Floor Statements

Madam Chair, like many of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle here today, I believe we need an all-of-the-above energy approach in this country.

As a Member of Congress representing a district that is 65 percent covered in corn and soybeans every single summer, that all-of-the-above approach includes strong support for biofuels.

When prices at the gas pump were rising last year, I worked across the aisle to pass legislation allowing for the year-round sales of E15 through this House. This was the first time a bill like this passed this body.

Renewable fuels like E15 are made with a higher ethanol blend than regular gasoline and can sell for up to 40 cents less per gallon in Minnesota.

Investments in E15 and biofuels mean new markets for our family farmers growing corn and soybeans in my district, and it means giving our domestic energy supply security and reinforcement as we work to increase U.S. energy independence.

I am proud to have worked last summer to pass the largest investment in biofuels in our Nation's history through the Inflation Reduction Act.

This is a game changer for corn growers and soybean farmers in my district, and it is a commonsense way to help protect our environment, strengthen our energy independence, and lower costs for Americans.

The Inflation Reduction Act included many more investments in renewable energy and important reforms to our oil and gas leasing practices.

Today, House Republicans are putting forth hyperpartisan legislation to roll back the climate progress we made in the last Congress, gutting clean air and drinking water protections and giving handouts to polluters.

Their so-called all-of-the-above energy bill does not contain even a discussion of biofuels. There were amendments offered by my colleague in Iowa to include biofuels in this legislation. Republicans blocked them.

Madam Chair, it is one thing to say you support an all-of- the-above energy approach. It is entirely another thing to actually do it.

I will work with anyone to lower costs for my constituents and to support Minnesota farmers, but this bill is a handout to Big Oil and a slap in the face to family farmers.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to thank and congratulate Maria Ferrara for four years and two plus Congresses as my Director of Operations.

Maria has been with my office since the early days of my first term starting first as my scheduler and elevating to the absolutely vital role of Director of Operations. For years, Maria has truly kept our office running and functioning at a high capacity.

She's fielded countless meeting requests, hearings and speaking engagements, helped operationalize our office's remote work policies during the pandemic and constantly sought out ways to improve our processes. And she's got the best advice on D.C. restaurants of anyone I know.

I've appreciated Maria's advice and counsel in various roles over the years and wish her the best in her new adventure off the Hill. I'll miss her greatly on my team--and wish her best of luck as she continues on in her career.

Mr. Chairman, I support parents' rights, and I am proud to live in the State of Minnesota where parents have a right to remove their child from a class assignment if they are not comfortable with the subject matter. That is State law today in Minnesota.

I hear from parents across Minnesota's Second District every day who are worried about their children. And I hear from teachers every day who need more support and resources for their students.

Mr. Chair, there are more than 800,000 public school students in Minnesota.

I don't think Washington politicians, the people standing here on the House floor today, should mandate which books are in their school libraries.

I don't think Washington politicians should mandate their parent- teacher conference schedules.

I don't think Washington politicians should mandate whether these 800,000 kids get the mental health support they need.

Let's be real about what this bill is actually about.

This is about MAGA Republicans who want to start a fake culture war targeting some of the most vulnerable kids in America in our kids' classrooms. Shame on you.

If you want to support parents, let's fully fund our public schools and sharpen our focus on special education programs. Let's figure out how we recruit and retain talented teachers. Let's get our kids and educators the mental health resources they desperately need.

Mr. Chair, let's leave the power to decide what is best for students at the local level.

Mr. Chair, I support parents' rights, but this bill has nothing to do with that.

Mr. Chair, I include in the Record a letter from the National Association of School Psychologists expressing serious concern with this legislation.

National Association of

School Psychologists,

Bethesda, MD, March 7, 2023.

Hon. Virginia Foxx,

Chair, House Committee Education and the Workforce.

Hon. Bobby Scott,

Ranking Member, House Committee Education and the Workforce.

