Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, tonight, the Kentucky congressional delegation rises to honor Army Staff Sergeant Benjamin Pennington and U.S. Air Force Technical Sergeant Ashley Pruitt, who were both killed in the line of duty while serving in support of Operation Epic Fury. Their selfless sacrifice will never be forgotten by the Commonwealth of Kentucky and these United States of America.

Staff Sergeant Benjamin Pennington of Glendale, Kentucky, was 26 years old. Growing up in Hardin County, he ran track at Central Hardin High School and was an Eagle Scout. After graduating in 2017, he enlisted in the U.S. Army, serving with distinction ever since. He leaves behind a loving family and community.

Technical Sergeant Ashley Pruitt of Bardstown, Kentucky, was 34 years old and a native of Nelson County. In high school, she was a member of the Air Force Junior ROTC program. Joining the Air Force in 2017, she found her passion as a boom operator aboard the Boeing KC-135 aerial refueling aircraft. She leaves behind her husband, Greg; their 3-year- old daughter, Emilia; her stepson, Oliver; and her loving parents.

The Commonwealth of Kentucky and the United States of America will forever be grateful to these brave heroes who made the ultimate sacrifice protecting our Nation. Their families and loved ones will always remain in our prayers.

On behalf of the Kentucky congressional delegation and the House of Representatives, I ask the United States House of Representatives to observe a moment of silence in their honor.

Madam Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 1075, I call up the bill (H.R. 4626) to amend the Energy Policy and Conservation Act to prohibit the Secretary of Energy from prescribing any new or amended energy conservation standard for a product that is not technologically feasible and economically justified, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Madam 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.R. 4626.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 4626, the Home Appliance Protection and Affordability Act, sponsored by my colleague from Georgia's 12th District. This legislation modernizes energy efficiency authorities to lower costs for households and protects consumer choice.

The Energy Policy and Conservation Act, or EPCA, was established in 1975 amidst the oil crisis of the 1970s. EPCA gave statutory authority to the Department of Energy to regulate and set minimum efficiency standards for a list of covered products, including stoves, water heaters, and dishwashers, as well as certain commercial equipment.

At the time, Americans were dealing with the aftermath of the oil embargoes that led to mile-long gas lines and fuel rationing. The initial establishment of energy efficiency regulations was a matter of energy security.

By reducing consumption through the use of innovative technologies, we can insulate families from the harm caused by adversarial nations restricting access to critical energy resources.

Madam Speaker, 50 years later, EPCA has remained largely unchanged, but under Democratic administrations, the focus of conservation efforts shifted from energy security to green policies that advance the far- left agenda.

During the same period, the United States has become the premier energy-producing nation, while home appliances have simultaneously become vastly more efficient.

During the 4 long years of the Biden-Harris administration, however, the Department of Energy used EPCA authorities to regulate a host of everyday products like dishwashers, freezers, and dryers. But these regulations were neither based on what consumers need or focused on affordability. They were rooted in ambitious climate goals.

While EPCA requires regulation to be economically justified and cost effective, the Biden-Harris administration bent the rules so that households and businesses may not see any efficient savings for decades.

In fact, the Biden-Harris Department of Energy regulations on dryers could take up to 46 years to see efficiency benefits, even though household appliances are replaced every 8 to 9 years on average.

Americans are already paying 34 percent more for their energy bills than they were in 2010. Households simply cannot afford more expensive mandates coming out of Washington.

At a time when Americans are struggling to pay their bills because of inflation caused by the Biden-Harris administration's spending spree, the Home Appliance Protection and Affordability Act takes important steps to provide necessary relief to hardworking families. Decisions about home appliance should be left to American families, not bureaucrats in Washington.

The Home Appliance Protection and Affordability Act institutes commonsense accountability at DOE to protect consumers from overregulation. Importantly, this bill will foster continued innovation in energy efficiency technologies. Refocusing EPCA's authorities on cost-effective efficiency standards will lower costs while continuing to improve household appliance performance.

Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting H.R. 4626, the Home Appliance Protection and Affordability Act to protect consumer choice, to modernize EPCA authorities, and to lower costs for American families.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Allen), my good friend, the sponsor of this piece of legislation, and an important member of the Energy and Commerce Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I have no further speakers. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, we are working on affordability. This whole bill is about affordability. If we look, because of the current Biden-Harris appliance policies, there is a 28 percent increase for refrigerators, a 25 percent increase for air-conditioners, and a 28 percent increase for dishwashers.

The argument is they are going to pay more up front, but they are going

to make it back in efficiency over time. A refrigerator takes 6 years and sometimes, depending on which model you buy, 46 years to recoup the increase in the value. These are Department of Energy numbers. It is up to 10 years on refrigerators.

The question is: Do people want to pay a fourth more for a refrigerator in the hopes that over the next 10 years they will get that money back? It is just not realistic, and that is why we are fighting for affordability.

When we look at the energy prices being up, we can look at a map of the United States and see in which States they are up. They are higher. They are higher in States that have policies like this. They come particularly from blue States in our country. Local governments have put the affordability crisis in their cities. State governments have put the affordability crisis in their States.

