We use analytics tools to understand how people use the site. They're optional: if you decline, the site works the same, no analytics cookies are set and Google gets only a cookieless, anonymous count signal. Your votes are saved either way; the details are in the privacy policy.
08Expenditure Reports Concerning Official Foreign Travel
Daily Digest
Public Bills and Resolutions Introduced
45 public bills, H.R. 2350- 2394; and 5 resolutions, H. Res. 254-258 were introduced.
Pages H1300-02
Reports Filed
There were no reports filed today. Speaker: Read a letter from the Speaker wherein he appointed Representative Knott to act as Speaker pro tempore for today.
Page H1277
Recess
The House recessed at 10:54 a.m. and reconvened at 12 p.m.
Page H1283
Recess
The House recessed at 12:11 p.m. and reconvened at 2 p.m.
Page H1284
Providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of Energy relating to ``Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards for Commercial Refrigerators, Freezers, and Refrigerator Freezers'': The House considered H.J. Res. 75, providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of Energy relating to ``Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards for Commercial Refrigerators, Freezers, and Refrigerator Freezers''. Consideration is expected to resume Thursday, March 27th. H. Res. 242, the rule providing for consideration of the joint resolutions (H.J. Res. 24) and (H.J. Res. 75) and the bill (H.R. 1048) was agreed to yesterday, March 25th.
Pages H1284-90
Meeting Hour
Agreed by unanimous consent that when the House adjourns today, it adjourn to meet at 9 a.m. tomorrow, March 27th.
Page H1290
Quorum Calls: Votes
There were no Yea and Nay votes, and there were no Recorded votes. There were no quorum calls. Adjournment: The House met at 10 a.m. and adjourned at 3:49 p.m.
Every speech and line is the Congressional Record's own text, read from GovInfo. Speakers are matched to members by GPO's own metadata. Referandom places each turn on the Clerk's video by matching its words: 63 of 74 spoken turns were found. Turns without a time are still listed; they just can't seek.
Morning-Hour Debate
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the order of the House of January 3, 2025, the Chair will now recognize Members from lists submitted by the majority and minority leaders for morning-hour debate.
The Chair will alternate recognition between the parties, with time equally allocated between the parties and each Member other than the majority and minority leaders and the minority whip limited to 5 minutes, but in no event shall debate continue beyond 11:50 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, America and our European Union allies find ourselves at an inflection point. We have an amazing opportunity, and the actions we take today will shape the outcome for generations to come.
The world is significantly more dangerous because of the Biden administration projecting American weakness to the world. Under the previous administration, America turned away from policies that had our adversaries quaking in their boots and instead bent a knee to the axis of evil. Make no mistake, China, Russia, and Iran are exerting influence across the globe that is causing harm and posing major threats to both the United States and our allies.
It is vitally important that the United States and our European Union allies work together to find solutions that both combat these adversities and ensure that we stay ahead of them in the process. All three are trying to impose their will physically, psychologically, and diplomatically on Europe, and we must be fully prepared for whatever approach they take.
As the chairman of the Europe Subcommittee of the Foreign Affairs Committee, I will continue to lead both reauthorization of the State Department and regional efforts under the leadership of Chairman Mast.
A significant part of our focus is achieving the policies that put America's interests first while building our relations with allies abroad against our common adversaries.
We have taken major steps in the right direction under President Trump and his administration, but there is still more work to be done. Our NATO partners must step up to the plate and give 5 percent of their GDP for the protection of Europe as America shifts its focus to the Indo-Pacific region. The CCP has made significant advances in warfare, and we must remain vigilant while also building up our defense industrial base in order to be prepared for any scenario.
America must not remain idle while our adversaries are advancing their capabilities. The Europe Subcommittee will do our part.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to celebrate the incredible career of a consummate public servant and my friend, Otis T. Barker, Sr., or as his friends call him, OTB.
For nearly three decades, Otis has been at the heart and soul of Buffalo's community services, dedicating his life to uplifting our city's children and families. From his trailblazing career in business to his tireless work in public service, Otis has always led with integrity, passion, and an unwavering commitment to the people of Buffalo.
Otis' public service journey began in 1996 when deputy speaker of the New York State Assembly Arthur O. Eve hired him as his chief of staff. From 1996 to 2002, Otis was at the center of State and community affairs, gaining a deep understanding of the challenges and opportunities that shape our neighborhoods.
In 2006, Buffalo Mayor Byron Brown tapped him to serve as director of the Division of Youth. His leadership continued to grow, serving as deputy commissioner in 2011 and, ultimately, commissioner of community services and recreational programming in 2017, where he oversaw critical programs for our youth, our seniors, our workforce, and our recreational spaces.
As commissioner, Otis Barker helped over 30,000 young people find opportunities through the mayor's summer youth internship program, giving Buffalo's next generation a path forward.
Otis' service didn't stop with government. He spent his time coaching Little League baseball, leading the North Buffalo Little League Football Organization, and coaching high school basketball, instilling values of discipline, teamwork, and perseverance in young athletes across our city.
At his retirement earlier this month, Buffalo's mayor surprised Otis with the renaming of the basketball courts in Martin Luther King, Jr. Park as the Otis T. Barker Sr. Basketball Courts, a fitting tribute to someone who has helped make athletics more accessible for our young people.
Otis' impact extends into Buffalo's faith and music communities, where he directs and assists choirs at St. John's Baptist Church and the Var-Son Community Choir. His voice, both in leadership and in song, has lifted up so many in our community.
Buffalo will miss him in city hall, but I am confident that his mentorship, leadership, and boundless generosity will continue throughout his retirement, and I have no doubt he will continue his commitment to our city as he also enjoys more time with his wonderful family and friends.
Mr. Speaker, I thank OTB for making our community a better place to live, work, and raise a family. I wish my friend a well-earned and rewarding retirement. We love him. Congratulations and Godspeed.
Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor North Carolina State Senator Marshall Arthur Rauch, who recently passed away at the age of 102, leaving behind a legacy of service, leadership, and generosity that will be remembered for generations.
As the longest serving Jewish State senator in North Carolina history, Senator Rauch was a trailblazer and a man of deep principle.
Senator Rauch dedicated much of his life to public service, serving on the Gastonia City Council, chairing the North Carolina Senate Finance Committee while he was a member of the senate, and championing racial harmony, education, and fiscal responsibility. He was also a World War II veteran and a successful businessman who ran, at one time, the world's largest Christmas ornament company.
Senator Rauch's work to integrate schools peacefully in Gaston County, support higher education, and help folks achieve self- sufficiency left an impact that will continue for generations.
Senator Rauch was known for his kindness, his wit, and his unwavering belief in the power of public service to make people's lives better.
I was someone who was very lucky to get to know him. As a young person, I was a senate page and had the opportunity to serve there. I got to know Senator Rauch all those years ago, and I stayed in contact with him over the years. He stayed very active pretty much till the end.
One of his favorite things to do, Mr. Speaker, was periodically he would have a hot dog roast during the week and invite folks over for hot dogs. He invited folks from all backgrounds, from all political parties, with an opportunity to sit down and fellowship, have a meal together, and just get to know folks. That is the kind of generous man that Marshall Rauch was.
Mr. Speaker, Marshall Rauch is going to be deeply missed, and I join the people of Gaston County and the people of North Carolina in honoring his extraordinary legacy.
Mr. Speaker, last year, candidate Trump, President- elect Trump, and now-President Trump repeatedly told the American people that he won't touch Social Security. We are now 2 months into his administration, and we are finding that the opposite is true.
A headline yesterday in The Washington Post read: ``Long waits, waves of calls, website crashes: Social Security is breaking down.''
Next to me is a poster board from The Wall Street Journal. Some people may say that The Washington Post is always critical of President Trump, but this is The Wall Street Journal, an impeccable, center-right newspaper whose headline states: ``Dealing With Social Security Is Heading From Bad to Worse.''
The agency that administers benefits is cutting staff and restricting benefits as part of the Department of Government Efficiency review, or DOGE, the Trump initiative.
Let's be more specific. What are some of those intentional policies that are being put into place? We know that there was a wave of those fork-in-the-road retirements that hit Social Security and reduced staff. We know that Social Security has already announced that the workforce is going to be reduced from 57,000 all across America to 50,000.
Some may say: What is wrong with that? We should sort of downsize our workforce, make them more efficient.
The fact of the matter is, if you look at how many people are beneficiaries today, with the baby boomer retirements that are swelling the ranks of Social Security beneficiaries, it is 73 million Americans now who are receiving Social Security benefits. These are people with retirement benefits, children who have lost a parent, and people on disability.
We now have a bigger-than-ever population of people collecting Social Security benefits and a reduced staff.
To put this in perspective, in 2010, not that long ago, the size of the Social Security workforce was 68,000, 18,000 more than what the Trump administration is targeting for today, and the number of beneficiaries in 2010 was 54 million Americans as opposed to 73 million Americans today. We have more people who need help with the Social Security system and fewer staff to help them navigate it.
In just 1 week from today, they are pretty much going to shut off phone service for Social Security beneficiaries who are trying to sign up with their bank information to get on Social Security. This is something that has been normal practice, using very precise identifiers to make sure that waste, fraud, and abuse do not occur.
By the way, Social Security's accuracy is 99.7 percent. That has been verified by outside audits and by the Social Security trustees. Yet, despite that track record, what they are going to tell Social Security beneficiaries, who sometimes struggle with online enrollment in other areas of their lives, is that they are not going to have the opportunity to use a phone service, which, again, has been in practice in the past for decades.
They are also closing 47 Social Security offices across the country. Again, at a time when the number of people who need to interact and interface with the Social Security system is bigger than ever, they are shutting down offices, laying off staff, and shutting off phone service.
The wait times, in terms of people trying to get appointments in person, are going to get longer. Just in the Northeast, we have already been told that the White Plains office in New York is going to be closed, and they are telling people to go to New Haven, Connecticut, my State. That is about a 2-hour drive for people if they want to have an in-person appointment who are now going to basically have a shuttered building in a very densely populated area outside of New York.
The notion that the Social Security system, by this administration, is not being trusted, the opposite is true. DOGE is behind this, as The Wall Street Journal reported. Elon Musk, in an interview with FOX News, made it crystal clear his goal is to eliminate Social Security and get $800 billion to $900 billion of savings out of the Social Security system, which we know today is probably one of the most efficient agencies in the Federal Government in terms of the accuracy of their payouts.
The pathway ahead of us is very crystal clear. Congress has to stand up as a coequal branch of government that enacted Social Security in 1935 and for 90 years--we are celebrating the 90th anniversary of Social Security--has been a pillar of middle-class retirement security and helping children who have lost a parent.
Mr. Speaker, it is not an entitlement. It is not welfare. It is an earned benefit that people pay into. They should get that benefit when it is their turn to get the help from Social Security that we promised as Congress.
Defend Social Security. Stand up for Social Security. Don't touch Social Security.
Mr. Speaker, foreign influence in American education, higher education especially, is a growing threat that cannot be ignored.
For years, adversaries, like the Chinese Communist Party, have funneled billions into U.S. colleges and universities through undisclosed donations and contracts, gaining influence over research, curriculum, and even campus policies.
These backdoor financial arrangements jeopardize academic integrity and national security, allowing foreign governments to push their own agendas under the guise of educational partnerships. Foreign regimes, including the Chinese Communist Party, have capitalized on loopholes in the Higher Education Act to expand their influence. Many U.S. institutions fail to disclose foreign gifts, as required, allowing foreign entities to quietly infiltrate and manipulate academic environments.
The DETERRENT Act, which will be taken up soon, introduced by my colleague from Washington, Representative Baumgartner, takes a decisive stand against this threat by enhancing foreign gift and contract reporting requirements. By slashing the reporting threshold to just $50,000 and implementing an even stricter zero-dollar threshold for countries and entities of concern, the bill ensures universities disclose all foreign funding regardless of its size or source. Lowering that threshold will bring more and more of them into the light.
China alone has sent over $1 billion to U.S. universities in the past decade, much of it undisclosed until recently. These financial ties have been linked to research theft, censorship of critical discussions, and undue pressure on faculty and students. A congressional investigation uncovered nearly $40 million in unreported contracts between two top U.S. universities and the CCP.
Foreign-backed research centers are often used as footholds for regimes to infiltrate American institutions, steal intellectual property, and push their political agendas. Some universities, either unknowingly or in pursuit of financial gain, have allowed foreign- funded centers to operate on campus, shaping curriculum, limiting academic freedom, and suppressing dissenting viewpoints.
The DETERRENT Act strengthens reporting requirements, ensures greater transparency to Congress and the public, and imposes strict penalties for noncompliance. It requires universities to disclose foreign gifts and contracts to individual faculty members, who are often the most targeted by adversarial regimes. It also holds private institutions accountable by revealing foreign investments in their endowments.
