and who are oppressing the weaker minorities. i think that's a better discussion. host: let's talk to barry in new jersey, independent. caller: good morning. thank you for c-span. can you tell us your opinion of the january six in surgeons? -- insurgents? are they patriots or criminals? when you go to vote, you asked for -- you asked for -- hello? host: we are listening. caller: when you go to vote, you should read. the party's platform the republican's platform says that they are dedicated to execute the america first agenda as directed by donald j. trump. isn't that the definition of fascism? one liter? you will do everything that one

leader wants to do? host: let's get an answer. >> we'll leave this here and return to live coverage of the u.s. house. postponed. votes will be taken in the following order. the motion to suspend the rules and pass h.r. 3354 ordering the previous question on house resolution 1194 and adoption of house resolution 1194 if ordered. the first electronic vote will be conduct as a 15-minute vote, pursuant to clause 9, remaining votes will be conducted as five-minute votes. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, the unfinished business is the vote on the motion for the jam from kansas to suspend the rules and pass h.r. 3354, on which the yeas and nays are ordered. the clerk will report the title. the clerk: 3354, a bill to designate the facility of the united states postal service located at 220 north hatcher avenue in percyville, virginia, as the secretary of state, madeleine albright post office building.

the speaker pro tempore: the question is, will the house suspend the rules and pass the bill. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a 15-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on vote, the yeas are 371, the nays are 28. with three recorded as present. 2/3 being being "aactive, the motion to reconsider is laid on the table.

pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, the unfinished business is the vote on ordering the previous question on house resolution 1194 on which the yeas and nays are ordered. the clerk will report the title of the resolution. the clerk: as calendar number 74, house resolution 1194, resolution provided for consideration of the bill house resolution 6492, to amend the energy policy and conservation act to prohibit the secretary of energy from prescribing any new or amended energy conservation standard for a product that is not technologically feasible and economically justified for private purposes, provided for consideration. to require a citizenship question on the census to require recording on certain census statistics and to modify apportionment of represent to be based on united states citizens

instead of all persons provided for consideration of the joint resolution, house joint resolution 109, provided for disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, united states code of the rules submitted by the securities and exchange commission related to staff accounting bulletin number 121, and providing for consideration of the bill h.r. 2925 to amend the omnibus budget reconciliation act of 1993 to provide for security of tenure for use of activities and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on ordering a previous question on the resolution. members will record their vote by electronic device. this is a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 204. the nays are 200. the previous question is ordered. the question is on adoption of the resolution. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. for what purpose does the gentleman from colorado seek recognition? mr. neguse: we ask for a recorded vote. the speaker pro tempore: a recorded vote is requested. those favoring a recorded vote will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this will be a five-minute vote.

[captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 205. the nays are 199. the resolution is adopted. without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid upon the table. for what purpose does the gentleman from california rise?

>> mr. speaker, by direction of the democratic caucus, i offer a privileged resolution and ask for its immediate consideration. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the resolution. the clerk: house resolution 1204, resolved, that the following named -- >> i ask unanimous consent that the resolution be considered as read. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the resolution is agreed to. and the motion to reconsider is laid upon the table.

the house will come to order. please take your conversations off the floor. pursuant to the order of the house of may 6, 2024, the unfinished business is the further consideration of the veto message of the president on the house joint resolution 98. the clerk will report the title of the joint resolution. the clerk: house joint resolution 98, joint resolution row providing for congressional disapproval of chapter 8, title 5 of united states code of the rules commit smithed by the national labor relations board relating to standard determining joint employer status. the speaker pro tempore: the question is will reconsideration pass the joint resolution.

the objections of the president to the contrary notwithstanding. the gentleman from virginia, mre hour. mr. good: thank you, mr. speaker. for purpose of debate only i yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from virginia, the ranking member, mr. scott, on the committee on education and workforce. pending which i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. good: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous materials on the veto message on h.j.res. 98. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. good: i rise today in support of overriding president biden's veto of h.j.res. 98. a vote in favor of this resolution will nullify the biden administration's attempt to redefine what it means to be a joint employer under the national labor relations act. after receiving bipartisan support from both chambers,

congress sent h.j.res. 98 to the president's desk showing our broad disapproval of the new joint player rule. now with president biden's veto, the message from the administration is clear. franchise businesses are not welcomed partners in the biden economy. in fact, the biden administration wants to return to the harm done during the obama-biden administration when this rule was first in effect and cost the economy more than $30 billion and nearly 400,000 jobs on an annual basis for the five-year period until president trump thankfully reversed the rule. of course it also benefited the democrats' favorite trial lawyers when lawsuits against franchise businesses increased by 93%. the joint employer rule overturns legal precedent in place from 1984 to 2015. it is a direct attack on the thousands of small businesses that make up the healthy and

growing franchise sector. currently a business is considered an employer only if they exercise direct and immediate control over an employee's essential terms and conditions of employment. however, the new rule establishes that two or more businesses are joint employer relationships if one employer merely exercises indirect control over another company's employees. under the standards, something as simple as a franchisor giving a franchisee a company handbook could be interpreted as exercising indirect control. changing the definition of who controls a business creates confusion and threatens the independence of so many successful small business owners. biden's rule will saddle franchisers with liability for independent franchise owners over which they do not have control. inevitably, the result of this rule will be less growth, more

lawsuits, and the functional transformation of business owners into middle managers. it's already very difficult to operate a small business today in biden's america. the administration's response to the high inflation, low workforce participation, and high interest rates causing so much economic hardship from bidenomics is to aggressively pursue an anti-employer, anti-worker, pro-union boss agenda. we must protect the model currently working for businesses and eliminate the threat of this new rule. i urge my colleagues to vote in favor of overriding the president's veto of h.j.res. 98. with that i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from virginia, mr. mr. scott: thank you, mr. speaker. i thank my colleague from virginia for yielding time. i rise -- i yield myself such time as i may consume. i rise once again in strong

opposition to h.j.res. 98, the congressional review act resolution to repeal the national labor relations act -- board's joint employer rule which the board finalized last october. workers should be able to negotiate for higher pay, better benefits, and safer workplaces through their unions. but regrettably this is not the case for millions of americans, including janitors, housekeepers, cooks, and many others, who are employed through subcontractors or temp agencies. in the rise of what's called deficient workplace where firms increasingly use over-- the speaker pro tempore: the house is not in order. the gentleman playpen tin. mr. scott: the rise of what's kidd efficient workforce where firms increasingly use overlapping arrangements of contracting, somebody

contracting, and temping has weakened workers' bargaining power and allowed large corporations to evade bargaining obligations and liabilities. for example, if an employer has a -- employee of a sub contractor would unionize, the subcontractor could be unable to actually bargain over pay, hours, workplace safety, and other issues. that's because the actual contract is with the prime contractor essentially sets the terms and conditions of employment for the employee, and the subcontractor is just administering the terms of that contract. bargaining with the subcontractor becomes essentially useless because the subcontractor is paid based on assumed wages and they don't have the ability to change those wages. .. the contractor needs to be at the table if someone is going to negotiate wages at all.

additionally, by evading bar banning obligations, the prime contractor was actually setting some or all of the terms and conditions of the work to actually shift liability for unfair labor practices under the subcontractor or temp agency. mr. speaker, the nlrb's new rule fixes the problem by ensuring workers can negotiate with all entities who actually control the working conditions. this also protects small businesses from being held liable for labor violations that are a result of larger firms' actions. this isn't about franchising. no franchiseor has ever found to be under any of the various joint employer rules, including this one. h.j.res 98 would undermine workers' ability to exercise their rights and reinstate the deficient trump-era rule that narrowed the standard. under the trump era standard,

employers who control the working conditions could easily evade their obligations to collectively bargain with employees. that would have the effect of reducing earnings for workers. according to the economic policy institute, the they were already era rule would reduce workers' hard-earned paychecks by about $1.3 billion. conversely, the biden rule is estimated to raise workers' earnings. so we should not go backwards. the biden-harris administration empowers workers and protects small businesses. i applaud president biden for his veto of h.j.res 98. let's be clear, this is not about the employment rule. we already had that debate back in january. this is a debate about the republican majority's inability to do basic arithmetic,

overriding the president's veto requires 2/3 or 290 members of the house. that's not going to happen. this thing only passes with 206 votes, nearly all of them from republicans. so anybody that can count knows that the republican majority does not have the votes to override the veto. so why are we taking this up? that's because we're just a metaphor for the republicans' failed agenda. instead of taking time to do something constructive, we're taking precious floor time to this doomed override vote when we could be doing something better, like raising the minimum wage or making work places safer and healthier, ensuring women receive equal pay for equal work, or combating child labor, or establishing paid sick leave or strengthening workers' ability to organize and collectively bargain. but that's not what we're doing. all that's happening now is

what's happened during the whole 118th congress. the house majority insists on votes like this that have no chance of succeeding. so house democrats believe we can do better. we remain focused on the priorities and others that lower costs and grow the middle class. that's what we'll be focused on, so i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the jam, mr. good, from virginia, is recognized. mr. good: this is and always will be will labor unions. that's essentially what my friend from the commonwealth of virginia just said. we need to go back to pro growth policies when real wages were growing for everyone, when unemployment was at record low for everyone, and there were millions more americans working during the trump administration. bidenomics, none of that works, and this is a rescision, a recession back into the past here. it's not going to work, and we're not response for what the

senate does. we're not responsible for the white house does. the senate agreed with us on on a biden administration basis. the house did this on a bipartisan basis. now i'd like to yield five minutes to the gentleman from michigan, mr. james. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. james: thank you to mr. good. i appreciate the opportunity to address my colleagues, you, mr. speaker. it's been said that government doesn't create jobs, but she sure know how to kill them. i agree with that. listening to my colleagues here today, i have to restate, mr. speaker, that the american dream is worth fighting for. franchises create the surest and shortest path for entrepreneurs, working people in my district

and all across the country, to achieve the american dream. and the reason we're here again is because we are giving our colleagues the opportunity to tell the american people that they will choose them and their american dream over the special interests and political sel selfishness that choosing their own best interests may leave. the right to collectively bargain was established by this body in 1935, and the right to work was enshrined in michigan's constitution just last year. but once again, the biden administration has gone too far. franchise businesses are the path out of situations for people in urban america, rural america, and everywhere in between. is the biden-led national labor relations board resurrected a policy that, when imposed during

the obama administration, saw jobs lost and dreams crushed. the last rule saw 376,000 lost job opportunities in the franchise sector. it's also said what might happen, what could happen, what should happen, and then i heard fixing a problem. it sounds like people who have never had the chance to live under the rules they created are now creating organizations and structures that they will have to live under. this is exactly the reason we were elected to come here to represent their interests, not the interests here, mr. speaker. thanks to president biden's policies, we have inflation and regulation, not success and determination. my colleagues on this side of the aisle are willing to bet on america, are willing to bet on the entrepreneurial spirit, while also respecting the right

to collectively bargain without burdensome regulations that we know stifle the american dream. the president's veto is clear. mr. speaker, while the president and the vice president go around the country saying they're friends of small business, their administration is literally putting policies in place that crush it. the only reason our colleagues would not vote to override this veto is because they're in lock step with an administration prioritizing politics over people. they have the opportunity to vote along with us to overturn these horrible policies, to allow americans to self-determine without threat to their right to collectively bargain. this is a clear opportunity to get this right. and i hope my colleagues on the other side will support our endeavor to do the right thing for the people in our districts who no doubt shed blood, sweat,

tears, make their dream a reality, and as our president seeks to make the case to the american people, you should not assume that small business is the enemy. with that, mr. speaker, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the virginia from virginia reserves. the gentleman from virginia, mr. mr. scott: mr. speaker i need to yield myself such time as i may consume. i think we got to get some job numbers rather than just adjectives and everything on the table. fact is, president trump, during his four years, lost over six million jobs. president biden, so far, has created over 15 million, longest period of time with the unemployment under 4% since the 1960's. and before you start excusing president trump because of a pandemic, he had a pandemic for

about 10 months. president biden had a pandemic for two years. and so on this legislation the president has vetoed it, and i think it would be helpful to leave the president's message of why he vetoed the resolution. he said i'm returning here with or without my approval, a resolution that would disapprove the national labor relation board's rule entitled standards for determination joint employer status. since day one, my administration has fought to strengthen workers' right to organize and bargain for higher wages, better benefits, and safer working conditions. the nrlb's rule would prevent companies from evading their bargaining obligations, or liability, when they control a workers' working condition, even if they reserve such control or exercise it indirectly through a subcontractor or other intermediary.

if multiple companies control the terms and conditions of employment, then the right to organize is rendered futile whenever the workers cannot bargain collectively with each of those employers. without the nlrb rule, companies could avoid liability simply by manipulating the corporate structure, like hiding behind subcontractors or staffing agencies, by hampering the nlrb's efforts to focus on the procedure of collectively bargaining. republicans siding with union-busting corporations over the needs of workers and their unions. and the most pro union, pro worker in american history, i make no apologies for my administration, protecting the right to organize and bargain collectively, therefore, i am vetoing this resolution, joseph r. biden jr. i reserve the balance of my time. mr. good: i have to hand it to

my friend from virginia. he is resilient, but he's got a tough job trying to defend the economic record of the current administration. you've got some four million people less working than were working when he became president. and everyone knows that under the previous administration, again, you had record low unemployment, record high labor participation. now we've got a good record low participation rate. you've got unemployment that was at record lows for everyone during the previous administration. real wage growth under the previous administration. now you've got, what do you have? you've got 40-year high inflation. inflation that was nonexistent before this president got into office. you've got 20-year high interest rates, which is further crushing the american people. you've got our credit having been downgraded because of the reckless, excessive wasteful, unprecedent spending, which will cause interest rates to go even

higher. and you can't fool the american people. you can't tell them it's good when they know that it's bad. they're suffering at the grocery store. they're suffering when they pay the utility bill. they're suffering at the gas pump. they're suffering when they make the mortgage payment or when they make the rent payment. they're suffering when they're unable to afford to buy a home, and this is all a direct result of bad policy from this president. and this is just one more example as he vetoes the will of the american people reflected in a bipartisan manner by both houses of congress sending him legislation to overturn this rule, and yet, he has vetoed it and is forced us to try to overcome his veto today. mr. speaker, i'm prepared to close if the gentleman from virginia is prepared to close. and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: gentleman reserves. mr. scott is recognized. mr. scott: thank you, mr.

speaker. i yield myself the balance of the time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. scott: i ask unanimous consent that letters in opposition to this resolution is part of the president's veto from afl-cio and the teamsters, another from the steel workers, and another from dozens of labor and civil rights organizations be entered into the record. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. scott: thank you, mr. speaker. i just want to reiterate that the credit rating that was threatened was the result of the republicans threatening to default on our debt. that wasn't anything the democrats had done. and again, just reiterate, under biden, over 15 million jobs created. under trump, over six million

lost. and the longest period of time of unemployment under 4% since the 1960's. i think that's a fairly easy record to defend. mr. speaker, in closing, there's no reason to override the president's veto and the votes aren't going to be there. unfortunately, this is how they operated during the 118th congress. this is going to be the least productive congress in history. in contrast, under democratic leadership last congress, we delivered on significant results. . we have reduced unemployment to record lows, kept it under

record lows under this administration. we saved millions of pensions, and tenses of thousands of businesses. we helped because they were really obligated to pay into those failing funds until the businesses went broke. we delivered historic funding for education. we improved child nutrition. we brought the number of uninsured americans down to the lowest level ever. i think we can take credit for all of that by prioritizing wasting time on efforts like this. the republican majority is failing to live up to the same standard that democrats have lived up to. again, mr. speaker, i commend the president for vetoing h.j.res. 98 and protecting american workers. i urge my colleagues to vote no on this override effort. and yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the

balance of his time. the gentleman from virginia, mro close. mr. good: i yield myself the balance of the time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. good: thank you, mr. speaker. my friend from virginia said it himself, the unions are for this. the teamsters, steel workers, that's reason enough to oppose this. we talked about the credit being downgraded. unprecedented in the country, twice to have our credit downgraded during this president's time in office. job growth, we -- previous president had record job growth. a roaring economy until the pandemic hit. under this president, of course, some of the jobs that were lost in the pandemic have been recovered, but not all of this. again we have record low labor participation rate. meaning the percentage of those abled bodied working age americans work something at an all time low. we don't count those individuals who aren't looking for work in the unemployment numbers. they don't count. you have an artificially low so-called unemployment rate because you have record numbers of americans on federal assistance. as we stripped away all the work

requirements for cash welfare, for food stamps, for housing assistance. and while we on this side measure success by how many people we get off of government assistance, the other side measures success by how many people they have on government assistance programs. as they continue to try to grow the amount of people who are paid not to work which further causes economic harm. we cannot just cut our way, cut our spending on the way to prosperity again. we have to grow our way by going back to pro-growth policies. mr. speaker, in testimony before our committee on this issue, the president of the international franchise association said the rule would make franchisees morf and/or co-employers with their franchisor. this would significantly diminish the value of the business that they have spent their entire careers building. we know his statement is true because we have seen this policy play out before.

years ago when president obama's nlrb advanced a similar rule, the international franchise association conduct add study on its impact and research showed that the indirect control standard cost the industry, as my friend from michigan said, as much as $33 billion annually, killed almost $400,000 jobs, and once again increased lawsuits against franchise businesses by 93%. the franchise model represent an opportunity to pursue the american dream, congress must stand up for the nine million franchise workers across the country and override president biden's veto. with that i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. without objection, the previous question is ordered. the question is, will the house on reconsideration pass the joint resolution, the objections of the president to the contrary notwithstanding. under the constitution, the vote must be by the yeas and nays. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, further proceedings on this question will be postponed.

the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does gentlelady from arizona seek recognition? mrs. lesko: thank you, mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent

that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks on the legislation and to insert extraneous material in the record on h.r. 6192. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. pursuant to house resolution 1194 and rule 18, the chair declares the house in the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for the consideration of h.r. 6192. theaire appoints the gentleman from guam, mr. moylan, to preside over the committee of the whole. the chair: the house is in the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for the consideration of h.r. 6192. which the clerk will report by title. he the clerk: a bill-to-mend the

energy policy and conservation act to prohibit the secretary of energy from provibing any -- procribbing any new or energy conservation standard for a product that is not technologically feasible and economically justified and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered as read the first time of the general debate shall be confined to the bill and shall not exceed one hour equally divide and controlled by the chair and the ranking minority member of the committee on energy and commerce for their re-- or their respective designees. the gentlewoman from arizona, mrs. lesko, and the gentleman from new jersey, mr. pallone, each will control 30 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from arizona. mrs. lesko: thank you, mr. chair. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the chair: the gentlewoman is recognized. mrs. lesko: the biden administration has waged a war on american energy. and this war has made its way into americans' homes.

