Tim Walberg

Mr. WALBERG

Mr. WALBERG. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 6392) to amend the Higher Education Act of 1965 to recognize students who have completed secondary school education in a home school setting as high school graduates, and for other purposes, as amended.

Mr. WALBERG. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and insert extraneous material on H.R. 6392.

Mr. WALBERG. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, every student deserves to have their hard work recognized. Unfortunately, many homeschooled students face unjust barriers when applying to college simply because they didn't attend a traditional school. On average, homeschoolers do remarkably well, better than their public school peers, on tests. Yet for some reason, colleges arbitrarily and unfairly subject homeschooled students to additional hoops, like taking a GED exam, to prove they are fit for admission. The Home School Graduation Recognition Act sends a clear and simple message to colleges and universities: Homeschooled students are just as qualified to attend college as any other high school graduate. The Home School Graduation Recognition Act also reaffirms House Republicans' commitment to expand educational opportunity and school choice for American families. As chairman of the Education and Workforce Committee, I am grateful to serve alongside Members like Congressman Harris who are eager to sponsor legislation that empowers students of all ages on their respective educational journeys. I am glad to have the opportunity today to stand up for homeschoolers and against the needless discrimination they face in the college application process. Today, we have a chance to stand up for homeschooled students and families who have transformed kitchen tables into significant classrooms. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 6392, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WALBERG. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Harris), who is the bill's sponsor and a member of the Education and Workforce Committee.

Mr. WALBERG. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time to close. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague and ranking member for his support on this legislation as well. Homeschooled graduates are graduates plain and simple. They should not be penalized because their families chose a learning environment that met their specific needs and actually goes back to the beginning of time. That is why we must pass H.R. 6392, the Home School Graduation Recognition Act, and tell colleges that it is completely unnecessary to subject homeschooled graduates to needless exams to prove they have, in fact, graduated. I am proud to do my part in removing these roadblocks and helping more students pursue higher education. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 6392, the Home School Graduation Recognition Act, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. WALBERG

Mr. WALBERG. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 6472) to amend the Higher Education Act of 1965 to provide for in-state tuition rates for certain residents of Guam, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, American Samoa, and the United States Virgin Islands, and for other purposes, as amended.

Mr. WALBERG. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material.

Mr. WALBERG

Mr. WALBERG. Mr. Speaker, it is my special privilege to recognize Brian Peacock of Reading as the Veteran of the Month for February and to honor him for his distinguished service to our great Nation. Following high school, Brian volunteered for the United States Marine Corps through the Buddy Program, completing recruit training in San Diego, California, followed by infantry and reconnaissance training at Camp Pendleton. Brian deployed to Vietnam with the 2nd Battalion, 5th Marines, serving from 1970 to 1973. His courageous service earned him numerous decorations, including the Combat Action Ribbon, the Vietnam Campaign Medal, the Army Achievement Medal, the Army Commendation Medal, the Navy and Marine Corps Achievement Medal, and the Navy and Marine Corps Commendation Medal. Brian's commitment to service continued after the Marine Corps. He joined the Michigan National Guard in 1974, where he served with distinction as an officer for nearly two decades, retiring as a Major in 1992. After his retirement from the Guard, Brian worked in the Department of Corrections for 26 years. In total, he devoted almost five decades to public service. Even in retirement, Brian continues to exemplify his dedication to service. He has been a member of the American Legion for more than 40 years and currently serves as the 1st Vice Commander for Post 195 in Jonesville. He regularly visits veterans at the Hillsdale Medical Care Facility, assists with transporting veterans to VA medical appointments, and serves on the Legion Honor Guard at funerals, parades, and commemorative ceremonies. Brian also volunteers countless hours supporting Legion initiatives and community events, always ensuring veterans are remembered, honored, and supported. Brian is an inspiration to many, and I express my profound gratitude for his leadership and lasting service to our great Nation.