I remember being in California just last year and putting gas in a rental car. I looked over and I think I was paying well over $5 there when I was paying about $2.50 in Kentucky. I remember looking over at the guy next to me, and I said: Do you guys have any idea what the rest of the country pays for gasoline?

It is just astounding. The policies have increased affordability, and they come here and say we are causing the affordability crisis. With the energy crisis, we are trying to keep power online, to keep it from going offline so we can have affordability.

This is all about affordability. It is not about just having an affordable product to buy. It is about buying a product of your choice.

I don't think we ever argued that anything in the Biden-Harris administration meant that people were going to go in and take their appliances out. When appliances only last 7 to 10 years and then they are replaced, people are going to pay a fourth more. That is what we are trying to fight. People are going to pay a fourth more and recoup it in probably a longer time than that appliance has a useful life. It is just not a good investment. It just doesn't make sense.

We think that EPCA should be reformed so that they do make decisions based on what is affordable and what gives the best choice to the consumers in America.

I proudly support this bill. I thank Mr. Allen for sponsoring it. I encourage its passage.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to celebrate the 75th anniversary of Green River Hill Grocery, located in Munfordville, Kentucky.

Since 1951, Green River Hill Grocery has been a cornerstone of the local community, serving generations of Hart County families. Operating just a few miles from Mammoth Cave National Park and Abraham Lincoln's Birthplace National Historical Park, the store has been a welcome stop for visitors exploring the rich history of our region. In 2024, Tony and Rachelle Wright proudly assumed ownership of this landmark, continuing the Green River Hill Grocery's long-standing tradition of fostering friendships over delicious home-cooked meals. This milestone would not be possible without the overwhelming support of Hart County and all those who have supported the store.

Green River Hill Grocery will continue to serve as more than just a store, but as a pillar of the Hart County community. By blending the passion for food, agriculture, and community, the team plans on continuing to honor the store's rich history and guarantee its place in the region for years to come. For 75 years, Green River Hill Grocery has played an essential role in Hart County and the communities along the Green River. I commend the Wright family for their commitment to enriching our community and congratulate all of Hart County on this remarkable milestone.

Mr. Speaker, Pursuant to House Resolution 977, I call up the bill (H.R. 4593) to amend the Energy Policy and Conservation Act to revise the definition of showerhead, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks on the legislation and to include extraneous material on H.R. 4593.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, under the previous administration, American consumers were subjected to Washington's constant micromanagement of appliances and equipment in their homes and businesses.

In fact, the Biden-Harris administration finalized more than 30 new or amended energy efficiency standards, totaling over $60 billion in costs and regulating nearly every appliance in Americans' homes. Part of this effort focused on complicating the definition of a showerhead by prohibiting multi-nozzle shower systems if the whole system collectively delivers more than 2.5 gallons of water per minute, instead of following the straightforward statutory definition of a showerhead.

The new, highly bureaucratic definition was an amazing 13,000 words in length and a novel interpretation. This resulted in shower systems with more than one nozzle having a lower flow rate compared to individual showerheads.

Additionally, this definition is misleading to consumers looking to buy multi-nozzled shower systems for the purpose of increasing water flow.

President Trump has taken executive action to restore the regulatory definitions and standards to the law's original intent by allowing a maximum water use of 2.5 gallons per minute for each faucet in a shower system. H.R. 4593 would codify President Trump's definition by allowing the 2.5 maximum flow rate to apply to each nozzle in the shower system.

This legislation will ensure manufacturers, like Delta Faucet in my district in Morgantown, Kentucky, are not subjected to the swing of the political pendulum with ever-changing interpretations of the law.

Further, this legislation is simple and pro-consumer choice. It is unfortunate that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are seeking more regulation for its own sake and limiting the choices of American consumers. If an individual wants low water pressure, they have a variety of options. They can purchase a single-nozzle showerhead, or they can simply turn down the faucet. It is that simple, but those choices must be left to individual Americans and not to Washington.

H.R. 4593 would bring regulatory certainty to manufacturers, performance effectiveness to a household appliance we all use, and choice to American consumers.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support it, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

When the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone) had his poster, he didn't actually have the poster that President Trump was referring to when he was talking about affordability.

It was a poster that showed the different States and the rising price of energy. It showed certain States and certain areas--he colored them blue and red States on his poster--and the difference in what people are paying for electric rates.

You can tie it directly to State and local governments that are making decisions to shut down generation of energy. When you overregulate--why are people paying more for appliances, dishwashers and stoves? It is because of the regulations.

Why are they paying more for showerheads? As we said, if people can have the choice, they can also turn down their water. As I said, it is just that simple.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Weber), my good friend, the vice chair of the Energy Subcommittee.

Mr. Speaker, when we talk about affordability, we did pass and sign into law no tax on Social Security. It is a deduction for people who generally have incomes that are almost all Social Security. They won't pay any tax on that. We passed the no tax on tips. People working on tips income won't be paying tax on their tips.

I come from the world of manufacturing where people work hard all week hoping for overtime over the weekend so they can earn more money for their families. Now there is no tax on overtime to make things affordable for people and give them more money in their pocket to pay for things, but we also need to make them cheaper.