With the current administration failing to investigate this growing threat, the DETERRENT Act provides a necessary course correction.
Foreign influence not only threatens the integrity of academic research but also compromises national security by giving adversarial governments access to sensitive technological advancements. These financial entanglements, if left unchecked, will continue to erode the independence of U.S. institutions, putting both intellectual freedom and national interests at risk.
Higher education should be a place where students are taught how to think, not what to think, especially by foreign entities with their own agendas that go against United States interests.
Increased oversight is essential to ensure that universities serve the interests of students and the Nation, not those of adversarial regimes. With the previous administration failing to take this step, it is essential that we do that now with the DETERRENT Act.
Mr. Speaker, with the eyes of the Nation on Alabama and Auburn men's basketball as they compete in the NCAA March Madness championship tournament, I would like to also shed a light on the outstanding high school basketball players in Alabama's Seventh Congressional District who led their teams to championship victories this season.
That includes the girls' 7A champions at Hoover High School, who dominated their competition and brought home the gold at the end of their 29-3 season. Way to go, ladies.
Likewise, Hoover High School's boys were also crowned 7A champions at the end of their undefeated season. Go, Hoover Buccaneers.
In Tuscaloosa, we recognize the boys of Paul W. Bryant High School, who took home the Division 6A Championship title following their 27-7 season.
In Clarke County, we congratulate the Jackson Academy boys, who finished their 21-4 season when they won the Division 4A championship.
Last, but certainly not least, I congratulate Uniontown's own R.C. Hatch boys' basketball team. In February, the Bobcats set a new record for boys' basketball in the State of Alabama when they took home their 11th State title as Division 1A champions.
As the proud daughter of the late Coach Andrew A. Sewell, who coached the Selma High School Saints for over 30 years, including in numerous State tournament games, I know firsthand the amount of dedication, talent, and teamwork that goes into earning a State championship title.
On behalf of Alabama's Seventh Congressional District, I ask my colleagues to join me in congratulating our outstanding high school basketball champions. I am confident that these young student athletes have bright futures ahead of them.
This weekend, the city of Birmingham will host the NCAA women's basketball Sweet 16 and Elite 8 in the Magic City. We welcome all of the teams to Birmingham, Alabama, and wish them much success.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize yesterday as National Medal of Honor Day, a solemn occasion when our Nation pauses to reflect on the extraordinary heroism and selflessness of those who have received our country's highest military award for valor, the Medal of Honor.
National Medal of Honor Day is an opportunity to pay tribute not only to their acts of courage but also to the profound sacrifices made in the defense of our freedoms.
Over 150 years ago, on March 25, 1863, the very first Medals of Honor were presented, establishing a tradition of recognizing those who displayed unparalleled bravery in the face of overwhelming danger.
More than a century later, in 1990, Congress designated March 25 as National Medal of Honor Day, ensuring that future generations would never forget the servicemembers who went above and beyond the call of duty.
Since its inception, the Medal of Honor has been awarded 3,547 times to servicemembers who have demonstrated extraordinary bravery and devotion to their fellow troops and our Nation. Among those, 380 recipients have called Pennsylvania home, a testament to the courage and selflessness of the sons and daughters of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.
One of those remarkable Pennsylvanians was Army Specialist Ross McGinnis, a young man from Clarion County who, at just 19 years old, made the ultimate sacrifice to save the lives of his fellow soldiers.
On December 4, 2006, while on patrol in eastern Baghdad, Specialist McGinnis and his unit came under attack. An enemy insurgent positioned on a rooftop hurled a grenade into his Humvee.
Without hesitation, Specialist McGinnis threw his body onto the grenade, saving the lives of his fellow soldiers. For this incomparable courage and sacrifice, President George W. Bush posthumously awarded him the Medal of Honor in 2008.
Today, the post office in Knox, Pennsylvania, bears his name, ensuring that his legacy of heroism endures in the community he once called home.
Another Pennsylvanian whose bravery is etched in history is Private First
On November 12, 1944, while fighting near Thionville, France, Private Sayers singlehandedly charged enemy positions, drawing fire away from his unit and allowing his fellow soldiers to successfully flank and capture the enemy stronghold.
His courage, sacrifice, and dedication to duty earned him the Medal of Honor. Eighty years later, his name remains a symbol of the price of our freedom.
In November of last year, I had the privilege of presenting two flags to Foster Sayers, Jr., and Foster Sayers III, in honor of their father and grandfather's legacy.
Foster Sayers was married to his wife, Ellen, at the time he deployed. He never met Fos, who actually was my neighbor for a lot of years, for decades, and married to my dad's cousin. Foster's wife, Ellen, was actually my babysitter when I was growing up. They are a remarkable family.
Behind every Medal of Honor recipient is a family that has also sacrificed. Our military families often bear the weight of their loved one's service. I also thank them for their sacrifice.
Mr. Speaker, when we observe National Medal of Honor Day, we honor these heroes, and we affirm our sacred obligation to all who wear the uniform. We must ensure that our veterans and servicemembers are treated with the dignity, care, and gratitude that they have so courageously earned.
Let us continue to build a country worthy of the sacrifices of our veterans. May God bless our veterans, our fallen heroes, and our great Nation.
Mr. Speaker, I recognize that most Americans are not economists, trade experts, or well versed in the intricacies of tax policy. If you will, I want to take this opportunity to sort of ``Schoolhouse Rock'' tariffs. Let's talk about what they are, how they work, and how they impact Americans and their families.
Tariffs are taxes on imported goods, plain and simple. When the government slaps a tariff on a product, it makes the product more expensive to buy from other countries.
Take your sneakers. Most sneakers are made with rubber, synthetic fabrics, and leather, stuff that gets imported from China and other places. Let's say the government puts a tariff on those materials. That is an extra included tax on materials that make up the sneakers.
Now these products become more expensive to make, and the way that companies make up for that is passing that cost on to the consumer. A pair of sneakers that cost $30 might now cost $50 after tariffs are imposed. You now have to work more to get more money and then pay more for the same exact pair of sneakers.
The idea of tariffs is to protect American businesses and jobs. The reality, though, is, as you can see with the sneaker example, it often backfires. Other countries hit back with their own tariffs, hurting American manufacturers and workers.
Now, are tariffs always bad? The answer is no. When used correctly, tariffs can be a powerful tool. They can protect American jobs, boost key industries, and stop countries like China from flooding our market with cheap, low-quality goods.
When a country imposes tariffs strategically on industries we need to rebuild, like steel and manufacturing and technology, we can give American businesses the breathing room to compete and grow. When foreign countries play dirty with unfair trade practices, tariffs can be a productive way to respond to that.
Here is the key: Tariffs have to be smart. When used correctly, tariffs can defend American industry. When used incorrectly, though, they are just another tax on working people. Right now, the Trump administration is using tariffs in the wrong way, and their actions are causing costs to skyrocket for families in Texas and all American families.
To be clear, Trump's tariffs on Canada and Mexico are nothing but a tax on American businesses and consumers. They are two of our biggest trading partners. For example, Mexico is Texas' largest trading partner, accounting for one-third of our State's exports. In 2023, trade between Texas and Mexico totaled more than $272 billion. We trade so many products with our neighbors to the south that families in Texas use every day, like tomatoes, greens, avocados, car parts, electronics, plastics, and the list goes on. With Canada, Texas buys steel and lumber to build homes to ensure families have a roof over their heads.
All of these products will have higher costs, and the only ones who will pay more are the families and businesses that buy them. Instead of strengthening those relationships with our neighbors, Trump's tariffs are making everything more expensive for us.
What do we get in return? Absolutely nothing. American companies didn't suddenly stop buying from Canada or Mexico. They just have to pay more to do it. Meanwhile, those countries have hit back with their own tariffs, hurting Americans across the board. Instead of using tariffs for smart trade policy, Trump is using them as a political stunt that punishes the very people it claims to help.
Madam Speaker, these tariffs are self-inflicted wounds on the American economy. We see this every day in the stock market with the market value falling by trillions of dollars over the past few weeks. Those in their twenties, thirties, and forties have lost tons of money in their 401(k).
I should also mention something else because I know there is something more sinister going on. Right now, we have Elon Musk in the White House. He has been our president since January 20, calling all the shots and using President Trump as his puppet.
These tariffs will benefit his businesses because they are being imposed on Elon's competition. This is a clear conflict of interest. It is wrong, and it is a display of the grift and the greed that the Trump administration has ushered into this White House.
None of this is about helping American families. None of this is about lowering costs. This is about Trump and Musk settling scores, causing chaos, and making sure they line their pockets on the backs of Americans and the middle class.
Madam Speaker, we need to end these reckless tariffs and get back to lowering costs for the people we serve.
Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor an outstanding American and our March Veteran of the Month, Lieutenant Commander Greg Cowan, United States Navy, Retired, from Lebanon, Missouri, in Laclede County.
Greg Cowan's service to our Nation spans more than two decades, beginning in 1980 when he enlisted in the Navy. From his early days as an aviation electronics technician, to earning a commission through the Naval ROTC program, his dedication and commitment to our Nation never wavered. He served in duty stations across the country and around the world, from Rota, Spain, to Camp Lemonnier in Africa.
He deployed multiple times to the CENTCOM areas of operation, serving aboard the USS Comstock, the USS Kitty Hawk, USS Harpers Ferry, and USS Inchon. His leadership as a surface warfare officer was instrumental in ensuring mission success and in training the next generation of warfighters.
After retiring in 2024, Lieutenant Commander Cowan's passion for service continued through his dedication to mentoring and teaching others. His career is a testament to the values of duty, honor, and country.
Today, we salute Lieutenant Commander Greg Cowan and thank him for his selfless service, leadership, and unwavering commitment to the United States Navy and to the United States of America.
Madam Speaker, today we are proud to recognize Gold Apple
Owned by Cana Conrow, Gold Apple Boutique is a shining example of entrepreneurial spirit and community dedication. Cana's passion for business and her desire to build a future for her growing family led her to open this unique shop on Fayette's historic square. I was just in it last week. It is a great store.
They are offering fashionable clothing, accessories, and personalized items. Gold Apple Boutique provides a welcoming space where customers find both style and confidence.
Cana's success is a testament to the impact of small businesses on local economies. Her engagement in our U.S. Chamber of Commerce roundtable last week highlighted her commitment to strengthening the business community. As spring approaches, Gold Apple Boutique's latest arrivals are already drawing in excited customers there on the square, proving that small businesses like hers keep our towns vibrant and keep them thriving.
We congratulate Cana Conrow and Gold Apple Boutique on this well- earned recognition, our Small Business of the Month. We thank them for their dedication to Fayette and to making Missouri's small business community thrive.
Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize Seaside Police Department Chief Nick Borges and many others for their dedication and doggedness to solve the case called the ``American Nightmare.''
Aptly named, this case started back in 2015 in Vallejo, California, when Matthew Muller broke into the home of Denise and Aaron Quinn, drugged and bound them, and kidnapped Denise. Muller then took Denise to a cabin near Lake Tahoe where he sexually assaulted her and released her 3 days later down in southern California.
Of course, Aaron immediately called the authorities, but the Vallejo Police Department was unable to solve the crime. This is after they interrogated Aaron for hours upon hours, brushing aside his explanation, trying to get him to confess to killing Denise.
Ultimately, after Aaron wouldn't confess to something he didn't do, the detectives accused both Aaron and Denise of faking and lying about the whole thing. The detectives even went as far as putting out a formal statement, calling the whole thing a hoax and that, given the facts that had been presented thus far, this event appeared to be an orchestrated event, not a crime.
Madam Speaker, get this. Around the same time period, Muller committed several more home invasions. He eventually got caught and convicted for those similar crimes. The Vallejo detectives never connected Muller to the kidnapping of Denise.
It was such a sensational story about how the detectives acted and about how Aaron and Denise allegedly concocted a kidnapping that even Netflix came out with a documentary called the ``American Nightmare.'' Madam Speaker, it became one of the most watched docuseries on Netflix.
Fortunately, one of the people who watched that Netflix series was Seaside Police Chief Nick Borges. Chief Borges didn't have anything to do with that case, but after watching the documentary in 2024, he literally reached out to Denise and Aaron. He let them know that even he was disgusted with the way the Vallejo detectives conducted the interviews and that Denise and Aaron had the backing of law enforcement, despite how they were treated.
Chief Borges then decided to meet with the couple, along with Alameda County Detective Misty Carausu and El Dorado County DA Vern Pierson, all of whom felt that the investigation was mishandled. The group then started their own investigation and quickly found that Muller was in custody for similar crimes in the same areas.