Mr. WALBERG

Mr. WALBERG. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 1009, I call up the bill (H.R. 6359) to require institutions of higher education to disseminate information on the rights of, and accommodations and resources for, pregnant students, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mr. WALBERG. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and insert extraneous material on H.R. 6359.

Mr. WALBERG. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the Pregnant Students' Rights Act, legislation that affirms a simple but powerful principle: Expecting mothers should be encouraged to pursue their education like any other student. Pregnant students often receive incorrect guidance or no guidance at all on how to navigate classes while pregnant. In many cases, women feel pressured to end their pregnancies or risk academic failure despite protections that exist now under Federal law. The Pregnant Students' Rights Act requires schools to clearly communicate what accommodations and protections pregnant and parenting students are entitled to. That includes excused absences for medical needs, the ability to make up missed work, and protection from discrimination and retaliation. More specifically, this bill requires information to be emailed to students at least once each academic year and appear in student handbooks at orientation, at student health or counseling centers, and on the institution's website. When students know their rights, they are empowered to stay enrolled, stay engaged, and succeed. This legislation doesn't burden colleges. It simply increases transparency by helping schools communicate consistently and avoid confusion or unnecessary disputes. This is a commonsense, compassionate measure that promotes transparency and ensures pregnant students have the support they need to create a better future for themselves and their child. Mr. Speaker, let's cherish life for both the child and his or her mother who dreams of academic success. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the Pregnant Students' Rights Act and stand up for the dignity, opportunity, and educational success of every student. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WALBERG. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I just have to go back to the same argument that we had in committee. We don't prohibit schools from giving a full panoply of information. Our concern is that they haven't been. Pregnant students have been left without full information, full information that comes and is required by law under Title IX on all aspects of medical care, of counseling, and of opportunity. But sadly, that has been left out as far as saying if you are pregnant and you want to continue as pregnant in this school, we are going to support you in that. Title IX gives all of the information. We are not going to be redundant. We are just making sure that you also include, young lady, if you are pregnant and you want to continue in school, we are going to do our best to help you and provide all the resources. I just wish we could catch hold of this. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from Iowa (Mrs. Hinson), the sponsor of this commonsense, compassionate, and helpful bill.

Mr. WALBERG. Mr. Speaker, to my dear friend and colleague from Georgia, as she has discussed that tragic story with me before, my heart does break. Having experienced that in my own personal family, as well, I understand what she is saying. I am just not capable, I guess, of communicating that this bill is affording all the questions to be answered and all of the issue to be addressed. It also gives pregnant women, who are blessed to be able to continue carrying to completion, the opportunity to also know that their academic opportunity will continue, as well. That is all we are attempting to do. My heart breaks with that story, but my heart also says we want to make sure--that is why I appreciate Representative Hinson's bill--it expands the opportunity for the information that is given. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Mrs. Miller), chair of the Congressional Family Caucus and also a member of the Education and Workforce Committee.

Mr. WALBERG. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I will make a few factual comments in response and also provide some information relative to my colleague's previous comments. Republicans just passed working families tax cuts, which gave American families the largest tax cut in American history. Under the bill, the typical family will get up to $10,900 in additional take-home pay. Households earning less than $100,000 will get a 12 percent tax cut compared to July 2025. Equally as important, if not more so, the child tax credit will double to $2,200 for more than 40 million American families. That is taking into consideration the children that come from pregnancy who are born. We are not leaving them without resources. The working families tax cuts promotes life by putting hardworking families first, ensuring that they keep their hard-earned money in their pockets for their necessary uses. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WALBERG. Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a list of significant pro-family, pro-life medical community members, family research members, and students in support of the Pregnant Students' Rights Act. Organizations that Support H.R. 6359, the Pregnant Students' Rights Act Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America Students for Life Action National Right to Life Committee Iowa Right to Life Concerned Women for America American Association of Pro-life Obstetricians and Gynecologists (AAPLOG) Action Heritage Action Independent Women Center for Urban Renewal (CURE) Eagle Forum Family Research Council

