just want to play with their friends. Don't believe for a minute that this is about protecting women and girls because if Republicans cared about that, they would not be voting against equal pay, against paid sick leave, against universal childcare. The way that this bill targets children in the name of gender equality is insulting. That is why women's organizations around the country, including the Women's Sports Foundation, have denounced this bill. In reality, it actually endangers all women and girls. Think about it. How do you enforce this ban? How do you verify a girl's ``reproductive anatomy''? If a young girl--if your daughter doesn't look feminine enough, is she subject to an examination? This is absolutely absurd. Republicans are cruelly scapegoating children to distract you from the very fact that you don't have actual solutions that answer the American people's problems. This attack on transgender children, though, also has dire consequences. Over 75 percent of transgender students experience harassment or discrimination at school. Mr. Chairman, 82 percent of transgender kids have considered suicide, and 40 percent have attempted suicide. These bills tell some of the most vulnerable children in our country that they do not belong. Shame on you. To trans people everywhere, I say, I see you, and I will fight for you. That is why last month I introduced the Transgender Bill of Rights with 100 cosponsors to stand up for trans kids so that you can lead your full lives as your authentic selves. Mr. Chairman, I am the proud mother of a trans daughter, and when she came out to me, I unconditionally embraced her because I unconditionally love her. If you don't understand what is going on with these kids, that is okay. I have learned so much from my daughter. Let's learn together, but don't, don't use our kids as punching bags and put them in danger. When the Republican Governor of Utah, Spencer Cox, vetoed a similar sports ban, he said this: ``I always try to err on the side of kindness, mercy, and compassion. . . . I don't understand what they are going through or why they feel the way they do, but I want them to live.'' I want them to live. So to my colleagues, I say, stop targeting our children. Let them play. Let them live. Vote ``no'' on this hateful bill.