Chief Borges then simply and literally reached out to Muller who was in custody on his other similar crimes, and he asked Muller if he would want to talk about the crimes against Aaron and Denise. Madam Speaker, if you can imagine this, Muller responded, and he admitted what he did do to Denise.
Further investigation by the group and getting the FBI involved led authorities to the Lake Tahoe cabin where they found further evidence to corroborate the crimes that Muller committed against Denise and Aaron. Eventually, Muller ended up pleading guilty to those crimes, as well as others that he had committed in the area.
Madam Speaker, as DA Pierson said: This was a very unusual, crazy set of facts. It unfortunately had detectives who didn't believe Aaron and Denise from the start, as well as those who used some outdated investigation and interrogation techniques, that led them down the wrong path.
Fortunately, though, police officers with common sense got involved to help solve this case. Moreover, Denise, Aaron, Chief Borges, and others are now working with law enforcement to change how interrogations are conducted and to ensure that what Aaron and Denise experienced never happens again.
Madam Speaker, I rise today to commend Denise and Aaron for their fortitude, for their resilience, and for their belief in law enforcement. I recognize Seaside Police Chief Borges and the other law enforcement officers who used common sense and their humanity to not only solve this case with a sense of justice but to do what is right in our society.
Madam Speaker, I rise today to congratulate the high school athletes from Wisconsin's Seventh District who competed in the State championships during the winter sports season.
In the individual State wrestling tournament, my district had Liam Neitzel of Hudson, Lane Andersen of Amery, Reegan Roy of Wabeno, Blake Underwood and Cale Quantance of Marathon, Wyatt Unser of Glenwood City, Colton Weiler of Auburndale, and Carter Lueck of Stratford secure the State championship, with the Saint Croix Falls boys' team taking home the first place title at the team State wrestling tournament.
Then the Tomahawk boys' hockey team claimed their first-ever State title at the boys' hockey State tournament. At the gymnastics State meet, Chippewa Falls Co-op won Division 1 team State, Rice Lake High School won Division 2 team State, and Avery Ash of Rice Lake took home first place in the individual balance beam event.
I also congratulate the Osceola High School ice fishing team on taking home the State title, going against 87 schools. Not many States have an ice fishing tournament.
We congratulate each one of these State champions, as well as their coaches. I wish them the best of luck in their future seasons.
Madam Chair, I rise today to honor Women's History Month. As a practice, I do celebrate Women's History Month every month, but today I take the floor to talk about a living legend, Ms. Alfreda Harris.
Ms. Harris is a champion for everyone who calls Boston home and a mother of movements. She has committed her life to building community and supporting our young people. She is widely known for her dedicated work to the Boston Parks Department, actualizing a vision of beautiful green space, room to play, and fresh air for all of our children.
Ms. Harris was the first Black woman to coach in UMass Boston's history in 1980 when she was hired in that role, becoming UMass Boston's first women's basketball coach. She was also the first female head coach at UMass Boston for any sport. She led her basketball teams at Roxbury Community College and the University of Massachusetts Boston to an outstanding 136-20 career record.
Her tenure on the Boston School Committee is defined by her lasting commitment to strengthening Boston
Madam Speaker, she remains a source of inspiration to many. This Women's History Month, let's give this historymaker her flowers. We love and honor Ms. Harris.
Madam Speaker, I rise to call out the recklessness of those in this administration entrusted with our national security. I did not think I would see a day where someone with the highest security clearance is using a phone messaging app to treat matters of national security with such blatant disregard, celebrating with emojis in a group chat as they unlawfully authorize military actions.
This administration continues to make history for all the wrong reasons. I struggle to find a reference point because this is beyond the pale: the disregard for human life and national security.
Let me just make this abundantly clear to the American people. Secure channels of communication do exist to discuss classified military action. They sure as hell are not a Signal group chat. It is imperative that information like this be handled with sensitivity.
Under this administration, the United States foreign policy is a failure. Decades of diplomatic efforts to build good will and keep the American people safe have been upended. We have an unelected billionaire gutting lifesaving programs like USAID's essential work to feed newborns and to give medicine to war zones.
Meanwhile, we have a cast of characters in these roles, having nothing to do with merit. It is simply their fealty and loyalty to Donald Trump. We have a cast of characters ordering military strikes in a group chat with a random journalist in it.
This is nothing to be cavalier about. This is not a drill. It is not a joke. Every person involved should be investigated by Congress. In particular, Pete Hegseth is proving himself to be unqualified to lead the Department of Defense and should never have been confirmed by the Senate.
Madam Speaker, this national security failure is proof that he cannot serve this country's best interests, and I call for Pete Hegseth to resign.
Madam Speaker, since President Trump was sworn in, illegal crossings have plummeted at our southern border.
This past February saw the lowest level of illegal crossings ever recorded in our Nation's history, down 94 percent from February 2024 and 96 percent from the all-time high under the Biden administration. Along the Del Rio Sector of the border, there was a 98.8 percent decrease in apprehensions compared to the highest day under President Biden.
For 4 years, President Biden and radical progressive activists tried to blame President Trump and congressional Republicans for the crisis at the Nation's border. It turns out the only thing we needed all along was a President who doesn't run from common sense and isn't afraid to enforce the law. Thankfully, President Trump is not afraid.
Just last week, Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem announced that the Department of Homeland Security, DHS, will resume construction of President Trump's border wall. Border Patrol agents have told us again and again that a physical barrier on our southern border is a key deterrent to the trafficking of humans and illicit drugs by the Mexican cartels across our southern border. Yet, on day one of his Presidency, President Biden stopped construction of the border wall. President Trump is gladly reversing this madness and making our border secure.
President Biden's failed leadership continuously put innocent American lives at risk as nearly 400 individuals whose names appeared on the terrorist watch list attempted to enter the country and gang members from MS-13 and Tren de Aragua invaded the interior of the U.S.
Some of these monsters took the lives of innocent Americans, like Laken Riley and Jocelyn Nungaray. While President Biden barely expressed empathy for the lives he put at risk, President Trump took action, deporting these violent criminals and gang members from the start of his Presidency.
On November 5, 2024, 77 million Americans, including myself, voted to restore commonsense border policies to our Nation's Capital. The President is providing that common sense, and I am deeply grateful to have his strong leadership back in the White House.
I thank President Trump for standing for our country and securing our border. Promises made, promises kept.
Madam Speaker, I rise today in honor of an American patriot, Craig Beam. I congratulate Craig on his well-deserved retirement from the U.S. Marshals Service.
When most Americans hear of a fugitive on the run, their natural instinct is to protect their loved ones within and avoid coming across the wanted criminal at all costs. Craig's approach to protecting his family and loved ones is a little different. When danger or bad actors present themselves to our communities, Craig has run toward them and worked swiftly with his fellow marshals to remove these criminals from the streets.
In August 1993, a convicted marijuana grower walked into the Frank Carlson Federal Building in Topeka, Kansas, for his sentencing. What was a normal day in Topeka suddenly turned into gunfire and tragedy as the convict's car and his person were covered with explosives and pipe bombs.
As building staff hid in fear, Craig and his fellow law enforcement agents put their fear aside to get innocent civilians to safety. In all, five Kansans were injured that day, and a court officer, Gene Goldsberry, was tragically killed. Deputy Marshal Beam and three of his fellow marshals were recognized for their heroism with the Director's Distinguished Service Award.
Serving in law enforcement and the U.S. Marshals Service is a selfless calling, and for the last 34 years, Craig Beam has done it effortlessly. Not many people openly run toward danger and put their safety at risk for the sake of their communities, but for Craig, it is second nature.
I thank Craig for his selflessness and for 34 years of dedication to keep Kansas safe. I congratulate Craig on his retirement.
Madam Speaker, last Friday, I opened my district office in Caguas, Puerto Rico. I had about 10 other colleagues join me, and when I finished my speech and turned to greet my constituents, the power went out.
I won't lie, my immediate reaction was not all that negative. I was sort of glad that it happened while my colleagues were there so that they could see the reality that many Puerto Ricans live with on a daily basis.
Now, I am afraid that that reality is about to get a lot worse. The power companies in charge of generation and distribution of energy in the island have warned us that there will be a severe generation deficit between May and October due to a major generation unit's breakdown. As a result, we might face up to 125 selective power outages during that time. Last year, the average client faced about 10 hours without power due to these selective outages. This year, it is expected to be a lot worse.
Pause and think about that: 125 blackouts over 6 months in the United States of America. That isn't and shouldn't be normal.
The government of Puerto Rico has a plan A. First, demand that Genera PR, the company in charge of generation, fix the broken power plants before May. An alternative is that we get barges and land units to generate temporary electricity to meet the height and demand during the summer.
I will do what I can to support the government's efforts to address this challenge. I have already urged President Trump to declare a Federal emergency to support Puerto Rico's electric
However, I also believe that the government needs a plan B in case all of this fails. The government needs to prepare the people of Puerto Rico for the possibility that power will go out virtually every day during this summer.
What can the government do? It can demand that utility companies be transparent about their planned interruptions so that the people know what to expect and can plan accordingly. It can educate and incentivize less energy consumption to prevent the need for these selective outages. It can begin preparing vulnerable populations and providers of essential services with backup sources and energy assistance.
I want it to be clear that the current government is not responsible for the energy generation crisis, but it will be responsible for how it handles it.
The government must be brave and honest with the people, not laid back and blindly optimistic because it views LUMA, the distribution company, and Genera, the generation company, as ultimately responsible. The government must care not about who gets the blame for the problem but about actually addressing the problem.
We must prepare before it is too late. Failure to prepare will have unfortunate consequences.
Madam Speaker, I also rise to honor the life of Cirilo Tirado Delgado, who passed away last week, a few days shy of his 90th birthday.
Mr. Tirado was a respected public servant, educator, and attorney in the great Commonwealth of Puerto Rico. He served in the Puerto Rico House of Representatives from 1973 to 1984, worked in the executive branch from 1984 to 1988, and returned to the legislature as a senator from 1988 to 1996. After that, he practiced law in the town of Guayama.
I extend my condolences to his window, children, and grandchildren. May he rest in peace.
Mr. Speaker, I rise to recognize my former chief of staff, Michael Reed, who will leave the House after many years of service.
From 2019 to 2021, he served my office. Every Member of this Chamber would be lucky to have Michael serving them. He is a mentor to any staff who work under him. He is a lover of the institution and the rules that guide us, and he is a believer that this is still the best place for us to resolve our disputes.
He led us particularly during COVID and January 6. On January 6, I remember Michael finding every vending machine he could in the building to bring food to the Members at the evacuation site where we huddled, and then he counseled our staff who were waiting to know what would happen next. He predicted to me, stick around in this room because Speaker Pelosi would later gavel us in. He was right, and she was right to hire him a few months later from my staff to work for her.
We will miss Michael and his service, but he never could have done it without his partner, his wife, also a former chief of staff, Keenan. The two of them will continue to serve in other ways, but this House will miss Michael Reed.
Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing the Do No Harm Act.
As a physician, I took an oath to do no harm, but over the past several years, doctors working at pediatric transgender clinics have prescribed medications or done procedures that they know will permanently sterilize children or leave them with irreversible medical and psychological damage.
This bill is the most comprehensive legislation introduced to date to protect children from experimental and unethical practices of so-called gender-affirming care. This practice has been banned or severely limited in European countries, including the U.K., Norway, Denmark, and Sweden, and it is time for the U.S. to wake up and ban this quackery once and for all.
The Do No Harm Act builds on President Trump's day one executive order ending the chemical castration and mutilation of children. I look forward to working with the Trump administration to solidify this policy as Federal law.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today as the Representative for 72,000 veterans and tens of thousands of Active-Duty personnel who live in the Seventh Congressional District of Virginia.
As a 25-year Army veteran, former Army JAG prosecutor, and National Security Council staff adviser, I can say this: Imminent strike approval and mission launch times are highly classified.
Sharing specific launch and strike times 31 minutes before the mission begins and 2 hours before our forces were over enemy territory, in harm's way, is an egregious breach of national security. At best, the success of the operation was at risk. At worst, our pilots' lives were in danger.
This isn't a political issue. It is about trust, discipline, and the safety of our
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to give my personal congratulations to the South Knox girls' basketball team for taking the Class 2A State championship. In the stunning 55-33 win, the South Knox Spartans earned the school's first statewide championship victory.
Basketball is a foundational part of our identity as Hoosiers, and they even gave us a term, ``Hoosier Hysteria,'' to describe just how seriously we take this sport and how many top players we produce.
Congratulations once again to the girls' basketball team at South Knox and to Coach Hollie Eaves for showing everyone just how well they play basketball in Verne, Indiana.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in recognition of a man whom I have known for his entire life; longer, in fact. I knew him when he was a bump in his mommy's belly.