president biden and the department of energy secretary granholm have sacrificed appliance affordability and reliability in their pursuit of a radical rush to green agenda. in the name of energy efficiency, the biden administration has issued rules on home appliances that would drive up costs and make these popular products less reliable and available to the american families. the biden administration's new rules do not save a significant amount of energy and are not cost-effective. the biden administration's rules discourage the use of natural gas in favor of the electtrification of appliances regardless of the cost, reliability, or availability. just look how they tried to ban gas stoves before my save our

gas stoves legislation and public outcry dialed it back. house republicans are leading to protect americans from federal mandate that increase costs, fail to result in significant energy savings, and are not practical and eliminate the performance features of product choices. my legislation, h.r. 6192, the hands off our home appliances act fights back against the biden administration's radical agenda and will preserve the affordability, availability, and quality of the household appliances americans rely on every day. enacted in 1975, the energy policy and conservation act, also called epca, provides specific criteria the department

of energy must follow in order to propose a new appliance efficiency standard. it is supposed to result in a significant conservation of energy, technologically feasible, and economically justified. the problem is that current law doesn't define the parameters for these criteria. so the biden administration has ignored these critical consumer protections by proposing and finalizing standards that violate the statute. my bill will define how much energy or water has to be saved. my bill will define that any additional up-front costs to install a new appliance that has new mandated energy efficiency standards will be recuperated with an -- within a reasonable period of time.

h.r. 6192 will protect affordability by requiring the department of energy to consider the full lifecycle costs of appliances when determining if the new standard is economically justified. the bill requires a three-year or less payback to the consumer and requires consideration of the costs for low-income households. no longer will the biden administration be able to say a savings of 12 cents per month is economically justified as they have done before. no longer will they be able to have to hold -- will a customer have to hold on to their appliance for eight to 10 or longer years just before they see any cost savings. the bill establishes a minimum threshold for energy or water

savings that must be achieved before imposing new standards. the bill requires that any new standard must achieve at least a 10% reduction in energy or water usage. the bill prohibits the secretary of energy from banning products based on what type of fuel the product uses. so there can be no more natural gas bans. the bill requires that any new standard cannot affect the duty cycle, charging time, and run time of the covered product or the life span of the products. you know, americans want their appliances to work. the bill will allow the department of energy to amend or revoke prior standards if they don't save the consumers money, and if the abaselines doesn't

work -- appliance doesn't work. last week, i asked secretary granholm in committee some very basic questions about the energy policy and conservation act. i asked her, yes or no, do you agree that appliance regulations should be technologically feasible? secretary granholm said yes. yes or no, do you agree that appliance regulation should not increase net cost for consumers? secretary granholm said yes. yes or no, do you agree that appliance regulation should save a significant amount of energy? secretary granholm said yes. i stated to her that efficiency mandates increase the up-front cost of appliances which can really hurt low-income families and renters who do not have the luxury of waiting years for the

energy savings to break even. so i asked her, yes or no, do you agree that three years is a reasonable payback period for efficiency regulations? you know what? secretary granholm said, she thought the payback should be done within one year. thus, folks, secretary granholm is on record supporting every key element of my bill. in january of this year, the fifth circuit court found that the department of energy has abused the law. in their opinion they said the department of energy failed to adequately consider appliance performance substitution of effects and record of evidence that department of energy's conservation standards a are causing americans to use more energy and water rather than

less. it's time to reform the energy policy and conservation act. like our law sets speed limits to determine at what speed we are breaking the law, it is time to define what economically justified and technologically feasible means. it is time to fight back against the radical agenda set by the biden administration. it is time for our energy efficiency laws to actually save americans money. actually save energy and water. and actually preserve americans' consumer choice. i ask both i ask both republicans and democrats to support my bill, h.r. 6192, and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlewoman reserves. for what purpose does the -- the gentleman from new jersey is recognized. mr. pallone: thank you.

mr. speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. pallone: i rise in strong oppositon to h.r. 6192, legislation that would actually -- should be titled the republicans raising energy bills on american families act. because that's exactly what this bill does this. bill is just the latest in the republicans' polluter over people agenda that will drive up annual energy costs on hardworking american families. this bill is a blatant attempt by house republicans to derail the successful and effective energy conservation program, energy efficiency standards save americans money on their energy bills, they boost innovation by modernizing appliances for the future and they reduce greenhouse gas pollution and our ongoing efforts to combat the climate crisis. american family, mr. speaker, are already saving up to $500 a year on utility bills thanks to

the energy efficiency standards already in place. the biden administration has been busy with additional actions to collectively save americans $1 trillion over the next 30 years. $1 trillion. setting energy efficiency standards is something that the department of energy is required by congress to do. the biden administration has been busy acting because the previous trump administration refused to doits job and neglected to finalize 25 appliance efficiency standards. now h.r. 6192 takes an ax to energy conservation standards. it slows down the standards setting process. it allows future administrations to revoke existing standards and bans states from setting their own conservation standards. if this bill were to become law, manufacturers would be faced with market uncertainty and regulatory about face every time the government changes hands. and that's problematic for future innovation, particularly considering that many of the

efficiency stan -- efficiency standards finalized by the department of energy were reach through the consensus recommendations made by appliance manufacturers and efficiency advocates there's a robust process for setting efficiency standards and this sproases works. all standards must be economically justify and technologically feasible. and let me be clear because we're likely to hear a lot of fear mongering and misinformation today from my republican colleagues. energy efficiency standards are not bans and do not impact existing apliepses in american's homes. this legislation is nothing more than an attempt to scare consumers to republicans can protect their polluter friends. instead of legislating on important, pressing issues, republicans today are pushing a bill that will increase energy prices for american families. this republican congress is the least productive of any congress since the great depression. this bill is only being brought to the floor because republicans

can't assemble the votes to actually accomplish anything for the american people. and they talk about freedom for appliances but refuse to consider any legislation that would give women freedom over their reproductive health. so mr. speaker, i urge my colleagues to oppose this legislation, because it will raise energy costs on american family, it'll stifle american innovation and it'll exacerbate the climate crisis. it's time that republicans stop wasting our time on partisan messaging bill that was no chance of becoming law. with that, mr. speaker, i reserve the plans of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentlewoman from arizona is recognized. mrs. lesko: thank you, mr. chairman. i yield two minutes to the gentleman from south carolina, mr. duncan, who is the chair of the energy subcommittee. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. duncan: thank you, mr. chairman. i rise in support of h.r. 6192, the hands off our home appliances act. i want to thank congresswoman lesko for leading this effort

and many others in this congress. throughout hearings in this congress, the house energy and commerce committee has heard countless times how the biden administration's energy policy puts special interests over affordability and reliability for americans. through the department of energy appliance standard program, the biden administration has abused their authority by setting aggressive standards on a variety of home appliances. americans don't be food aboutthis this effort by the biden administration isn't about saving american consumers money. it's solely about ending american's use of natural gas. period. they started with gas stoves. and now they have announced plans to impose burdensome regulations that will raise the cost and reduce the performance of dish washers, air conditioners, refrigerators, clothes washers, clothes dryers and several other products that americans rely on every day. this is part of their whole government approach to pursuing climate policy over all else.

secretary granholm said in our budget hearing last week, quote, we're obsessed with reducing the amount of energy americans use. unquote. this administration hates fossil fuels and anything that uses fossil fuels. that's their solution. to reduce emissions and preserve energy reliability instead of harnessing the abundant resources we have in this country they want to reduce the quality of life in americans by telling thepg how to cook your food, wash your clothe, how much water you can use, what type of car you can drive. congresswoman lesko's bill puts affordability and reliability ad of the dark money climate lobby this administration is beholden to. this reforms the standard setting process to clarify the regulatory authority and tribute toes -- prohibits new standards that are not economically feasible or technologically possible. because of this administration, the cost of everything is

increasing in the united states of america. he dhas -- the last thing that they should be doing is making home aplains americans rely on more expensive. i urge my colleagues to support this commonsense bill and thank congresswoman lesko for again leading this important issue. i yield back. the chair: does the gentlewoman reserve? mrs. lesko: i reserve. the chair: the gentlewoman reserves. the gentleman from new jersey is recognized. mr. pallone: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield five minutes to the gentlewoman from florida who is the ranking member of our oversight and investigation subcommittee, ms. castor. the chair: the gentlewoman is recognized. ms. castor: i rise in opposition to h.r. 6192, a republican bill that will burden american families with higher costs. this is not a serious bill, mr. speaker. but it is emblematic of the least productive congress in morned times. rather than focus on improving

the lives of our neighbors back home and lowering cost, maga extremists have been embroiled in shutdowns and showdowns, a tiresome soap opera. so they bring an unserious bill like this to distract from their dysfunction. i've heard members on the other side of the aisle make excuses for not getting anything done. they say this is a closely divided congress. but you know, mr. speaker, that was true in the last congress when the democrats were in control and we passed a host of important new laws that solved problems and cut costs for the folks we represent back home. we focused on bringing down the cost of living and putting more money back in the pockets of american families. like the pact act. that expands v.a. health care and benefits for veterans exposed to burn pits, agent orange and other toxic substances. provides generations of veterans and their survivors with the care and benefits they've earned

about 4,000 veterans in my district alone have filed claims. we passed the american rescue plan to help america boost back and build the strongest economy in the world after the pandemic. we passed a historic infrastructure law to -- that's rebuilding our roads and bridges, delivering clean water, cleaning up pollution, and expanding access to high speed internet. we passed the safer communities act, and we passed the very important historic inflation reduction act. that truly is putting money back into the pockets of families back home. remember, that's the law that capped insulin at $5 per month. i have 74,000 people in my district with diabetes and thousands of my neighbors are saving about $440 per month. more people have affordable health insurance. because of the tax credits in the inflation reduction act. about -- over 100,000 of my neighbors will save about $520 in premiums this year under the

a.c.a. that's a law that now allows medicare to negotiate drug prices for the highest drugs, it caps out of pocket costs for our older neighbors who rely on medicare. what a godsend. the i.r.a. is also lowering the cost of energy and reducing pollution, unleashed a major clean energy manufacturing boom across america, over 500 new clean energy project, all across the country. well over 250,000 new jobs. the key to delivering all of these cost savings to the american people is putting people over politics. but instead, maga extremists keep america stuck in the politics of chaos all the time. where nothing gets done. so the g.o.p. what do they do? they default to another bill that helps the oil and gas industry. that's what this is all about. because energy efficiency standards are popular. three out of five americans support making them stronger.

american families want innovative, efficient appliances. why? because they save money. and they save energy. take the refrigerator, for example. compared to refrigerate yofers the 1970's, when the first efficiency standard was proposed, refrigerators today are cheaper up front and they do a better job of keeping groceries cold. and they use about 75% less energy. and they save american families hundreds of dollars a year. on their electricity bills. thanks to the innovation spurred by energy efficiency standards. the department of energy and the biden administration have collaborated with industry to develop strong energy efficiency standards as congress already has directed. this means huge cost savings for american families, money back into their pockets at the time -- at a time when they really need it. so i urge my colleagues to side with the people and their pocketbooks rather than politics or the polluters' best

interests. please vote no on this republican bill and let's get back to work. i yield back my time. the chair: does the gentleman reserve? the gentleman reserves. the gentlewoman from arizona is recognized. mrs. lesko: thank you, mr. chairman. i yield two minutes to the gentlewoman from the state of washington, the chair of the energy and commerce committee, ms. rogers. the chair: the gentlewoman is recognized. mrs. rodgers: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise in support of h.r. 6192 and i'd like to start off by thanking the sponsor, ms. debbie lesko of arizona, and the members of the energy and commerce committee, for advancing this bill through regular order. the united states is blessed with tremendous natural resources. we have the cleanest oil and gas in the world. emissions free nuclear. hydropower. and renewables. we also have the world's best work force and an innovative

spirit that's contributed to technological breakthroughs that have changed the world. for century, american innovation has led to new technologies that have improved people's lives. from the light bulb and the home refrigerator to air-conditioning, the washing machine and the dishwasher. these inventions are ingrained in mod herb life. and they were not the result of some aggressive government regulation or mandate. but of american ingenuity. sadly, the biden administration's war on american energy is now reaching inside americans' homes. through sue and settle agreements with radical environmental activist, the department of energy has reached backroom deals with impose new regulations on dozens of appliances that americans rely on every single day. last year, the biden administration attempted to ban gas stoves.

thankfully, d.o.e. changed course after bipartisan opposition and an overwhelming vote by congress to reverse the ban. these new mandates are forcing people to spend more on less reliable options. this comes at a time when americans are already being crushed by rigs costs thanks to bidenflation. continuing to double down on policies like this, the biden administration is showing just how out of touch they are with the financial struggle the vast majority of americans are feeling. americans simply cannot afford president biden's rush to green agenda. the bill led by mrs. lesko seeks to protect americans from federal mandates that result in minimal energy savings while significantly driving up costs for consumers. it ensure this is a d.o.e. -- mrs. lesko: i yield 30 more seconds. the chair: the gentlewoman is recognized.

mrs. rodgers: it ensures d.o.e. is only allowed to adopt efficiency regulation on home appliances that are cost effective, technologically feasible and save a significant amount of energy. this will benefit americans across the country. it should be a bipartisan issue. that's why i urge colleagues on both sides of the aisle to join in sending a strong message to the biden administration and i want to thank ms. lesko for her hard work on the bill. i yield back. the chair: does the gentlewoman reserve? mrs. lesko: i reserve. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. pallone: i yield three minutes now to the gentlewoman from michigan, who is the chair of the democratic policy and communications committee, mrs. dingell. the chair: the gentlewoman is recognized. . mrs. dingell: i rise in strong opposition to this partisan appliance bills. time and time again in this

congress, mrs. dingell: i rise in strong opposition to this part in this congress. they are bringing energy bills to the floor to rile people up and get their base upset while continuing to put off the work the american people sent us here to do, work together to really solve some of america's problems. h.r. 6192 isn't the first anti-efficiency bill we've seen on the house floor. my republican colleagues are obstructing the work we've been sent here to do. we've got a lot of serious problems, like reducing the cost of prescription drugs, helping everybody have access to health care. the hands off our home appliances act, along with the other anti-efficiency bills out there, like very serious bills, liberty in laundry, refrigerator freedom, clothes drier liberty

are just bills with names that get your attention but all they do is delay and weaken popular energy efficiency program, courting favors with the polluters. they unfortunately show people that -- i have colleagues that don't want to save american consumers' money on their energy bills. the party keeps peddling these blatant lives that the biden administration is going after america's household appliance. they are not. when did they take or our gas stoves last year? it's a lot of drama out there not based on truth. i have a brand-new gas stove that is a year old and have less time to use it because that's how often we have to cook. but i bought it in the whole

debate. secretary granholm said she owns a gas stove and nobody is taking it away from her. the fear mongering is nothing more than political -- i don't know what word i want to use because i love my friends, but it's designed to scare consumers and not based in fact. the american people sent us here to work together in a bipartisan manner to find commonsense solutions. instead of working together to extend funding for the connectivity program that expires this month that helps millions of americans have access and afford broadband. we saw what happened during covid when so many people didn't have access to the internet. but instead of doing something to help everyday working americans, we're focused on partisan messaging bills. instead of working on the real issues facing the american people, we're choosing yet again

wasting our time debating appliances. we need to stop playing games and i urge my colleagues to oppose this legislation. i yield back. the chair: does the gentleman reserve? mr. pallone: yes, we do. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized. ms. less co-: i yield ms. leger fernandezo: i ms. lesko: i yield to mr. allen. mr. allen: i'm a proud co-sponsor of the hands off our home appliances act. the biden administration has caused a energy crisis that's crept its way into the home of the american families. the biden administration war on energy has led to higher prices at the pump but now america's home appliances are on the chopping block. yes, they're home appliances. under the guise of energy

efficiency, they've issued burdensome policies on these appliances and we don't know if they work. i don't know why the federal government would fill the scales on what america could or could not buy. that should be a free market decision. common sense tells us demand should be consumer and market driven, not government manufactured. but nonetheless, in this administration's pursuit to the radical green new deal agenda, common sense has taken a back seat. h.r. 6192 will preserve the affordability, availability, and quality of household appliances and protect americans from federal standards that increase costs, fail to result in significant energy savings and are not practical. when i came to congress, never in my wildest imagination would i have thought i would stand here on the house floor to

defend my constituents' appliances and gas stoves but this is where we are under this administration. and with that, i'll yield back. the chair: does the gentlewoman reserve? mrs.: lesko: i reserve. mr. pallone: i yield one minute to mr. jeffries of new york. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. jeffries: i thank the gentleman for yielding and for his tremendous leadership. the house of representatives is the institution the framers designed to be the closest to the american people, the first institution mentioned in the united states constitution.

the people's house. the place where president abraham lincoln declared that america is the last best hope of earth. the place where f.d.r. made clear the importance of defending democracy against the tyranny of nazi facism. it's the place where president lyndon baines johnson talked about the importance of the voting rights act and made it clear to america that we shall overcome. the house of representatives is a special place. and so earlier today, i was told, you need to get to the house floor to deal with the signature piece of legislation from the extreme maga republicans in this 118th congress. and so i wondered to myself, is

it going to be about inflation, lower costs, housing affordability, public safety, dealing with the challenges at the border, social security, medicare, what is it going to be about? and it turns out the significant piece of legislation for the extreme maga republicans this week, this month, this year is hands off our home appliances act? this is what we are dealing with. on this magical house floor? with all the challenges the american people are confronting? liberty for laundry? defending the dignity of dishwashers? fighting for freedom of refrigerators?