Ms. JAYAPAL

Ms. JAYAPAL. Mr. Chair, Congress should be supporting parents, students, and teachers, not advancing this politics over parents act which would punish teachers for giving history lessons, ban books, and sow hate and divisiveness against trans kids. Parents have the utmost confidence in their kids' teachers. When it comes to writing curricula, 76 percent of parents trust their child's school. But when it comes to writing laws, political gimmicks, like this bill, keep them from saying the same thing about this very body. Instead of manufacturing outrage over curricula and books, why don't we just listen? Mr. Chairman, 84 percent of parents would rather Congress give free school meals, and 79 percent want support for mental health services. In a survey of parents' top concerns by The Pew Charitable Trusts, 40 percent said they were extremely or very worried about their children struggling with depression, 35 percent said they were concerned about bullying, and 22 percent were worried about their kids being shot. Not a single one of those issues on the top list of parental concerns is addressed in this bill. So don't tell me this is a parents' bill of rights. This is not addressing gun violence. It is not addressing mental health. It is not addressing childcare, pre-K, and all of the other things that would be a part of a parents' bill of rights. Instead, we are spending time on a bill that sows doubt about public education and our teachers and also targets our very vulnerable trans kids who are absolutely no threat to anyone in this body. Please understand that the provisions in this bill that out trans kids are cruel and dangerous. I say that as a mom of a trans kid. I was very embracing to my daughter when she came out, but not every family is. The reality is that 75 percent of trans kids experience discrimination and harassment. So why do Republicans want schools to require outing LGBTQ students? That does not make them better students. Congress has the constitutional authority to write laws. What a mockery and betrayal of that duty it would be to pass this stunt of a bill that doesn't address a single priority of parents, bans books, undermines teachers, and hurts our kids. Democrats are the party of parents and families. We reject this bill, and we commit to fighting for childcare, for universal pre-K, for a child tax credit, and for the ability of people to be free for who they are and express themselves. Mr. Chair, I include in the Record two letters. One is from the National Education Association, and one is from the American Federation of Teachers. National Education Association, Washington, DC, March 23, 2023. U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Representative: On behalf of the 3 million members of the National Education Association, dedicated and trusted professionals who teach and support nearly 50 million students in public schools across America, we urge you to vote NO on H.R. 5. Votes related to this bill, including extreme amendments that would create a national private school voucher program, may be included in the NEA Report Card for the 118th Congress. H.R. 5 is unnecessary and ignores the partnerships that exist between parents and educators. Parents and guardians already have the right and the opportunity to partner with educators to ensure students have the learning opportunities, resources, and support for success. Across America, parents are strategizing with educators when children face hurdles and celebrating with them when students achieve milestones, volunteering at events, chaperoning field trips, leading PTAs, mentoring students, and actively engaging in many other ways with students and educators. In a recent Gallup poll, 80 percent of parents with children in public K-12 schools said they were satisfied with their children's education. Instead of building on what exists, H.R. 5 would stoke racial and social animosity. Instead of bringing us together to focus on what will really help students--an inspiring, inclusive, and age-appropriate curriculum that prepares them for the future in schools that are safe from gun violence--H.R. 5 would encourage parents to view educators as the enemy. This us-versus-them mindset hurts students, disregards educators' professionalism, and diverts our attention from a basic American value: All students--no matter their race, ZIP Code, gender orientation, sexual identity, or background--deserve the support, tools, and opportunity to learn and succeed. H.R. 5 dismisses educators' education, experience, and dedication. The legislation tells educators that, despite their expertise, they cannot be trusted to determine what materials are appropriate for learning, design curricula that are age- appropriate and meet students' needs, or ascertain students' progress. This will only exacerbate an educator shortage that, from small towns to major cities, is now a five-alarm fire. In an NEA survey last year, 55 percent of educators said they are ready to leave the profession they love earlier than planned. Congress should not pass laws that will accelerate this trend. H.R. 5 will exacerbate book banning and censorship. The legislation's library requirements, including the mandate that school libraries maintain online catalogs that are available to parents and students, are redundant; this is already standard practice. The real aim of the legislation is to elevate the voices and power of a few who wish to foist their ideas about what should be read and taught onto other people's children. This is already leading to shocking outcomes. The PEN America Index of School Book Bans lists more than 2,500 instances of book bans across the country from June 2021-June 2022, affecting more than 1,600 titles. Affected books are most often those that look honestly at history and the difficult events that have shaped America, or tell stories of the struggle for self-acceptance in hostile or oppressive circumstances. The banned or censored books include: Maus, by Art Spiegelman, a graphic novel depicting the experience of the author's father, a Holocaust survivor; Walk Two Moons, by Sharon Creech, about a girl of Native- American heritage coping with the disappearance of her mother; The Bluest Eye, by Nobel Laureate Toni Morrison, about a young African American girl's struggle to appreciate her humanity in a