Michael Reed is the proud son of Trenton and one of the most intelligent, dedicated, and capable public servants that I have ever had the privilege of knowing.
When I was first elected, it was Michael's counsel that I relied on to get my office up and running. It was Michael who helped me navigate this new and peculiar space, and it was Michael whom I could call day or night, weekend or weekday, and I still do.
I have the deepest love and respect for Michael. He has been a blessing in every sense of the word. I thank him for his public service. I know that he will continue to make a positive impact on people's lives in all that he does.
I wish Michael and his beautiful bride, Keenan, nothing but the best as they begin their next chapter in life.
Mr. Speaker, Congress is moving forward with reconciliation to rein in Washington's reckless spending and put the budget back on a responsible path. This process brings multiple committees together to craft one comprehensive bill that strengthens the economy, reduces waste, and prioritizes taxpayers.
The bill secures the borders with real enforcement measures, keeps taxes low for families and small businesses, and rolls back job-killing regulations. It also boosts domestic energy production, making America less dependent on foreign adversaries while lowering costs at home.
Every committee has worked to ensure this bill eliminates wasteful spending and focuses resources where they are actually needed. Budget reconciliation is about making the Federal Government work smarter, not bigger, and being accountable to taxpayers because the hard-earned money they have to send this place is certainly not voluntary.
Budget reconciliation puts America back on a strong track to what we should prioritize to begin with.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the life and service of Alvin ``Al'' Van Zee, a devoted veteran and public servant from Pella, Iowa.
As the longest serving commissioner on the Marion County Commission of Veterans Affairs, Al dedicated more than 20 years to ensuring Iowa's veterans received care, support, and the recognition they deserved.
A proud veteran himself, Al's service didn't end when he left the military. Through his work on the commission and his involvement on the Van Veen-Van Hemert American Legion Post No. 89, he was a tireless advocate for those who wore our Nation's uniform.
His wisdom, compassion, and unwavering commitment left a lasting impact on his community. Al's legacy is one of service, honor, and deep devotion to both our country and to those who serve our country.
May his family and loved ones find comfort in knowing his impact will endure for generations. We are grateful for his life, his service, and his unwavering dedication. Rest in peace, Al.
Providing for Congressional Disapproval of the Rule Submitted by the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of Energy Relating to "Energy Conservation Program: Energy...
Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 242, I call up the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 75) providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of Energy relating to ``Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards for Commercial Refrigerators, Freezers, and Refrigerator-Freezers'', and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.
The Clerk read the title of the joint resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 242, the joint resolution is considered read.
The text of the joint resolution is as follows:
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The joint resolution shall be debatable for 1 hour equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce or their respective designees.
The gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Guthrie) and the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone) each will control 30 minutes.
The chair recognizes the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Guthrie).
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.J. Res. 75.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Kentucky?
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, as President Trump took office in January, the Biden- Harris Department of Energy finalized amended energy efficiency standards for commercial refrigeration equipment.
H.J. Res. 75, introduced by Representative Goldman of Texas, a new member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, repeals this final rule.
New standards for this equipment, which included a variety of products, became effective just 3 years ago. Yet the Biden administration moved ahead with implementing burdensome new standards.
In fact, these standards will require energy reductions up to 60 percent on top of the previous standards, pushing the price of this equipment higher than ever before. The Department of Energy itself estimates the final rule will cost $8 billion. However, it substantially underestimated compliance costs throughout the rulemaking process.
The Department of Energy, despite feedback from stakeholders, did not account for the significant ongoing capital investment manufacturers must make to shift to new refrigerants.
When amending energy efficiency standards, the Department of Energy must prove that new or amended standards are economically justified, as well as technologically feasible, and that they result in significant savings. Not only is it unclear if compliance with the DOE's final rule is technically feasible but it is certainly clear that the rule is not cost-effective.
For example, one popular refrigerator design covered by this rule, vertically closed transparent commercial refrigerators, is estimated by the Department of Energy to have a payback period of almost 94 years under the amended standards. For retailers, many of which are small or family-owned businesses, it makes no sense to purchase equipment that will take nearly 100 years to recoup the cost on, especially when the average lifetime of this product is 14 years.
This will result in less efficient equipment being used beyond its recommended lifetime or a significant capital expenditure which will have to be passed down to American families in the form of higher prices. This is a lose-lose situation for small business owners and clearly violates the letter of the law.
We must pass H.J. Res. 75 to repeal this midnight rule and provide certainty to American manufacturers and small retailers.
Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Goldman) for his leadership on this issue. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting H.J. Res. 75, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this resolution. Week after week, I find myself here on the House floor, not debating things that are important to American families like protecting Medicaid or Social Security. Instead, we are debating standards for appliances. We have got refrigerators, air conditioners, and washing machines. This one isn't even something for use in a household. It is for commercial use.
Again, House Republicans have chosen this time to ignore the pressing issues that Americans face and to instead march forward with their anti-efficiency agenda that drives up energy costs for American businesses and consumers. Democrats, on the other hand, are here to defend these commonsense energy efficiency standards and the very real savings they provide Americans.
My home State of New Jersey was recently recognized among the top 10 States doing the most to advance energy efficiency, and I am pleased by my State's progress and want to make sure that Americans in all States benefit from similar efforts.
Today's resolution, like all the other anti-efficiency resolutions that we have seen recently from the Republicans, did not go through any regular order. I want to stress why that is important. We never received any expert witness testimony on the impact of the standards or on the impact of repealing them. Instead, we are left to trust a Republican Party that is decidedly antiscience on the impacts of energy conservation standards.
Let me stress this. What do I mean by regular order? Well, a bill is introduced. We have a subcommittee hearing in Energy and Commerce. In this case, the Department of Energy would come in and show how there are so many savings and why these standards lead to more efficiency.
Then if the Republicans disagree, they can bring in experts that say the opposite. Of course, they don't want to do that because there aren't any experts that are going to say the opposite. They are just making this stuff up.
Today's resolution, H.J. Res. 75, targets a recently finalized energy conservation standard for commercial refrigerators and freezers. Again, this isn't even for households. These are commercial refrigerators and freezers. These are products that are primarily used in grocery stores and convenience stores.
Now we are debating whether or not the refrigerators in grocery stores should be energy efficient. I can't imagine more of a waste of floor time. When there are so many other issues that have to be discussed here today, we are doing this instead.
The energy conservation standard targeted by this resolution would save businesses $4.6 billion over 30 years. Republicans have already taken away options for households to save money on their energy bills. Now they are going to strip businesses of these options as well.
Repealing these standards would also raise costs and increase demand on the electricity grid. It is also not necessary because two-thirds of the products on the market today already meet these new efficiency standards. The payback period for any up-front costs of the more efficient products is about 3.5 years, while the products themselves last for 12 to 14 years. To argue that there is some kind of major regulatory burden or imposition on small businesses is just false.
At a time of increased energy costs, increased grid strain, tariffs, and rising household costs under the Trump administration, we have to ask ourselves: Why do Republicans keep targeting policies that save money and save energy? They ran on the fact they were going to make things more affordable. Things are less affordable, and this will also make them less affordable.
The only answer I can come up with is that when more energy is consumed or more energy is wasted, the oil and gas industry benefits. We know that the Washington Republicans continue to do the bidding of Big Oil and Gas.
This resolution proves that Republicans are completely out of touch. Americans are struggling to make ends meet and are facing the reality that Republicans may soon strip them and their families not only of healthcare but repealing commonsense energy efficiency standards.
Republicans also continue to look the other way as the Trump administration and Elon Musk undermine Social Security, threatening the benefits seniors have earned over a lifetime of hard work. Instead, they are focusing on refrigerators.
Mr. Speaker, I don't know what else to say. I oppose this resolution, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding the time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of my resolution, H.J. Res. 75, which repeals the Biden administration's burdensome energy conservation standards for commercial refrigerators and freezers.
In the final months, the previous administration prioritized their energy policies over Americans' prosperity and freedom. This unnecessary and costly mandate would burden small businesses, increase red tape, and jeopardize food safety.
The Department of Energy estimates implementing this rule would cost Americans $8 billion. This massive financial burden will fall on small businesses that rely on commercial refrigeration for their daily operations. Cafes, restaurants, and grocery stores would be forced to purchase more expensive, less effective equipment. As we all know, these costs would be passed on to consumers, increasing food and beverage prices nationwide.
Beyond the financial strain, the rule would force manufacturers into costly,
The evidence is clear. If not repealed, these extreme regulations will raise costs, increase red tape, and endanger food safety.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this resolution. In November, Americans voted for change, common sense, and freedom from government overreach and regulations. Let's honor that mandate by rolling back the Biden administration's extreme regulations and supporting small businesses across our Nation.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I am not trying to disrespect the sponsor of the resolution. He is on our committee. He is from the great State of Texas.
What I hear is that he said: ``The evidence is clear.'' The evidence is not clear that these standards for commercial refrigerators are actually worse or a burden on small businesses. He hasn't cited anything that says that.
He says that we should have change. That is what we voted for in November but not change that is going to hurt people or that is actually going to cost them more money.
The bottom line is and the way this works is that the Department of Energy, under the existing law, is required to look at appliances and see whether or not they can be made more efficient and more cost- effective. That is what they did. They found that these standards were more efficient and cost-effective.
Mr. Speaker, I haven't heard from the other side or any experts they cite to, other than their own opinion, to say the experts at the Department of Energy made a mistake.
The experts at DOE who established these energy conservation standards were not politicians. DOE's process involves extensive stakeholder engagement, working with manufacturers and advocates to establish standards that are economically feasible, economically justifiable, and result in significant energy savings.
This is a highly technical process. My colleagues across the aisle are making claims that this resolution before us today reduces costs and cuts red tape, and nothing could be further from the truth. We know there are manufacturers out there that support these standards and support having consistent guidance from DOE, as opposed to ever- shifting goalposts.
Again, even if my colleagues on the other side come up with testimony or documents today that say that the Department of Energy was wrong, it would have been helpful to hold a hearing where their experts could come in and challenge the Department of Energy experts who put these standards together. Then we as members of the Committee could look at this and say who is right.
They didn't do that. There was no regular order. There was no hearing. We had no benefit of a hearing on this resolution and the implications of revoking these standards.
Mr. Speaker, this resolution isn't some well-reasoned proposal that has been properly vetted. It is a way to kill floor time. It is a way to target any and every regulation without any assessment of the consequences.
I spent last week in my district meeting with constituents and holding a townhall. What I heard was that people were really concerned that the economy was heading into a recession because of President Trump's policies. They were concerned about costs to Medicaid and threats from Elon Musk to dismantle Social Security. Nobody mentioned commercial refrigeration requirements to me. I didn't hear anybody mention that. Republicans have really lost the plot, and I think Americans are taking notice.
Mr. Speaker, I have a letter here from the National Automatic Merchandising Association--vending machines, as most of us would know it--that it would be affecting their vending members. Most are small businesses. Ninety-plus percent of their operators have revenues of less than $10 million a year.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Allen), my good friend.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.J. Res. 75.
My colleagues on the other side of the aisle will say this resolution is unnecessary. We have heard that. Let's be clear. What is unnecessary is placing so-called energy standards on commercial refrigerators and freezers, which will only lead to higher equipment costs and additional burdens on small businesses.
I come from the small-business community. I have felt that, and, again, that is what we are hearing from our small businesses and why I am standing here today.
Time and time again, the Biden-Harris administration imposed new standards with high price tags. First, it was regulations on cars and trucks. Then, it was gas stoves and washing machines and, now, commercial refrigerators and freezers. The list goes on and on.
In fact, I stood on the House floor in the last Congress and defended my very own wife's gas stove, and we won that battle.
Fortunately for the American people, under the leadership of House Republicans and President Trump, common sense has a seat at the table again.
All we are doing is rolling back the senseless and unending bureaucratic red tape ushered in under the previous administration that harms hardworking Americans and small businesses.
In fact, the Department of Energy estimates that these standards on commercial refrigerators and freezers will cost approximately $8 billion, as stated earlier, which we know will be passed down to consumers.
When did the Department of Energy get into the appliance business?
Mr. Speaker, this is an easy ``yes'' vote. I encourage all of my colleagues to support H.J. Res. 75, and I thank Congressman Goldman for his leadership.
Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New Jersey for yielding the time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.J. Res. 75, a bill to force small business owners to use more energy and spend more money.
Here we are at the end of March, and Republicans have not brought one bill to the floor to lower costs and tackle the cost of living for our neighbors back home. Instead, Republicans in Congress have stood idly by while American families and small business owners are left to twist in the wind, making life harder for people back home, more expensive, more difficult to receive the Social Security they rely on, adding taxes through tariffs.
It is just unconscionable because what people really want is for us to work together on solutions, and Republicans in Congress are missing in action. People want answers, but Republicans won't have townhalls. Some of them will not even answer the phone.