this is what we're doing? can't make it up. you can't make it's up. as house democrats, we are going to defend democracy. the extreme maga republicans working on defending the dignity of dishwashers. house democrats, we are going to protect and strengthen social security. extreme maga republicans are apparently interested in protecting gas stoves against phony accusations of oppression. house democrats are going to defend reproductive freedom. extreme maga republicans focused on the freedom for refrigerators. we believe in a woman's freedom to make her own reproductive health care decisions, period, full stop. in women's health care and

protecting the women of america against extreme maga republican overreach. and instead of leaning into the protection of reproductive freedom instead of trying to strengthen social security and medicare, you want to criminalize abortion care. you want to impose a nationwide ban. and then waste time on the house floor as it relates to the liberty of laundry. you can't make this up. so i urge my american colleagues to partner with us. if you want to push back against overreach, push back against the pro putin extreme overreach on your side of the aisle. that doesn't want to defend

democracy and freedom here and abroad. it's undermining it. and we extend the hand of partnership as we've repeatedly done to solve real problems for the american people. but those problems have nothing to do with the dignity of dishwashers, the freedom of refrigerators, or the liberty of laundry. let's get back to doing the real business of the american people. vote no against this legislation. the chair: does the gentleman reserve? mr. pallone: yes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman is recognized. mrs. lesko: i'll yield 1 1/2 minutes to mr. joyce of pennsylvania. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. joyce: i thank the gentlelady for her yielding and her leadership on this. for the last three years the biden administration fought to enact a far left energy agenda that stifles innovation, raises

prices, and halts economic growth. burdensome regulations that fail to decrease energy usage and cost consumers more to buy appliances should not be enacted this legislation would put a stop to the department of energy's continued crackdown on american made appliances and implement minimal thresholds for energy or water savings that would need to be met before any new regulations could be created. the biden administration's war on energy is reaching into the american home, and it is closing the door to your refrigerator, it is draining your dishwasher, and ultimately, it would cost the american families more money. further, this bill would ensure that the secretary of energy cannot unilaterally ban products because of the type of fuel that they use. in order to lower prices and to

protect our energy independence, it is vital we continue to utilize the energy resources like natural gas that is underneath the feet of my constituents in pennsylvania. i urge all of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to join me in supporting this legislation. and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: does the gentlewoman reserve? mrs. lesko: i reserve. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. pallone: i yield three minutes now to the the gentlewoman from texas, mrs. fletcher, a member of the energy and commerce committee. the chair: the gentlewoman is recognized. mrs. fletcher: i rise to say with everything that's going on in our country today, i'm disappointed the precious time we have on this house floor to

move legislation is dedicated to unhelpful and unasked for bills about home appliances. rights for refrigerators, rights for laundry and designate for dishwashers. how about instead we turn our attention to the liberty and rights and dignity of america. in our home state of america and across the country, women's rights to make their own decisions about their bodies, their families and their futures are being stripped away by state legislatures and local governments. why is it this majority does nothing for them? for example, as states ban abortion and limit access to reproductive health care, more and more americans have been forced to travel. sometimes long distances, oftentimes to other states to

get the reproductive health care that they need. in response to the exercise of this constitutional right to travel, one of the chief privileges and immunities for citizens in the constitution, lawmakers are trying to take this right away, too. multiple cities in texas have enacted ordinances to prohibit anyone from traveling on their roads or through their tune -- towns if the purpose is to go somewhere tolles get an abortion. in alabama the attorney general wants to prosecute groups that help women obtain abortions out of state. and just last week, a man in texas took legal action to investigate his former partner who had traveled to a state where abortion is legal. these things are happening in the united states today as we sit here today. . .

this unconstitutional interference with our freedom, our liberty, our dignity is what this body should be considering. that's what this body should be concerned about. nor reason, at the appropriate time, i will offer a motion to recommit this bill back to committee. if house rules permitted, i would have offered the motion with an important amendment to this bill. my amendment would replace the current bill text and replace it with the text of my bill, h.r. 782, the ensuring women's rights to reproductive freedom act. this amendment reaffirms the fundamental, constitutional right to travel across state lines for the purpose of obtaining reproductive health care as well as for health care providers providing care to out of state residents and those assisting people traveling for this purpose. at the end of the debate, i will insert into the record the text of this amendment. i hope my colleagues will join me in voting for the motion to

recommit and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentlewoman is recognized. mrs. lesko: thank you, mr. chairman. i'd like to go over some things my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have accused of this bill of mine. first, mr. pallone, who i respect, said this bill will raise energy bills. absolutely not. in fact, if you read the bill, it says, it couldn't be clearer, because the text states, the secretary cannot issue a new standard if the energy efficiency standard results in additional cost to consumers. very clear. in fact, the whole goal of this bill is to save consumers money and also make sure that their appliances actually work.

my fellow colleague, representative castor, she said, we need to side with the people. that's exactly what my bill does. and you -- i'll tell you why. let me give you some examples of what are current department of energy -- what our current department of energy is doing and why this isn't a waste of time to be talking about because this is for the people. this is for every household in america, who has to pay more money because of these crazy department of energy regulations. let me give you some examples. for clothes washers. the department of energy estimates that its standard could save as little as $9 for certain modelers of the average lifetime for the appliance which is estimated to be 13.4 years. $9.

over a 13.4 years. wow. for dish washers, the department of energy under biden own analysis finds that efficiency mandates could increase the upfront cost by 28% and it could take consumers 12 years to pay back the increased cost on a product that may only last seven to 12 years. my bill is for the people. here's another d.o.e. rule under the biden administration. for refrigerators and freezers, department of energy's own analysis finds that efficiency mandates could increase the upfront cost to replace that refrigerator or freezer by 25%. and it could take consumers 10 years to pay back the increased

cost for a product that may only last 14 to 15 years. here's another example. for air conditioners. department of energy's own analysis finds that efficiency mandates could increase the upfront cost by 30% and it could take consumers four years to pay back the increased costs for a product that may only last nine years. here's another one. for clothes dryers. biden's department of energy's own analysis, i'm talking about their analysis, not mine, shows that it would take between six years and 46 years to pay back the increased cost depending on the type of drier and the product features. the payback periods for many of these appliances are uneconomical.

for example, the payback period for department of energy under biden's proposed clothes dryer standards are six greers electric, 18 years for electric compact, 20 years for vented electric compact, five years for vented gas, 11 years for ventless electric compact and 46 years for ventless electric combination washer-dryer. so with all due respect to my democratic colleagues, who say this is a waste of time, we're wasting time, we should be talking about all of their priorities, no. republicans are here. we are standing up for the average commonsense everyday american, who can't afford groceries anymore, let alone these crazy, radical standards

that the biden administration is pushing through that will increase if their costs. that's why i'm doing this bill. we want appliances that not only work, but we don't want to bankrupt the american people with all these crazy, radical, biden green -- rush to green energy policies. mr. chairman, i reserve my time. the chair: the gentlewoman reserves. the gentleman is recognized. mr. pallone: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield two minutes to the gentlewoman from virginia, ms. mcleod. the chair: the gentlewoman is recognized. ms. mcclellan: i rise in opposition to the republican's hands off our appliances act, that will strip away efficiency

standards that would save our constituents hundreds of dollars every year on their utility bills and save $1 trillion and cut greenhouse gas pollution by over $2.5 billion metric tons over the next 30 years. but house republicans wan to put polluters over people by stoking fear that someone is coming after their household appliances. news flasch. no one system cog after anyone's house -- no one is coming after anyone's household appliances. and we should be focused on the issues the more than people want us to focus on. none of my constituents nor a majority of the american people are clamoring for congress to protect their household appliances. you know what they are clamoring for? they're clamoring for congress to do something about the fact that they have lost reproductive freedom and the ability of -- to make health care decisions without interference from politicians, since the supreme

court gutted roe v. wade and now over 40% of women of reproductive age live in a state with an abortion ban or extreme restrictions. they want us to do something about the fact that barriers to their exercise of the right to vote have been put in place since the supreme court gutted the voting rights act. they want us to do something about the fact that the impact of climate change sea level rise, major storms increase, pollution -- is having an impact on their health, businesses, communities and even military readiness as we heard from the secretary of the navy last week. democrats are fighting to put people over politics and address these issues that actually matter to the american people. i urge my republican colleagues to do the same vote no on this bill and let's get back to work. the chair: does the gentleman reserve? the gentleman reserves. the gentlewoman is recognized.

mrs. lesko: thank you, mr. chairman. my colleagues keep saying, do something that the people really care about. this is something that the american people really care about. let me tell -- let me show you a "wall street journal" article from today. it's from today. it's titled biden is coming for your air conditioner. and it says, your next new home air conditioner could set you back $12,000 or more with federal regulators contributing to the rising costs of staying cool. i'm from arizona. we need air conditioners. people are just trying to get by right now because of the inflation under biden. biden's economics, bidenomics, as he calls it is costing people money. the energy department in january, 2023, issued a new efficiency standard for residential air-conditioning systems. it necessitates a major redesign

that increased costs by $1,000 to12k4r-rs ,500 per air conditioner. it isn't clear that consumers will ever earn back in long-term energy save thetion steeper upfront costs they are paying. next up is an environmental protection agency regulation scheduled to take effect in 2025. it will require air-conditioning equipment makers to use new refrigerants, deemed sufficiently climate friendly. the only refrigerants being used by manufacturers that meet the e.p.a.'s new green standards are classified as mildly flammable. manufacturers in earnings conference calls have estimated that the price of compliant equipment will increase the price of the air conditioner at

least 10%. the switch to flammable systems will also require additional technician training and extra installation steps that are likely to increase labor costs for installations and repairs. i wish that i didn't have to sponsor this bill. i mean, in -- if you asked me a number of years ago would i sponsor this, i would have thought it wasn't necessary. but under the biden administration, they've just gone crazy. they have this radical, i don't know if radical environmentalists are bending the ear of president biden or what is going on. because as i have demonstrated, this isn't helping americans. this is a radical agenda that is increasing the prices on everyday americans and we can't afford it.

and that's why this bill is necessary. and with that, i reserve. the chair: the gentlewoman reserves. the gentleman is recognized. mr. pallone: thank you, mr. chairman. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. pallone: mr. chairman, republicans have spent the last year and a half attacking all the biden administration's efforts to lower energy costs for american consumers. rebates for energy efficient appliances to lower energy bills, republicans are furious. incentives to spur investment in clean energy to drive down bills. republicans attack that. efforts to use the strategic petroleum reserve to lower gas prices for americans, republicans were incensed. so forgive me, mr. chairman, but i just find it all too much, especially because not a single colleague of mine on the other side of the aisle has made as much as a peep since the federal

trade commission last week revealed that the c.e.o. of the largest american independent producer of crude oil was colluding with opec to keep oil prices high. that's to the real scandal, mr. chairman. the c.e.o. of an american company working together with representatives of the saudi government to raise prices for americans. even worse, he tried to persuade his competitors to do the same and drive the price of crude oil up to $200 per barrel in a display of naked greed. so any republican colleagues were serious about wanting to lower energy costs for americans, they'd hold hearings. they're in charge. they're in the majority. they should hold hearings and put legislation on the floor to deal with this scandal instead of standing here debating the freedom of appliances. so mr. chairman, republicans claim they want to lower energy costs but their actions speak louder than their words.

they're beyond furious if you try to use technology to lower the energy consumption of household appliances, and save americans money. but a big oil c.e.o. colluding with opec nations to pick american pockets? you'd be hard-pressed to get republicans to care about that. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentlewoman is recognized. ms. lesko: thank you, mr. chairman. i'm prepared to close and i reserve. the chair: the gentlewoman reserves. the gentleman is recognized. mr. pallone: thank you, again. i reserve -- i mean i -- i seek time. as much time as i may consume to close, mr. chairman. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. .. mr. pallone: the republicans claim they care about energy costs. they keep saying over and over

again we care about costs but their actions and votes show that's just not true. the biden administration's efficiency standards are estimated to save consumers $1 trillion over 30 years. that's $1 trillion. water heater standards will save american people households $7.6 billion. refrigerator standards will save americans $36 billion. and clothes washer and dryer standards will save americans a combined $39 billion. but the bottom line is republicans don't want americans to realize those savings and want americans to be stuck with old energy-guzzling appliances that cost money every time you turn them on. i think it's ridiculous and so should everyone else in this chamber. republicans are concerns about the upfront cost of these appliances. two years ago when the inflation reduction act which contained $9

billion in rebates and energy efficient appliances, well, the republicans all voted no, every one of them. so let's review. the republicans don't want to make positive economic investments because they're concerned about the upfront costs, but then they also refuse to take action to lower those upfront costs. and if you brought this mentality to the private sector, you'd probably be fired in a heartbeat. but that's the orthodoxy in today's republican party. lowering energy costs for consumers via efficiency gains used to be a bipartisan issue. these efficiency standards and the process for achieving them have been around for 50 years, and every so often, we have the department of energy under both democrats and republicans coming forward with efficiency standards. and we made real progress on this in 1992 and again in 2005 but somewhere along the way the republicans decided to become the creators of american energy

costs instead of fighting for the homeowners. vote against this bill. this bill is going to raise energy costs and stifle innovation. this bill is going to do nothing, obviously, to address the climate crisis. and it's just going nowhere but wasting our time when we could be doing more things that are more important and addressing affordability for the american people. i ask my colleagues to vote no and yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields. the gentlewoman is recognized. mrs. lesko: sometimes i feel like it's deja vu. i remember standing here and talking about our save our gas stoves bill and my democratic colleagues, not all of them, because some of them voted with me on my bill, said the same arguments, the same arguments, this is a waste of time, we're not banning stoves. the americans don't care about this. well, guess what?

that bill passed the u.s. house of representatives with bipartisan support and then, guess what? it worked. because the department of energy dialed it back. originally, according to their own analysis, they were going to effectively ban 96% of all the current models of gas stoves. now it's only 3%. we won. the american people won. that's why i'm doing this bill. and when my friend, mr. pallone, says well, these energy efficiency standards will save all kinds of money, what he's not saying is all of the money that is going to cost extra upfront for these new revised

standard -- and that's even if the thing even works well. so let me remind my colleagues what this bill actually does and why it's needed. it's a commonsense bill. it will protect affordability by requiring the department of energy to consider the full life cycle cost of appliances when determining if the new standard is economically justified. the bill requires a three-year payback. the secretary of energy said oh, it should only be one year so there shouldn't be any problems with my bill. the bill establishes minimum thresholds for energy or water savings that must be achieved before imposing new standards. my democratic colleagues say they want to save energy and water. so do i. so let's put it in the bill. let's say ok, it has to save 10%. the bill prohibits the secretary

of energy from banning products based on what type of fuel the product uses. just like they were trying to do with the gas stoves. the bill requires that any new standard cannot affect the duty cycle, charging time, and run time of the covered product or the lifespan of the product. you know why? because americans want their new appliances when they buy them, they want them to work as good as the ones that they have now. the bill will allow the department of energy to amend revoked prior standards if they don't save consumers money and they don't work. this is a commonsense bill. this should be a bipartisan bill. i don't know why my democratic colleagues are fighting it so hard. because it says it has to save the consumers money. it's all about helping the american homeowner who is struggling with bidenomics right

now. i'm telling you, people in my district complain about the price of groceries, they're complaining about the price of gas. when their water heater or dishwasher or air conditioner starts to fail and they have to buy a new one, they don't want to pay a bunch more and want it to work as well as their current one has done for years. that's the purpose of my bill. that's why i ask my democratic colleagues and my republican colleagues to support my bill. and i yield back. the chair: the gentlewoman yields. all time for debate has expired. pursuant to the rule, the bill shall be considered amended under the five-minute rule, the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the department of energy and commerce printed in the bill, shall be considered as adopted. the bill as amended shall be considered as the original bill for the for what purpose for further amendment and shall be considered as read. no further amendment to the bill

as amended shall be in order except those printed in house report 118-487. each such further amendment may be offered only in the order printed in the report, may be offered only by the member designated in the report, shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for the time specified in the report equally divided and controlled by the opponent and proponent and shall not be subject to amendment and shall not be subject to the demand of the division of the question. it is now in order for amendment number 1 printed in house report 118-487. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment 1 printed in house report 118-487 offered by mr. tony gonzalez of texas. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 1194, the gentleman from texas, mr. gonzalez, and a

member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from texas. mr. gonzalez: i rise to support my amendment. i grew up in rural texas and this amendment is simple, it ensures when the biden administration proposes or amends a energy conservation standard the need of rural communities are taken into consideration. for too long the needs of people in rural communities including those i represent in south and west texas have been ignored in order to support the left's rush to green agenda. in my district many people rely on gas-powered appliances to cook their meals, maintain their lawn care, and power and heat their homes in times of electric failures. i encourage my colleagues to support this amendment and i yield back. the chair: does the gentleman reserve? mr. gonzalez: i reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves. for what purpose does the

gentleman from new jersey seek recognition? mr. pallone: mr. chairman, i rise in opposition to the amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. pallone: thank you. first, as i already said, the department of energy must already ensure energy conservation standards are economically justified so this amendment is totally unnecessary. instead of being helpful, this amendment has duplicative processes to the bill that already adds burdensome steps to the energy conservation program and all is messaging and designed to slow down rule-making. it's interesting to me we're considering this amendment. the gentleman seems very confident there will be any new or amended energy conservations. under this bill, i'm not sure we'll ever see any new standards. with that i yield back. the chair: does the gentleman reserve? does the gentleman from additional speakers? mr. pallone: no. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yield. the gentleman is recognized. mr. gonzalez: i yield.

i'm ready to close. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. gonzalez: i yield back my time. the chair: the amendment is offered by the gentleman from texas. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. it is now in order to consider amendment 2 printed in house report 118-487. for what purpose does the gentleman from florida seek recognition? >> mr. chair i rise as the designee for the gentleman, mr. huizenga, and i have a amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will read the amendment. the clerk: amendment 2 offered by mr. steube of florida.