We worked hard on energy. We have passed bills out of committee and across the floor on permitting energy. We have energy in this country, but we have to be able to generate the electrons, and we have to be able to move the energy to where it needs to be. The problem is permitting. I am a believer in all of the above, and we need to develop an all-of-the-above energy strategy.

We have 112-gigawatts of power--a gigawatt is the city of Seattle. There are 112-gigawatts of power scheduled to go offline in the next decade because of environmental regulations, which we can do safely and securely and save our environment and produce the energy that people need.

Again, if you bring the poster that the President used, you can see States that have the highest energy prices, and it goes to their energy regulation that their State and local governments have done to themselves.

Mr. Speaker, I was in California putting gas in a rental car, and I looked over to the guy next to me and said: Do you have any idea how much people pay for gas in the rest of the country?

I paid $2.80 in Kentucky and paid over $4 in California. It is State and local governments that make these decisions, and they are bringing that to Washington, D.C. We want to make it cheaper and for our people to have more affordability.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Fry), the sponsor of this legislation and my good friend.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Rulli), my good friend and member of the Energy and Commerce Committee.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to answer the question of the gentlewoman.

Mr. Speaker, no, he did not ask to do this bill on the floor today. I know the President is very interested in this issue, but not on this floor today.

Mr. Speaker, what I have tried to ask and nobody has answered is: The enhanced tax credits, the COVID-era tax credits, were set to expire in the Inflation Reduction Act, which was a bill under the reconciliation process. It was solely the Democratic Party who put that in place, and the question I have always asked is: Why did they set them to expire?

They may say it was the reconciliation process. There were issues in that bill that they made permanent, but they chose to have the enhanced tax credits expire.

What happens when the enhanced tax credits expire? They are enhanced, so we go back to the basic law. The basic law we are operating under is the Affordable Care Act.

Why is the Affordable Care Act not saving people money?

I remember when this first came out. I was speaking to a Rotary Club, and a person said to me at the end that I was talking so negatively on the Affordable Care Act.

I said to him: You know, I really hope that people will keep the doctor they want to keep, have the choices they can have in healthcare, and their premiums will go down. If that happens, I will eat my words. I hope I can eat my words because there is no joy in having a bill pass and see people lose their doctors of choice, lose choice in health plans because it is consolidating, lose choices in healthcare because it is consolidating, and see their premiums skyrocketing.

Talking about how much the premiums are skyrocketing, do you know why? What is the underlying law? The underlying law is the Affordable Care Act.

Mr. Speaker, I wish I could answer the question. I wish I would get an answer to the question of why did they set them to expire and why is the Affordable Care Act not working.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, my point when I talked about the Affordable Care Act is that once it was in place, I wish it had worked. I wish what was believed to be in place worked because I think people with sincere hearts were the ones who voted for it and put it in place. If we did have choice and we had more people provided--we didn't have consolidation, and we had cheaper health insurance. That is what we wanted.

I will tell you that the Energy and Commerce Committee and the Ways and Means Committee are going to be focusing on the cost of health insurance. We talked yesterday and put out that health insurance executives from the major health insurance companies, or CEOs, are going to come before our committee. We are going to spend this year to hopefully find ways that we can work together because the premiums reflect the cost of healthcare.

We want to understand the premiums, how they devise the premiums, where the premium is going, who is getting the money, and what about the consolidations. We are going to have a series of hearings, and the first one is going to be CEOs of major insurance companies to come before our committees to do the proper oversight to see why it is going from $14,000 to $22,000 and why are people being affected that way.

That is the answer the American people deserve. That is the work we must do, and I hope we can do it together.

Mr. Speaker, I urge the support of the underlying bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at 7 o'clock and 10 minutes p.m.), under its previous order and pursuant to House Resolution 978, the House adjourned until tomorrow, Thursday, January 8, 2026, at 10 a.m. for morning-hour debate and noon for legislative business, as a further mark of respect to the memory of the late Honorable Doug LaMalfa.

Thereupon (at 7 o'clock and 10 minutes p.m.), under its previous order, the House adjourned until tomorrow, Thursday, January 8, 2026, at 10 a.m. for morning-hour debate.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to celebrate the birth of Henry David Boylan.

Hank was born on November 24, 2025 at Virginia Hospital Center weighing eight pounds, two ounces to loving parents Ansley and Matt Boylan. Ansley serves as a valuable member of my team on the House Committee on Energy and Commerce.

I am grateful to have Ansley as a part of the Energy and Commerce family, and I am excited for her and Matt to start their family with their newest addition.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 953, I call up the bill (H.R. 498) to amend title XIX of the Social Security Act to prohibit Federal Medicaid funding for gender transition procedures for minors, and ask for its immediate consideration.

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.R. 498.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 498, the Do No Harm in Medicaid Act. This bill helps support our fellow hardworking Americans whose valuable and finite tax dollars should not continue to fund medically unnecessary care under the Medicaid program.

It is our duty as Members of Congress to focus hard-earned taxpayer dollars on care that is medically necessary to improve the health of Americans. H.R. 498, Do No Harm in Medicaid Act, does just that. It prohibits Federal dollars from going toward specified gender transition procedures for individuals under 18.