culture that devalues her; and Separate is Never Equal: Sylvia Mendez and her Family's Fight for Desegregation, by Duncan Tonatiuh, about a family's efforts to desegregate California schools. We cannot prepare young people to succeed in our diverse Nation and interconnected world by removing books from library shelves and curricula. We prepare them for the future by planting the seeds for lifelong curiosity and growth. H.R. 5 will impose several unfunded mandates on already overburdened schools and school districts. Committee-passed amendments to H.R. 5 include one that would require a ``review period,'' occurring at least every three weeks for a minimum of three school days at a time, during which parents could review any materials to be used in the next three weeks, or that had been used in the past. Districts would be required to find the money, and the time, for this mandate within budgets and school days that are already stretched thin. H.R. 5 suggests the federal government should be a national school board. The bill would undermine local control and educators' autonomy to do their jobs by inserting the federal government as a national school board. In fact, the legislation actually undermines the stated goal of H.R. 5. By utilizing the federal government to pave the way for influencing what books should be part of the curriculum and in libraries, H.R. 5 suppresses the voices of many parents and local communities that want their children to receive an honest and accurate education. While we urge a NO vote on H.R. 5, we support any amendments that highlight the many real needs schools face, including those that: provide more resources for school counselors and parent engagement; ensure books remain available for any student who wants to read them; highlight H.R. 5's true costs to local schools and ensure those costs are not passed on to already resource-deprived schools; and remove extraneous requirements. We ask you to vote YES on the following amendments: No. 1 by Rep. Bacon (No. 52 in Rules): Requires Local Education Agencies to provide parents of a student in elementary or secondary school with the number of school counselors in the school); No. 5 by Rep. Bonamici (No. 40 in Rules): Replaces H.R. 5 with new language regarding: public education and parents' rights to access to public schools; creation of a parent coordinator position in public schools; increased funding authorization for Full-Service Community Schools; increased funding authorization for Statewide Family Engagement Centers; and establishing rules that prohibit bans on books and curricular materials. No. 8 by Rep. Fitzpatrick (No. 2 in Rules): Requires a GAO report on the cost of H.R. 5's requirements to State Education Agencies, Local Education Agencies, and schools. No. 9 by Reps. Garbarino and D'Esposito (No. 37 in Rules): Provides that nothing in H.R. 5 or its amendments be construed as authorizing parents to deny any student who is not their own child from accessing any books or other reading materials otherwise available in the school library. No. 12 by Rep. Jacobs (No. 4 in Rules): Strikes ``at no cost'' in the bill to ensure that some requirements in H.R. 5 do not fall on overburdened schools that already lack sufficient resources to meet the needs of students. No. 13 by Rep. Jacobs (No. 6 in Rules): Strikes the provisions relating to reviewing professional development materials in sections 104 and 202. We oppose amendments that target transgender youth, eradicate inclusive curricula, potentially open our public schools to frivolous lawsuits, create a national private school voucher program, and eliminate the U.S. Department of Education. We ask you to vote NO on the following amendments: No. 2 by Rep. Foxx (No. 45 in Rules): Manager's amendment to the bill that also directs courts to use the strict scrutiny test to evaluate laws involving parents' rights. No. 3 by Rep. Boebert (No. 46 in Rules): Targets already vulnerable transgender youth by amending Section 104 to include Parent's Right to Know if their child's school operates, sponsors, or facilitates athletic programs or activities to permit a person whose biological sex is male to participate in an athletic program or activity that is designated for women or girls. No. 4 by Rep. Boebert (No. 47 in Rules): Targets already vulnerable transgender youth by amending Section 104 to include Parent's Right to Know if their child's school allows a person whose biological sex is male to use restrooms or changing rooms designated for women or girls. No. 6 by Rep. Crane (No. 54 in Rules): Adds a private right of action for parents beyond current law that may lead to more frequent lawsuits, costing taxpayers more. No. 11 by Rep. Hunt (No. 44 in Rules): Adds a provision that targets diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives in schools. No. 15 by Reps. Massie, Boebert, Gaetz, and Self (No. 7 in Rules): Adds a sense of Congress that the authority of the Department of Education and the Secretary of Education to operate or administer any office or program related to elementary or secondary education should be terminated on or before December 31, 2023. No. 19 by Rep. Roy (No. 57 in Rules): Creates a national private school voucher program, decimating Title I and taking public funds out of public schools to boost private schools that are not held to any of the requirements included in the underlying bill. No. 20 by Rep Roy (No. 61 in Rules): Makes all funds available under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 block grants, which will lead to cuts to key programs serving students. Educators are devoted to partnering with parents to discover students' interests and unlock their potential. We urge Congress to avoid spending time on divisive issues that do not contribute to student success. Instead, please focus on getting students the individualized support they need, keeping guns out of schools, and addressing educator shortages. If Congress joins with parents and educators, we can support learning by ensuring that students across our great Nation--no matter their race, background, sexual orientation, or gender identity--have the resources, one-on- one attention, and well-rounded curricula they need and deserve. Please vote NO on H.R. 5. Sincerely, Marc Egan, Director of Government Relations, National Education Association.