the chair: the gentleman from florida, mr. steube and a member opposed will be recognizeed. the chair recognizes the gentleman from florida. mr. steube: i offer the amendment by mr. huizenga. first, an entity must have ties to the people's republic of china or the chinese communist party, second, it must have produced studies regarding or has advocated for policies to limit, restrict, or ban the use of any type of energy and third, the entity must have applied for or received federal funds p. in june of last year, nearly the same amendment was offered to save our gas stove act and passed by a voice vote. because this is a solid policy prescription for a serious problem. and the problem is that china connected groups seem to have a fast pass access to the white house and our federal agencies. the entities i'm concerned with are not only tied to the chinese

communist party but are peddling anti-american energy policies and raise costs for american families and businesses like gas stove bans. in addition to access it also received our tax dollars in the form of grant funding. the has not been clear who it is meeting with along with their ban to ban gas powered stoves. last year a meeting has been uncovered. we've seen found it has not been an uncommon practice. over the past few years we passed a litany of bans targeting appliances. as the underlying bill reflects, it's not just gas stoves, your washer, drier, dishwasher and much more. we have a major problems with groups with known access to china are able to successfully influence the executive branch in ways that undermine cost-effective appliance options that meet the american's daily needs and this amendment would inject critical transparency and curb the influence of the ccp

connected groups and respond exposed to america who has the ear of our regulators. i urge my colleagues to support this amendment and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: jurors. the chair: the gentleman reserves. does any member seek time in opposition? mr. a pallone: yes, i rise in opposition to the amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. pallone: thank you. the amendment amends the energy policy and conservation act with vague language that would likely be impossible to implement. additionally, this amendment is clearly designed to target environmental and clean energy groups. if this amendment is adopted and if h.r. 6192 becomes law, it would slow down the department of energy's rule making process and create additional hurdles to adopting energy conservation standards. it would overburden the department of energy staff who would be tasked with identifying covered parties to ensure compliance. it creates loads of needless paperwork and is an unfunded

mandate. i urge my colleagues to recognize this amendment is pure republican messaging and would hinder climate action and i urge my colleagues to vote against this amendment. i yield back my time. the chair: the gentleman yields. the gentleman is recognized. mr. steube: this bill would provide transparency to who the department is meeting with and who is influencing their decisions and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields. the question on the amendment offered by the gentleman from florida. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it, the amendment is agreed to. it is now in order to consider amendment number 3 printed in house report 118-487. for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania seek recognition? mr. kelly: mr. chairman, i have an amendment at the desk.

the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 3 printed in house report 118-487, offered by mr. kelly of pennsylvania. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 1194, the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. kelly, and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from pennsylvania. mr. kelly: i rise in support of this amendment. i'd like to recognize my friend from pennsylvania, dr. joyce, for one minute. mr. joyce: what biden administration bureaucrats fail to realize is poorly designed rule made here in washington can have devastating consequences for pennsylvania communities. from south central and southwestern pennsylvania from gettysburg toonstown, from

altoona to bed fortd from chambersburg to lewiston, this impact will be felt. this rule from the department of energy would only serve to worsen the crippling shortages of transformers already faced by american manufacturers. just recently, i spoke to a business in pennsylvania that had been forced to wait 18 months for transformers to open their new business. these shortages are leading to costly delays that ultimately cost jobs, cost livelihoods, and cost the american public. i urge all of my colleagues to support this amendment and i yield the balance of my time. the chair: does the gentleman reserve? mr. kelly: i reserve. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. for what purpose does the gentleman wish to be recognized. mr. pallone: i rise to claim time in opposition to the

amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. pallone: thank you. apparently republicans don't realize that sometimes things can be a win-win. back in april, the department of energy finalized efficiency standards for distribution transformers, critical components for the electric grid because they're so ubiquitous, any improvement from these transformers can translate to massive energy and cost savings. and the department of energy took that feedback very seriously and produced a standard that met the criteria under the energy policy and conservation act technologically feasible and economically justified and the final product they put out worked out for everyone. but don't take my word for it. take the word of the u.a.w. lo

3303.

my esteemed colleague from washington, from washington state, who called the final rule ebb courages or you can go to one of the sponsors, the gentleman from pennsylvania, mro appeared at an event with the secretary of energy in cleveland cliffs, again a manufacturer of green oriented steel and sell tblaitd final rule and the jobs that cleveland cliffs that the final rule will save. the press release from my colleague's office called the final rule on distribution transformers efficiency, quote, the right thing and i couldn't agree more, mr. chairman. i'm just not sure what made my colleagues change their minds in the last two weeks. my point is, there is broad support behind this rule from all corners and if republicans really cared about the

transformer shortages, utilities across the nation are still suffering from, they'd work with us to provide the necessary funding for the president's invocation of the defense protection act for transformers because that's something that unlike this amendment would really make a positive difference. i really don't understand why this amendment's being offered, it makes no sense. i urge opposition though amendment and at this time i would reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman is recognized. mr. kelly: i thank the gentleman for his remarks. i'm not sure where he gathered that informing but it's totally false. i have to -- this is normal for here. the sole remaining domestic producer of green steel is in my hometown and is represented by 1,300 union workers of u.a.w. 3303. he should have been in butler with me when almost 500 of them

showed up to protest what was happening with the elimination of electric steel. this rule threatens the long-term viability of the mill. the mill in butler produces steel for distribution of transformers and i have a picture because most people don't know what we're talking about if you are driving down the road and see a telephone pole with this canister, this is a distribution transformers. inside it is grain oriented electric steel that. works at 98% efficient sthism other side would like to replace it with something called amorphous steel which if you compare the two, one is steel. amorphous looks like tinfoil. so our products, 98% efficient, when you transport over to amorphous steel, you're looking at a load capacity of 88% while traditional transformer can run with a 120% load capacity. the mark nears transformers is

at an all-time high. why in the world would we go away from something that is domestically produced in butler, pennsylvania, for a product that is not produced in america, cannot serve the needs that are there, cannot meet the market demands, for some type of wrongheaded idea that we must go with this new product. fact versus fiction. this transformer with grain steel, electric steel, produced in pennsylvania by 1,2 -- by 1,300 union workers with another seven times the jobs in my hometown. the elimination of this product would eliminate that town. have we not learn enough other the years that when we turn away from domestic produced product and rely on a foreign stours for it that somehow at the end, we don't have the product and the capacity we need. dumbheaded rule after dumbheaded

rule and some type of makeup fantasy world that somehow this is better. it's not better. it's not better. i reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman is recognized. mr. pallone: does the gentleman have additional speakers? mr. kelly: i do not. mr. pallone: i'll close then. let me just say, mr. speaker, my, you know, again, this legislation, i mean, i should say the standards have been established by the department of energy have brd support. the rule has prod support from all corners. and i just don't understand how my republican colleagues can say all of a sudden now that they're opposed to it. so i ask my colleagues to oppose this amendment and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields. the gentleman is recognized. mr. kelly: how much time do we have?

the chair: the gentleman has one minute remaining. mr. kelly: thank you. the gentleman has one minute remaining. mr. kelly: it's a situation where you said, i said, she said. i would challenge anybody that has not been to a mill and actually watched the production of steel and say we have a better product because we say it is a better product. the distribution is important across the nation. the last remaining producer, domestic producer of grain oriented electric steel is the product inside all these transformer is made in one mill, in one town in america. not from some strange place across the ocean that says we will provide you with this. if we can. why do we keep turning away from

domestic production in thinking that somehow, some place, somewhere, somebody else is going to provide it for us? it just makes absolutely no sense. i would encourage to you please go in these mills and look at these can us its on -- these canisters on telephone poles and that's how we push electricity from one point to the next. this isn't fantasy but truth. please vote for this rule -- take down the rule there right now and vote for this amendment. it's the only way to save electricity in the transformer with electricity for america. please vote for american product. the chair: the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from pennsylvania. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the amendment is -- for what purpose does the gentleman wish to be recognized. mr. pallone: i would ask for a recorded vote.

the chair: a recorded vote requested. those favoring a recorded vote will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a 15-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the chair: on this vote the yeas are the yeas are 208, the nays are 199, the amendment is adopted. there being no further amendment under the rule, the committee rises. the speaker pro tempore: mr. cha

ir? the chair: mr. speaker, the committee of the whole house on the state of the union had under consideration h.r. 6192 and pursuant to house resolution 1194, i report the bill as amended by that resolution back to the house with further sundrr amendments adopted in the committee of the whole. the speaker pro tempore: the chair of the committee of the whole house on the state of the union reports that the committee has had under consideration h.r. 6192. pursuant to house resolution 1194. and reports the bill amended by that resolution back to the house with sundry further amendments adopted in the

committee of the whole. under the rule, the previous question is ordered on a separate vote demanded on another amendment reported from the committee of the whole. if not the chair will put them engross. the question is on adoption of the amendment. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the amendments are adopted. the question is on the engrossment and third reading of the bill. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. third reading. the clerk: a bill to amend the energy policy and conservation act to prohibit the secretary of energy from prescribing any new or amended energy conservation standard for a product that is not technologically feasible and economically justified and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: the house will come to order. the house will come tord.

come to order. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition. [mrs. fletcher: i have a amendment at the desk. the clerk: mrs. fletcher asks to recommit the bill to the energy of commerce. the speaker pro tempore: the previous question is ordered on the motion to recommit. the question is on the motion to recommit. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. mrs. fletcher: mr. speaker, i ask for the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? mrs. fletcher: mr. speaker, i ask for the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays are requested. a sufficient number having arisen, the yeas and nays are ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. pursuant to clause 9, rule 20, a this is a five-minute vote -- a five minute vote is on the motion to recommit and then the pass of house joint resolution

98 with the objections to the president to the contrary notwithstanding. and the motion to suspend the rules and pass h.r. 7423. this is a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 202 and the nays it 06. the motion is not adopted. the question is then on the passage of the bill. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the bill is passed and without objection, the motion to -- >> mr. speaker? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new jersey is recognized. mr. pallone: on that i ask for the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays are requested. those in favor of taking this vote by the yeas and nays will rise and remain standing until counted. a sufficient number having arisen, the yeas and nays are ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of

representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

.the speaker pro tempore: on ths vote the yeas are 212, the nays are 195. the bill is passed. without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid upon the table. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, the unfinished business is the question on whether the house on reconsideration will pass house joint resolution 98. the clerk will report the title. the clerk: house joint resolution 98. joint resolution providing for

congressional disapproval under the united states code of the rules submitted by the national labor relations board relating to standards for determining joint employer status. the speaker pro tempore: in accord wants the constitution, the yeas and nays are ordered. this is a five -- accordance with the constitution, the yeas and nays are ordered. this is a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 214, the nays are 190. 2/3 -- the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 214, it's a nays are 19 -- the nays are 191. 2/3 of those not responding in the affirmative, the veto of the president is sustained and the joint resolution is rejected. the veto and joint resolution are referred to the committee on education and workforce, the clerk will notify the senate of the house -- the action of the house. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20,

the unfinished business is the vote on the motion of the gentleman from kansas, mr. laturner, to suspend the rules and pass h.r. 7423 on which the yeas and nays are ordered. the clerk: h.r. 7423, a bill to designate the facility of the united states postal service located at 103 ben death street -- benedette street in rayville, louisiana, as the luke letlow post office building. the speaker pro tempore: members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of [captioning made possible by th,

inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote -- the speaker: on this vote the yeas 401. the nays zero. two voting present. 2/3 of those voting having responded in the affirmative, the bill is passed, and without objection the motion to reconsider is laid upon the table.

the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from the state of georgia seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to remove the gentleman from illinois, mr. bost, as co-sponsor of h.r. 8182. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. for what purpose does the gentleman from tennessee seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that i may hearafter be considered to be the first sponsor of h.r. 4128, the payment choice act of 2023. a bill originally introduced by representative donald payne jr. of new jersey, for the purpose of adding sponsors and requesting reprintings pursuant to clause 7 of rule 12. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered.

the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, the chair will postpone further proceedings today on motions to suspend the rules on which a recorded vote of the yeas and nays are ordered. or votes objected to under clause 6 of rule 20.

the house will resume proceedings on postponed questions at a later time. for what purpose does the gentleman from the great state of new jersey seek recognition? >> thank you, mr. speaker. i move to suspend the rules and pass the bill s.870, the fire grants and safety act, as amended. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: senate 870, a bill to amend the federal fire prevention and control act of 1974 to authorize appropriations for the united states fire administration and firefighter assistance gansz programs. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from new jersey, mr. keen -- cane, and the gentlewoman from california, ms. lofgren, each will control 20 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from the great state

of new jersey. mr. kean: thank you, mr. speaker. i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous materials on s. 870, the bill now under consideration. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. kean: mr. speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. kean: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise in support of s. 870, the fire grants and safety act. i'd like to thank my senate democratic colleague, chairman peters, for his leadership in advancing this legislation through the senate. this bill incorporates language from h.r. 4090 the fire grants and safety act, a bill i championed through the house science committee. it also includes the advance act, legislation from the energy

and commerce committee, and the environment and public works committee. i would like toe thank all of my colleagues for their work in making this a strong and comprehensive bill. through bipartisan and bicameral collaboration we have paveed the way for advancing this bill in the house. i anticipate its smooth pennsylvania passage in the senate. i was -- passage in the senate. i was proud to lead with my colleagues and original co-sponsors, representatives pascrell, bost, fitzpatrick, and hoyer, chairman lucas, ranking member lofgren, subcommittee chairman collins, subcommittee ranking member stevens, and representative golden. i'd like to thank the many external stakeholders, including the local firefighters from the 7th congressional district in new jersey for their critically important feedback as we developed this legislation. firefighters and e.m.t.'s are

frequently first responders to danger. they are essential for keeping our communities safe. all across the country firefighters and e.m.s. personnel work through danger and uncertainty every day to protect their neighbors. as a former volunteer firefighter, i know the hardships and sacrifices the firefighters make daily to quickly respond to emergencies. so i am proud to lead the fire grants and safety act to ensure that our firefighters have the proper training and equipment to continue to protect our communities. the fire grants and safety act increases funding for the u.s. fire administration, and re-authorizes two critical programs, the assistance to firefighters grants, and the staffing adequate fire and emergency response grants program. a.f.g. directly supports local firefighters by providing training, equipment, and even

vehicles. the safer program provides training for local fire departments so that they are better able to respond to emergencies. together these programs ensure that we have capable, well ecaped fire departments to protect our communities. we must pass this legislation before the program sun sets at the end of this year. by advancing this multiyear re-authorization, we ensure the continuity and stability of these programs, enabling the fire administration, a.f.g., and safer to continue equipping, training, and staffing our departments effectively. this bipartisan and bicameral piece of legislation demonstrates our firm commitment to the safety and well-being of our firefighters, empowering them to overcome challenges and fulfill their mission of safeguarding our communities. the advance act to ensure america maintains its leadership in nuclear energy. to quote the department of energy's office of nuclear energy, nuclear power is the most reliable source of energy.

it's not even close. by harnessing its unparalleled reliability, low-carbon emissions, and capacity for large-scale power generation, nuclear energy fosters energy security, technological innovation, and cleaner environment for future generations. by empowering the nuclear regulatory commission to lead in the international forums for the development of regulations for advanced nuclear reactors, this bill strengthens america's position as a globe leader in nuclear technology. by acquiring the n.r.c. to develop a streamlined licensing process and allowing the hiring of specialized staff, the bill facilitates innovation and adoption of advanced nuclear technologies. this reform is not only accelerates the pace of technological advancement, but fosters a more adaptive regulatory environment, encourages investment be, and fosters economic growth in the nuclear sector. i would like to thank house and senate leadership, my science

committee colleagues, and congressional fire service caucus co-chairs, annual laws external stake holders for the critical feedback as we work throughout this re-authorization. i encourage all my colleagues to join me in supporting this bill. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentlewoman from california. ms. lofgren: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield myself such time as i may consume. i rise in support of the fire grants and safety act of 2023. this amended version inserts into the senate bill the text we passed out of the science committee unanimously. this bill also includes the text of the advance act and i want to thank representatives pascrell and kaine and senate colleagues mr. peters and miss collins, for their leadership and cooperation on this important bill. in our changing climate, we are experiencing more freak and severe wildfires not just in the

western united states but across the united states. from maui in hawaii to smoke house creek, texas. we have witnessed the ferocity and destruction of wildfires. with more than a third of the population living within the wildland urban interface, our communities are more at risk from fire than ever before. in addition to wildfires, there were more than half a million structure fires in 2022, including 360,000 home fires. tragically, this resulted in 2,790 civilian and 18 firefighter deaths. we will always honor our firefighters' commitment and sacrifice. we trust our firefighters to fulfill their role professionally, including those occasion when is it may mean risking their own lives. but that trust goes bothways. and they must have from congress the support and resources they need to keep themselves and their communities safe. s86 oary authorizes the u.s.

fire administration and two very special programs. the assistance of firefighter grants, a.f.g., and staffing for adequate fire and emergency response, safer, grants. u.s. fire administration helps fire and emergency medical services prepare for, prevent, mitigate, and respond to all hazards. the u.s. f.a. also leads federal work on public safety, education, fire research, and fire service training. this legislation will authorize the agency and modernize the national emergency response information system which will mean needed improvements to data collection, usage, and analytics, for decisionmakers at all levels of fire response. a.f.g. and safer have been supporting local firefighters for two decades. a.f.g. helps fire departments obtain crucial safety gear, including breathing apparatuses, equip firefighters with new technologies, and also supports research to improve protective

gear. the safer program helps recruit and retain firefighters. 70% of u.s. firefighters are volunteers. and rural communities in particular rely primarily on volunteer firefighters. studies have shown that increasing firefighter crew sizes drastically improves the likelihood of safety outcomes. this program is an effective and meaningful investment into the emergency preparedness of our communities. recipients of a.f.g. and safer awards are in all 50 states, washington, d.c., the territories, and some tribes. we must ensure that these funds are getting into the hands of those who need them most. so this bill also calls on the g.a.o. to identify any barriers that may prevent fire departments from accessing these crucial federal funds. this bill is vital to keeping our communities protected and to support our firefighters and e.m.s. first responders.