My fellow House Republicans, particularly my colleagues on the Energy and Commerce Committee, have worked diligently this Congress to eliminate waste, fraud, and abuse in the Medicaid program and the Working Families Tax Cut Act.

Our goal is to eliminate unnecessary and improper procedures and strengthen Medicaid for expectant mothers and children, low-income seniors, and individuals with disabilities.

The CBO estimates this bill would save taxpayers $445 million over a decade. I want to make it abundantly clear that it in no way prevents minors from accessing medical care that they truly need. It just simply prohibits the use of Medicaid funding on specified procedures that are medically unnecessary.

This critical legislation builds upon our work in the Working Families Tax Cut Act to create a more sustainable Medicaid program. I ask my colleagues to support the bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Mrs. Miller).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Kennedy).

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman from Utah.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Crenshaw), the sponsor of the legislation and member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Crenshaw).

Mr. Speaker, before I yield to my friend, I have asked, since we have been meeting this year, about the extension of the tax credits they keep bringing up. Remember, they are talking about the extension of the tax credits that they set to expire.

So the question I have asked, and nobody has been able to answer, Mr. Speaker, is: Why did you set them to expire? Remember, they were set to expire in the Inflation Reduction Act, or the Green New Deal.

Within the Inflation Reduction Act, tax cuts were made so-called permanent, although they were replaced in another bill, but they set these to expire. Nobody has ever explained to me why the Democrats made the decision to end the enhanced subsidies that they are talking about and shutting the government down for 43 days, when they chose to end them, and then coming in here today talking about we need to have a vote on it, when they chose to end them. They never explained why they chose to end them.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Crenshaw).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman the Texas (Mr. Crenshaw).

Mr. Speaker, I am glad my friend from Illinois pointed out this only affects children because adults can make their decisions. We don't take any decisions away from adults. This affects children.

It is very specific. I think my friend from Texas is going to talk about it. I would like for my friend from Illinois, or anybody, to read through what is specifically identified as prohibited in this bill and say which of those saves someone's life. It is permanent surgery to change someone. It is very limited what is in this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Crenshaw).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.

Since that is the motion to recommit, maybe it would be a good opportunity for my friends on the other side of the aisle to let the country know when they decided to let these tax credits expire in the same bill that they have permanent tax credits for the Green New Deal. I don't know, you would have to think maybe they want to take the money from the tax credits and spend it on the Green New Deal. Unless there is a better explanation than that, that is exactly what the bill did.

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire how much time is remaining on my side of the aisle.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I remind the gentlewoman that we did have a bill yesterday that passed. It hardly got any Democratic support. If you look at the enhanced tax credits that they set to expire to pay for the Green New Deal, so the moral cause that people are bringing up, they chose to put Green New Deal tax credits over extended premium tax credits. That is obvious. It is in the same bill. It wasn't like they voted for one bill and then another.

At the same time, yesterday, we estimated a good half of the people on--we know, from a GAO study, there is waste, fraud, and abuse in the ObamaCare marketplace that we wanted to fix. It went to the Senate, and it got taken out during the reconciliation bill.

We put in cost-share reductions that were estimated to lower premiums in the marketplace by 12.7 percent. When it went to the Senate, the Democrats challenged it in the Senate and took it out.

We also know there are another 163 million Americans who get their healthcare from their employers, which they offered nothing to assist and help, which we did yesterday. We know most of the people in the marketplace are small business men and women who have to buy in the individual marketplace because they work for themselves and don't have a big employer with a big employee pool. We allowed them, in yesterday's bill, to band together so they can buy across their associations. Instead of being a car dealer with 20 employees, you can be 100 car dealers, with 20 times 100 employees, so they have a bigger pool and can get cheaper rates for their employees.

We did have a bill that passed yesterday without a single Democratic vote that lowered premiums in the marketplace and premiums for every working American.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Crenshaw), my friend.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I invite anyone to read through the list of the specific things that are prohibited in this bill from being performed on minors and say which one they think is good for a minor to have. Instead of reading through the list, I wish they would go through the list and say which is good for a minor to have.

On Medicaid, we have this issue of States providing Medicaid to people who are here illegally. That is the Medicaid administration. It is the same dollars. It is commingled.

If you are going to operate something through Medicaid, unless you say that you are going to use Federal dollars for this procedure but State dollars for that procedure, it is the same administration doing them.

We tried to fix that in the big, beautiful bill. It was struck down by the Democrats in the Senate. We think that is wrong.

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to the time remaining.

Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Crenshaw), my friend.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Molly Brimmer Lolli for her service to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce.

A graduate of the University of Maryland for both a bachelor's degree in Political Science and a Juris Doctorate degree, Molly began her career on Capitol Hill as a Legislative Assistant for Rep. Andy Harris (MD-01) in 2019, before becoming Senior Advisor on Health Policy and later Legislative Director for Rep. Richard Hudson (NC-09) in 2021. In January 2023, Molly became Counsel for the Subcommittee on Health for the House Committee on Energy and Commerce under Chair Cathy McMorris Rodgers while I was serving as Subcommittee Chair. When I became Chairman in January of this year, I knew I wanted to keep her on my team as an expert on health issues.