Re: Markup of Parents Bill of Rights and Protection of Women

and Girls in Sports Act of 2023

Dear Chairwoman Foxx and Ranking Member Scott: On behalf of

the National Association of School Psychologists (NASP), and

our 25,000+ members, I write to express significant concerns

regarding the harmful impact of the Parents Bill of Rights

Act (H.R. 5) and the Protection of Women and Girls in Sports

Act of 2023 (H.R. 734). School psychologists work with

families, educators, administrators, and community members to

collectively meet the academic, social emotional, and mental

and behavioral health needs of students. We are committed to

ensuring that every child: has access to well-rounded,

comprehensive, and inclusive curricula; receives the

comprehensive learning supports they need to be successful

and; attends a school with a safe, supportive learning

environment free of bullying, harassment, and discrimination

for all students. Importantly, we work to foster effective

partnerships between families and educators, who share

equally the responsibility for the learning and success of

all students. School psychologists work with school leaders

to create equitable and accessible family engagement systems

in which the diverse perspectives of all families are

actively sought out, acknowledged, and valued. Collectively,

elements of H.R. 5 and H.R. 734 undermine these commitments

by: prioritizing the voices and perspectives of a small

subset of families; condoning discrimination; limiting

curricula; and preventing schools from ensuring physical and

psychological safety.

Further, elements of these bills will significantly

exacerbate the current youth mental health crisis,

particularly for LGBTQ+ and other marginalized youth.

Parents Bill of Rights (H.R. 5)

Title I--Amendments to the Elementary and Secondary Education

Act of 1965

Sec 101 and Sec 103. State and Local Educational Agency

Plan Assurances

NASP supports efforts to increase transparency and access

to information about school curricula. Existing provisions in

FERPA and PPRA clearly articulate the rights of parents to

review school curricula and materials as well as opt their

child out of specific lessons or survey administration. It is

critical that parents and families know what is happening in

their child's classroom so that they may engage with their

children about what they are learning, and even offer

differing viewpoints and helping their children think

critically. Requirements to make this information publicly

available to all creates an unnecessary burden on the SEA and

LEA which is unattainable and will further impede already

strained local and state education systems. Despite our

belief that Sec 101 and Sec 103 are redundant, we offer the

following edits to ensure that all information is accessible

to all families: families and other persons with disabilities

and those who speak a language other than English:

Sec 101 State Plan Assurances

(O)(i)(I) ``posts on a publicly accessible website of the

agency, in a manner that is accessible to persons with

disabilities and those who speak a language other than

English, such curriculum;

(O)(i)(II) if such agency does not operate a website,

widely disseminates to the public in a manner that is

accessible to persons with disabilities and those who speak a

language other than English such curriculum;

(O)(ii)(I) ``posts on a publicly accessible website of the

agency, in a manner that is accessible to persons with

disabilities and those who speak a language other than

English:

(O)(ii)(II) ``if such agency does not operate a website,

widely disseminates to the public, in a manner that is

accessible to persons with disabilities and those who speak a

language other than English, such curriculum;''

(P) ``in the case of any revisions . . . the State

educational agency will post to the homepage of its website,

and widely disseminate to the public, in a manner that is

accessible to persons with disabilities and those who speak a

language other than English,''

Sec 103 Local Plan Assurances

(9) ``post on a publicly accessible website of the local

educational agency or, if the local educational agency does

not operate a website, widely disseminate to the public, in a

manner that is accessible to persons with disabilities and

those who speak a language other than English, the plan . .

.''

We also request clarification as to the definition of

'curriculum.' Teachers routinely alter lesson plans or

planned pace of curriculum based on students' progress and

needs. Teachers must maintain the ability to differentiate

instruction and to develop lessons, aligned with state

academic standards, that meet the needs of their students.

Many students receive interventions, specific modifications,

or specially designed instruction (as part of a child's

Individualized Education Program) to ensure access to the

general curriculum and state academic standards. We strongly

caution against considering these instructional materials

'curriculum' as it could inadvertently violate the privacy of

students and their families, especially in smaller

communities where identification is easier.

