Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman yielding.

I rise in strong opposition to this dangerous bill. This isn't just a missed opportunity to boost American competitiveness; it actually will set us back on our goal to beat China and win the future.

I have heard the majority say that if you oppose this bill, you aren't in favor of increasing our competitiveness against China. Yet, the White House didn't even mention China in its statement of support.

This is a go-it-alone approach that will actually embolden China; ignore the damage of the radical agenda that has been pushed through this Congress under one-party rule and what it has done to our ability to compete.

The Chinese Communist Party tries to compete by cheating, stealing, and using their centrally controlled economy to pick winners and losers through massive government subsidies.

Instead of embracing free markets and American ingenuity, this bill tries to copy that type of an approach of centralized industrial policy and massive government handouts that benefit political allies.

We cannot and we should not even try to beat the Chinese Communist Party at their own game. It is not the American way.

The United States of America has a record. Ours is one where we have done more to lift people out of poverty, raise the standard of living, cure diseases, spur innovation, more than any other country in the history of the world. We have done so by embracing freedom, free markets, human rights, and the respect for human dignity; where success isn't contingent upon the approval or the direction of the government, the Federal Government; where hard work, creative thinking, and risk- taking are rewarded.

The approach of this bill ignores this and, instead, attempts to cover up the many crises that have been created in the last year under the Biden-Harris administration and this majority.

Virtually every piece of this radical agenda from the last year, under one-party rule, has hurt our ability to compete. The war on American energy has set back our energy independence and harmed our economic and national security, while making us more dependent upon China.

The record amount of spending has created rampant inflation. The regulatory agenda has made it more difficult for our businesses.

Speaker Pelosi's drug pricing control scheme will destroy American medical innovation. The radical environmental agenda will make it impossible to have a domestic source for critical minerals and chemicals needed for advanced manufacturing. And the push to keep our schools closed will set back an entire generation of Americans.

If the Democrats wanted to make America more competitive, they would abandon the destructive agenda and work to reform burdensome permitting, licensing, and regulatory regimes.

Sadly, this legislation, driven out of the Speaker's Office, is Speaker Pelosi doubling down on that agenda, one that is benefiting political allies, leading to rampant waste, fraud, and abuse, and the increase of dependence on China.

You know, there were many bipartisan provisions from the Committee on Energy and Commerce included in this bill but, unfortunately, the overall bill is extremely problematic. And a previously bipartisan program that we had negotiated that would spur development and deployment of like, for example, advanced communications infrastructure, had labor restrictions attached to them that is only going to make it harder for us to lead in 5G and next-gen communications.

It also creates massive slush funds and more grants for Democrats' political allies. There is a new grant and loan program at the Department of Energy that is Solyndra on steroids, a $3 billion domestic solar manufacturing program with less waste, fraud, and abuse protections than what had led to Solyndra. It is a supercharged Solyndra, that will benefit China, which controls critical minerals and parts for solar panels.

There is a $45 billion supply chain program that is also for their political allies, prioritizing labor unions, Blue State mayors and Governors, and other allies over businesses and entities that could actually make our supply chains more resilient.

I urge my colleagues to abandon this plan. Let's not surrender our competitive edge to China. Let's work on real solutions that will make us more competitive, win the future, and offer a better life for all.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for bringing us together to highlight such an important issue, the issue of fentanyl and fentanyl substances that are surging on our southern border. We must take action.

We have legislation, the STOP Fentanyl Act. Why it is not moving forward is the question before us tonight. There have been over 1 million years of life lost because of teenagers and young adults who have died due to overdoses--1 million years.

I think about a 23-year-old young man from Spokane, Washington, Carson, who lost his life. He had his entire life ahead of him. His mom, Molly, told me that all he wanted to do was to make this a better place. When his dad passed away, it was Carson who helped maintain their home. He lent a hand to those in need and did not expect anything in return.

The day after Thanksgiving, he took one pill from a drug dealer on Snapchat who told him it was Xanax. It was laced with illicit fentanyl, and it killed him instantly.

His mom, Molly, is pleading with us to stop fentanyl and stop these weapons-grade poisons so that other parents, other people, and other family members all across this country do not have to feel her grief and pain. She deserves justice.

Let's help end this crisis, save lives, and pass the HALT Fentanyl Act.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and submit extraneous materials.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to offer a resolution. I do not offer this resolution on my own behalf. I offer it as a representative of the people of the United States, to formalize the unspoken sentiments and concerns that abound in our Nation right now. Any authority I have is given to me by the people.

And this is what we believe:

Our Nation is unique. It is distinctive, exceptional. American exceptionalism is too often misunderstood to mean something that it is not. It does not mean justification to dominate or condescend to other nations, or indulgent flattery to ourselves that we are better. It does not mean that we are a chosen people, or that circumstances give us privilege to circumvent law. Our Nation is bound by the same universal moral principles that must bind and shape the behaviors of all civilized nations. In this regard, we are all the same, as nations, and yet, we are different, very different in a very important way.