After serving two Chairmen and three Subcommittee Chairmen, Molly has departed the U.S. House of Representatives to accept another opportunity to continue to serve as a health expert. I wish her the best, congratulate her on her new role, and thank Molly Brimmer Lolli for her service to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce and the United States Congress. I also congratulate her on the birth of her and her husband Tim's new 6 pound, 2 ounces baby girl Carmela Gray Lolli who was born on October 26, 2025, and wish this young family all the best. I know Molly, Tim, and Carmela's big sister Breslin are very proud to welcome her to the family.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 953, I call up the bill (H.R. 6703) to ensure access to affordable health insurance, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and insert extraneous material on the legislation, H.R. 6703.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 6703, the Lower Health Care Premiums for All Americans Act.

When the Democrats passed ObamaCare over a decade ago, they sold the bill on the promise that it would lower healthcare costs and preserve plan options. If you like your plan, you can keep it and if you like your doctor, you can keep them, we remember being quoted. These famous last words still haunt us.

Today, we know that ObamaCare has not lived up to the Democrats' lofty promises. Instead, the consequences of that bill continue to burden American patients as they have since its enactment. Healthcare spending has nearly doubled since ObamaCare passed.

Healthcare plan options have been decimated by Democratic overreach, and millions of Americans are saddled with medical debt across the country.

ObamaCare premiums are up 80 percent since the program's inception, with patients paying on average $5,000 out of their own pocket to hit their deductible. The average out-of-pocket spending maximum for 1 year is over $20,000. Without a doubt, ObamaCare has proven to be unaffordable and unsustainable.

In an attempt to respond to the affordability crisis created by ObamaCare, Democrats leveraged a public health emergency to shovel hundreds of billions of dollars to big health insurance plans to mask the risk of rising unaffordability of coverage. First, in the American Rescue Plan of 2021 and then again in the Inflation Reduction Act of 2023, Democrats sent temporary taxpayer-funded enhanced premium tax credits directly to the coffers of big insurance plans.

They did this without a single Republican vote of support. On both occasions, Democrats chose to make these COVID credits temporary. They could have made them permanent, but they chose instead to focus on advancing priorities for wealthy Americans, which some of these they did make permanent by subsidizing electric vehicles for politically connected cronies to siphon off Federal dollars of the greenhouse gas slush fund.

Now, Democrats are uniting behind that policy to send billions more of taxpayer dollars to big health insurance plans. With the Democrats' temporary COVID credits set to expire at the end of the year, they are attempting to turn their policy failures into political gains using the American people as collateral.

It is worth reiterating. Democrats funded temporary Band-Aids to cover up unaffordable care. They set the expiration dates. They chose to fund liberal priorities instead of making them permanent.

While Democrats continue to fearmonger, I want to shed light on what Republicans are doing to fix the Democrats' affordability crisis, with policies that deliver real, lasting relief to the American people. These include eliminating health plan gimmicks like silver loading, which will lower ACA premiums by 11 percent; increasing transparency for pharmacy benefit managers, the middlemen that will lower costs of drugs for all Americans; and increasing affordable plan choices and putting patients back in the driver's seat for their own healthcare plan choices by instituting association health plans, CHOICE arrangements, and stop-loss insurance.

This proposal results in more than double the premium reduction that Democrats' extension of the enhanced tax credit subsidies would. The Congressional Budget Office estimates this plan will lower premiums by 11 percent compared to just 5 percent from the Democratic subsidies. These policies will also lower healthcare costs for all Americans, not just the roughly 7 percent enrolled in the ObamaCare marketplace. Many of these policies are bipartisan: Ending silver loading, addressing nefarious PBM practices, and strengthening the employer insurance marketplace all have garnered broad bipartisan support.

I hope we can overlook politics that are clouding the issue and come together to pass this bill and continue to work together in 2026 to deliver more affordable healthcare to all Americans.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Iowa (Mrs. Miller-Meeks), the sponsor of this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I will remind my friends that the premium tax credits from the ACA are extended. They are permanent. These are the enhanced premium tax credits. It is good, and sad, that my colleagues are recognizing that the Affordable Care Act is failing.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Pfluger), my good friend and leader on the Energy and Commerce Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.

Mr. Speaker, we have heard sad stories. Last night, in the Rules Committee, the Rules chairman read through different stuff. The Rules' ranking member was in townhalls and heard stories about people who had to buy care on the Affordable Care Act marketplace that is failing.

There is one thing nobody has ever answered. They say they have to face their constituents. Do my colleagues explain to their constituents that in the bill that they voted for that gave billions of dollars of the Green New Deal; in the same bill they set these tax cuts to expire?

I know it was during reconciliation they could have done them within 10 years instead of 5. They also could have done them permanently. There is a way in reconciliation to do them permanently, as well.

No one on the other side has ever explained why they chose to make these tax credits expire. I am still waiting to hear the answer for that.