Mr. WALBERG. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WALBERG. I am prepared to close, Mr. Speaker, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WALBERG. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, in closing, I would like to reemphasize that this bill is about ensuring pregnant students know the rights given to them under Title IX, which cover all the concerns that my colleagues, with all due respect, on the other side of the aisle say they want included. Title IX includes all of that. We want students to know the rights given to them under Title IX without creating excessive regulations or requirements for colleges and universities. Despite what some of my colleagues have said today, the Pregnant Students' Rights Act doesn't promote a certain viewpoint or ideology. It simply affirms a basic principle, and that principle is that pregnant students deserve to know their rights when pursuing an education. I don't believe that to be too radical, Mr. Speaker, and I don't believe the American people do either. In fact, for years, many of my Democratic colleagues acknowledged that abortion is a serious and difficult decision and supported efforts to ensure women were not forced into it by a lack of resources or support. They joined in passing legislation to help women who choose to continue their pregnancies. Yet, today, some of those efforts are being undermined unless amendments that explicitly promote abortion are included. It is deeply disappointing that some of my Democratic colleagues have chosen to turn this straightforward transparency bill into an abortion debate, implying that support for pregnant students is contingent on including pro-abortion provisions. Why must an innocent baby ever be seen as an enemy or obstacle to success? This bill also does not provide medical advice or dictate what specific resources colleges and universities may list. For that reason, I would encourage those who oppose this legislation on those grounds to carefully re-read the bill's plain language. We all know that when individuals know their rights, they are able to make informed decisions that are best for them, their families, and their futures. Mr. Speaker, this is why I urge all of my colleagues to vote ``yes,'' and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. WALBERG

Mr. WALBERG. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 988, I call up the bill (H.R. 2988) to amend the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 to specify requirements concerning the consideration of pecuniary and non-pecuniary factors, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. WALBERG. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 2988.