Sec 104 Parent's Right to Know

We support that parents should have the right to see what

materials are available in the school, to be well informed

about potential changes to state academic standards or key

programmatic offerings (not limited to the elimination of

gifted and talented programs), and to voice their opinion

regarding school and school district policy. This information

must be accessible to all families, and we request the

following revision:

(1) ``Notice of Rights''--A local education agency . . .

posts, in a manner accessible to persons with disabilities

and those who speak a language other than English,''

However, the ``right to review'' outlined in this section

must not be synonymous with the right to demand removal or

alteration of specific books or other material available to

all students. We remain increasingly alarmed at continued

reports of the removal of material highlighting the diversity

of our society and our schools. Restricting access to

accurate information and removing evidence-based practices

that promote inclusivity and cultural responsiveness is

fundamentally handcuffing schools and school staff, and it is

harming children. Public schools exist to prepare young

people to live in a global society and be contributing

citizens. Therefore, schools must have resources and

curricula which is reflective of the world they live in. We

have heard from many school psychologists that parents are

frustrated by the removal of certain books and/or materials

from classrooms and/or curriculum, and they are angry that

their opposition to these removals has been ignored as it is

placing unwanted limitation on their child's exposure to

diversity and excludes specific identities from curricula.

This legislation must clearly articulate that the ``right to

review'' does not give one the legal right to demand removal.

Educators, schools, and districts must be empowered to make

decisions based on empirical evidence and the needs of the

school community, including the unique needs of specific

groups of students without fear of reprisal.

Title II--Amendments to FERPA and PPRA

Many of the rights articulated in H.R. 5, including the

right to inspect instructional material and surveys that may

be administered or distributed by the school, and the right

to opt their child out of participation in specific

activities are statutorily afforded to parents via FERPA and

PPRA. NASP does not object to more stringent requirements to

ensure proper protection of student data and to prohibit the

sale of student information for commercial purposes or

financial gain. However, we have significant concerns that,

collectively, Sec 201 (n) `Disclosure of Information'; Sec

202(b); Sec 202 (c)(2)(D)(i), and the proposed definition of

`Medical Examination or Screening' will significantly impede

schools' ability to support student well-being and mental

health and prevent school violence. Sec 201(n) would require

schools to share with parents, upon request, an individual

students' response to any survey. Implementation of this

provision would prove impossible in many scenarios as the

vast majority of surveys are anonymous by design and

identified data is less likely to be valid. Many school-

administered surveys are intended to provide critical

information necessary to: examine and respond to the

global physical and mental health needs of young people;

guide school and community violence prevention efforts;

inform school safety and school climate initiatives; and

guide efforts to reduce substance use and misuse. These

data are critical to identifying potential risks to

children and youth, and to evaluate system wide efforts to

address specific concerns. Parents maintain the right to

exclude their child from participating in these valuable

data collection efforts, but students must be empowered to

be honest without fear of consequence, punishment, or the

unwanted disclosure of personal information without their

permission. As such, we request the following revision:

``(n) DISCLOSURE OF INFORMATION.--An educational agency or

institution or authorized representative of such agency or

institution shall;

(1) upon request from a parent of a student disclose to

such parent the identity of any individual or entity with

whom information is shared from the education record;

(2) upon request from a parent of a student disclose to

such parent any response of the student to a survey if

(A) information to accurately identify individual students

was collected as part of the survey, as designed, and

(B) the student consents to the disclosure of such

information

(3) inform students, prior to their participation in a

survey in which identifying information is collected, that

their individual responses may be disclosed to a parent upon

request.''