In the meantime, we have our bill that will lower premiums, calculated by CBO, in the individual market by 11 percent, as opposed to the 5 percent that would happen if we just passed the enhanced tax credits. Not just the 7 percent in the ObamaCare marketplace will benefit but all Americans will benefit from this bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, I again ask the question: Why were these set to expire? We hear the stories that people are reading about people in their districts, and they say how it is unconscionable. It is unconscionable that money was spent on the Green New Deal at the expense of the enhanced tax credits they talk about.

We want to solve it. Mr. Speaker, $39,000 is what is brought up for

healthcare. That is the problem in America. Mr. Speaker, $39,000 for health insurance is what we have to fix.

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

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, we are here to solve the problem for all Americans. Mr. Speaker, 20 million people are trapped in the Affordable Care Act marketplace. Our proposal lowers those premiums by 11 percent.

There are over 160 million Americans who get it through their employers. There are Americans on other types of health insurance. We need to fix this problem.

My good friend from Florida, Mr. Speaker, said $39,000 is what they pay for health insurance. That is the problem. That is what we need to fix.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Madam Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 936, I call up the bill (H.R. 3628) to amend the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act of 1978 to add a standard related to State consideration of reliable generation, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material in the Record on H.R. 3628.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 3628, the State Planning For Reliability and Affordability Act, sponsored by my colleague Congressman Evans from Colorado.

H.R. 3628 directs State public utility commissions to consider implementing measures that would ensure utilities retain sufficient, reliable generation through their integrated resource plans to maintain the stability and affordability of their electric grids.

Over 35 States utilize resource plans to ensure their utilities are appropriately planning their investments in the electric grid.

The U.S. grid, commonly referred to as the greatest machine on Earth, is a complex system compromised of myriad components and infrastructure to deliver electricity that powers our economy and enables modern life for households.

To ensure the timely delivery of electricity at all times of the day, utilities have historically undergone extensive planning processes to methodically deploy ratepayer dollars to build requisite infrastructure.

Unfortunately, in recent years, we have seen States move away from an integrated resource planning process centered on reliability and affordability toward one intended to achieve climate and environmental justice goals.

The central focus of utility planning must be on the end-use ratepayers, keeping the lights on for households at an affordable price. Unfortunately, the States that have taken the most aggressive stance on climate goals are the same States with the highest electricity rates in the country.

H.R. 3628 is fuel neutral and focused on attributes that are essential to reliability and affordability, such as frequency and voltage support. This legislation ensures that baseload and dispatchable resources, such as natural gas, hydropower, coal, and nuclear, are sufficiently considered as part of any 10-year plan.

There is a road for a diverse energy mix that includes renewables and storage, but we know that not all electrons are the same.

This is the exact message that the Committee on Energy and Commerce has heard in hearings with grid operators, utilities, engineers, and those charged with protecting the reliability of our grid. In fact, just last month, the head of the NERC called the current reliability crisis a five-alarm fire.

The State Planning for Reliability and Affordability Act prioritizes the resources we need most. It will encourage States to take more responsibility over their systems.

Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the legislation, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Latta), my good friend and colleague on the Committee on Energy and Commerce, the chairman of the Subcommittee on Energy.

Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Evans), a very important member of the Energy and Commerce Committee.

Madam Speaker, I have no further speakers, and I am prepared to close.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I have no further speakers on the bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, first, I thank Congressman Evans for sponsoring the State Planning for Reliability and Affordability Act. Let's go back to what this bill does.

H.R. 3628 directs State public utility commissions to consider implementing measures that would ensure utilities retain sufficient reliable generation through their integrated resource plan to maintain the stability and affordability of their electric grids.

We have had a lot of discussion. We have been debating for the last few months. The Affordable Care Act passed 15 years ago. Insurance rates have doubled since that passed, and now, we are debating whether to deal with the rising costs of health insurance or continue to subsidize the rising costs. We want to deal with the underlying costs of health insurance.

We are talking about the affordability of green energy or clean energy. I am for all of the above, but if you remember what the Secretary said, he said he is for the best of the above. There are areas where the Sun shines and the Sun shines bright, and it shines bright on my old Kentucky home. There are areas for that. There are areas where solar makes sense, where wind makes sense, and where fossil fuels make sense.

When he says best of the above, he doesn't mean we don't do all of it. We do what fits in the right place at the cheapest price for our citizens. When you talk about investing in your own utilities, if clean energy--they keep saying they are going to go for more expensive energy as opposed to the cleaner energy. That is what they say. I will say, I think our energy companies want to go to the most affordable energy. That is what they want to produce.

What this does, if you look at the map, and a lot of people have looked at maps of energy prices, what are the highest cost electric prices in the country? I know my friend from Colorado

pointed out to my other friend from Colorado that Colorado is up in the grid with California, New Jersey, and New York. They have higher energy prices, and it is because their general assemblies and their State governments have put additional climate issues in place, not to make energy more affordable, but it makes it more expensive. What we are saying here is that State planning commissions have to ensure in their plans that they look at affordability, reliability, and sustainability within their grids.

That is what this piece of legislation does. I encourage my colleagues to vote for it, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam 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.R. 3638.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 3638, the Electric Supply Chain Act, sponsored by my colleague, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Latta).

This legislation directs the Department of Energy to conduct ongoing assessments and report to Congress on the components and infrastructure supply chain needed to secure the reliability and affordability of our bulk power system.