as for the advance act provisions, this legislation is a continuation of the strong bipartisan support that congress has shown towards the development and demonstration of advance nuclear reactors. this bill would enhance the nuclear regulatory commission's ability to safely and efficience next generation nuclear technologies all the while lowering the financial barriers for first of a kind movers. the advance act also includes a bill sponsored by our colleague, congresswoman trahan, that would support our emerging fusion industry. this is so important. by codifying the n.r.c.'s current fusion device guidelines into law. it's important these guidelines that are not overly restrictive be placed into the law. this will provide much needed clarity and consistency for these emerging companies. as they design and build the fusion reactors of the future

which we so desperately need to succeed. i urge support for this legislation and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from california reserves. the gentleman from new jersey is recognized. mr. keen: mr. speaker -- mr. kean: i yield three minutes to the gentleman from south carolina, mr. duncan, to speak on the bill. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. duncan: thank you, mr. speaker. thank you to the gentleman for the time. i rise in support of senate bill h. 70 which includes a bipartisan and bicameral nuclear energy package. i first want to thank my colleague and friend and ranking member of the energy climate and grid security subcommittee for leading this effort in the house along with me, congresswoman diana degette. i also want to thank the chair and ranking minority member of the senate environment and public works committee, chairman carper, and ranking member capito, for leading this effort in the senate. i want to thank cathy mcmorris rodgers for making nuclear

energy a policy priority in this congress. now, this packing an of nuclear bills is comprised of the work of many members of both the house and the senate on both sides of the aisle. and want to thank them for their work in advancing the peaceful use of nuclear energy here in the united states. the advance act will expand nuclear energy by modernizing the nuclear regulatory commission and programs at the department of energy. the bill updates our regulatory framework to restore america's nuclear dominance and encourage innovation, while also maintaining the n.r.c.'s global gold standard of safety. now more than ever it's essential that america leads in the nuclear energy space. as we approach a unanimous consent request leier renaissance here -- nuclear renaissance here in the united states, a future which will see small modular reactors, microreactors, advanced fuel reactors and reprocessing of commercial spent fuels, it's exciting times. when congress first passed the

atomic energy act over 70 years ago, we ushered in the age for the peaceful use of the atom. and cemented american nuclear leadership globally. our adversaries like russia and china are working to undercut our strength. and seeking to dominate the nuclear markets and supply chains. a robust and growing nuclear industry is critical for reducing carbon emissions, providing reliable, affordable and clean energy to the american people. this nuclear package will help bring america's nuclear promise back and secure once again the united states' position as a global nuclear leader. i thank you and urge my colleagues for support and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentlewoman from california is recognized. ms. lofgren: mr. speaker, it is my pleasure to recognize someone who has worked on these issues for so many years, in gratitude i represent -- i recognize

mr. pascrell from new jersey for three minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. pascrell: thank you, mr. speaker. thank you, zoe. mr. speaker, i rise today in strong support of this legislation to re-authorize the assistance to firefighters grants. staffing for adequate fire and emergency response grants and the united states' fire administration. it is hard to imagine now but 25 years ago federal support for our fire services were nearly nonexistent. very little equity. but then funding for firefighting was primarily the responsibility of the state and local governments. during budget shortfalls, fire

departments were often the very first to get cut. and when the department needed the equipment or personnel, they resorted to bake sales and pancake breakfasts. although there's nothing wrong with those, that's a heck of a way to bring responsibility of protecting the citizens. working with local fire departments, national advocates, retirees, partners in congress and the white house, we passed the fire act into law not after getting volunteers and career firefighters here to washington to follow every congressman and get on their case. and that's what we did. so we will take credit for this legislation, it's really the

fire fights that are did this. they came to -- firefighters that did this. they came to washington. seems like a lifetime away. career firefighters, fire chiefs, volunteers, everyone came together to make sure our fire groups were no longer the forgotten piece of the public safety equation. our law delivered federal dollars to local departments for the very first time and in 2003 we created the safer program so departments could meet their staffing needs. the success of these programs speaks for itself. since its inception, a.f.g. has delivered more than $9 billion to equip and train firefighters. when we were looking at this legislation out in the west,

there were some departments that had to push the equipment to the fire. that's the case and that existed over 25 years ago. i'm proud to say that the safer act has awarded more than $5 billion. this has been called one of the most efficient programs -- ms. lofgren: i yield the gentleman another 30 seconds. mr. pascrell: thank you. i'm proud to say that safer awarded more than $5 billion to departments to hire, recruit and retain firefighters. these grants are amongst the most effective in the entire federal budget. departments rely on this fire administration for the fire data collection, public safety education and service trending. without re-authorization, these programs would all go caput september 30. thank you to my fire service

co-chairs, representatives hoyer, bost, fitzpatrick, as well as the house co-sponsor, congressman kean from new jersey. if you're joining us -- for joining us in our bipartisan quest, this is truly, mr. speaker, a bipartisan piece of legislation that worked. so i yield back and thank you for the time. ms. lofgren: i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from california reserves. the gentleman from new jersey is recognized. mr. kean: mr. speaker, i yield three minutes to the gentleman from georgia, mr. allen, to speak on the bill. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from georgia is recognized. mr. allen: i thank the gentleman from new jersey for yielding. mr. speaker, i rise in support of senate bill 870, the fire grants and safety act, included in this legislation is a bipartisan nuclear energy package which i was very proud to work on on the energy and commerce committee. as i've said many times before,

an all-of-the-above strategy is critical to reclaiming american energy dominance and nuclear, our nation's largest source of clean energy, has a pivotal role to play. in georgia's 12th district, we're leading our nation's nuclear future at plant vogel, with the first two new nuclear reactors built and in commercial operation in the united states and through -- in three decades. just last week i welcomed members of congress and industry leaders to my district for a panel discussion on the benefits of nuclear energy expansion, followed by a visit to plant vogel to see units three and four officially up and running on the grid. this historic accomplishment is nothing short of remarkable. but make no mistake about it. it was a challenging process. nuclear projects in the u.s. are often bogged down by burdensome licensing and permitting that

results in unnecessary delays and increased costs. my bill, the nuclear licensing efficiency act, is included in the bipartisan nuclear package and provides efficient, timely and predictable reviews of applications and proceedings for licenses of nuclear reactors. it allows information that was used in the licensing process for an existing nuclear reactor site to be used in further licensing and permitting at the site. and it establishes a time frame of once every three years to update performance metrics and milestone schedules to be as efficient as possible. by modernizing these processes, america can fully embrace the reliability of clean, 24/7 nuclear energy as we have in georgia. i urge a yes vote on senate bill 870 and with that i yield back. mr. kean: i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new jersey reserves.

the gentlewoman from california. ms. lofgren: thank you, mr. speaker. i'd now like to recognize the distinguished member of the energy and commerce committee, the gentlelady from colorado, ms. degette, for two minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from colorado is recognized. ms. degette: thank you, mr. speaker. and thanks to all of the members here today who have worked on this legislation. i rise in strong support of s. 870, legislation that includes the advance act, which i co-lead with energy subcommittee chairman jeff duncan, to modernize our nuclear energy policy and to maintain important safety provisions and environmental protections. transitioning to clean energy needs to be an all-of-the-above approach that leverages every aspect of our energy production in the united states. including nuclear. nuclear energy provides nearly 20% of the electricity in the united states. it's also our largest source of carbon-free energy, making up more than half our emissions-free electricity. we know that nuclear energy's

not a silver bullet but if we're going to get to 0% carbon emissions by 2050, it must be part of the equation. this bill helps ensure that our approach to nuclear energy is modernized, focusing on safety and environmental protections. i'm glad that my provisions to improve safety measures at nuclear energy facilities, recruit a highly trained and skilled workforce and keep our nuclear regulations to date were included in the bill. these steps will help enhance our nuclear energy supply chain while protecting against failures that could negatively impact communities and the workforce. one of the provisions included in this legislation will strengthen the nuclear regulatory commission's ability to attract and retain highly qualified and competent employees, ensuring the commission is up to the challenge of licensing the advanced reactors that we anticipate will come in increasing numbers over the next decade. in 2022, the n.r.c. reported it

was 23% smaller than it was six years earlier and 1/3 of the commission is currently eligible for retirement. we need to incentivize a strong nuclear energy workforce so we can ensure nuclear energy is safe and effective. this will be an important part of taking on the climate crisis. this bill's overwhelmingly bipartisan. it's supported by a variety of advocacy groups and so i urge my colleagues to support the bill and i yield back. ms. lofgren: i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from california reserves. the gentleman from new jersey is recognized. mr. kean: i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new jersey reserves. the gentlelady from california is recognized. ms. lofgren: mr. speaker, i'm pleased to yield two minutes to a distinguished member of the science committee that did so much work on this, the gentlelady from michigan, representative stevens. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from michigan is recognized. ms. stevens: thank you, mr.

speaker. and thank you to ranking member lofgren. i am standing before you here today in support of this incredible bicameral, bipartisan bill, the fire grants and safety act, which i'm so pleased to be an original co-sponsor of. and i certainly want to recognize the incredible work of our junior senator from michigan, senator gary peters, for moving this bill forward for our consideration and certainly recognizing mr. kean who is the lead sponsor on the republican side of this critical bill and, frankly, to senior members of this body who have joined in debate as well. this piece of legislation, as has been shared, just re-authorizes very critical elements of the u.s. state --

fire administration and its programs to support firef firefighters, life-saving e.m.s. workers, to make them better protected. just really one of the best things that we can do in this chamber. just last week i was visited by fire chief robert, he lives in my district in west bloomfield and he's a fire chief in a community i used to represent and he mentioned this bill and how important it is for his fire stations and for his activities and so we should be really proud to be coming together in a bipartisan way to re-authorize our fire safety efforts here in the united states of america. we also have to be real with ourselves because over a 10-year period, fire-related deaths in this country rose by 33%. that has been unnecessary and it has been an unnerving loss of

life. and with the national fire protection association estimating that once every 23 seconds a fire department somewhere in our country responds to a fire emergency, we must do more to support our local heroes. and with that, i reserve. ms. lofgren: yield back. ms. stevens: yield and reserve. ms. lofgren: we do not have additional speakers. i don't know if you do. if not, i would be happy to make my closing comments. mr. kean: mr. speaker, i have no further requests for time and i'm prepared to close once the gentlewoman from california does. ms. lofgren: thank you very much. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from california is recognized. ms. lofgren: thank you. i would just like to celebrate the science committee which always operates on a bipartisan basis and, once again -- and once again we have worked together on the provisions in this bill. and i want to highlight something that i just mentioned in passing which is the fusion energy program. you know, for years and years people said, well, fusion energy is always 50 years away.

well that was before ignition was achieved at lawrence livermore national lab, the national ignition facility, not once, not twice, but many times. we now have a private sector fusion industry that is charging ahead, making tremendous progress. and i've heard when i visit with them that their praise for the n.r.c.'s guidelines -- this is not fission. it doesn't have the challenge of nuclear energy. and so it doesn't need the same kind of regulatory scheme. it needs to be sensible, streamlined, solid and certain. and that's what those standards are. .... putting them into law will help industry rush forward and i hope they'll be as successful as they plan to be within the next five years. this act will help that happen. with that let me just ask all of the house to vote for this bill.

i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields. recognizes the gentleman from new jersey. mr. kean: thank you, mr. speaker. i would again like to thank my house and senate colleagues and chairman peters for co-leading this important re-authorization. as i previously mentioned, this legislation is a strong commitment to the safety and well-being of our first responders empowering them to overcome challenges and fulfill their mission of safeguarding our communities. that will help make all americans safer. the advance act as we have heard in this chamber is also critically important to pass today. i encourage my colleagues to vote yes on this bipartisan and bicameral legislation. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the question is, will the house suspend the rules and pass senate 870, as amended. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, 2/3

of those voting having responded in the affirmative -- mr. kean: i ask for the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays are requested. all those in favor of taking this vote by the yeas and nays will rise and remain standing until counted. a sufficient number having arisen, the yeas and nays are ordered. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, further proceedings on this question will be postponed. for what purpose does the gentleman from new jersey seek recognition? mr. kean: mr. speaker, i move to suspend the rules and pass the bill h.r. 4143, the national construction safety team enhancement act of 2024, as amended. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: h.r. 4143, a bill to amend the national construction safety team act to enable the national institute of standards and technology to investigate structures other than buildings. to inform the development of engineering standards, best practices, and building codes

related to such structures, and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from new jersey, mr. kean, and the gentleman from -- the gentlewoman from california, ms. lofgren, will each control 20 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from new jersey. mr. kean: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on h.r. 4143, the bill now under consideration. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. kean: mr. speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. kean: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise in support of h.r. 4143, the national construction safety team enhancement act of 2023. offered by the the gentleman from california, ranking member lofgren. the national construction safety team, or ncst, is a program run by the national institute of

standards and technology to investigate major building disasters and failures so that we can develop better construction standards in the future. following this investigation of the twin towers collapse after 9/11, they issued recommendations that have significantly impacted how we design and construct buildings. making them safer and more durable. currently nist is investigating the 2021 collapse of the secureside towers in south florida which killed nearly 100 people. while nist does exceptional work in these investigations, their scope is limited to building failures. this bill will expand that authority to general infrastructure failures, which currently are not investigated in this way. this is a smart bill that will ensure that we can utilize nist's unique expertise to better understand any failures in roads, bridges, dams, and other infrastructure, most

importantly develop best practices and guidances so that we can avert future tragedies. this legislation builds off the authorities nist received after 9/11 to conduct technical investigations of bailed building failures and ensures these efforts do not impede upon criminal or other law enforcement investigations. i want to thank ranking member lofgren for introducing this bill along with chairman lucas. i urge all of my colleagues to support this legislation. i reserve the balance of my t time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new jersey reserves. the gentlewoman from california is recognized. ms. lofgren: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield myself such time as i may consume. i rise today in support of my bill, the national construction safety team enhancement act of 2024. last year there was massive flooding along california's central coast which left communities across the state vulnerable. in my district the levees failed forced over 1,500 people to

evacuate and put thousands of homes at risk, many of them were flooded. in may of 2023, i joint representative panetta, senator padilla, and the late senator feinstein and-n asking the army corps of engineers to provide emergency assistance to help with the levee and last august the biden-harris administration heeded our call to action and committed $20 million to repair the levee and address erosion on the left bank of the river. that has now been concluded and these communities have been protected at least with the emergency repairs. but as with this small rural community in my own district, the climate crisis continues to put massive strains on aging infrastructure across the united states. now, while recovery and reconstruction efforts continue, we have to do more to understand the causes of destructive and life threatening events just like the levee failure to make

sure it doesn't happen again. unfortunately there is no agency currently authorized to conduct thorough technical investigations of failure of general infrastructure like levees or dikes or bridges or dams. when it comes to buildings, the national institute of standards and technology has been charged by congress with conducting investigations in order to improve the building codes and standards used to design and maintain them. the national construction safety team or ncst, dispatches experts to work alongside other agencies to investigate major building disasters, to improve the scientific understanding around these failures, and to prevent future catastrophes. this bill expands ncst's existing authority to include investigations of general infrastructure failures. these teams will investigate incidents involving other structures that we also rely on every day in order to improve the safety and resilience of

american communities. the tragic destruction of the francis scott key bridge into the mouth of the patapsco river in baltimore underscores the immediate need for this legislation. the impact of that catastrophe is being felt all across the united states. nist needs the authority to investigate major infrastructure failures so that they may improve future engineering standards and building codes to guard against such failures in the future. i want to thank chairman lucas for his partnership on this bill and so many other things. i would urge my colleagues to support this timely and necessary legislation. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from california reserves. the gentleman from new jersey is recognized. mr. kean: i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new jersey reserves. the gentlelady from california is recognized. ms. lofgren: mr. speaker, i'm honored to yield two minutes to my colleague on the science committee, the gentlelady, ms.

stevens. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized. ms. stevens: thank you, mr. speaker. thank you yet again to ranking member lofgren and particularly in light of her remarkable leadership in crafting and introducing this bill. i join both my colleagues to shine a light on the deep and critical importance of h.r. 4143, the national construction safety team enhancement act. we all know that nist is the little engine that could within our federal government doing so much with little resources showing the true benefit of where and how we invest taxpayer dollars for the greater implications of society and safety. and yet we know that the national construction safety team within nist is modeled

after the national transportation safety team, and both expert operations that get dispatched to the site of major building disasters to investigate the cause and identify preventive solutions. however, the existing authority only extends to buildings and leaving out the -- it leaves out major swaths of our built environment as the ranking member mentioned like bridges and levees that just, frankly, leaves our nation vulnerable. this legislation will expand the safety team's existing authority to better investigate those failures of infrastructure and structures other than buildings. this really couldn't come at a more important time. i know this is deeply critical to residents in michigan. and we want to be in a place where we are creating resilient structures and recognizing some of the damaging impacts of climate change and rising sea

levels. that's the extreme weather environment we are in. thank you again to ranking member. thank you to all on the science committee. i'm proud to be a co-sponsor of this bill. eager to see it get passed in the house of representatives. i yield back. ms. lofgren: i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from california reserves. the gentleman from new jersey is recognized. mr. kean: mr. speaker, i have no further requests for time. i'm prepared to close once the gentlewoman from california does. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new jersey reserves. the gentlelady from california is recognized. ms. lofgren: mr. speaker, thank you. i am proud of this bill. if we make this the law, america will be safer. full stop. i'm happy that we are able to do it on a bipartisan basis. and i'm looking forward to quick action in the senate. i want to thank, again, the chairman of the committee, mr. lucas, for his collaboration on this and so many other

things. i urge passage. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from california yields. the gentleman from new jersey is recognized. mr. kean: thank you, mr. speaker. this is a commonsense practical policy that supports science and innovation to improve people's lives. i encourage my colleagues to support this bipartisan legislation to ensure that nist can utilize its unique exex-d -- expertise to conduct these investigations on failures to infrastructure. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the question is will the house suspend the rules and pass the bill h.r. 4143. so many as are in favor say aye. as amended. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, 2/3 of those voting having responded in the affirmative -- mr. kean: mr. speaker, i ask for the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays are requested. all those in favor of taking the vote by the yeas and nays will rise and remain standing until

counted. a sufficient number having arisen, the yeas and nays are ordered. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, further proceedings on this question will be postponed. the speaker pro tempore: the chair will now entertain requests for one-minute

speeches. for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> mr. speaker, it's with great sorrow that i rise today to pay tribute to a peacemaker of california's 27th congressional district who was taken from us too soon. on april 20, of this year, los angeles county sheriff deputy alfredo freddie flores tragically passed away at the age of 51 after suffering injuries during a training exercise last october. mr. garcia: he's survived by his wife, his children. while our community is grieving this tragic loss, we are also blessed by his extraordinary life and the security blanket he provided us on a daily basis. ..

he lived a life service, and he dedicated 22 years of his life to the safety, security and prosperity of our nation. there's no greater farm of love than being willing to sacrifice your life in defense of others. while he's with the lrd now, deputy flores' legacy lives on with everyone who knew him and his family. he looks down upon us with great pride today. thank you and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from arizona seek recognition? >> address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentlewoman is recognized for one minute. ms. lofgren: i rise today to recognize someone -- fores. mrs. lesko: i rise today to recognize someone who has been an important part of the eighth district. tyler's service to the eighth district began in august 2022,

as a constituent services representative in my surprise, arizona, district office. during his tenure, tyler was expertly navigating case work for over 300 constituents, who had encountered difficulties with various federal agencies. as a result of his efforts, he directly saved constituents over $547,000. this is an incredible achievement that made a huge difference in the lives of constituents and their families. tyler also displayed leadership abilities by managing beth the congressional app challenge and the congressional art competition and has been an invaluable member of my district team. i would like to thank tyler for his leadership and service to our district. his dedication and determination for critical to the success of our constituent services programs, and improved the lives

of those in the eighth congressional district. thank you, tyler, and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from new york seek recognition? without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> mr. speaker, i rise to recognize national sock out cancer day which will take place june. mr. moll nor io: cancer affects families from all walks of life and sock out cancer remine us we're all alike in facing this foe. they sell piaffers multicolored sock which is symbolize different kinds of families. their proceeds have helped survivors pay for food, transportation and housing so they can focus on their recovery. sock out cancer has become a beacon of hope for those facing the fight of their lives.