Current law reflects the requirement for parental consent

prior to student participation in specific school

administered surveys, rendering Sec 202 (c)(2)(D)(i)

redundant, and when considered in conjunction with the

proposed definition of `Medical Examination or Screening,

highly concerning. Revision of the current legal definition

of `physical examination' to `Medical Examination or

Screening', which explicitly includes a mental health or

substance use disorder screening, combined with parental

consent requirements will undoubtedly exacerbate the youth

mental health crisis and undermine efforts to improve school

safety. The term `mental health screening' could be

interpreted in a manner that results in significant harm to

school communities. A mental health screening is not

synonymous with a standardized measure or survey intended to

gather personal information about an individual for

diagnostic use. While those tools may be utilized as part of

a holistic approach to identifying and addressing student

need, mental health screening is a process by which

educators, in collaboration with school psychologists or

school mental health professionals, and families, identify

students who may need support. School mental health

professionals will not engage in a therapeutic intervention

with a student without active parental consent. However,

students must be allowed to seek out a trusted adult or

mental health professional, including school psychologists,

at school and these professionals must be able to assess

student well-being and (as part of their responsibility as a

mandatory reporter) immediately assess if there is concern

regarding risk of harm to self or others. As currently

written, H.R 5 would require parental consent prior to any

contact with a school mental health professional and could

result in unnecessary and preventable harm to self or others.

Parents are already notified of reported risk after an

assessment is completed and inability to reach a parent for

consent to do an assessment can have lethal consequences.

We offer the following suggested revision and would welcome

the opportunity to collaborate on statutory language that

ensures availability of comprehensive school mental and

behavioral health services and balances schools' obligation

to support student learning and well-being and maintain a

safe school environment with efforts to improve family

engagement in all aspects of the education system.

MEDICAL EXAMINATION OR SCREENING.--The term `medical

examination or

screening' means any medical examination or screening that

involves the exposure of private body parts, or any act

during such examination or screening that includes incision,

insertion, or injection into the body, or a mental health or

substance use disorder screening, except that such term does

not include:

(i) a hearing, vision, or scoliosis screening;

(ii) an observational screening carried out to comply with

child find obligations under the Individuals with

Disabilities Education Act (20 U.S.C. 1400 et seq.).''

(iii) Informal observation screening, or short term

consultation, of non-therapeutic nature, with a school based

mental health services provider;

(iv) a process to assess and mitigate the risk of inflicted

harm to self or others, provided that parental notification

of such screening occurs as soon as is feasibly possible

unless there is reasonable evidence that parent notification

will result in harm to the child.

Protection of Women and Girls in Sports Act of 2023 (H.R. 734)

NASP believes, and courts have established, that the civil

rights of transgender students are protected as part of U.S.

public schools' obligations under Title IX of the Education

Amendments of 1972. These rights include honoring a person's

right to express gender identity, and the right to modify

gender expression when necessary for individual well-being,

and to have their gender identify affirmed and acknowledged,

the right to explore and question their gender identity, and

the right to participate in activities, including sports,

that correspond with one's gender identity.

We vehemently oppose any effort, including the Protection

of Women and Girls in Sports Act, to define sex based solely

on a person's reproductive biology and genetics at birth,

while this legislation, on its face, is narrowly focused on

the issue of athletics, it is legally tenuous to assume that

Title IX allows for multiple, context specific, definitions

of sex. This definition would most certainly be applied

across all educational activities and programs and amounts to

an assault on the existence and civil rights of transgender,

gender nonconforming and intersex children, adolescents, and

adults in our communities. Further, H.R. 734 places unfair

burden on school administrators, who are not medical

providers, to examine and police a student's body.

Administrators and the National Association of Secondary

School Principals have expressed concern and frustration over

individual state's laws which violate Title IX.

This legislation is a ``solution'' in search of a problem.

The policies of the International Olympic Committee (IOC) and

the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA), among

others have longstanding guidelines regarding participation

on competitive sports teams. The IOC first allowed

transgender participation in the Olympic Games beginning in

2004 and the NCAA has done so since 2011. Both the IOC and

the NCAA have refined their policy to better align with

scientific fact and empirical research; and both

organizations, as well as numerous high school athletic

associations and professional and amateur sports leagues,

currently to allow transgender athletes to compete on teams

and in events aligned with their gender identity. Inclusive

sports participation benefits all students and ensures

equitable opportunities for collegiate sports attainment,

collegiate scholarships, and opportunities to compete in

professional sports. There is absolutely no evidence that

cisgender athletes, or women's athletics in general, are

harmed by these policies.