Ms. JAYAPAL

Ms. JAYAPAL. Madam Speaker, this is a revenge resolution. It is a revenge resolution that seeks to remove Representative Ilhan Omar's strong and necessary voice from the Foreign Affairs Committee. It is an attempt to silence her simply because you do not agree with her views and you cannot begin to understand her lived experience as a war survivor, as a refugee, and as somebody who brings an experience to this body that you are not even trying to understand. We have previously voted, in a bipartisan manner, to remove individuals from their committee assignments because of their violent actions that endanger the safety of their colleagues. That is not what today is about. Today is about revenge. It is also about the fact that Republicans want to distract the American people from the fact that they have absolutely no legislation to bring to the floor that is actually about helping the American people with their costs, with dealing with inflation. You don't have any solutions, so you are trying to distract with these inane, insulting, absurd--absolutely absurd--resolutions. Vote ``no.''

Ms. JAYAPAL

Ms. JAYAPAL. Mr. Speaker, after a week of chaos, we now have a rules package for MAGA extremists, attacking our freedoms and every major responsibility of this body--from paying America's bills to funding our government. This package criminalizes abortion by advancing bills that attack access and healthcare without a single hearing or markup, undermining women's economic freedom and bodily autonomy. Mr. Speaker, as one of the one-in-four women across this country who have had an abortion, I join those in both parties--and the majority of this country--who are saying: Not on our watch. This package also reinstates a CutGo policy that gives wealthy corporations more tax cuts and strips the right for congressional workers to unionize. It eliminates our wins to strengthen witness disclosure requirements for conflicts of interest and exempt climate change and pandemic relief from senseless paygo rules. Democrats delivered for the people. Republicans now want a package that works for the wealthiest few. Vote ``no.''

Ms. JAYAPAL

Ms. JAYAPAL. Mr. Speaker, I thank Congresswoman Lofgren for her tremendous leadership, not only on this bill, but also on the Immigration and Citizenship Subcommittee as our chairwoman. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the EAGLE Act. I believe I may be the only one, or one of very few, Members of Congress who has actually been on an H-1B visa back when processing times to transition to a green card weren't nearly as bad as they are today. It still took me 17 years and a multitude of visas to become a U.S. citizen. Today, an estimated 1.6 million people in the family backlog and 200,000 in the employment backlog will die, in some cases, before they receive green cards because of an arcane system that puts a 7 percent per-country limit on employment and family-sponsored green cards. Many of the people who are stuck in this backlog are Asian immigrants, people who were denied the right to become U.S. citizens for most of U.S. history, from 1790 to 1952, through the Chinese Exclusion Act and the Supreme Court's 1923 decision barring Indians from becoming naturalized U.S. citizens. Anti-Asian policies have informed these future anti-immigrant efforts. As the first South Asian American woman elected to the House, I am very aware that Congress did not repeal that Supreme Court decision until 1946. The employment and family immigration process established in 1965 provided the first meaningful ways for Asian immigrants to come to the United States, and it remains the main method of entry for Asian immigrants because many Asian immigrants cannot access other pathways, such as asylum or refugee status or diversity visas. However, because of the per-country caps, there are lengthy backlogs to secure permanent status. Those backlogs can last for decades or even lifetimes. Someone from India or Mexico currently experiences a 200-year wait to secure a green card, while nationals of other countries wait as little as 2 years or less. The EAGLE Act would simply ensure fairness by moving to a first come, first served system that would no longer discriminate by country of birth. Moreover, thanks to the bill's 9-year transition period beginning in October 2024, it would not harm anyone that is currently in the backlog. The truth, Mr. Speaker, is that our immigration system is deeply broken, and it needs reform on every level. This is something that I dedicated two decades of my life to before coming to Congress. Whether you are from Africa, Latin America, Asia, or the Caribbean, we do not have a functioning immigration system that allows people to come to America and do the work that we need, or escape from war-torn or economically devastated countries, or join family members. Congress has punted on comprehensive, humane immigration reform for too long, so we are forced to pursue piecemeal efforts for principled compromise to address the many broken parts of the immigration system while ensuring that no community suffers harm as another benefits. That is the nature of principled compromise. This is one of those bills that certainly does not accomplish fixing the broken immigration system. It does not do that, but it does do something very important, which is to fix one piece of an immigration system that has been put together by these individual pieces that affect different parts of the population. It does so, Mr. Speaker, without harming any other community. To those of you who have waited too long for a green card as you have put down roots here and raised families and helped communities thrive across the country, I am here to say: We see you. A previous iteration of this bill passed the Chamber with 365 bipartisan votes. I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the EAGLE Act.