i ask my colleagues to join me in recognizing this june 2 as national sock out cancer day. with that, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: under the speaker's announced policy of january 9, 2023, the gentleman from arizona, mr. schweikert is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader. mr. schweikert: thank you, mr. speaker pro tem. we're going to do something this evening, unless you want to geek out a bit, i'm not sure you want to hang out watching this. maybe there's something good on netflix. i want to walk through a couple of financial debt con cements i traded -- tried sthairing last week to help people get their heads around them. then we're going to actually just go through a couple of top license on the social security actuary report. i've got to admit, we haven't finished it, we've only gone over the top line, it'll take me a week or two to work out all

the math. some of the headlines, i believe, were misleading on just still how difficult these numbers are. then we're going to go through sort of the understanding the scale of the problem. then we're going to do a little bit of talking about optimism. and we're going to do some discussion about a.i. artificial intelligence and government. and some of the bills we actually already introduced. we've already introduced to disrupt the cost of this government. you keep hearing sort of nasty, horrible, the world is coming to an end. i'm going to argue that if we would get a.i. right we can make a difference in government. let's first walk through the first concept. how many of you remember a little while back, i think it was s&p, or was it moody's? may have been moody's.

downgraded u.s. debt two downgrades of the three large ratings agencies. we have been downgrade twice. i know every member of congress and all our staff read every word of it. but if you read it, there was an explanation of why they'd downgrade debt. that was more of a downgrade of future horizon. one of the number one reasons on the downgrade was governance. the fact of the matter is, the debt picture is off the charts. i'm going to show one here, i think we've had our fourth day in the last couple of weeks where we went over $100,000 a second were roing. but do you scree screw with your bankers? because this is my passion, trying to convince our brothers and sisters here in congress, you've got to act like an adult. have fights here. actually know your math. bend the cost of government. but don't do stupid things and

then turn around, because this week, understand, this week, i believe, the treasury is going to market for like $125 billion. our interest rates are actually slightly down this week compared to last week. but the fact those interest rates bounce up and down this much lets you know sort of how nervous the debt markets are. remember, two weeks ago, lots of the fancy financial markets were writing stories abu.s. debt is getting harder to sell. this week it looks like it's easier to sell. that fragility and i know that's a big word but it's the only one i have forthis. don't play a game here. we will pay $12.2 trillion -- pay $.2 trillion in interest this -- $1.2 trillion in interest this year. social security will be $1,450,000,000,000.

interest will be $1.2 trillion. medicare almost $1 trillion. defense, 960, 9 0. 980. defense is now the fourth biggest expense in government. no longer the first or second. part of that concept is, this one is a little more, for those folks to who like to think of themselves as monetary policy folks, think about what the federal reserve has been trying to do. they have been raising interest rates. they have been pulling liquidity. they've been holding back on buying bonds, doing schwas the opposite. letting their p portfolio roll off. they're trying to pull liquidity out of society to squeeze inflation out. but this place has actually made that much harder to do. besides the craziness of how much we spent in the inflation reduction act, the most orwellian named piece of

legislation in modern history. you do realize -- i was in the cloakroom a moment ago, trying to do the math off the top of my head, it's $2.8 billion a day we pay in interest. that we pay in interest. u.s. government pays to bondholders every day. so here's what you have. we're borrowing about $8 billion, $.5 billion a day. -- 8.5 billion a day. paying out $2.8 billion in interest. the question is is government borrowing really good for productivity in this society? does government borrowing actually make us a wealthier society? a more prosperous society? some borrowing is historic. you're going to do that. but the scale we're consuming, we are consuming much of the world easlick widety. not just the united states. the united states and china are

the two big economies right now binging on debt. europe dilled back its debt. remember, i did the presentation last week. i think there were 13 countries that had better credit ratings than the united states. greece today, greece today has a better credit rating than the united states. their 10-year bond is cheaper, lower in interest costs, than the u.s. and much of that risk premium is governance. it's the belief saying, oh the united states is going to use its tools to bend inflation. the united states is going to do the things necessary to actually lower its debt and borrowing. are we? because you see the conversations we have around here. most of the time these microphones are full of people coming up with new programs and new ways to spend money. so understand. i had two concepts i just walked

you through. they're a little high brow. first is you need to actually have a government that convinces the bond markets that we're serious, we respect our creditors, i mean, let's be honest. you borrow a bunch of money, you don't go in to your creditor and make a clown of yourself. we need to do the same. and the second half is, understand the economic mess we're doing. it's more than just the borrowing. it's the fact that you hold capital -- capital out of the markets that would have gone to more productive uses and at the same time playing interest. now we're paying interest that in some cases is higher. why would i take a risk premium and invest in a new plant, a new widget maker, those sorts of things, i can get 5% on a two-year, i'm going to do that. the scale of our debt is creating economic distortion. it's just a concept we need to

understand that also in some ways congress, and this always drives people who believe it's fed and liquidity, but in many ways congress, because of our borrowing, has actually created this liquidity cycle where we borrow and then we're pumping out interest. we borrow and we're giving you a premium on the interest rate and paying you out. it's a real problem. and in many ways we've knead federal reserve' joss -- reserve's job even more difficult scweedzing inflation out. no one has spent time on it, there's a couple of good academic articles if you want to geek out. we use this chart over and over and over because we're trying to help people understand. do you see the blue? the blue is what we get to vote on. you do understand, every dime a member of congress votes on is borrowed. and part of this. so interest. this number is wrong now.

interest if you do gross interest is 1.2, public libor roed interest is probably, it may be somewhere near that. this is interest. this is social security. this is medicare. this is medicaid, this is other mandatory programs. these are earned benefits. you worked your 40 quarters, you get your maximum social security. you worked so much, you get medicare. i need you to also be willing to hear some very different, difficult math. of how medicare is actually financed to understand its impact on the debt and deficits. there are other benefits out there that are in the formula you get because we have a treaty obligation with you. for some of our native american populations. you fall below a certain income. you get certain subsidies. those sorts of things. those are also considered mandatory programs. but the point hereis the vast

majority of u.s. spending if you're a member of congress, never, ever, ever gets to vote on. and we need to change that. we need to start telling the truth, that we're hemorrhaging cash. and at these interest rates, you've got to understand what we are doing to your retirement and your kids' futures. so let's actually walk through, i just drew this board. you can go to my website and sign up, there's a little thing there, you can sign up, give us your phone number, we'll send you a text message every single day called the daily debt. you get a little text that says here's what we borrowed today. here's what the gross borrowing is. we do the last 365 days, or this year, 366 days because of leap year. over here we do the fiscal year.

when you look here at the total gross, that's borrowing from the trust funds as well as publicly issued. we've now gone four days in the last couple of weeks where we went over $400,000 a -- over $100,000 a second. for anybody who has a relative that doesn't believe debt is a big deal, sign them up. give us their phone number. they can start to understand the scale of how much of this u.s. economy now is in debt. remember, think about that. if the u.s. economy is about $28 trillion, $29 trillion, and we're going to borrow this year public libor roe, not total borrow, public libor roe maybe $2.7 trillion or $2.8 trillion, you're borrowing -- c.b.o. thought we'd be about 5.4%.

but if you look at the current burn rate, the concept why that's important, remember i've come here and done the presentation of the left's version of let's tax people over $400,000. you do it and you say you -- there's a concept of tax maxmiization where i can tax your income to a certain point but the next percent of tax on you it rolls over. you actually say screw it, i'm not going to work as much. . how much of capital gains today is inflation. it's not just appreciation but inflation of your asset. estate taxes, your pass-throughs, all those things. and the math came out to 1.5%, 1.6% of g.d.p. by tax maximizing things over $400,000.

if it's 1.5%, and is so far this year you're brothering 9% of the economy, and those of us who want to cut spending -- if you're not allowed to touch defense or any of that mandatory i just showed you, you have the nondefense discretionary spending, what was it, $900 billion, can you get 1% of g.d.p.? yeah. you can cut all sorts of programs. the bloomberg economists a year ago put out a report and said if you took $100 billion out of nondefense discretionary you lower g.d.p. about half a percent. everyone who says we're going to cut and pretend the economy is going to grow at this rate, that's not how the math works. in the long run, you have more capital stock, those things. but in the short run you lower

g.d.p. with these cuts. you just got to deal with it. it's the reality of economics and math. one of the things i wanted to go through is very few people here have ever paid much attention to medicare and how we finance it and where does the money come from? you had the president behind that podium that made it sound like we're never going to touch -- you're not allowed to talk about social security and we're not raising these taxes for medicare. ok. you see this red area there, think of that as medicare part a. that's the trust fund. that's when you pay your payroll tax, a little slice of that goes to this right here. that's the trust fund that bounces up and down. so one day it's six years away from running out. now it's 2035 because of some changes and good employment in the economy. but it's really sensitive. this blue here, most folks don't understand. the majority here, the biggest

single slice of the pie of medicare comes right out of the general fund. so when we talk about health care costs going up, they're already up over 7% this year -- excuse me, 10% this year. tax receipts are up 7% and medicare costs up 10%. that's a huge hit. a huge hit on the! fund. this actually is premiums and here's some actual state transfers and those things, some of the dual eligibles and those things. but a lot of folks run around here thinking the medicare is taxed off the fica tax, the payroll tax. it's not. it's about a 1/3 of the spending. and why that's important is the actuary report that came out yesterday, it was ok on medicare and we gained a few years but

the rope you dig into it, it's these minute changes and unrealistically awkward numbers and i don't know how the numbers were justified. guess what we'll do the next week or two? we'll read every line and figure out what they're saying in here. welcome to my life. but when we see this, see this part a here, now we're doing it in blue, that's actually part of your payroll tax. the part b and part d those are substantially coming out of the general fund. so it turns out medicare is the biggest, other than interest, is the biggest spend out of the general fund because social security, until the trust fund is gone, does not have a general fund aspect. social security is self-financed right now, it's payroll tax and trust fund. but that's why so many of us are

freaked out. is it eight years? nine years? is it 2035 or 2034? we'll get to that because i need you to understand they played a little game where they combined the disability trust fund number and the old age survivor fund number. so the old age survivor was at 2033 but then you roll in disability, actually, because so many people are able to work in the new economy, its number was better and they combined the two and that's where you really got some of the added time on the trust fund. yea. all right. now let's go to the place that gets a lot of people really cranky. but we're going to tell you the truth. need to process this because you've had people in the political class, the media class, you know, the fraud information class that comes through these things tell you stories about social security

and medicare that just mathematically aren't true, so let's get ready for the truth. and this is based on an average couple, not an individual, average couple. and this number is updated. so look, the average couple -- this is an average in america based on, i think we're actually basing this on a 2023 number. average couple will pay in $783,000 in their lifetime in social security taxes. it's amazing. and how many people will you hearsay, but they stole my money? actually, no, that average couple gets every dime of that back. the benefits they'll receive will be about $831,000. so $70,000 some spent. ok. crappy rate of return. you've got to under, george bush

wrote 20 some years ago when they talked about taking a tiny slice of your money and allowing you to control it and put it into other types of accounts, you would have had stunning more money. the left beat the crap out of republicans over that. they're trying to privatize. that wasn't the deal. can you look back now, you got lied to. you got played for fools. but we got what we want. so the average american actually gets every diamondback of their social security, plus a little spiff. horrible rate of return but you get it all back. that isn't where the crisis is. what crushes the future federal debt and deficit is the medicare portion. that same average couple in that lifetime will pay in $214,000 into that medicare part a trust fund. remember, i already showed you the majority of medicare doesn't actually add to 31%.

the rest comes from the premium and general fund and state transfer and other things. the average people will pay $635,000 in benefits. that difference there is the number one driver of u.s. debt. political class is so dangerous to tell you the truth because it makes our core voters cranky. it's not your fault. we as a society made a deal with all of us. these aren't earned benefits. you made a deal and worked your four quarters. you paid your taxes and got 65, that was the societal deal. but what this place didn't do is think about the cost of health care. we were so is terrified to incentivize, to require, to

encourage, to prod. innovations, disruptions in cost. so we committed a fraud and this fraud has gone on for decades. we tell you, obamacare, we're doing something on health care. obamacare was a finance bill. it's who had to pay taxes and who got subsidized. our republican bill. it was better, the fixed part of the actuarial curve problem and it was who had to pay and who got subsidized. see the difference? medicare for all is a financing bill because we don't talk about what health care actually costs. and that's what we're going to end on is how we can just -- i'm going to give you some of the basic ideas what we can do, the morality of disrupting the cost of health care. but this is uncomfortable because i've done this at public meetings and i get booed by my friends. because a lot of people don't want to be told every dime of u.s. borrowing from today to the

next 30 years, every dime goes to c.b.o. and a bunch of the outside groups. every dime, interest, medicare, and if in -- let's say -- let's use the actuary, 2035, the very beginning of 2035 and one economic bump it comes back down to 2033. instead of the 25% cut, you're heading towards getting in social security, if that gets paid out of the general fund, those three things are calculated to be 100% of the borrowing. and here's the 2024c.b.o. long-term debt report that i know every member of congress here read every line. when i started doing this presentation a few years ago, the long-term debt was $116 trillion. remember, i just told you, it's interest and health care and then if we back fill social

security. now it's $141 trillion. so as of march when c.b.o. did their long-term numbers, it's no longer $116 trillion but $141 trillion and these interest rates stick around, because our economists say they're going to, we're not at the historic norm. how many members of congress have gotten in front of you and told you the truth that 100% of borrowing from today to the next 30 years, the growth of it, interest, health care, if we back fill social security in 10 years, now it's $141 trillion. he there's a way to make this work. are you willing to do adopt technology and some of it is incredibly simple stuff. i'm going to do a slight non sequitur here because it's so easy to understand. we calculate and there are

multiple studies saying this, 16% of all of u.s. health care that is people that get sick or have a stroke or heart attack, these things, because they didn't -- some like me. can you imagine me, someone who drinks seven or eight cups of coffee a day, i have hypertension. as long as i take my calcium inhibitor, i'm not likely to have a stroke. if you're diabetic and follow your regime, you should be fine. 16% of u.s. health care is people who don't take, don't follow the regiment. that's $600 billion this year. in health care costs. you care about u.s. debt -- think about something crazy, you could actually just do a pill bottle that beeps and says did you take your statin? take your hypertension medicine? 99 cents. and you'd be amazed this place, i've had that piece of legislation for years around here. i could no longer get a hearing

here because, well, that's creative. maybe the outside world likes having sick people paw they make money off them and that's incredibly cynical for me to say it. but how much revolutionary pieces of legislation do you see coming through here that are simple, easy to understand and makes huge differences in the cost of health care? no, david, a pill bottle cap that beeps at me that might save us $100 billion? we can't do that? why the hell not? it's almost immoral. and look, i've done this before trying to show you that over the next couple decades, it's actually medicare starts to consume, approaching 7% of the entire economy, just that. you start to add in social security that's going 5.9%, and you start to understand, when you're starting to look at numbers, 13%, 14% of the entire economy is just those two

programs. you're probably not going to change social security. that's an earned benefit. but you could change the cost of health care by introducing technology disruptions, other business models if this place was willing to be just somewhat creative, maybe read some of the journals out there. we'll talk about some of those disruptions that are coming. should i make you actually understand that in 2034, the deficits, how much is -- the reason i have this chart is i'm trying to help folks understand how far we miss. if you and i go back a year ago, at one point we were say, hey, we're going to have about a $1.3 trillion borrowing. then it went up.

oh, it might be $1.6 trillion. how do we get expected deficits when we're missing numbers this much? and understanding the economic effects of what it actually does to economic growth. when the smart people we keep turning to over in the administration, even our own c.b.o., are missing these numbers by 100%. you know, when a year or two later, the debt numbers double, does that let you understand something? if the economy is decent, if you don't -- if you saw what happened a week ago friday work went from this hey, we're running at 2.8%, 2.9% g.d.p. sorry, we were wrong. first quarter was only 1.7%. there's something wrong in our data collection. and i don't know if it's the continued impacts of inflation making your life feel much heavier, much more stressed, but

this stuff doesn't have to be terrifying. there are ways to attack it if you're willing to be -- willing to read, willing to take action. this chart has been around forever. it just keeps getting uglier every time it gets update. trying to help you understand current baseline debt, then with some of the policy changes and higher interest rates, just the base line debt. remember, we're running substantially higher than this this year. long-term baseline they say, it's going to be just the borrowing. 5%, 6%, 7% of the entire economy. and long run, debt if you go the 30-year window, debt starts to approach 32% of the entire g.d.p. now, do you think the bond marks are ever going to let us get anywhere near that? tell me, where on this line here

do we blow up? and it's not a crash. what it is is, you've got to turn on the printing presses. start to inflate your way out. all your savings gets devalued. remember. a concept, i've done two or three presentations on this here. what's the biggest tax hike in modern history? you're living it. understand, you are living it. the last three years of the biden administration. the higher inflation, in my district, unless you right now make about 24% more today than you did the day the president took office, understand, during that time if you're not making about 24% more, you are boorer if you live in the phoenix-scatsdale area. if you're not making that 24%, you have the right to be cranky. because that was a transfer of your wealth to the u.s. debt. because we lowered the value of your purchasing power but we now

pay it back. we pay back the u.s. debt. because the u.s. is the largest debtor in the world. we now pay it back with inflated dollars. it's a tax, whether you understand it or not, inflation is a tax. welcome to the biggest tax in modern history you just lived it. and have you wondered, ever, why so many of our brothers and sisters on the left despise it when we talk about inflation? because it worked for them. it turns out when you have that inflation, the size of the debt as a percentage of g.d.p. flatlines a bit until the new higher interest rates come slamming into you. that's where we're at now. so look. let's do some optimistic stuff. or semioptimistic. i want us to think about how disruptive we can be if we actually read and if we think. so i think my staff who made this one got a little carried

away. but you do realize, i think we just had the eighth o.m.b. report saying the pentagon is on audible. they -- is unaudittable. they cannot audit it. do you really know your inventory? do we know how many assets we have? turns out we can't audit them. so why not do something crazy. how about this idea of turns out we have multiple companies now that have designed artificial intelligence, a.i., audit crawlers. that crawl through every asset list. every inventory list. every bookkeeping entry. everything. you could actually audit the pentagon. you just have to use technology, not a building full of people. ok. we have this as a piece of legislation. fit works you could then unleash

this type of technology on the fraudsters in medicare. the people -- the durable medical equipment fraudsters. the billing fraudsters. how about all up and down government, to find the waste and fraud. the technology can do it. because we and our army of odd torse can't seem to do it. shocking, can you believe i can't get a hearing on this? a.i. audit of the pentagon. you would think this would be a no-brainer. but this place is terrified of the very technology that can save us. so let's actually walk through a couple other ideas. how about if i came to you and said, we could fast track a drug, a vaccine, and for anyone that's actually watching and is curious, i want you right now to grab your favorite search engine on your phone and look up a fentanyl vaccine. there's also one for cocaine.