For almost two decades, transgender athletes in the United

States have been allowed to participate in some of the most

elite national and international competitions as their

authentic selves. Yet, it was not until 2020, out of concern

for the future of women's athletics, that policy makers

sought to prohibit transgender people, particularly

transgender women, from participating in sports teams that

aligned with their gender identity. This legislation is not

about protecting women. This legislation is a thinly veiled

attempt at codifying a harmful and discriminatory definition

of `sex' under the guise of ``protecting women'' from

discrimination in sports. This legislation is not about

sports, it is about further erasing transgender people from

public life. We adamantly oppose this legislation and urge

you to do the same.

We welcome the opportunity to collaborate on legislation

that promotes effective family engagement, ensures access to

a well-rounded and inclusive curriculum, supports student

well-being, and affirms the rights and identities of all

students. Please contact NASP Director of Policy and

Advocacy, Dr. Kelly Vaillancourt with questions, concerns, or

opportunities to promote a public education system that works

for all students.

Sincerely,

Kathleen Minke, PhD, NCSP,

Executive Director.

Mr. Speaker, I am here to recognize the Farmington High School Robotics Team, an impressive group of students, known as the Rogue Robotics, who exemplify the spirit of giving in Farmington.

About 5 years ago, the team received a message from Cillian Jackson's father. Cillian is a young boy living in Farmington, Minnesota, who was born with a genetic condition that makes it hard for him to get around. His father reached out to the team to see if they would be interested in building a custom wheelchair for him.

This talented robotics team took on the challenge and built a wheelchair for Cillian. Over the past 5 years, they have built six more custom wheelchairs free of charge for children with disabilities across our community.

Each member of the Rogue Robotics team has used their talents and expertise to serve our community, and I am tremendously impressed by their talent, hard work, and dedication.

Our future in Minnesota is strong with these kids. I thank them for showing us what selfless service looks like.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to thank and congratulate Will Mitchell for 4 years and 2 Congresses as my Legislative Director.

Will has been a dedicated public servant and legislative staffer to the state of Minnesota for a decade now, previously serving for Congressman Rick Nolan for Will's own hometown district and Duluth, Minnesota.

His expertise on energy and environmental policy helped us enact the Local Water Protection Act during the 117th Congress. He has been instrumental in forming my office as a first-term Member to now a returning Member of the Energy and Commerce Committee. Not only that, Will has been a jack of all trades, working in areas of Agriculture, Transportation and Infrastructure, Tax, Financial Services and so many different policies.

I am grateful for Will's tireless advocacy for local communities in my district, spearheading our offices efforts to secure over $40 million in funding for Community Projects. He helped navigate my legislative portfolio through the pandemic, but also constantly stay on top of the issues impacting working families in Minnesota's Second District.

It has also been a joy watching Will and Sacha's family grow--with 2 young boys, Cal and Charlie, joining us all during his time in my office.

I've appreciated Will's advice and counsel over the years and wish him the best in his new adventure off the Hill.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to celebrate Prior Lake Police Chief Steve Frazer and his 34 years of public service and congratulate him on his retirement. Chief Frazer's dedication to public safety and community service has been vital to Minnesota's Second Congressional District. His law enforcement record spans decades and multiple departments including the St. Paul Police Department, Roseville Police Department, Ramsey County Sheriffs Office, and Prior Lake Police Department.

Chief Frazer retired after three and a half years as the Prior Lake Police Chief. He oversaw a plan to bring the department to full staffing levels and increase officer morale. Chief Frazer also formalized officer training with a focus on de-escalation. It is an honor to have worked with Chief Frazer and I wish him well in his retirement.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday I was proud to watch the House pass my bill naming the South St. Paul, Minnesota Post Office after fallen South St. Paul police officer Leo Pavlak.

In 1933, after only 4 months on the force and at just 38 years old, Officer Pavlak was shot and killed by the notorious Barker-Karpis gang while assisting in a payroll delivery. To this day, he is the only South St. Paul officer to have been killed in the line of duty.