Ms. JAYAPAL

Ms. JAYAPAL. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong and joyful support of the Respect for Marriage Act. As the mother of an incredible trans daughter, I am here to fight for her rights and those of all LGBTQ+ people, who for too long have been denied the dignity and the respect that they deserve. And as someone who is myself in an interracial marriage, it is far past time that we codify those rights. An extremist Supreme Court and hateful State legislators want to roll back the hard-won progress that we have made. But we are here to say in a bipartisan way, we will not tolerate this, we will codify these rights once and for all. This is the beginning. I also call on the Senate to pass the Equality Act to ensure that LGBTQ+ people can enjoy the same rights as everyone else in the country. But today, Madam Speaker, let's get this bill done. Vote ``yes'' on codifying the right to marry the one you love. Vote ``yes'' on the Respect for Marriage Act.

Ms. JAYAPAL

Ms. JAYAPAL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the Veteran Service Recognition Act to stop the deportation of immigrant veterans. I thank my colleague, Representative Mark Takano, for bringing this important bill forward and our Immigration and Citizenship Subcommittee chair, Zoe Lofgren, for her tremendous leadership on this issue. Mr. Speaker, immigrants have defended the United States in every major conflict since the Revolutionary War. One of the first casualties in the Iraq war was Lance Corporal Jose Antonio Gutierrez, who was not an American citizen when he died fighting for us. He signed up for the Marines, wanting to give back to the country that gave him everything. Today, there are 45,000 immigrants serving in the United States armed services. Yet, hundreds of immigrant veterans are estimated to have been deported. Mr. Speaker, this is unacceptable. Immigration and Customs Enforcement is supposed to consider veteran service to the country when making removal decisions. A 2019 GAO study found that ICE attorneys ``. . . did not consistently follow its policies involving veterans who were placed in removal proceedings . . .'' in part because ICE officials were ``. . . unaware of the policies. . . .'' Mr. Speaker, we can't leave this to chance. Even one deported veteran is one too many. Yet, hundreds of immigrant veterans are estimated to have been deported. When people sign up to defend this country, we should be helping them to become U.S. citizens as quickly as possible, and that is exactly what this bill does. Mr. Speaker, that is why I am so proud to support the Veteran Service Recognition Act to take crucial steps to stop the deportation of veterans and provide relief to veterans who have already been deported. No one who has put their life on the line for the United States should be deported. It is that simple, Mr. Speaker. Vote ``yes'' to support veterans.

Ms. JAYAPAL

Ms. JAYAPAL. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of this bipartisan, bicameral Speak Out Act. I thank Representative Lois Frankel and the chairman for their leadership. This bill bans forced nondisclosure agreements in assault and harassment disputes and preserves the right of survivors to use their voices. Women across this country have been told for a long time what constitutes appropriate behavior, what constitutes sexual harassment, and what doesn't. Well, let me tell you, it is time to let them speak up and shine a light on exactly what is happening. The reality is that estimates are that a third of employees in the United States are covered by these NDAs. Last year, we heard stories of exactly this situation in the Judiciary Committee. Last year, Tatiana Spottiswoode bravely testified under the protection of a friendly subpoena about the harassment and abuse that she endured from her boss and former CEO, Zia Chishti. Previously, Tatiana had been bound by a gag order that silenced her and prevented accountability for her abuser. Madam Speaker, after her moving testimony, after bringing light and being able to talk about the horror that she experienced, Chishti was finally fired. He was finally held accountable. In fact, the former British Prime Minister resigned from the company's advisory board after that happened. Why should she have been silenced in the first place? Why should she have been raped or any other woman been raped and bound to silence because of a nondisclosure agreement that was forced, in many cases, in order for these women to be able to actually have employment? That is absolutely wrong. Why should women be forced to feel alone, feel like somehow this is their fault, that they are crazy? They should be able to talk about what has happened and bring light to the situation. The reality is, Madam Speaker, this is about power. This is about who holds the power and how it is held. That is why we need the Speak Out Act to be passed. It is the only way to make sure that we bring transparency and light to this.