I also had a townhall back in St. Petersburg, Florida, last week when I was home, and people want answers. They want to know what you are doing to tackle the cost of living. Then, you come up here to the House of Representatives, and Republicans are making it more expensive because they don't want you to have an energy-efficient appliance.
This isn't something that happens overnight. This is something that manufacturers and consumer advocates worked on for years.
The previous speaker asked when the Department of Energy got into energy efficiency. It has been decades that they have been doing this, trying to help people save money through conservation.
I know that doesn't align with my Republican colleagues' Big Oil and Gas allies, but people want to save money. They want to cut pollution. They don't want us wasting their time with inane bills like this that are simply going to cost people more money.
It gets worse because Republicans in Congress are barreling toward a massive tax giveaway to billionaires paid
We know what this is. This is an attempt to distract from what is going on behind the scenes here in Washington, D.C. I have to say I think my Republican friends are out of touch with working people.
People are tired of being ripped off by special interests and politicians in Washington. This resolution is another example of that. This makes it harder for small business owners to save money through energy-efficient appliances. It essentially picks your pocket.
Mr. Speaker, have you ever been in a crowd where you are getting jostled, and then you reach back and your wallet is gone? That is exactly what is happening right here.
I hope that Republicans join Democrats in trying to reduce electric bills, but no. I hope that Republicans are going to stand up to Elon Musk as he takes a chain saw to Social Security, but no. Today, the Republicans don't even want to address the real challenges facing our neighbors, helping them with the cost of living, housing, healthcare, and electric bills. This bill will simply make matters worse.
These DOE standards are long overdue. It has been, I think, at least 6 or 7 years since they have had an update. The law says you update energy-efficient standards for appliances every few years. That is what happened under the Biden administration. They came together. Those kinds of standards also incentivize American innovation. Manufacturers in America have been the leaders.
By weakening these rules, we open our markets to companies in countries that manufacture low-efficiency products, like from China, at the expense of American companies and American families. It is not right.
I heard Mr. Pallone say that he had a townhall. A lot of the Democrats are having townhalls. I had a townhall back in the Tampa Bay area. They want help with hurricane recovery. Do you know what they are having to replace right now? Appliances. They want an appliance that is the most modern, the most efficient, the most affordable, and that is made in America, and that is what these appliance standards do. They help you save money over the long run.
They also want us to safeguard their healthcare. They want us to have an eye on Elon Musk as he takes his chain saw to all sorts of agencies.
Social Security was a topic of conversation in my townhall. Lo and behold, yesterday, there was a press report about the backdoor cuts to Social Security. It says: ``The Social Security Administration website crashed four times in 10 days this month because the servers were overloaded, blocking millions of retirees and disabled Americans from logging in to their online accounts. In the field, office managers have resorted to answering phones in place of receptionists because so many employees have been pushed out. Amid all this, the agency no longer has a system to monitor customer experience because that office was eliminated . . . by Elon Musk. And the phones keep ringing. And ringing.''
``The turmoil is leaving many retirees, disabled claimants, and legal immigrants needing Social Security cards with less access or shut out of the system altogether.''
Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record the article titled: ``Long waits, waves of calls, website crisis: Social Security is breaking down.''
Long Waits, Waves of Calls, Website Crashes: Social Security is
Mr. Speaker, this is a real cry for help, and we need Republicans and Congress focused on Americans' pocketbooks, not trying to distract from the massive tax giveaway to billionaires and special interests.
Mr. Pallone is absolutely right. They are out of touch. Let's send a message and vote ``no'' on this bill and get back to work on safeguarding the pocketbooks of our neighbors back home.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. It is difficult for small businesses to stay in business. I would say if this equipment was going to do for small businesses what the Department of Energy
I have a letter from the National Association of Food Equipment Manufacturers, which sells to restaurants and so forth. It says these costs must be passed on to customers, many of which are small businesses like restaurants, bars, retailers, hotels, grocers, and schools. As the Department of Energy acknowledges in its own analysis, the increased capital expense caused by these standards may take more than--not many small businesses will invest their money if it is going to take more than 10, 75, and up to 94 years. Most small businesses don't stay in families more than a couple of generations. In many instances, to match cost reductions achieved through higher efficiency gains, more expensive equipment translates into higher costs for consumers. This is simple economics. As the cost of inputs in doing business increases, a restaurant's or grocer's prices also must increase to make enough of a profit to stay in business.
The other argument you can make is that if you buy this, you are going to be more efficient. The other side has said that then you can make more profit. If that is the case, believe me, our small businesses would be doing it without a government mandate.
Mr. Speaker, I will yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Baird), my friend.
Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for giving me this opportunity to speak.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.J. Res. 75. Once again, I join my House colleagues in working to overturn another last-minute, so-called energy efficiency standard from the previous administration.
In reality, the Biden administration imposed standards that are nearly impossible for commercial refrigeration equipment manufacturers to meet. According to estimates from the Biden Department of Energy, the final rule will cost approximately $8 billion. This will be borne by those purchasing equipment, many of whom are small businesses. The payback period for certain commercial refrigeration equipment under these standards is up to 93.9 years. That is right, nearly 94 years.
To make matters worse, the Department of Energy's test procedures do not align with real-world conditions. The DOE's estimate of the CRE door openings in an hour often undercounts the real number of door openings. This means the appliance's interior temperature may rise above safe food-storage conditions, jeopardizing food safety.
Once again, the left's pro-Big Government, Green New Deal agenda harms the little guy. The Biden Department of Energy implemented a policy that threatens small businesses, harms consumers, and drives up costs, even as many Americans continue to struggle under the long-term effects of the Biden administration's inflationary economic policies.
That ends now. I am proud to join my House Republican colleagues in standing up for America's consumers and small business owners across the country. With this bill, we are continuing to deliver on the mandate of the American people to cut burdensome red tape and ensure American consumers and small businesses can thrive.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this underlying bill.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I think it is important to clarify some of the numbers that we are hearing from the Republicans. The chairman keeps mentioning a 94-year payback period for one of the products impacted by the rule, and he claims that this number comes from the DOE's rule. However, this is really a total misunderstanding of what happened.
There may have been some analysis of this 95 years, but the DOE did not propose or adopt efficiency levels like that for the product mentioned. In fact, for that particular product that he is mentioning, the final rule made no changes to the existing standards.
Now, I am not surprised that my friends across the aisle are throwing this number around, this 94 years, even though it has nothing to do with the final rule. They are not interested in a good-faith debate on the merits of these standards. If they were, as I said, we would have had hearings on this resolution so Members could better understand the details.
The truth is that the actual payback period for this particular class of products, since there were no updates to the standards, is zero because it wasn't changed. The average payback period for the other products impacted by the rule, as I mentioned earlier, is close to 3.5 years. So this 94-year analysis was not in the rule, it was not made for the product, and it wasn't proposed for the product.
For everything else, it is about 3.5 years. What this means is that after the 3.5 years, every year you are saving money. So all this just goes to show that my colleagues across the aisle pretend to be experts in energy conservation standards, but they can't even read the final rule correctly.
Again, this wouldn't be the case if we had a hearing and went through regular order, but that didn't happen.
Mr. Speaker, the Federal Register lists this class of equipment, and the simple payback period in years is 93.9 for all purchasers. I have it right here.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Joyce), who is the vice chair of the Energy and Commerce Committee.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to support H.J. Res. 75, legislation to repeal the Biden administration's energy efficiency standard for commercial refrigerators and freezers.
This regulation was implemented as a last-ditch effort by the Biden administration to force its Green New Deal agenda on the American people without regard to the impact that it will have on small businesses.
Drastically changing efficiency standards, without input from the American public, hurts both businesses and consumers. This will cost American businesses $8 billion to meet the new standards, and it will, indeed, take over 90 years for businesses to recapture that loss.
After 4 years of President Biden's inflation, business owners and consumers are searching for relief. Repealing this out-of-touch energy regulation will keep costs low for the American consumer and allow small businesses to reinvest and to expand instead of being forced to meet bureaucratic regulations.
Let me put it very simply. This is exactly the type of regulation that the American people voted against in November. Americans want less red tape. Americans want lower costs.
Mr. Speaker, I encourage all of my colleagues to support H.J. Res. 75 which delivers results for the American people.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
I rise in opposition to this resolution. We have heard a lot today about upfront costs to businesses, the rising cost of doing business, and the slim margins under which businesses operate.
First, let me say that no one is forcing businesses to replace their commercial refrigerator equipment. These standards don't go into effect until 2029, and even then it is only when existing products need to be replaced that businesses will be looking at the upfront cost of any new products.
Many of these products already exist on the market, the ones with the new standards, so it is not like businesses will be faced with totally new and unfamiliar options. Sixty percent of the products on the market right now meet these efficiency standards.
As I have already said, the payback period for these products is about 3 years. After that, businesses will be saving money every month on their energy bills.
If Republicans were serious about reducing costs for businesses and for Americans, they would push back on Trump's tariffs. That is what they should be pushing back on is tariffs. They are the ones who are causing all the unrest, the possibility of recession, and raising costs. All of our economic indicators show that we are heading toward a recession and that consumer confidence is extremely low.
Why aren't Republicans fighting policies like the tariffs that impact the
Mr. Speaker, I urge opposition to this resolution, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, as we have heard today, the Biden-Harris administration DOE's final rule for commercial refrigeration equipment will have a detrimental impact on small businesses and the consumers. If small businesses thought this was going to benefit their businesses, I guarantee you, Mr. Speaker, as a family business owner, we would invest in it. We would not have to be mandated to invest in it.
This final rule does not even meet the statutory requirements laid out in ECPA for new or amended energy efficiency standards. With a cost of at least $8 billion, questions surrounding the technological feasibility of the standards and serious food safety concerns cloud this rulemaking.
Simply put, the DOE far exceeded the bounds of its authority with this rule. If Congress does not act, this final regulation will harm small businesses, drive up costs for American families, and put already expensive equipment out of reach for many who need it for their livelihoods.
That is why the following groups are supporting this CRA: The National Association of Food Equipment Manufacturers; NATSO, representing truck stops and travel centers; SIGMA, representing fuel marketers; and National Automatic Merchandizing Association, which includes vending machine operators.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose this.
I just want to be clear. I don't have anything in my family business in any of these businesses, but I will tell you what we look at is do we get a return on investment and can we serve our customers better.
The list I just said, they looked at it and said that if they don't get a return on their investment, then they can't serve their customers better by this rule.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support H.J. Res. 75 to overturn these unworkable energy standards for commercial refrigeration equipment, and I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
Pursuant to House Resolution 242, the previous question is ordered on the joint resolution.
The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the joint resolution.
The joint resolution was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was read the third time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the joint resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. Speaker, in 1787, after the Second Continental Congress, Benjamin Franklin was asked: Do we have a monarchy or a republic?
He solemnly replied: a republic, if you can keep it.
For nearly 250 years, those immortal words have lived at the heart of our Republic. Representative democracy is not just something that appears, it doesn't happen by accident, and it isn't maintained by sheer inertia. We have to fight each and every day to maintain it.
I am the child of refugees. My parents came to this country from Communist Vietnam in search of the very freedoms that had been ripped away from them in the country of their birth. I joined the Army when I was 18 years old because I wanted to protect the freedoms that have given me so much.
I fear that this President does not share this same commitment to our Republic. He seems not to care whether we keep it or not, as long as his personal political desires are met. This is a trying time for our Republic, and I invite my Republican colleagues and the rest of America to join me in fighting to keep our Republic.
Mr. Speaker, today, I rise to recognize my friend, the legendary musician, American, and east Tennessean, Kenny Chesney. Today is his birthday, Mr. Speaker, and I can't think of a more fitting birthday present for Kenny than the announcement that he will be inducted into the Country Music Hall of Fame.
He was born in Knoxville. Kenny is a graduate of Gibbs High School, which is not a mile from my house, where he had a storied career in baseball and football. He went on to graduate from East Tennessee State University, Mr. Speaker.
Kenny has cemented himself in American history with his timeless hits. While I know the accolades mean very little to a man of his character, I am going to name a few of them anyway.
Kenny has won four Country Music Association Entertainer of the Year awards. He has had 33 number one hits and has been nominated for multiple Grammys.
I wish Kenny a happy birthday. I congratulate him on his induction into the Country Music Hall of Fame. I thank him for making east Tennessee proud.
I will always remember the first time he won Country Music Entertainer of the Year. He took his momma up on stage. I thought that was pretty cool. His dad, Dave, was a teacher at Bearden Junior High School where I attended. His whole family has just been wonderful to me.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the topic of this Special Order.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Utah?