a cocaine vaccine. turns out, it's in trials right now where they figured out how to block the receptor. the cocaine one, because it's not a synthetic, it's a protein, i think the vaccine attaches to the protein. what is the morality in a society when you're approaching 100,000 of our brothers and sisters who die every year of synthetic opioid. what happens when law enforcement pulls over someone coming out of southern arizona and they have fentanyl tablets or powder shoved in their glove box? and that law enforcement officer is exposed to it and is having slam far can into his system. -- narcan into his system? i'm told in the phoenix area we have one dead homeless person a day. almost always from fentanyl. why isn't this moral? why isn't the morality of, if they're really heading toward this technology, let's fast

track it. let's find some way to get it in our community and try it. maybe it doesn't work. there's all sorts of other ethical, moral applications, does someone have to be in their right mind, do they have to have sobered up to take something that keeps them from having the receptors for the an set i think opioid? but embrace these things. how many people have to die? do you think i'm ever going to get a hearing on this? these are moral, they're also great for the economy. how many people could come back into society, in the labor force, actually mitigate their addiction? these are moral and they're also great economics. so let's actually walk through some of the other things going on that are wonderful. but we have to figure out here, are we going to do things to help finance it because it doesn't work right now? today, the very first patient,

here in d.c., began the process of having their sickle cell cured. now it's a rigorous process. but it's a cure of one of the most expensive diseases in this country. i once again argue, my team targets, the morality is in the cure and also it's great economics. when you have a population that suffers a painful, painful disease, and there's a path to a cure now. because this has been f.d.a. approved. it's going into the first patient right now outside the trials. let's actually walk through this. you know right now there's a revolution happening in really smart labs all over america where they're using a.i. to design the next generation of drugs. there's a great story for last week, i think it was in "wired" magazine, saying that a.i.

produced a small molecule drug no one had ever thought of. and at least on the computer simulator it has amazing efficacy. why wouldn't we promote, why wouldn't we work with the f.d.a., say weaving the ability to do the data sets much faster. bring these things to mark faster. cure people faster. or is the 1930's, 1940's f.d.a. model still what we'll stand behind? a cancer vaccine, we've already had the conversation for one on mmelanoma. this one is for brain cancer. it's going into trials. how do we help these things come to market faster? because it's moral, and also saves boatloads of cash. i showed you health care costs are a primary driver. do you do what the troughing lo diets -- the trogloting ytes

around here, we'll just do reimbursements. sit in the waiting room longer. or just do this just cure people. look, we have about a half dozen a.i. bills just for health care. the concept of bringing technology faster. using a.i. to find fraudsters. using a.i. to -- for back office. you're a doctor's office or medical clinic, using a.i., saying hey, look, it's called a.i. clean plains. instead of going through the rigmarole, you match up the insurance company or medicare rules and if it's right it is paid. it removes some staff bug it also removes a lot of cost. i talked about using a.i. to audit the pentagon. the fact of the matter is, this is the med pac report from three weeks ago. i know every member of congress read it. but there's one thing in here

when you go through it that explodes at you. and that basically says, sorry it's falling apart we've been using it so much. it basically says, in this decade, medicare will be about 23% of every corporate tax dollar and personal tax dollar we collect. that's from 13%, to 23%. and that's coming in, just a few more years. there's a term called a black swan. that's when something sneaks up on you, blows you up and you weren't expecting it. this is called a white swan you know it's coming for you. and you choose to do nothing about it. i know i come behind this microphone every week. i'm almost mentally exhausted.

because is anyone listening? there are solutions. our problem is, the clock is ticking. the onramp to bring those solutions to market, to actually have an effect on our debt and borrowing and economic growth, i think we only have three, four, five more years. but you've got to deal with the real numbers. when this place borrows $8.5 billion a day, and we will lose our minds over things that mathematically are rounding errors, when we've done things in this body that have made the bond markets nervous, when a single basis point so 1% of interest, has 100 basis points. a single basis point just this year cost us about $800 billion. and i've watched us say -- i'm sorry, i'm not supposed to curse on the floor.

i've watched us have debates where we say absolutely insane things. you can almost watch parts of the market say no. i think u.s. debt just got riskier because these people aren't serious about economic growth and stability. mr. speaker, there's ways to make this work. is anyone listening? with that, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: under the speaker's announced policy of january 9, 2023, the chair recognizes the gentleman from texas, mr. roy, for 30 minutes. mr. roy: i appreciate the speaker and as usual i appreciate my friend from

arizona who is, if nothing else, dogged in his determination and consistent in making clear to the american people the problem that we face in our overall spending, including mandatory, and specifically mandatory as we refer to it. broad basket of things we have committed to do that is consuming our budget ever more, every single year. and it's an important point and one that we don't discuss enough as a body on what we should do about it. and the gentleman's point is precisely correct about the nature of the problem. the seriousness of the problem. i mean, when we're sitting here right now and we're roughly, i'll use ballpark nurnlings bringing in $4 trillion in revenue but spending about $6 trillion. we are then sitting -- pushing $7 trillion. he's right. it depends on what we are talking about in terms of accounting. but basically what you're saying is, you are printing money.

printing money. to fund effectively all of our discretionary budget and then some. what i mean by that is, you're printing money to fund defense. you're printing money to fund the operations of government, the department of justice, you're printing money to fund the department of homeland security, all the things that you touch and feel and see, because the $4 trillion is going to fund medicare, social security, food stamps, veterans benefits that are mandatory, plus interest. there you are. you used up all your revenue. my colleagues will hide behind you must increase taxes and my republican colleagues will limit spending but not in a meaningful way and talk about mandatory spending one day and not deal with the spending issues now. now, where i depart from my

friend from arizona, respectfully, because he's no longer on the floor but where i depart -- where i want to be more clear, is the questions when we have debates on the r of the house about spending items in what we call discretionary, the stuff we can touch, the department of defense, some of these. my issue about that is less about mounting debt, though it's a part of it, it's that you're funding the demise of our prosperity. you're funding the bureaucrats at war with us. you're funding that which is undermining our ability to create economic growth to live freely to get out from under that financial mother as. morass. you're not going to help the debt problem saving a few dollars on some small item but what you are going to do is stop the interference for the american people. let me give you some examples. if you're a hard-working

american out there and have a family of four and you're a plumber in san marcus, texas, which i represent part of it, and you go about trying to do your job, you need a pickup truck and put your stuff in it and drive it around. we're making that pickup truck impossible to afford. we're making it literally impossible to afford. we're making putting all of these requirements and demands in the vehicles. we're now making it you have to have electric vehicle with tailpipe rules and mandated as they pile up on lots. they're getting more expensive. you want your windshield replaced? it's $1,500 now. it used to be $300. why? because it's got mandates and rules in the window. and now they want to mandate braking. every time you do that, it makes it more expensive. the market should bear that out. if you want a vehicle with automatic braking, great, pay for it. the vast majority of americans say they can't afford that and we just want a simple car.

we're killing the ability of the average family to afford life. and it matters. this is the problem. what we've become in the house of representatives, what we've become is the house of perpetuating corporate grownyism and the enrichment of a handful of folks at the expense of hard-working american families. then i'll have some of my colleagues who will throw out these random statements like we should read the philosophers of the conservatives of the past who were the traditionalists who are rational in what they believe in limited government, not the radical populous of today. i think that misses the entire point. it is not populist to believe we should stop spending money we don't have, driving up inflation and driving down the value of the dollar and putting a tax on the hard-working american family. it's not populist to say we shouldn't regulate our entire lives out of existence with

expensive vehicles and all sorts of demands on what you can and cannot do, which makes things more expensive, or all the green climate agenda empowering china, undermining our ability to have affordable energy. that's not populism. it's not populism to say maybe, just maybe, you're going to send $95 billion overseas to fund war, maybe shoe have to pay for that. that's not populist. it's rational. you can question the war. you can say we should be focusing on america first, securing our borders first. maybe you can say that's populist. i think it's rational. it's sovereignty. the founders, and importantly the conservative thought leaders of the 20th century like russell kirk believe that you actually do have to have institutions, yes. but you believe in sovereignty. you believe in the rule of law. right? you believe there's supposed to be limits, limits to what you do

in feeding your appetite. but what are our limits? i'm sitting here in an empty chamber but my friend serving as speaker at the moment, what are our limits? what limits are we placing on this place? so to my friends who voted for in continuing wars around the world, $95 billion, who paid for it? your grandkids, you, you paid for it by printing money. we did not pay for it. we printed money to give it away. same thing with the first $113 billion for ukraine. same thing for virtually everything we're doing. and i ask my colleagues, i've had some supporters, particularly ones of financial means who called and said, chip, how can you abandon the people of ukraine, we must stop putin. i said great, are you interested in having a 70% marginal tax rate next year to pay for it?

crickets on the other end of the phone. we've lost perspective on what we're supposed to do here responsibly in this chamber. that's the truth. and while we sit here and while we move a few bills across the floor, and while we've just passed a massive foreign aid package unpaid for that funds both sides of the war in israel, gives $9 billion used by hamas, used to house refugees, the palestinian refugees moving to the united states, funding both sides of that conflict while we fund ukraine where we have no clear mission, no evidence that we can produce enough ammo fast enough to be able to help them when they're getting outshelled no matter what and they're running out of men. ok. even if you accept all of that might result in some improvement, we're funding all of that. we just voted on all of that. we just voted on an

anti-semitism resolution which codifies thought speech so we can pat ourselves on the back and say look what we did. people feel good about it. but you didn't do a damn thing and in fact you made things worse because you just empowered the federal government to go afterthought speech. you do all that. right after what did we do? passed a massive omnibus spending bill, $1.7 trillion. funded $200 billion for a new f.b.i. headquarters, an f.b.i. which is out of control. we do all those things. what is happening in the meantime? what is happening right now? what is happening right now is our borders are wide open. the people in texas are still feeling it. every single day. we're dealing with the reality of roughly 1,000 to 1,600 people a day, 1,000 to 1,600 people a

day being paroled into the united states. what that means is nobody out there in the real world knows what that means. it means there's a provision in the law, supposedly there for a case by case basis to help a few people. the biden administration is blatantly, unlawfully, illegally using that provision to expand it and dump literally 1,000 to 1,600 people a day. we believe 400,000 over the last year according to the reports that we have. being dumped into the united states under what is called parole. and guess what? how did laken riley's killer get into the united states? parole. there have been dozens of examples of individuals who are paroled into the united states under the biden administration's policies who have gone on to

kill, assault, and harm and undermine the security of american peoples. think about that. that's what's happening right now allegedly on our watch. and the fact is, we could have done something about it. a year ago this saturday, republicans passed what we call h.r. 2 which is the bill number for border security. it was a strong bill that would have closed the ability of the biden administration to abuse parole. it would have closed their ability to abuse asylum. it would have ended the abuse of the unaccompanied alien children to use them as essentially a hall pass to get into the united states. it would have fundamentally ended the biden administration's abuse of law to dump people in the united states to the tune of something like 4.5 million people who have been released into the united states under the biden administration. we did that. reps did that and did that after

conservatives worked, worked hard to work with the speaker to force this body of republicans to walk away from the amnesty driven, chamber of commerce driven failure of the last two decades and pass a strong border security measure. that bill is sitting over in the senate where senate democrats refuse to move it while they hide behind a sham piece of legislation which would not secure the border of the united states so they can try to blame republicans in an election year. but what republicans have failed to do is use the leverage of the power of purse to force our democratic colleagues in the senate and the biden administration to come to the table and deal with the border crisis despite the red rick of our own -- rhetoric of our own

leadership saying we'll do that. we've fully funded the government at debt increasing levels, busting the caps that were put into law, and we're funding the government that is abusing our borders and dumping people in the united states unlawfully, paying off student loans unlawfully to the tune of $700 billion to $1.4 trillion, while we rack up now $34 trillion barreling towards $35 trillion, more interest than we pay on the the national defense, almost a trillion dollars of interest barreling to $2 trillion of interest all while our retirees are growing, demands on medicare are growing, cost prices of health care are going up. that's all happening right now in real time and what are we doing? and this is a question i want to ask my republican colleagues. if the american people look at

our democratic colleagues and say, man, that's insanity. we can't do that. that's crazy stuff. they want to have all sorts of woke policies, d.e.i., and they want to let criminals out and wide open borders and they want to keep spending gobs of money, and they want to undermine our western civilization, our way of life, on every issue. and they say man, that's crazy, we don't want that. let's turn to republicans and vote for republicans. let's say that happens and we're fortunate enough for that to happen with large enough numbers we have the majority of the house, the majority of the senate, and the white house. what are we going to do? i will bet you a significant amount that you will hear excuses out of this chamber by

republicans in january with a newly minted majority here in the senate and in the white house. they will say the following. chip, we don't have 60 votes in the senate. what you want can't be done. chip, we have divisions in our own caucus, our own republican majority. we can't pass everything you want to pass and then get it through to the senate and send it to the president, so we're going to have to send over this compromise. it's been happening for decades. the reason our borders are wide open, it didn't just materialize one day that joe biden just woke up and decided to open them up. it's been decades in the making. with support from republicans because they were too much in the pocket of chamber of commerce.

and they're sitting down in the rio grande with a no trespassing sign and then over here with a sign saying wink, wink, help wanted, come on in, we don't care about the border. that was happening. i know, because i saw it. i saw it as a texan, i saw it as an american, i saw it as a staffer on the senate judiciary committee. as a chief of staff, ted cruz. i saw the amnesty bills. i saw the desire to have cheap labor at the expense of sovereignty. but let's talk about that cheap labor. i keep hearing from all my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, frankly, how important it is for us to continue to have a flow of people across our border, legal or illegal because, quote, we need the workers. have you looked at what's happening have you looked at what's happening to jobs? the jobs for americans, american-born workers,

post-covid is flat or down. the actual engagement in the work force, flat or down. yes, there's growth. from migrants. to try to catch up on the number. but what we are doing is we are paying people not to work. we're paying kids to sit in their room, basement, whatever, playing fortnight. kids. they're in their 20's. we have low work force participation from american citizens and workers while we try to then bring people in who, by the way, then use the social welfare state. who then have massive demands on the education system. how do i know that? i live in texas. i see the schools. i see the rolls. tomorrow in the budget committee we're going to have a hearing on the cost, the impact, of illegal immigration. kenny county, texas, just a little bit southwest of san

antonio which i represent, we're going to have a witness here tomorrow from that county, walking us through roughly these numbers, the crime that they were dealing with in 2021, prebiden. was about 140-something crimes a year that they had to deal with. they're now at 15,000. now that's a lot of criminal trespass that the operation lone star, the state department of public safety, are trying to work to manage. but that's what they're dealing with. that's what they're dealing with in their court systems. i can sit here and walk you through, we'll have a hearing tomorrow, we'll do it here. walk you through the impact on the schools. the hospitals, all the social services. anybody who does a legit analysis of all of those costs compared to the taxes, sales taxes, which so many of my colleagues hang their hat on and

says this causing economic activity and they're paying taxes. yes. there is some of that. but we have created the welfare state which milton friedman famously said, i'm all for open borders if you get rid of the welfare state. that's pre-9/11. say you have security. you gentleman everybody. you know who is coming here do, they want to harm us? they're just hardworking people who want to achieve the american dream. if you have a zero welfare state, i'd say come on. i don't care where you're from. i don't care what you look like. come on. if you come to america and you're maybing your way, you're going to work hard, then you're going to follow our values and our principles, regardless of your background. regardless of your religion. because you're going to believe in the rule of law. you're going to believe in economic prosperity. you're going to believe in free intervise and capitalism. you're most likely going to believe in god and everything

that made this country great because you're coming here seeking the american dream. but we are turning the american dream upside down. we are destroying that which migrants come here to achieve when they come here to believe in this country, believe in the rule of law. that's what the american dream is built around. we're completely destroying it. that's the truth. and it's happening right now while we sit here and fiddle while america burns. i'm going to say it over and over and over again until at least my republican colleagues who try to pretend to give a crap about the border actually do something about it. how many campaign ads, how many speeches are going to be given by my republican colleagues between now and november about what they'll do to secure the border. and what are they doing right now? shrugging. sorry. can't do anything.

it's biden. what are we going to do? how many more americans are going to die wile we shrug? thank god the founders didn't shrug. thank god the men at lexington and concord condition just shrug and say, oh well, i guess there's a tyrant. thank god the boys at the alamo didn't shrug. but we're shrugging it off. we're pretending it's not happening. is anybody paying attention to what's happening in london? i'll say it here on the floor of the house and get the scorn of people when i say, you've got a massive muslim takeover of the united kingdom going on before our eyes. people say chip, what's wrong with that? i have some strong concerns about sharia law and whether that'll be forced on the

american people. in this case the people of the united kingdom. i've got pretty strong concerns about people who want to see israel's destruction. who were happy about october 7. who were elected in the united ding come. some might say we have seen that here in the united states. what are we going to do about that? we have 51.5 million people who are foreign born in the united states. they have about 20 million to 25 million kids. that puts that well over 20% of our population. it's the highest such number in the history of our country. people say, isn't that great? is it? are we teaching people about western civilization? are we teaching people about the constitution, the bill of right, the rule of law, are we teaching them western value, are we teaching them god chics? are we teaching them the importance of freedom? or are we teaching an entire generation or two or three, to

run around complaining abwhat's wrong and why the entire world is against them because of their skin color, their sex, their supposed gender identity, whatever the hell category we create to make people have an excuse for not just stepping up and achieving the american dream. but that's what we're doing. our borders are wide open. people go, well, i know it's bad, it's bad, chip, what do you do about it stop it. like, actually stop it. but we literally just gave away every ounce of leverage we have. why? to fund ukraine. unpaid for. with no clear mission. we said, who cares about america's borders, sorry, chip, couldn't get it done. i've got to go back to the people of texas and say, sorry, we'll get them next time. look. nobody i know, conservative,

moderate, democrat, nobody comes here expecting to get everything you want. it is a body of representatives. it's the worst form of government except for all the others. i get it. but i'm sick and tired of watching this play play out the same way every single time. the american people get screwed and get left holding the bag. that's the truth. every single hardworking family across this country right now, who can't afford grocery, condition afford electricity, can't afford to buy a car, can't send their kid to a school they can believe will teach them the right thing, teach them god exist, teach them their country is great. even just teach them that there's man and woman. no. none of that. we're funding this radical climate agenda that's destroying our ability to have energy. right now. you're not going to have an internal combustion engine in 10 years because these radical nuts are killing your ability to do it and republicans are sitting back and shrugging.