In the 89 years since his death, Leo's children, grandchildren, and great-grandchildren have continued building the impressive Pavlak legacy in law enforcement in our community.

Leo's son, Robert Leo Pavlak, Sr. was a St. Paul police officer. One of his grandsons, Robert, was a Ramsey County deputy, while another grandson, David, worked in St. Paul as a police officer.

And now Leo's great-grandson, Ryan, is following in those very footsteps.

So today, I applaud my colleagues in passing this bill to honor not only Leo's dedication and service but that of the entire Pavlak family.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my Senate colleagues to pass this bill in a timely manner.

Mr. Speaker, my wife, Cheryl, and I were married 14 years ago when one of the first States in our country allowed us to do so. It took years and a Supreme Court ruling to acknowledge and grant the legal protections that come with marriage across this great land. In the ensuing years, we raised our four sons, and we expanded our family of six to nine, adding two daughters-in-law and a grandson to that mix.

I am standing here today because in the year 2022, families like mine are, once again, concerned that an activist, out-of-step Supreme Court is going to take those rights away. Just so we are clear, that Supreme Court and the Members in opposition of this legislation today are out of step with the American people.

Today, I urge all of my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the Respect for Marriage Act, a bill that takes the longstanding and overdue step of repealing DOMA and ensures that same-sex and interracial marriage is recognized in every State, no matter who is sitting on the Supreme Court.

We have made progress. Mr. Speaker, let's not go back.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Maureen Scallen Failor on a successful five-year tenure as President of the Dakota County Regional Chamber of Commerce as she wraps up her impressive run on December 16.

Maureen is an incredible advocate for her small business members across Dakota County. Throughout her time as President, she successfully navigated her membership through the pandemic, oversaw membership growth throughout the region and increased DCRC's presence within the community. Maureen's input on pandemic related legislation and advocacy to ensure Chambers received PPP loans was vital to Minnesota's Second District. I'll always appreciate our coffee and conversations and am thankful for her willingness to moderate many of my monthly town halls.

Small business leaders like Maureen and chambers like DCRC are vital to our local Main Street economies. I'm grateful for the numerous opportunities I had to work with Maureen and wish her the best in her future endeavors.

Madam Speaker, today is the day that we deliver on many of our promises to the American people. We are going to lower the cost of healthcare for millions of Americans. We are going to invest in American energy independence and reduce carbon emissions. We are going to do this in a responsible way, as we reduce the deficit in the process.

The Inflation Reduction Act takes historic strides to make healthcare more affordable by capping the cost of insulin at $35 a month for those on Medicare. Capping out-of-pocket drug costs for our Nation's seniors at $2,000 a year, and empowering Medicare to negotiate drug prices for our seniors.

We also extend the ACA tax credit, ensuring that we continue along the path of these historic rates of uninsured in our Nation. We are going to make the largest investment in clean energy in our Nation's history, reduce carbon emissions by 40 percent this decade, and invest in biofuels infrastructure for Minnesota's family farmers.

Madam Speaker, I say to my colleagues, today, the will of our constituents will prevail over special interests--at least on this side of the aisle.

Madam Speaker, this legislation will make a real difference in reducing costs for working families. I am proud to support it, and I encourage my colleagues to do the same.

Madam Speaker, to tell you the truth, I am disappointed to be here today, too, supporting the very idea and the very notion that we have

to be here today exerting and codifying the right for women to make their own healthcare and family planning decisions.

It is 2022, and we are standing here today with Roe overturned and with 77 percent of this extreme GOP caucus voting against marriage equality, so you had better bet, Madam Speaker, that we are here because the Supreme Court has attacked reproductive rights. It is absolutely necessary that we take action today.

For most of our lives, women across our country, including most in this room, have relied on birth control to exert control over their own futures. Yet, today, in the year 2022, many of those women are wondering if they will see that control disappear.