It is no secret that we find ourselves in the middle of an electric reliability crisis that is threatening the integrity of our bulk power systems and an affordability crisis that burdens households with higher energy bills.

Unfortunately, 4 years of the Biden-Harris administration and excessive litigation, permitting delays, and far-left regulatory decisions to attack baseload power sources in favor of expensive and unreliable wind and solar have handicapped the ability of our bulk power systems to respond to growing demands for energy.

Historic projections of increasing electricity demand from domestic manufacturing, onshoring, and AI data centers have exposed systemic challenges facing our electric sector and the supply chain for components and infrastructure needed to power the system.

Meanwhile, our overreliance on China for manufacturing and critical minerals has created a reliance on our own strategic adversary for our supply chain needs.

Our electric grid is an essential tool for the national and economic security of our Nation. Simply put, we need to work with the Trump administration to make it easier to build in our country so that free- market investment for the electric supply chain flow into communities across the country, driving economic growth and creating good-paying jobs for households.

That is why the Electric Supply Chain Act will ensure that our Federal Government remains in a proactive posture to assess, identify, and address any challenges to our supply chain grid for grid components. H.R. 3638 takes a comprehensive look at the supply chain for our electric grid and appropriately incorporates the advice and views of experts spanning the power sector.

Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support the legislation, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Latta), the sponsor of this bill and the distinguished chairman of the Energy Subcommittee.

Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Weber), the vice chairman of the Energy Subcommittee of the Committee on Energy and Commerce.

Mr. Chair, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I appreciate my friend bringing up the enhanced or COVID- era premium tax credits that are expiring at the end of this month. Since we are talking energy tonight, we need to understand that they were set to expire, without a single Republican vote, to expire them in the Inflation Reduction Act, which was spent money on the Green New Deal.

So when you put in context what President Trump said--when the premium tax credits were set to expire, we had a hearing on that and we were talking about it. We asked: Why in the world did the Democrats set them to expire? They said: We thought the price of insurance was going to go down at the end of 5 years. That is what somebody said in the committee. The price of insurance has gone up because of the policies they put in place. The price of energy has gone up because of policies put in their place.

What President Trump was talking about--I don't know if it was that exact speech that was referred to, Mr. Chair, but a speech where he had a chart up to show where high energy prices are. They are in States with general assemblies that have progressive ideas on energy that have put restraints on energy that have driven up the price.

Unfortunately, we have friends across the Atlantic we can look at. They put these kind of policies in place, and Europe has three times the energy prices that we have. What we are saying over here is that we need to have policies that lower the prices for everybody, not raise the cost and just subsidize it, but to lower the cost for everybody. That is what we are trying to do. That is what we are working to do.

What frustrates President Trump is when we are trying to fix the problems that were created by the policies of the previous administration. They say we are not addressing affordability when they created the affordability crisis, when they made the premium tax credits expire. They didn't deal with the fact that health insurance premiums are continuing to rise. Here we are dealing with it and trying to get it right for the American people.

When you say that wind and solar is cheaper and then complain because you took away the tax--people aren't doing it because you take away the tax credits and subsidies. If it is cheaper and more reliable, then you don't have to subsidize it.

Those are the kind of frustrating things in the context of what President Trump was trying to say. Since States have a lot of influence in this, what we are doing here in the first bill is ensuring that States focus on how do you make it reliable and affordable, particularly in States like Colorado where my colleague, Mr. Evans, who put the bill forward, is from. Their rates continue to go up because of policies of their general assembly in their State. He just wants to ensure that their State factors in affordability when they make those kinds of decisions. That is what we are here to talk about.

Then, in order to build again after years of delaying building, we have a supply chain that has to get reinvigorated. You can sit down and talk to AI companies and people that need data and need energy.

I am one for every electron on the grid we can put on the grid, whether it comes from a solar panel or wind or hydrocarbons, as long as it is not subsidized. We need it all.

My friend from Ohio has a bill saying that we know that it takes too long to get a generator, takes too long to get a transformer, takes too long to get turbine blades, and that we have to make sure our supply chain is in place, and

also make sure that the Department of Energy is focused on it. I know they are. Secretary Wright is focused on it to make sure there is a statute that we have Congress saying the supply chain is important.

Delivering energy at an affordable price is a priority. That is what these two bills today do. That is what this bill does, and I recommend that my colleagues vote for this bill.

Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition to the amendment, though I am not opposed to it.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment from my colleague, Representative Houlihan from Pennsylvania.

This amendment requires DOE to evaluate the potential role transitioning military servicemembers could play in meeting the workforce needs for the electric supply chain.

Mr. Chair, while our efforts to reshore domestic manufacturing facilities bolster our national security, it is also important to recognize the economic benefits of attracting new opportunities for job-creating industries.

Growing investments in the manufacturing sector create stable and good-paying jobs for households and drive economic growth in communities across our country. Our men and women seeking new employment after transitioning back to civilian life bring incredible skill sets and expertise to the table that could benefit companies of all kinds.

By incorporating new consideration for DOE to evaluate the potential for transitioning servicemembers into the workforce as part of H.R. 3638, we can ensure our veterans have access to good-paying jobs.