patting theirselves on the back for increasing mining for rare earth minerals in minnesota or around this country. rather than fully opening up american oil and gas. building american nuclear power. it's absurd. it's ridiculous. the average american right now is wondering whether or not they can actually achieve the american dream. and i want to know whether my colleagues in this chamber, democrat or republican, would come to the microphone and give a rip-roaring speech right now about why every american should believe they're going to be able to achieve the american dream. because i will tell you right now, unless we lead, unless we take this moment, to reverse the direction we're headed, change trajectory, massively shift the

direction of our country, then our kids and our grandkids will not be able to achieve the american dream. they won't. how does that sell? because what i'm selling is a duty to fight. what i'm selling is a duty to go fight to make sure those american kids and grandkids can achieve the american dream. to fight for sovereignty. to fight for citizenship. to introduce legislation to demand that citizens only vote. to stand up and fight for the opportunity to go carry out your life because you can afford to do it. because you've gotten rid of all the regulations that are constraining the hardworking american. go get rid of the corporate cronyism enriching the insurance companies, enriching all the big corporations across this country, in hospitals and pharma and strip it away. get throifd middleman and empower doctors and patients and get all that crap out of the way so people can go get health care.

do that. cut the government bureaucracy. get rid of the bureaucrats. get rid of the d.e.i. get rid of the critical race theory. go to war with the bureaucrats, metaphorically, to stop destroying the american dream. don't just sit here and come here and give speeches about some basketball team that won the national championship. go home and say look at me. i gave a speech. about the basketball championship. who cares? their parents can't afford to live. we have a duty in the people's house to do something. the iceberg is right in front of us. my friend, mr. schweikert, just explained it. we are massively upside down. we are bleeding out of every pore of our body in terms of money and debt. our borders are wide open. we are increasingly unchurched. our schools are indoctrinating our kids. our universities are

indoctrination camps. they're day cares for elitists. and we just forgave their debts. student loans. every hardworking american out there deserves a representative that represents them. democrat or republican, conservative, moderate, liberal. why are you here? what's the point? why get elected? why get an electione certificat? the point is to stand up in defense of the rule of law and the constitution. if you say you believe in limited government, limit it. if you say you believe in cutting spending, cut it. if you say you believe in security s. securing the border serk cure it. if you say you believe in peace through strength then stop sending our military and our money in endless conflict and instead build a strong military here, sparingly used, make sure our men and women have the care when they get home, and send a

message around the world that when we use force, it'll be used quickly and massively. this is what the people i represent want. they don't want any more of these feel-good bills because some organization declares a week. happens all the time. teacher week. got to do a teacher bill. cop week, got to do a cop bill. none of that is going to make this country freer or stronger or more secure. we took an oath to the constitution. i don't want any more excuses about, well, chip, this only offends the commerce clause a little bit. this one is better than that other version. stop doing it. go the other direction. stop selling watered down democrat-light and go inspire the american people with something better. so that the kids of this generation can get their lives out of these phones and get their lives out of the despair

of wondering whether they're going to be able to have the american dream, and give them hope that if they go out and work, and work hard and they save money, they're going to be able to get a house, have a family, they're going to get health care. because they worked hard and they were able to do it. that's why my grants come here. -- migrants come here. stop paying people not to work. stop the endless nonsense and drivel that comes out of this body in the name of doing something. and instead, stand up and fight for the american people. don't give lip service on june 6 because it's the 80th anniversary about what those bys did when they walked into a wall of bullets. stand up and do a fraction of what they did. by having the nerve to vote no on something even though somebody might tweet something mean about it. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: under the speaker's announced policy

of january 9, 2023, the chair recognizes the gentleman from california, mr. kiley, for 30 minutes. mr. kiley: mr. speaker, i rise to present a resolution that i'm introducing in this house and i hope will receive prompt passage and bipartisan support. the resolution reads, as follows, whereas in recent weeks, tent encampments have spread at universities across the country. these encampments are illegal and in violation of university policies. they have become rife with anti-semitic threats and acts of violence, harassment, and other disruptive behavior. some universities have responded by evenhandedly enforcing the law and clearing the

encampments. they've emphasized the right of students to protest and expressed their opinions in enumerable ways by making it clear that acts in violation of the law or university rules will not be tolerated. other universities have decided to ignore the law and ignore their own policies, allowing encampments and other illegal activity associated with them to grow unchecked for weeks. encampments have made demands of universities such as divesting from companies tied to israel, cutting tie is -- ties with hill all cam -- lilal campus programs. and some have negotiated with the encamples and made demands, including northwestern university, u.c. riverside, brown, rutgers, john hopkins, and the university of minnesota. still others have canceled classes, moved online meetings,

or canceled graduation ceremonies, and that includes columbia, ucla, uc-san diego, and emmery university. these encamples and the criminal behavior connected to them such as threats, acts of violence, blocking or occupying buildings, genuine harassment, or other disrupt iive -- disruptive behavior are not an amendment but disrupt the academic speech rights of other students. free speech means universities should encourage free and open expression in speechwriting, listening, learning and never shielding students from ideas of university disagrees with or limiting expression on the basis of content. it does not mean universities should tolerate the promotion of violence, the destruction of property, the obstruction of students' freedom of movement, harassment, vandalism, or other

unlawful acts. resolved, the house finds canceling classes and commencement in response to unlawful encampment is unacceptable and unfair to the majority of students. the house condemns any negotiation where a university changes its policy in response to the demands of those engaged in unlawful activity on campus. the house condemns any concessions made by universities based on demands from those participating in unlawful encampments including ending study abroad programs to israel, cutting ties with hilal and divesting from companies associated with israel. the house calls on universities across the country to work with local law enforcement to immediately clear tent encampments from the protandry store safe learning environments on the campus and further say noncompliant student and staff

be afforded appropriate consequences. mr. speaker, i'm hopeful we can come together and pass this resolution and it can set the right tone for universities across the country because by this point, it is clear as day that the wrong approach is to allow illegal encampments to exist on campus and then to keep growing, growing, and growing, as we've seen at ucla, u.s.c., at columbia. that only makes the problem more unmanageable and only causes things to spiral out of control. the universities that have taken the right approach have said you as a student are fully protected under the first amendment to express yourself on any topic with any opinion you'd like in countless different ways. you are free to do that on our campus. but what you are not free to do is to set up structures on

campus, to impede other students, to engage in threats, or acts of violence, and other unlawful disruptive conduct we've been seeing on these campuses. so i'm hoping that this resolution will point in the right direction those universities who have been approaching this problem in the wrong way to the detriment of their students. now, perhaps the only thing more disgraceful than these illegal pro hamas encampments is the way that these universities have catered to them. but perhaps even more disgraceful than that is the way that some politicians have. the way that some political leaders have remained silent or refused to condemn things that are so morally clear, have equivocated on the clearest of moral questions. well, president biden did come out and make a strong statement

today, up to this point his response has been manifestly inadequate. the governor of my state, governor newsome in california has had next to nothing to say about it even though some of the worst situations are on california campuses. and just today the secretary of education, miguel cardona testified before our committee, the education in the work force committee. mr. cardona came into this hearing with a troubling record. for example, he recently refused to say whether chants from the river to the sea are anti-semitic. in today's hearing i asked him some basic questions. i asked him if he would condemn the illegal tent encampments on university campuses. secretary cardona refused to do so. i asked him if he would condemn

faculty members who interfere with the attempts of law enforcement to clear out these encampments and enforce the law. secretary cardona refused to condemn them. i asked him if he would condemn calls to divest from israel. secretary cardona refused to do so. perhaps most incredibly, i asked the secretary several times, secretary cardona, will you condemn calls for universities to cut ties with hilal. as for example the organization, students for palestine that they recently did at santa cruz. i asked him again and again, secretary cardona, will you condemn calls to cut ties with hilal and secretary cardona refused to do so. why is this is so hard?

hilal is a place for campuses across the country and secretary cardona are unwilling to condemn those who say universities should cut tie with these organizations? secretary cardona is unwilling to condemn these overtly anti-semitic statements? given what the president said today that we should take seriously his statements condemning what's happening, we ask him whether we can take that seriously as long as cardona remains his secretary of education. mr. speaker, i rise today in strong opposition to this administration's proposal to cut funding for the charter school

program. this is an incredibly important program for many charter schools across the country in allowing them to start up and make an offer to communities across the united states. now, prior to this year, this administration's support for charter schools has been tepid at best. it's remained flat as for funding for various parts of the education budget have increased substantially. and yet this year the administration went a step further, its proposed budget for the department of education proposes a $40 million cut to the charter school program from $4040 million to $400 million. now, secretary cardona was asked about this at today's hearing and he explained, well, the fiscal responsibility act requires us to make budget cuts,

so he decided to go after charter schools. mr. speaker, that makes no sense whatsoever. the department is asking for a significant increase in its budget this year. a $3.7 billion increase so that its overall discretionary budget is $82.5 billion. so they're asking for a $3.7 billion funding increase while cutting funding for the charter school program by $40 million. mr. speaker, i am in strong opposition to these cuts, and i hope that this house will push back on them in a bipartisan manner because the reality is that charter schools across the country have made tremendous progress in closing achievement gaps and expanding the options that are available to parents. in fact, a recent study out of

stanford validated the work that charter schools have done, the results that they have gotten, in closing achievement gaps that have persisted in other parts of our public education system. the reality is that there are far too many communities in this country, particularly in my state of california where schools are simply not getting the job done, where the neighborhood school that young people, that kids are assigned to, does not teach them to read in the way that they should, does not teach them math in the way it should, leaving them ill prepared for success in life. but in many communities there have been charters like the hipp academy that started up and done things differently and had high expectations and have made significant gains and got kids reading above grade level, outperforming their peers and other schools in math and putting them on a path to future opportunity and success in life. but that's exactly what this

proposal from this administration is going to cut funding for. it should also be noted that even in communities that have good public schools, like in my district, we have a number of truly outstanding traditional public schools. charter schools are still of value. we have a number of terrific charter schools as well. and they might be right for some families but not for others, but that's the entire point is that not every student is the same, not every family is the same, and allowing a variety of options, some of which might have different focuses or a different approach to technical education, this empowers parents to make the choice that is right for their child and their family. i find it completely unacceptable that this administration is withdrawing support for charter schools.

i also find it unacceptable that my state of california has taken a number of steps in recent years to make it more difficult to start up, to operate, to renew charter schools. and what we need to do is look to the success that many charters have had to draw lessons that we can then use to improve public education across this country so that every child in america has access to a quality education as they deserve. mr. speaker, i rise in strong opposition to a fourth coming increase in the gas tax in california. it almost defies belief but california's gas tax is about to increase yet again, reaching 60 cents per gallon. now, the state already has the highest gas tax in the country and by far the highest gas prices. as of today, californians pay

$1.70 more per gallon for gas than the national average. and 53 cents more per gallon than the next closest state. i'll say that again. we pay 53 cents more per gallon than the state with the second highest gas prices. even if you were to actually eliminate the entire gas tax in california, 60 cents per gallon, we'd still have the second highest gas prices in the entire country. so i am calling on governor newsome and the legislature to act to make sure that this gas tax increase does not go into effect. californians are already suffering under inflation and the price of groceries and the price of electricity as well which is second highest of any state in the country. the last thing they need is another increase to the gas tax. so i'm calling on state

lawmakers to stop this gas tax increase. and as a matter of fact, what they should really do is suspend the gas tax entirely. it wouldn't bring prices down to acronal level but would provide folks throughout our state with relief that they very much need. mr. speaker, i'd like to now recognize a fewmr. speaker, i'do recognize new a few outstanding people and organizations throughout my district. mr. speaker, i rise to recognize retiring sergeant major douglas power for his distinguished service with the united states marine corps. most recently, as the government and external affairs officer for the marine corps mountain war phaser training renne for the

bridgecore, california. he entered the marine corps reserve in 1980 and transferred to active duty in 1985. after transferring overseas in 1987, his deployments included korea, kuwait and iraq, underscore his commitment to defending our country. throughout more than three decades of military service, sergeant major power displayed an unwavering dedication to service and leadership. deservingly, he was awarded multiple decorations and medal, demonstrating the slegcy of honor and sacrifice he established. he refrierd military service in 2012, at which time he began his new career as the government and external affairs officer at the training center. after 12 years of faithful dedication to civic service and community engagement, he retired from that roll on april 30, this year, 2024. i'm proud to represent outstanning service members like sergeant major power in congress and i thank him for his service

to our district and our country. therefore, on behalf of the united states house of representatives, i am honored to represent -- to recognize serge major douglas power for his heroic and valuable service to our country and his community and wish him the best in his retirement. mr. speaker, i rush to -- i wish to recognize retiring county counsel stey stasescy siram for her service in mono county. she has served for two decades, and never wavered from her goal of make county a better place. she not only skillfully handled routine business of the county but also guyed the county through various complex problems and challenges including the

uncertainties of covid-19. additionally she played an instrumental role in many local projects, most notingly the construction of the lee vining community center and preschool. the county's solid waste franchise system. implementation of hipia, housing developments and much more. looks like we had an issue with our graphics. i'm going to start over, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, i wish to recognize retiring county counsel stasescy sy minnesota for her 25 years of service to the county. she's served the people of the county for two decades. most recently as county counsel. and never wavered from her goal of making the county a better place. she not only skillfully hand they would routine business of the county but ghied county through various complex problems and challenges including the uncertain toifs covid-19. additionally she played an instrumental role in many local

projects, most notably the construction of the lee vining community center and preschool program, the county's solid waste franchise system, implementation of hipaa, and more. no matter thing on -- obstacle, stacy has been a model of leadership. stacy is known for her incredible depth of knowledge, curiosity and tenacity as well as demonstrating the utmost care and concern for he clients and county staff. therefore, on behalf of the united states house of representatives, i am honored to recognize stacy simon for the dedicated leadership and years of service she provided to the people of the county and i proudly join the county in wishing her the very best in her retirement.

mr. speaker, i'd like to take a moment to recognize the alpine watershed group for receiving the 2022 forest service volunteer program citizen stewardship and partnerships award. the alpine watershed group is a community-based nonprofit organization in my district dedicated to conducting essential water quality monitoring, habitat restoration and education programs throughout the county. over the span of more than two decades, the alpine watershed group has been an instrumental partner to the national forest and the united states forest service. in 2022 alone, the alpine watershed group planned and recruited for multiple volunteer events in the forest including large watershed and forest restoration project, tree planting and watershed monitoring. due to the help of their volunteer 72 bags of trash were removed amounting to more than

500 pound. 25 bags of invasive weeds for removed. 102 willow stakes were installed, 600 feet of fence were removed and a beaver dam analog in faith valley was construct. in addition to these efforts the group provides continual outreach and environmental education programs that support the united states forest service's mission to care for the land and serve the people. their devoted efforts have made an indelible impact on our local forest, water sheds and the alpine county community. therefore on behalf of the united states house of representatives, i'm honored to recognize the alpine watershed group nor outstanding accomplishment and commend them for their significant contributions and dedication to promoting the sustainability of our nation's natural resources.

and now, mr. speaker, i wish to mark and celebrate the 50-year anniversary of the sir optimist international of loomis basin club. they have made a significant contribution in the loomis community and sacramento region by investing in the development of women of all ages and fostering a passion to make our local and international communities. the chapter was funned in 1974 with the mission to provide women and girls with the access to education and training they need to achieve economic empowerment. in addition to hosting and participating in local event they provide scholarships and grants for women to improve their economic status and help with employment opportunities. their dedicated efforts have made a meaningful difference in the lives women and girls and it is an honor to represent exemplary organizations like

this in congress. therefore on behalf of the united states house of representatives, i am honored to recognize the loomis basis club and their 50 years of dedication to the women of our community. thank you, mr. speaker. ok. we're going to go ahead and recognize sergeant douglas power again so we have the appropriate accompanying graphic. mr. speaker, i wish to recognize retiring sergeant major douglas power for his distinguished service in the united states marine corps. most recently as the government and external affairs officer for the marine corps mountain warfare training center in bridge port, california. doug entered the marine corps reserve in august of 1980 and graduated from boot camp and transferred to active duty in 1985. after transferring overseas in 1987, his deployments to various

locations including korea, kuwait and iraq, underscored his commitment to defending our country. throughout his more than three decades of military service, sergeant major power displayed an unwavering dedication to service and leadership. deservingly, he was awarded multiple decorations and medals, demonstrating the legacy of honor and sacrifice he established. he retired from military service in 2012, at which time he began his new career as the government and external affairs officer at the training center. after 12 years of faithful dedication to civic service and community engagement, he retired from that role on april 30 this year, 2024. i am proud to represent outstanding service members like sergeant major power here in congress. and on behalf of the united states house of representatives, it is my honor to recognize him for his distinguished service to our community and our country. thank you, mr. speaker, and i yield back.

the speaker pro tempore: would the gentleman care to make a motion to adjourn? mr. kiley: mr. speaker, yes, i move that the house do now adjourn. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on the motion to adjourn. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the motion is adopted. oi acordingly the house stands adjourned until 10:00 a.m. tomorrow for morning hour debate.

view of government. we're funded by these television companies and more, including mediacom. >> at mediacom we believe that whether you live here or right here or way out in the middle of anywhere, you should have fast, reliable access to the internet. >> mediacom supports c-span as a public service along with these other television providers, giving you a front row seat to democracy. >> earlier today, president biden spoke at a holocaust remembrance ceremony, a yearly event organized by the united states holocaust museum in washington, d.c. watch the president's remarks tonight at 9:00 eastern on c-span. c- n