Mr. Speaker, the last few weeks have been nonstop. The Trump administration and congressional Republicans have been advancing legislation and policies that put Americans first.
Just last week President Trump issued an executive order that puts decisions about our students' education back where it belongs, in the hands of parents and the States.
As the father of four young boys, I know firsthand that those closest to educating my children--the teachers, administrators, and special aides--are the ones who know what they need to get ahead academically and succeed.
Data shows that our current educational system is failing our students. Our outcomes are not where they need to be. Reading and math scores are not where they need to be, et cetera.
We have got plenty to focus on with this particular issue. I am right in the thick of it. My wife and I are very much in the thick of it. We could not be more grateful for the support that we have back home with our teachers. It has been probably one of the most positive things in our lives as we see those boys progress.
House Republicans are also continuing to assess our education system
I applaud Michael Baumgartner, a new freshman out of Washington, for his work on this important bill.
We are also seeking to reverse harmful Biden-era energy regulations on essential home appliances, including refrigerators and freezers. Americans deserve the ability to purchase the appliances that best suit their families' functional and financial needs.
I am grateful to Congresswoman Stephanie Bice and Congressman Craig Goldman for taking the lead on this issue. I will speak more on these later.
This week, we are seeing great progress in getting our reconciliation package to the next step. The efforts seek to serve Americans better by securing our border, supporting our economy, bolstering domestic energy production, maintaining a pro-family and pro-growth Tax Code, and much, much more.
I thank each Member involved in these critical discussions for their work, and I thank my good friend from California (Mr. LaMalfa) for being here today to kick us off with his message.
Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. LaMalfa).
Mr. Speaker, I thank Mr. Moore for leading us in these efforts to help enlighten folks on what we are doing here in Congress to give people more choice, more options, and have goods be more reasonably priced and available for them.
As we are coming out of the Biden administration, we saw a lot of devastation to the economic conditions for families, for homes, for small businesses, et cetera. In Washington, there seems to be an obsession with overregulation. It does make life harder for everyday Americans.
Under the Biden administration, the energy efficiency standards became weapons of control, driving up costs, limiting choices and strangling economic growth.
Under the antienergy agenda that President Biden had, American families felt the pinch every day, every time they turned on a light, heated their home, powered their appliances, or drove their car. These so-called efficiency standards didn't lower costs, they shifted the burden on to local level wallets and bank accounts.
Back in my home State of California we see the impact firsthand, as these ideas seemed to start there first, between skyrocketing energy bills and blackouts caused by misguided policies. Public safety power shutoffs is what they call them. When the wind is blowing and they haven't trimmed the trees in the forested areas around the power lines they have to shut off the power rather than doing the work out in the forests that is needed, but that is another issue.
All of this causes families to have to pay more for less reliability in their needs.
This is the future that our Democratic colleagues seem to want for the rest of America, one where energy is not affordable nor dependable. The conversations keep pushing more toward wind and solar, which are fine in and of themselves, but they are a tiny part of the grid. They are not a 24/7 available source of power anyway such as we would get from nuclear energy, hydroelectric, natural gas, or coal. Those can be counted on at any time. You can turn them on and use them at any time. Obviously with the wind or solar you have to wait for the Sun to come up, the clouds to go away, for it to stop raining, or the wind to blow--as long as the wind doesn't blow too hard, which in that case, they have to slow down and shut off the windmill because the wind might spin it off of its hinges.
Washington bureaucrats are now trying to dictate what kind of refrigerator you can have, what kind of stove you can use, and even how long your dishwasher should take to run. Most folks want to see that the dishwasher runs long enough to get things clean and dry; the same with your dryer, the same with your clothes washer. Folks want what it takes to get the job done, not some arbitrary shutdown of when a bureaucrat decides you have used enough energy.
So really it is just limiting options and you being told what is good enough for you, rather than what you actually need.
Californians have already been through a lot of this. We have been forced to live with policies that prioritize these whims of regulators over the needs of families. Indeed, we have seen the elimination of many outdoor tools, gas-powered lawn mowers, weed eaters, leaf blowers, and I will come back to even they are trying to take away generators.
Now, how do you take away a gas- or diesel-powered generator? When the electricity goes off, and you need something to replace that at least temporarily, what do you power that generating vehicle with? It isn't going to be other electricity. Some will argue we need to have batteries with this power saved up. Okay. Well, there are a lot of issues with batteries on what it takes to make them, what do you do with the metals and the materials from a battery that is now no longer useful and it has to be discarded versus just having something that works at the flick of a switch or the pull of a cord. You can start your generator using gasoline or diesel and have great success like you had for generations. They want to take all these options away from us.
Indeed, they do many things to inconvenience families, small businesses, and they also strangle our economy. It is amazing to go out to Tractor Supply or someplace like that, and they have a whole lineup of those outdoor appliances and they are all electric. It just happened overnight. I don't know how well they are selling or how well people like them, but we have to get to a point where we can overcome these mandates or at least not have them at the Federal level for the other 49 States or whatever amount of States that are not following California as more and more of them seem to want to get toward with California's craziness.
Manufacturers are forced to spend millions trying to comply with these rules changing the dynamics, changing the makeup of how their equipment works.
Take the electric car industry, for example. I remember back in California in about 1990, the California Air Resources Board, known as CARB, pretty famous now, I believe it was 1990 they wanted to mandate that 10 percent of all vehicles by the year 2000 had to be zero- emissions vehicles. At the time, all that would mean is, well, you have to use batteries instead of fuel.
The manufacturers were standing on their heads, the auto manufacturers, trying to figure out how are we going to meet this mandate in 10 years for 10 percent production. You ended up with these basically glorified golf carts with batteries on them using the same old battery technology we had and finding out that you can't just slap a license plate on a golf cart and have a practical vehicle for people. They actually had to relent on that mandate before 2000 occurred, but you still saw these little golf carts running around dealerships with license plates on them pretending to be automobiles that people would buy.
They don't always know by making a mandate--many in those institutions believe that, well, if we force the mandate, then they will come up with the technology. Well, battery technology still hasn't made a quantum leap into the future yet to where it can be such an incredible source and for long extended periods as really the previous generation. They have got more experimental materials. They have different, more exotic materials they are actually using now, but the battery life hasn't extended that much more than what batteries of 20 years ago were doing.
The more we hamstring the energy production and force businesses to conform with out-of-touch mandates, the more time businesses have to waste on developing technology, which really isn't going to go anywhere. The further refinement of internal combustion engines has so far achieved amazing results with how clean gasoline and diesel engines are running these days. They have put the filtration systems and the fuel additives on there to make a diesel engine run pretty darn clean, so why don't we allow those manufacturers to continue in the direction of
We are going to run into a real reckoning in California when these mandates kick in and there are no goods to deliver. People expect to take the raw materials from a mine or from a farm or wherever to the mill, to the manufacturer and then bring a finished product to the store shelf and you go pick it up and bring it home. What is taking away these options, it is going to be a real strangle on the economy of California and any other State foolish enough to follow what we do out there.
So it really isn't about saving energy. It seems to be a lot more about controlling what people do, the ideals of putting people in stacked communities and these walkable communities, transit communities instead of letting them live how they would like to or what is needed.
In my rural district I have in northern California, the people that produce things that other people need whether it is timber, and the products that come from timber, wood, lumber, paper, et cetera, that has to come from a rural area. You need rural people living there that can do that, and they need to have the vehicles and the wherewithal and the tools to do it. That all seems to be taken away. Instead, they would rather burn down those forests.
So what kind of choice is that?
People would like to have choices where they can live as well as what we are talking about previously with energy choices and the energy using apparatus choices in those.
Americans deserve a little bit better than a government that prioritizes green ideology over their own quality of life. What you get right down to is that when these choices are taken away you don't really get that much greener of a lifestyle because there is an offset for taking away the power plants that we have. There is an offset of replacing them with solar panels that cover many, many acres, especially of prime ag ground like they are trying to do in central California in some of the richest ag ground anywhere in the world and products there that so many Americans have come to expect that come from California with these amazing vegetable crops, fruit crops, nut crops. Mr. Speaker, 90 to 99 to even 100 percent of those crops are grown in California, and they want to cover those areas with solar panels because those areas have had their water rights and their water taken away because of more green things and more environmental policies that put the needs of fish over the needs of people.
Instead, we need to go in the direction that puts energy policies that would actually lower prices, expand the consumer choices, and create opportunities for American jobs and an American economy and American prosperity and not have the continued stranglehold we saw under the Biden administration.
The work we are doing here along with President Trump is extremely important to bring these things back to the forefront of families having choices in the basics like their appliances, their automobiles, their ability to heat or cool their homes and just enjoy their life.
We will continue, and I look forward to being part of the battle here of pushing back against that out-of-touch agenda, whether you want to call it the Green New Deal or green ideology and move toward a future where families and not bureaucrats get to decide what works best for them.
Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend from Utah for his leadership.
Mr. Speaker, the United States spends more money per student than any country in the world, yet among developed nations, we sadly rank near the bottom in educational outcomes.
Mr. Speaker, 70 percent of eighth graders, 70 percent, Mr. Speaker, aren't proficient in reading or math according to the latest National Assessment of Educational Progress.
Believe it or not, and it gives me no joy to say this, there are reports that say 54 percent of Americans cannot read at a sixth-grade level. This is not just disappointing; this is indeed a national failure.
At this point, the Department of Education just doesn't need reform, it needs a complete overhaul.
In the last 5 years, the Department of Education has spent over $1 trillion with no measurable gains. Under President Biden its spending surged over 200 percent from $71 billion in 2019 to $268 billion last year.
At the same time, the Biden administration's love of excessive regulations imposed an additional 4.2 million hours of paperwork burdens on schools pulling teachers and administrators away from what matters most--the students.
President Reagan said back in 1982, and President Trump has recently echoed, that we need to turn the schools back to the States and to the local school districts. President Reagan rightly noted that `` . . . the decline and the quality of public education began when Federal aid became Federal interference.''
Fortunately, President Trump and Secretary McMahon are committed to returning control of education back to the States where it belongs and empowering parents, local leaders, and definitely teachers, but putting funding and decisionmaking back in the hands of States is just one piece of the puzzle.
If we truly want to improve student outcomes, we must embrace school choice and voucher programs, something my home State Governor's office in Pennsylvania still refuses to do.
School choice States have flourished. Florida, Indiana, Utah, and Ohio now rank among the best performing K-12 systems in the country. President Trump recognizes the importance of school choice, issuing an executive order directing the Department of Education to guide States on how to use Federal funds for K-12 scholarship programs.
It also instructs the Education Secretary to prioritize school choice when awarding discretionary grants. That is real leadership focused on students, not bureaucracy.
To that end, I am pleased to support H.R. 833, the Educational Choice for Children Act, which offers a Federal tax credit to encourage charitable donations toward scholarships that help families cover K-12 expenses, tuition, books, supplies, and more.
This bill is expected to benefit over 2 million students nationwide, opening the door to better opportunities whether in public, private, religious, or homeschool settings.
Unfortunately, forward-thinking solutions like this are not being considered in my home State of Pennsylvania where there are some families that feel trapped in a system that puts bureaucracy before students.
We cannot allow the status quo to be accepted.
School choice works, Mr. Speaker, and what are these politicians afraid of? I went to a public school, and I had some great teachers. My son went to public high school, and he had some great teachers, but not all of them were.
We need accountability. Parents and children must come first. Reforms are needed, not a year from now, not 5 years from now, but right now. This is critical. We are failing far too many young people.
Education is the foundation of a better life, a stronger economy, and a more advanced society, yet we continue allowing too many students to fall behind.
A child only gets one chance at a quality education. The time for change is now, and thankfully we have a President who puts students, families, and results first. President Trump and his administration will deliver for our students and for their futures.
The executive orders returning education authority to the States not only prioritizes school choice, it also ensures that vital services and benefits continue without disruption during the transition.
That is how we reform education the right way: by empowering parents, protecting students, and putting our educational life and results ahead of regulation.
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the message of the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Meuser). I think it is actually one of the most important things to be focusing on right now.
Mr. Speaker, I take a lot of questions from folks back home. Utah is a State that hits above their weight in academic outcomes. We have large families. This is a big, big deal for us.
The confusion of why would you dismantle the Department of Education, I will make sure I do my part, and I have spoken about this to a lot of constituents back home. One of the key aspects and the things that are important under title I is making sure that we have underfunded communities well represented.
My son is on an IEP. He is a 9-year-old in the third grade. He is on a specialized education plan that meets his needs. My wife painstakingly got us to the point of making sure that that was the right scenario for him.
We value the work that gets done here, and we want to see more resources pushed back to our State, who has largely led this effort. We have had meetings for our boy to be able to get into the situation where he is in a thriving third-grade class at a public school and where he has a little extra attention on things that he does well. He is reading well above a third-grade level, but he really struggles in other areas. He is on the autism spectrum.