Mr. WALBERG. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak in support of H.R. 2988, the Protecting Prudent Investment of Retirement Savings Act, introduced by Representative Rick Allen, chairman of the Subcommittee on Health, Employment, Labor, and Pensions. At its core, this legislation is about one simple principle: Retirement savings should be managed to protect workers' futures and not to advance political agendas. Over the past several years, the Biden administration pushed a rule that encouraged retirement plan fiduciaries to consider environmental, social, and governance--ESG--factors, when making investment decisions. That might sound harmless, but in practice, it shifts the focus away from what retirement investing is supposed to be about: maximizing returns and minimizing risk for workers and retirees. Americans set aside money in their 401(k)'s and pension plans to retire with dignity. They do it so that they can pay their bills, cover medical costs, and support their families. They do not invest their hard-earned savings so that Federal bureaucrats can push ideological priorities. That is exactly the concern here. ESG investing has become a tool for advancing a broader political agenda. Instead of asking: Is this the best investment for the worker, the ESG framework often asks: Does this investment align with certain social or environmental goals? Those goals are not what ERISA was created to promote. ERISA, the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, was established to ensure that fiduciaries act in the best interests of plan participants. It requires loyalty, prudence, and a clear focus on financial outcomes that workers rely on. Mr. Speaker, the problem with the Biden-Harris rule is that it created permission and, in many cases, pressure for fiduciaries to prioritize ESG factors over the economic interests of participants. When that happens, retirement security is placed at risk. ESG funds are often more costly and less transparent. In many cases, they underperform compared to traditional options. That means that workers may be paying more and getting less--less growth, less stability, and less certainty about their future. This is not a theoretical issue. When a fiduciary chooses investments based on nonfinancial criteria, the person paying the price is not the bureaucrat in Washington or the corporate executive on a conference call. The person paying the price is the worker who depends on that retirement account to survive. That is why H.R. 2988 is needed. Mr. Speaker, this bill restores the proper purpose of retirement investing: financial security. It makes clear that retirement plan decisions must be made based solely on economic factors--things like risk, return, liquidity, and diversification. It also addresses how fiduciaries use shareholder rights, like proxy voting. Under current practices, some fiduciaries use the shares held in retirement plans to push political policies through proxy votes, whether or not those policies benefit the workers whose money is at stake. H.R. 2988 stops that. It makes clear that exercising shareholder rights, including proxy votes, must be done in the economic interests of plan participants, not to advance radical political initiatives, not to appease advocacy groups, and not to satisfy trends in the corporate boardrooms. In addition, the bill strengthens fairness and nondiscrimination in the selection of service providers. It states clearly that race, color, religion, sex, or national origin may not be considered when selecting fiduciaries, counsel, employees, or service providers for ERISA plans. Retirement plan service providers should be chosen on performance and price, not on ideology or race-based preference. Finally, Mr. Speaker, H.R. 2988 increases transparency for workers. It includes a notice requirement for defined contribution plans that explains the difference between selecting investments chosen by ERISA fiduciaries and selecting investments through a brokerage window. Why does that matter? It matters because many workers do not realize that when they move money into a brokerage window, they may be stepping outside the protections provided by plan fiduciaries. This bill ensures workers are informed and can make decisions with clarity. In short, H.R. 2988 is a course correction. It protects retirees from financial experimentation. It protects workers from political interference, and it reinforces the idea that retirement plans exist for one reason: to help Americans retire with stability and security. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WALBERG. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. H.R. 2988 codifies the principles in the Trump Department of Labor's 2020 rule on retirement plan ESG investing. Under the bill, as with the 2020 Trump rule, if a fiduciary finds that an ESG factor is a financial factor, then that factor can be considered when investing and exercising shareholder rights. Nothing in H.R. 2988 prevents a fiduciary from appropriately considering any material risk of an investment. Like the 2020 Trump rule, H.R. 2988 recognizes that ESG factors can present an economic risk or opportunity, which qualified investment professionals would appropriately treat as material economic considerations under generally accepted investment principles. H.R. 2988 neutrally applies these principles to all investment decisions. To suggest this bill bars a fiduciary from appropriately considering any factor that may be material to investment is blatantly false. Unlike the Biden-Harris rule, this legislation ensures neutrality and prudent decisionmaking by fiduciaries. My colleagues on the other side of the aisle have made many claims about the supposed advantages of ESG investing. Allow me to set the record straight. ESG funds have underperformed for years. According to Morningstar, ESG funds lagged the U.S. Market Index and the S&P 500 in 2023 and 2024. To make matters worse, ESG products charge higher fees to participants than traditional investment funds, which can significantly limit the growth of participants' retirement savings over time. Finally, according to researchers at George Mason University, ESG funds expose workers and retirees to additional investment risk that traditional investments typically do not face. Increased costs, increased risk, and lackluster returns make for a bad cocktail. Participants and beneficiaries of employer-sponsored retirement plans rely on the expertise of fiduciaries, who are required by law to act solely in the financial interests of participants. Weakening that expectation to advance partisan ideological objectives is wrong and hurts the safety and stability of Americans. Finally, Mr. Speaker, in response to my friends on the other side, many Democrats want to make race and sex the most important factors in choosing ERISA retirement plan service providers. In so doing, they are advocating for blatant race and sex discrimination, which we should all strongly oppose. Discrimination is never justified, and the use of quotas is inherently discriminatory. ERISA plan service providers must be selected using a prudent and nondiscriminatory process. That is what H.R. 2988 requires. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WALBERG. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Allen), the chairman of the Health, Employment, Labor, and Pensions Subcommittee and the sponsor of this good bill.

Mr. WALBERG. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Huizenga), who is vice chair of the Financial Services Committee and extremely well-versed in being able to deal with this issue.

Mr. WALBERG. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentleman from Michigan.