Make no mistake about it, Madam Speaker, this is actually about control. An extreme GOP and extreme Supreme Court want to take away your freedom and your control over your own lives.

Quite frankly, it is tragic. My colleague is right. The idea that we are even standing here today having to consider legislation that would codify Americans' right to contraception, birth control, and IUDs--and I can't believe the gentlewoman mentioned Trojan in her opening remarks. We are here because we are in an absurd time where an extremist GOP wants to take control.

Madam Speaker, I urge a ``yes'' vote on this legislation today.

Madam Speaker, I intended to vote Yea on Roll Call No. 320, Mr. Foster's amendment (No. 18) to H.R. 7900, the National Defense Authorization Act, which repeals the restriction on funding for the Preparatory Commission for the Comprehensive Nuclear--Test-Ban Treaty Organization. I inadvertently voted Nay when it was my sincere intention to vote Yea. Mr. Foster's amendment is a welcome addition to this bill and it has my support.

Madam Speaker, exactly 3 weeks ago, five Justices on an activist, extremist Supreme Court handed down a decision that upended nearly 50 years of precedent and rolled back fundamental rights for millions of Americans.

In the weeks since, I have watched in horror as State after State has triggered laws that now prevent a woman or a girl from accessing an abortion even in the case of rape and incest. These events have been shocking to Americans, not only for millions of women across the country but for the country as a whole.

You call yourselves conservative. We are talking about 50 years of precedent in our Nation.

Because no Government has a place interfering in the decisions between a woman and her doctor, criminalizing abortion, or restricting women's healthcare options.

This is not a controversial position to the American people. A strong majority of my constituents believe that the right to an abortion should be protected by law. This is a freedom and a privacy issue, and the government--not politicians in this room and not politicians in any State in our Nation--should not have any part in this conversation at all. This is a very personal decision between a woman, her family, her doctor, and her faith.

Madam Speaker, I encourage all of my colleagues to join me in voting ``yes'' to protect Roe today.

Mr. Speaker, Americans across the country are justifiably frustrated by the higher prices they are experiencing at the pump, in the grocery store, and across the board.

Right now, working families in every district across this country are crying out for relief. They are tired of political games, and they are tired of partisan attacks. Our constituents don't want Congress in a food fight. They want compromise, and they want solutions.

My friends, today, we have a bipartisan, commonsense solution at our fingertips.

The Lower Food and Fuel Costs Act will lift up our constituents by lowering prices at the grocery store aisle and at the pump and creating a situation where we are seen as acting together.

My provision, the Year-Round Fuel Choice Act, will allow for the year-round sale of homegrown biofuels, which can sell for as much as 40 cents less per gallon than traditional gasoline. Why would we deny that low-cost alternative to working families who are so desperate for savings?

My Strengthening the Agriculture and Food Supply Chain Act will help lower prices at the grocery store by getting products from ships to shelves faster and shoring up our food supply chain for future generations. My friends, why would we deny these critical savings to our constituents who are simply trying to put food on the table?

The American people want action. They are calling for us to use every tool at our disposal to fight inflation and lower costs. We must respond to their call.

I appreciate the support of this package from my Democratic colleagues and many of my Republican colleagues, and I encourage all of you to vote ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, Cory Slifko was a father of two, a husband, and an accomplished veteran of the South St. Paul Police Department. He spent 20 years on the force, eventually working his way up to serve as a sergeant.

But Cory also spent 20 years witnessing the unthinkable and unimaginable and was ultimately diagnosed with PTSD. On November 5, 2019, Cory lost his life to completed suicide, leaving behind his wife, Katie, and their children.

Now, there is not a doubt in my mind that Cory's death occurred as a result of his service in the line of duty. But today, Katie's family has not been able to access the benefits that Cory earned in service to our community.

It is vital that these programs don't just protect our law enforcement officers from physical harm but also from mental injuries they endure in service to our communities.

We can change that today. It is time we right this wrong and offer some long-overdue support to Katie, who has honored Cory through her advocacy. I urge all of you to join me in voting ``yes'' on this bill.