Ms. JAYAPAL. Madam Speaker, for millions of survivors across the country who deserve to have their voices heard, vote ``yes'' on S. 4524. I thank those people on the other side of the aisle who agree with us and know that this is the right thing to do.

Ms. JAYAPAL

Ms. JAYAPAL. Mr. Speaker, today, Democrats will take unprecedented and urgent action when we pass the Inflation Reduction Act. Today, we make good on our promise to take on climate change and climate justice with historic investments in green technologies that will cut carbon emissions by 40 percent by 2030, create over 9 million good jobs, put $60 billion into environmental justice, and cut energy costs for the average American family by almost $1,000 a year. Also, for the first time, we take on Big Pharma's price gouging, finally allowing Medicare to negotiate lower prescription drug prices, capping the cost of insulin, and continuing to make healthcare more affordable. All of it is paid for with taxes on the largest corporations and the wealthiest. We have more to do to complete the rest of the President's agenda on childcare, senior care, expanding Medicare, and investing in housing. With a few more Democrats in the Senate, we will get that done, too. Today, let's celebrate this massive investment for the people. People over politics. Let's pass this bill.

Ms. JAYAPAL

Ms. JAYAPAL. Madam Speaker, I thank Chairman Pallone for all the work he has done. I know he has a big API community in his district, so we appreciate his attention to these issues. I am very proud to rise in support of my bipartisan bill, the South Asian Heart Health Awareness and Research Act, and I thank my colleague from the other side of the aisle, Representative Joe Wilson, as well as several other Republicans who have cosponsored this bill and for leading on this issue with me. Every 38 seconds, a person in the United States dies from cardiovascular disease. It is the leading cause of death, regardless of gender, for most racial and ethnic groups in America. But within those groups, South Asian Americans have the highest death rate from heart disease nationwide. Now, one of the things I love about Congress is that when we have representation of various diverse communities, we are able to bring up issues that our constituents raise to us or that we feel very viscerally. I first introduced this bill in 2017 after the mother of Ven Neralla, my then-legislative director and who is still a staff member here in Congress, tragically died suddenly of heart disease. As we started researching the issue what we learned is that South Asian Americans are four times more likely to develop heart disease than the general population. As the first South Asian-American woman in the House of Representatives, I am aware of the barriers that our communities experience to address this epidemic. Much of our knowledge about the risks within this community is actually thanks to relatively new research and personal experience. We just don't exhibit the typical risk factors for heart disease, which hinders early diagnosis and prevention measures, not only within our own community but within the broader group of people who have heart disease. So while my bill does focus on the South Asian community, it benefits all Americans, and it is careful in the bill--in working through language with Republicans last year and in this Congress--to make sure that we have that multipronged approach. It is even more important as we continue to grapple with the lasting impacts of COVID-19. The American Heart Association says that heart disease will likely continue to kill more Americans than any other cause as `` . . . the influence of COVID-19 will directly and indirectly impact rates of cardiovascular disease prevalence and deaths for years to come. . . .'' Ven's mom would have turned 80 this year. His family is just one of millions who have lost a loved one because of heart disease. But her death will not be in vain. This bill will help prevent other families from undergoing this same tragedy. By passing this bill, not only will we prevent deaths within the South Asian community, but we will also increase awareness and understanding of cardiovascular disease that will benefit the health and well-being of every American. Again, I am grateful to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle who understand the importance of this bill and have really stepped up to help me pass this legislation on the floor today. Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on passing this bill and saving lives.