Mr. Chair, having served in the military, I know in the military we get specific skills. We can be diesel mechanics. We can be all these different things we learn in the military. Sometimes they directly translate actually, but some others don't. It creates the opportunity to reach out and find military members who are leaving the military and who have specific skills for these opportunities.

Mr. Chair, I support this amendment. I was meeting with some people the other day in this kind of industry. They said if they advertise $120,000 a year for MBAs, they get a flood of applications. If they advertise $120,000 a year for skilled truck drivers, they barely get enough. They don't get enough applications.

There are opportunities for people to make a good living and have a career. It is not just a wage but a wage that produces for their families and will let them--he or she--be extremely successful. I support this amendment.

Mr. Chair, since we are talking military, I must say: Go Army. Beat Navy on Saturday.

Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment, even though I am not opposed to it.

Mr. Chair, I thank my friend from California for offering this amendment.

This amendment would incorporate advanced transmission technologies into the supply chain considerations that the Department of Energy would also need to assess, as part of their responsibilities in this bill. In certain circumstances, advanced transmission technologies can help get more resources out of our current system by expanding the grid's electric load-carrying capacity.

However, these are not one-size-fits-all technology, and there are important engineering complexities to consider to ensure the system operates efficiently. We must ensure they are implemented, when it is appropriate, and cost-effective so we can secure the grid without burdening ratepayers with unnecessary investments.

Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to celebrate the 175th anniversary of St. James Catholic Church in Elizabethtown, Kentucky.

Since 1851, the St. James Catholic Church community has served the residents of Elizabethtown and the surrounding area. In 1852, the first church was constructed, and twenty years later, St. Mary's Academy was established to educate the parish children by the Sisters of Loretto. Eventually being renamed after the church's patron saint, St. James School continues to serve parish families, providing a religious-based education. Seeing continued growth, the parish eventually constructed a high school, which still operates today as Elizabethtown Catholic High School.

In 1969, the parish broke ground on a new church, which was completed in 1971. Since then, the parish has continued to expand its missionary work in the surrounding community. Saint James Catholic Church has proven to be a place where families can flourish in faith and fellowship. I am proud to recognize their incredible 175 years of commitment to faith, education, and service in their community.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Candance Castlen Brake on her retirement as President and CEO of the Greater Owensboro Chamber of Commerce.

For decades, Candance has been a staple in the community, working to bring new investments and opportunities to the City of Owensboro and Daviess County. Before serving as President and CEO of the Greater Owensboro Chamber of Commerce, she served our community as the Deputy Judge Executive for Daviess County, a government professor at Western Kentucky University, and on various boards and commissions. She also served three terms as an Owensboro City Commissioner from 2004 to 2010.

Since taking charge of the Owensboro Chamber of Commerce as President and CEO in 2015, Candance has played a pivotal role in the growth and success. Under her leadership, the city has seen tremendous growth, the transformation of the Owensboro Riverfront, and so much more. Her efforts have, without a doubt, contributed to the success we see in Owensboro today.

Since first coming to Congress, I have had the honor of getting to know and work with Candance on many occasions. She has been an incredible partner to support the residents of Daviess County and Owensboro. Again, I thank Candance for her dedicated service to our community, and I wish her well in her well-earned retirement.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to celebrate an extraordinary milestone of the Mammoth Cave Park Association. Today, we are celebrating not only 100 years of the Association, but a century of guardianship, protection, and partnership. The Mammoth Cave Park Association ensures one of the world's greatest natural wonders remains preserved and protected. Mammoth Cave is the longest known cave system in the world, with over 400 miles surveyed to date.

Mammoth Cave is more than just a place, it is a testament to Kentucky's history. This natural wonder has inspired people for thousands of years, playing a foundational role in the culture of our region. Established as a National Park in 1941, it hosts incredible amounts of biodiversity and history. 40 years later, the park was named a World Heritage Site, and in 1990 a Biosphere Reserve. It encompasses approximately 52,830 acres in Hart, Edmonson, and Barren counties in the Commonwealth of Kentucky.

The Mammoth Cave Park Association is deeply woven into the identity of our Commonwealth. It has witnessed thousands of years of human history from its discovery to the visitors that walk its passages today. To continue preservation of this national treasure, Senator McConnell and I introduced the bicameral Mammoth Cave National Park Boundary Adjustment Act to provide the park the ability to acquire an additional 551.14 acres of land from the Nature Conservancy. This newly acquired land would enhance protection in the Green River watershed, further conserving the area's wildlife and cultural heritage while generating additional tourism to Kentucky's 2nd District. I am proud to have introduced the Mammoth Cave National Park Boundary Adjustment Act to expand protection for the cave system's important biodiversity and rich history, ensuring that it can be studied, maintained, and enjoyed by future generations of Americans.

From funding projects to community engagement, the Mammoth Cave Park Association has been a cornerstone of Mammoth Cave's success, thanks to the dedication of countless individuals who continue giving their time and heart to this cause. Their dedication is not overlooked, and we appreciate their hard work. They have helped ensure that both the cave and Kentucky's history are protected for future generations to come.