The attention that our teachers, local administrators, and PTA have put into our boy, who is the pride of our life, we know that that will be cared for moving on. If we can move as much of those resources back into the decisionmakers' hands, we are going to have success here.
Mr. Speaker, I think we are going to look back at this point down the road and say that this was a key part of why we were able to better fund schools that are in tough communities, to better fund special education needs, and to make sure that we are still fulfilling all of the FAFSA and student loan requirements that we currently do.
Mr. Speaker, let's give this an option. If we are having such bad outcomes holistically, why not take a look and try to do something differently. We can't just keep doing the same thing.
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's commentary on that issue, and I look forward to being a part of this change. I am actually very confident that, when Utah is given more opportunities in the space of education as we move more of those resources back to the State level, we will continue to thrive. I want to be a big part of it. I am sure my wife will be right there birddogging us to make sure that our son will have what he needs to also thrive in this environment. I look forward to that chance.
Mr. Speaker, I have been very encouraged this week to see the House and the Senate Republicans coming together to deliberate on our reconciliation package. We are trying to get this timeline going as quickly as possible. There is an enormous amount of good work that is going on in every committee with respect to this reconciliation package.
This is going to be a key factor to making sure that we maintain a progrowth and profamily tax policy amongst the other aspects of securing our border, bolstering our economy, supporting domestic energy production, promoting peace through strength, and making our government more efficient and effective.
This is the profamily and progrowth tax code that we are developing and have been developing since 2017, and we want to make sure that we don't see these provisions expire.
The number of inversions that took place before 2017 and the repatriation of companies and their operations has been pretty well underrecognized. When you make progrowth tax policy domestically, you encourage companies to repatriate those operations and their intellectual property, and you are able to actually raise revenues.
That is the big thing. If we want to raise the rate on taxes so we can claim we are raising revenues, if the outcome is to raise revenue, then every Democrat should be celebrating what took place in 2017.
What we are trying to make sure doesn't happen now is that those more antiquated international tax policies that encourage companies to put their intellectual property in Ireland and in other European countries or in other tax havens across the world, it encourages them to keep it there or put it there instead of investing back into America.
I wish my Democratic colleagues were more honest on this, because they know and they see the numbers, too. When you create a competitive environment, you are able to actually raise that revenue for the U.S. Companies want to invest here. If they have a competitive tax environment, they will always choose to be back in America.
Mr. Speaker, I worked very hard to get spots on the Committee on Ways and Means and Committee on the Budget. It has been an enormous amount of work getting us to this point, and the lion's share of that work is still up ahead. I wanted to be on those committees for this very moment because I knew that 2025 would be a major tax policy year. Known as the Super Bowl of tax colloquially, I believe that we have a real opportunity to extend tax policies that benefit hardworking Americans and that support families.
Let's remember that the child tax credit was $1,000 pre-2017, and Republicans doubled it without a single Democrat vote in 2017. We are going to go at this alone, it looks like, again, where we are trying to avoid the child tax credit from going back down to $1,000 at the end of this year if we don't get this tax bill done. We want to make sure that we reestablish as much as we possibly can and moving it forward.
I am one of the key leaders on this particular issue with the Family First Act and to making sure that we are supporting families and encouraging that type of positive environment. Strong families will lead to so much good in our communities. I don't want to demean the concept of a strong family, but it is one of the core aspects of having a strong economy.
There is a lot going on now and in the coming months. I am looking forward to seeing the Senate come together and getting us the parameters that they would like to see with respect to this tax package. We are working very close in hand with our Senate Committee on Finance and Senate leadership to be able to take a look to see what this reconciliation bill is ultimately going to pan out.
We recognize that it will be a partisan moment back here because we won't have any support from Democrats on these incredibly important progrowth and profamily tax policies. That is just the nature of this place, but we are working very hard to build this out and continue on the successes that we have had from 2017.
Mr. Speaker, the irony of this place is that all of those tax provisions could have been repealed in 2021 and 2022, when Democrats had the White House, House, and Senate. None of them were because Democrats recognized deep down that doubling the child tax credit, doubling the standard deduction, encouraging increased wage growth without the inflation that came from the American Rescue Plan, which we saw the Democrats enact in 2021, all of that positive economic growth is actually a very good solution.
I hate that this place ends up being so partisan in these moments of what we call the trifecta, when one party has the White House, House, and Senate. It is just the way that it is, but there is so much of this tax policy that both sides of the aisle share a common vision on.
We did an awesome bipartisan tax bill last year. I wish it would have been able to survive in the Senate, but it didn't. There is so much good that will come out of what we are going to extend here.
I shared a lot of this with my newsletter followers yesterday. I feel like, as congressional Republicans, we have the most momentum now that we have ever seen regarding our looming debt crisis.
A statistic I shared is that, for several decades, our Federal revenues have remained at approximately 17 percent of GDP. Over the last couple of decades, our expenditures have skyrocketed to 26 percent of GDP. In the early 2000s, our expenditures were approximately 17 percent to 18 percent.
The way I shared it was that I know it is sort of the old adage that we don't have a revenue problem, but we have a
Remember that, in 2017, even though we reduced taxes in multiple areas, we have what is called broadened the base, which actually helped bring in more tax revenue. We have continually maintained that 17 percent of GDP, but our spending has gone from about 17 percent to 26 percent over the last 25 years.
You have to look at things with respect to GDP. That is why I always talk about debt to GDP and how we are at World War II levels while we have largely been in peacetime. We have to take advantage of this.
This is not going to be easy. This is not going to be overnight. Yet, with progrowth tax policy, which keeps our economy strong and keeps our GDP moving in the right direction, we have an opportunity to limit some of this spending. It is not going to be easy. I never intended for it to be.
Anytime you add to the budget, it is much easier. Trying to remove from the budget is much, much more difficult, as anybody could probably attest. Yet, it is something that has to be done, and I hope that we can continue to do it in the most thoughtful way possible. We have a really strong plan.
Our committees have been working on this for months and months to identify where the best opportunities for savings over the next 10-year budget cycle are. In doing so, we want to be able to change that trajectory of, like I said, 26 percent of GDP. It is far too high, and we have to recognize that data that has been a success for our Nation.
I am thankful to be on these two committees as we work toward a really difficult needle to thread in getting this policy done, but we are moving it along.
I thank all of my Senate colleagues who are equally working on this. This is ultimately why I am back here, is to make sure that this work is done in the most responsible way possible. As we navigate the reconciliation process over the next few months, I look forward to being able to celebrate some significant wins for our American families and our economy.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material in the Record.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the gentlewoman from Michigan?
Mr. Speaker, the United States won its independence 250 years ago in the Revolutionary War, and our journey as the United States of America began. Yet, 250 years ago, I could not be standing where I am today. Women did not have the right to vote, to hold public office, or to own property 250 years ago. Some women were property 250 years ago. Women were a footnote to the story of our country's founding 250 years ago.
Today, 250 years later, women make up 125 Members in the Congress, and the Democratic Women's Caucus is 96 strong. Women now make up more than 58 percent of college graduates, 40 percent of all businesses are women owned, and more than 52 Fortune 500 companies are led by women.
This kind of change did not happen by accident. It happened because our mothers, grandmothers, great-grandmothers, aunties, sisters, and cousins dared greatly and forged new paths for us to walk on. The freedoms and privileges we enjoy today are because of those who came before us. These are their stories.
Over the next hour, we will hear from women Members across the country who will share the stories of heroines who changed the course of history.
Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from North Carolina, Ms. Deborah Ross.
Mr. Speaker, I thank Congresswoman Scholten for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor former Ambassador Jeanette Hyde, who, sadly, passed away last month.
A North Carolina native, Ambassador Hyde was a trailblazer who paved the path for generations of women in our State. Her contributions to our community span industries, from her time as a social worker and teacher to serving as the first woman on the North Carolina Board of Transportation.
Ambassador Hyde was an active philanthropist, never forgetting her roots and always giving back to North Carolina causes and organizations.
It is especially meaningful to celebrate her legacy during Women's History Month.
As a leader and influential advocate, she pushed for ratification of the equal rights amendment and women's full participation in the political process. She never gave up on her vision of an America where every woman has a chance to make her voice heard.
At a time when women are facing unprecedented attacks from the Trump administration, we should all seek to emulate Ambassador Hyde's grit and grace over the next 4 years. Like Jeanette, we cannot back down in the face of threats to women's healthcare, accessible childcare, equal pay, and more.
Mr. Speaker, as we recognize Women's History Month, I rise, as an OB/GYN, in fierce defense of our Nation's moms and babies.
Right now, the Republican majority in Congress is launching a full attack on America's families.
Let's start first with where we are in our country. We are facing a serious and worsening maternal healthcare crisis.
Just look at this map. In more than half of our country, women do not have a place to go that provides obstetric care. Among peer nations, we have both the highest rate of maternal deaths and the highest rate of infant deaths--in the United States of America.
This is a crisis. It is an unacceptable crisis, and it demands immediate action from our Nation's legislators.
Yet, the Republican majority is shoving a budget through that would gut Medicaid, which is the single largest payer of maternity care in our country, in order to give tax cuts to billionaires.
As an OB/GYN who has spent my life caring for women and delivering babies, let me tell you: It is unconscionable to threaten the care women receive before, during, and after pregnancy, but that is exactly what the Republican majority is doing with their budget.
Republicans are choosing to shut down more hospitals and clinics across the country. Republicans are choosing to make even more of our country into maternal care deserts. Republicans are choosing to take healthcare away from moms and babies.
It does not have to be this way. As we celebrate Women's History Month, I implore the Republican majority to make their policy match their profamily rhetoric and choose to put America's moms and babies first.
Mr. Speaker, clearly, history is still being made this Women's History Month as we have an unprecedented number of changemaker women from across the country who are standing up and fiercely defending their constituents. We are so grateful for their work in Congress.
Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Maryland, Representative Sarah Elfreth.
Mr. Speaker, Commander Janie L. Mines was the first African-American woman to graduate from the U.S. Naval Academy in 1980.
Commander Kristine Holderied, a Howard County native, was the first woman to graduate as valedictorian not only from the Naval Academy but from any service academy, in 1984.
Midshipman Kristen Dickmann, a Naval Academy freshman and volleyball player, tragically passed away at the age of 19 in 2008. Her memory is now honored every single year, for over the last decade, via a tournament in her honor.
Midshipman 1st Class Sydney Barber, the Naval Academy's first African-American female brigade commander,
I share these names and stories because these are women and women of color who are an integral part of the rich history of the United States Naval Academy that I have the privilege of representing. It is not just the Naval Academy. They represent our military and, proudly, our Nation.
I want to be clear that this administration's unrelenting and reckless attack on the stories and the history of persistence, diversity, and opportunity only serves to set us back.
When faculty at our five world-class service academies are told to avoid divisive concepts like racism and sexism, that only threatens to erase the stories and experiences of these brave women who just wanted to serve our great Nation.
I strongly believe that we should have a Navy and Marine Corps that look like our country, where our midshipmen receive an education that teaches the accurate and full history of this Nation, where the stories of women and people of color aren't skipped over because they are inconvenient.
This is all critical to our national security and strong democratic principles that we embody abroad. It is for these women and the hundreds of thousands of women serving our Nation at home and abroad that I am here today.
Mr. Speaker, as the first woman in history to hold my seat in Congress, I am always thinking about the history-making women of the past, present, and future. I am honored to highlight a few stories of history-making women Michiganders now.
I am honored to highlight Michigander Harriet Quimby, the first American woman to earn a pilot's license and the first woman ever to fly solo across the English Channel. Her career in aviation was short but accomplished.
Flying from the U.S. to England, Mexico, and more, Harriet's legacy serves as a reminder that women can soar to whatever heights they set their minds to.
We are so proud to claim that Sojourner Truth made her home in Michigan for the last 27 years of her life, a fearless abolitionist and women's rights advocate who used her powerful voice to demand justice. Born into slavery, she escaped and dedicated her life to fighting for freedom and equality. Her famous ``Ain't I a Woman?'' speech challenged the exclusion of Black women from the suffrage movement, leaving a legacy that continues to inspire generations.
Anna Howard Shaw was a trailblazer in every sense of the word, becoming one of the first female ordained ministers in the United States and later a physician. She dedicated decades to the fight for women's suffrage, serving as the president of the National American Woman Suffrage Association. Her leadership and relentless advocacy helped secure the right to vote, proving that determination and conviction, as well as persistence, can change the course of history.
Clara Arthur, known as the Mother of the Playground Movement, believed in creating a better world for future generations. As president of the Michigan Equal Suffrage Association, she worked tirelessly to advocate for women's voting rights. Her activism extended beyond the ballot box. She championed education, labor reforms, and public spaces for children, ensuring that progress didn't just mean progress for some. It meant progress for all.
Lucia Voorhees Grimes was a dedicated suffragist who played a pivotal role in Michigan's fight for women's voting rights. As a leader in the Michigan Equal Suffrage Association, she traveled the State organizing campaigns, educating voters, and pushing for legislative change. Her unwavering commitment helped pave the way for Michigan women to claim their rightful place in the democratic process.
These are the stories of past historymakers who have changed the course of our Nation. The freedoms we enjoy today are because they refused to sit idly by, and now, as we see unprecedented attacks on our healthcare, on our rights, we also see everyday women, especially in places like my hometown in Grand Rapids, Michigan, who refuse to sit quiet.
I refuse to stand by while Republicans, Donald Trump, and billionaires like Elon Musk try to gut essential programs like Medicaid, a lifeline that millions of families rely on.
No parent should have to choose between their child's health and paying their bills. We are fighting to protect the care that women and families depend on because healthcare isn't a privilege for the wealthy; it is a right for everyone.
I highlight a brave mom from my district, Abby Koroma, a mother of two visually impaired daughters who depend on Medicaid. Without this critical program, Abby would be forced to make impossible decisions: whether she has enough in her bank account for treatments that could save her children's vision or putting food on the table.
No parent should have to face that choice, but Republicans in Congress right now, aided by Donald Trump and Elon Musk, are willing to rip away this essential healthcare from families like Abby's just to hand out more tax cuts to the ultrawealthy.
We won't let it happen. We are the women who are standing in the gap and standing up for these families. We will fight every day to protect Medicaid, to stand up for families who depend on it, and to make sure that no one in this country is left wondering whether they can afford the care that they need for themselves or their families.
I stand here today so that no one has to wonder who they have fighting for them. We are here, standing together and fighting for families across the country.
Mr. Speaker, I thank the women who joined me here today to stand up and highlight the powerful women of their home States and the impacts that they have had on changing the course of history.
Mr. Speaker, I think it is important to hear from legislators on the experiences they had before this week as they toured their district and as they talked to normal people to see whether their concerns and observations squared with those of the people in this building.
Donald Trump has done a great job of trying to remove the diversity, equity, and inclusion from our government, including our military. We have, to a degree, gotten rid of some of the bureaucrats who pushed this odious ideology in our businesses and our schools.
Nevertheless, these bureaucrats everywhere are waiting to gain a foothold in America again as soon as we have another administration, and it is important to educate the young people in this country as to the degree to which America is really a broken system, a racist system, and whether white supremacy is a major problem, as Joe Biden said.
While I was back home, I had an opportunity to speak to a mosque of Ahmadiyya Muslims. Ahmadiyya Muslims have a little bit different theology than Muslims in general. They are persecuted by those members of Islam who live in Pakistan, and many of them have had to flee Pakistan even with regards to their own personal safety.
Nevertheless, when I met with the Ahmadiyya Muslims, there were two things that hit me: First of all, they were all successful, at least the ones I met. I asked them whether they knew of any of them that were having children out of wedlock. They knew nobody like that. They all seemed to be working hard and succeeding in America.
This, of course, is at complete odds with the DEI ideology in which people who are not Europeans are struggling or can't succeed in America. Indeed, the Ahmadiyya Muslims are one more example of a group of people who are succeeding in this land of opportunity.
Actually, they were very thrilled to praise America. They praised us not only as being a much better place to live than Pakistan, but they pointed out we are a much better place to live than Europe. They laughed at Europe, which they referred to as a ``socialist continent'' and one in which there was
I would like to point out that another, I guess you would call, minority that is very common in my district is the Hmong, who came here from Laos. They as well are achieving, doing well, having strong families, succeeding in the realm of education, and all seem to have jobs. This despite the fact that when they came here from Laos, again, many of them didn't know the language. It, again, shows it is a lie for any of these DEI professionals--be they in business, government, or education--to say that America is not a place where people can succeed.
As a practical matter, while I don't think the Hmong are a large enough minority to have statistics on how well they are doing economically, it is apparent subjectively that they are probably doing better than the average American who was born here and, indeed, larger minorities for which we have statistics.
I remind everybody that people who come here from India, who are the most successful minority, Philippines, China, Japan, Cuba, the coast of western Africa all are succeeding wildly in America. All it takes is hard work and strong families, and all these groups have strong families.
I encourage our educators and all our policymakers to educate the people back home on all the groups from all around the world who are doing a fantastic job. I think they are doing, in part, a fantastic job because they don't listen to the naysayers who want to run down America and apparently say that if you are not succeeding and things aren't going right, it is because of prejudice.
The next thing I would like to point out is immigration is still in the news. There are some people who complain about Donald Trump doing what he so desperately has to do, and that is to remove the people who snuck into this country illegally.
I want to point out to everyone that, again, in the last year we had many new Americans who were naturalized. There are people who say about the people who are being removed: Why can't we let them stay? We have a system in this country to make sure that we are getting the best people, the law-abiding, the self-reliant people, which is all we should need here.
We took in 850,000 last year on a rolling 3-year average. I still believe we are at the all-time high of even more than that. We should be reminding anybody who says we are mean or not doing our share of taking in people who would rather live here that, in fact, we took in 850,000 naturalized citizens; those are new citizens.
That is not including the approximately 10 million people who are here on student visas, work visas, or tourist visas. As far as people who want to spend a short time here, particularly to work, we are even more generous that way. I have heard of no strong efforts being made to greatly reduce these numbers.
Again, we have to remind our young people, our constituents, not to put up with this anti-American rhetoric of why are we kicking these people out. We have to remind people every year that in this country we wind up swearing in about 850,000 new people legally. I think if you think about that number for a little bit, something that is far higher than the historical average in this country, you will realize it is ridiculous to say this country is in any way xenophobic.
As I mentioned, one of the strong predictors of success in this country for everybody--for women, men, and children--is that of strong families. I think we have to spend some time pondering why it seems to be that people who are used to the American culture seem to have weaker family ties than those people who are coming here from other countries.
It is my personal belief that the reason we have weak families in America--and one of the reasons why our American children cannot do as well as children whose ancestors come from Pakistan or India or Philippines--is that we have such strong incentives in America, through a horrible broken welfare system, to discourage mothers and fathers to stay together with their children.
This began in the 1960s under Lyndon Johnson, who I felt, before Joe Biden, was the worst President in this country's history. In the 1950s, we only had about 4 percent of American children born without a mother and father at home. We now have over 40 percent who are born without a mother and father at home.
This doesn't mean there aren't wonderful single parents. I know some single parents, particularly emotionally strong single parents, who have done a fantastic job of raising their children. Anybody would be proud of them. However, the statistics make it obvious that overall children would be better off if they had a mother and father at home.
Almost every program in what would be referred to as ``the welfare state'' has incentives to discourage there from being a mother and father at home. This is because eligibility for almost every program is based upon percent of poverty. If you are a single parent and don't have a job or are working part time, you are eligible for many other programs. I think probably the most damaging is that of low-income housing where if, say, a single parent has a child, even when they are a minor without another parent at home, you are eligible for low-income housing, which means almost no rent and the ability to get away from your parents.
Other programs that also discourage marriage, programs that you would lose eligibility for if both parents were working and had a child are the food-share programs, the Medicaid programs, the earned income tax credit, the Pell grants. Indeed, I could go on. There are about 90 different programs in America which are designed to go to a single- parent family, but if you have a two-parent family making a decent income, they are considered not in poverty and, therefore, they are not eligible for a program.
This is why, anecdotally, if you get out in your district, away from the fundraisers and such, you find so many stories of single parents who may even live with the other parent--sometimes illegally--but they don't want to get married because they lose all this money.
Nobody is eligible for all 90 programs at once, but I don't think it is difficult to find hypotheticals in which a parent alone is eligible for maybe $25,000 or $30,000 that they would lose if they were married to the other parent. In other words, it seems like the policy of the United States is to try to discourage the strong families, which are one of the reasons why so many immigrants--be it the Ahmadiyya Muslims or the Cubans or the Mexicans or the Filipinos--seem to do so well in America, indeed frequently better than so many of the native born.
We are soon going to pass a reconciliation bill, and that reconciliation bill will be a tremendous bill, a revolutionary bill. The bill, I think, is going to try to get America back to its roots. Certainly, one of the goals of this bill has to be to get rid of the huge marriage penalty, which has such an impact on causing there to be many fewer children with a mother and father at home than are necessary.
I think it is important to look at all the programs I just named off, as well as a few others, particularly any low-income housing programs, because it is not right that a young person can receive their dream of renting an apartment, not in their parents' home, by having a child out of wedlock.
I also want to point out with regard to these immigrants coming here, there are so many more than there used to be when I was growing up. Right now, as far as the people who feel we are not allowing enough people in this country, in the 1960s we were around 200,000 a year. Now we are around 850,000 a year. We are about four times what we were when I was a child. By historical standards, we have been very, very generous.
The next question is: Why are we seeming to subsidize or have set up programs with an apparent hatred of having both a mother and father at home? You might think that every politician would be encouraging having both a mother and father at home, and this must have been an inadvertent thing.
It is important for the young people today that they know that there is a strong number, it is a small number,
Certainly, there were people who felt this way during the French Revolution when we had the atheistic mobs killing the clergy. It continued through Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels in the 1800s. The Marxists were hostile to the family. A goal of theirs was to get rid of the family. It winds its way all the way up through communism and the feminists in the 1960s.
Let me give you a couple quotes of people who are famous, who were well-known to people in the 1960s. We have Simone de Beauvoir: ``As long as the family and the myth of the family . . . have not been destroyed, women will still be oppressed.''
There is also Germaine Greer: ``I'm passionately opposed to the nuclear family.''
Then we have Kate Millett, who some people would consider to be the mother, or whatever, of women's studies programs, which are all over our universities: ``The complete destruction of traditional marriage and the nuclear family is the `revolutionary or utopian' goal of feminism.''
Eventually, Angela Davis, another person prominent in the revolutions that were taking place in the 1960s, was very antifamily. Even since I have been in Congress, we had the Black Lives Matter movement, who came out against what was referred to as the ``traditional family.''
This is not only a problem for children, it is a problem for the men. I think men are frequently more likely to cause problems and be less productive if they are not connected with a family, and social scientists like George Gilder have pointed this out. One of the reasons why I think we have a disproportionate number of men in prison, men doing drugs is because they are not connected with a family, and that was because of all these programs which provide financial incentives to make sure that one of the parents, usually the man, is not part of the family.
Mr. Speaker, Black Lives Matter stated that they want to get rid of what is known as the traditional nuclear family. It is a group that a lot of people in this building were happy to stand with, despite stating that on their website. Eventually they took it down, but it shows the power even today.
Mr. Speaker, you might ask why in the world anybody would be antifamily. Why would any politician do that? I mention these powerful people who seem to have a stranglehold on the Democratic Party. Who is for having men participate in women's sports? Who is for an abortion at 8\1/2\ months? Who is for men in the women's locker room? The same group is for them all.
It is the same group that is against having children raised in a nuclear family. It is the radical feminists and their successors from the 1960s. As long as they have such a vise grip on the leftwing of this body, I am afraid they will continue to break down the American family.
In any event, I think those are three things that we have to look at and remember to tell young people. It is the fact that people who are not from Europe come to America and succeed wildly again and again. Statistically, these groups are doing better than the native born, be it the Muslims, Hmong, Chinese, Filipino, Cuban, Nigerian, what have you.
I think we have to remember that it is the welfare structure which is right now creating huge incentives not to raise children in a nuclear family. Frequently there is a penalty of $25,000 or $30,000 for getting married to the father of one's children. This affects so many other problems that we have in America.
The crime problem is a family breakdown problem. The drug problem is certainly not exclusive, but it is a strong element of the family breakdown problem. In talking to teachers, particularly in the area of special education, frequently the problems stem from a breakdown in the family.
We have to do something to remove these horrible marriage penalties. I really don't think America is truly going to be great again until we have a dramatic cut in 40 percent of children who are born without a mother and father at home.
Those are three big issues today. We should educate the young people on all of the issues. Until they realize what our government is doing, they may go back to the days of Joe Biden, a time in which he tried to divide people by ethnic background.
We will continue down the path of having huge incentives not to get married, and our young people will continue to be educated that America has a huge race problem and that we should not be adequately proud of America.
As I mentioned, right now there are many examples of ethnic groups who are doing better than the native born today, which puts a lie to the idea that anybody is not succeeding in this country because their ancestors did not come from Europe.
Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.
The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at 3 o'clock and 49 minutes p.m.), under its previous order, the House adjourned until tomorrow, Thursday, March 27, 2025, at 9 a.m.