It is not wealth or military power that makes us exceptional. It is not our institutions nor the genius of our written Constitution or our Bill of Rights; not directly. These are manifestations of something more fundamental and profound.

Our exceptionalism is based on something else, a singular belief, a proposition you might call it, a proposition underlying all legal and constitutional beliefs. Our assertions of human equality and unalienable rights: life, liberty, and the right to pursue happiness, the right to find meaning and purpose and value in our individual lives, derives from a single assertion--that life, given to us by Creator God, is the moral basis of the unshakeable bedrock of our Republic.

That proposition, the thing that makes us distinctive, is that we believe a Creator God endowed us with rights. Not just us. Everybody, everywhere. It is a gigantic revolutionary belief, and it is a belief. It is our faith statement. It is what speaks to the soul of our Nation.

There are many great and ancient nations that believe in freedom as we do. Most countries in the world claim the rule of law and have written constitutions. Many of us use the language of rights and equality and declare for human dignity. But none have a coherent basis for doing so. We alone occupy that space. God gave us rights; made us in his image and, therefore, demonstrated all human beings are created equal, even the unborn, from conception. The poor, the infirm, the old, the weak, all colors and kinds, all races, all of us, are endowed by the Creator equally because we are made in His image.

Without this fundamental belief, rights become only social protocol, conventions, historic inheritances, creatures of state citizenship, class, identity and features of consensus. They become malleable and fading creatures in the capricious hands of willful men.

But America is different. God endowed us with rights, and that belief is either true or it is false. If it is false, then we Americans, among all mankind, are most to be pitied. The experiment must fail. It cannot and must not succeed.

But if it is true, then we have built our country on a foundation that cannot be shaken, if we are true to it, we are anchored in the eternal bedrock of all truths. As Lincoln said: ``As a nation of free men we will live forever or die by suicide.''

To those who are given much, much is expected.

And somewhere, deep down inside ordinary Americans know this. It is the air that we breathe.

Only we ourselves can end this great experiment. There are no external mortal forces that can overcome the bulwarks of that eternal truth.

And therefore, what we believe matters, Madam Speaker. Our invisible immaterial beliefs are the strength of our national soul. The things that we hold on to and serve are the foundations of our institutions, our laws, our liberty, and the hope of our Nation.

When the Founders established this Republic 250 years ago, and created the institutions that guide us, they were well aware that those institutions were insufficient in themselves to govern a free people. The lifeblood and the heartbeat of the Nation is moral character, not the institutions. Not the institutions, or even the laws themselves. For laws and institutions are corruption without the rectitude and wisdom of a moral, decent people. Without the people bracing themselves to wisdom and the holdfasts of character, our institutions have no power to preserving us.

If the people ever lose their love of truth, justice, goodness, and the efflorescence of beauty that flourishes in them, there can be no hope in the parchment barriers of a Constitution,

or the institutions created by it; no matter how noble that hope is. In effect, everything rises and falls in our Republic as a consequence of the character of the people.

As a Nation, we live or die by the standards of our own moral character. The Founders knew this, but many of us know we are forgetting it.

``We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.''

John Adams wrote that to the militia of Massachusetts. What he is saying is this: The power of the State is not secured by the power of arms. It is anchored in the honesty and decency of the people.

Today, this may seem a quaint notion. I hope it is not. But the Founders who experimented in government to create a just and free society understood explicitly that freedom and justice are not the products of institutions, but, rather, institutions that defend freedom and justice are the product of a moral people.

Freedom cannot exist without morality. George Washington understood this. John Adams understood this. Abraham Lincoln understood this. Dr. Martin Luther King understood this. I believe this, not because they believed it, but because it is true. I believe that most Americans understand this.

When we drift from the Creator, we drift from the source of our own liberty. When we forget our duties to God, we forget our duties to each other. When we become proudful and lazy and forget the father of all rights, we become orphans of oppression. We are lost without the guiding hand of the Almighty.

It may seem that Congress is not the place to introduce an appeal to God. I disagree. Insofar as all our rights and all our institutions are based upon the presumption of a just and Almighty God, and since this Congress itself rests upon the foundation that our Creator gave us the right to govern ourselves, to quote my hero, Abraham Lincoln: ``It is altogether fitting and proper that we do this.''

It is precisely because of America's distinctive belief that I rise in this House to offer a resolution to humble ourselves and entreat wisdom from God, the Father of all blessings and mercy; a resolution of contrition, prayer, and fasting; a resolution in the great tradition of our free people.

We have, as His guidance many times before, a resolution to return to the wellspring of liberty and our rights; a resolution to depart from iniquity and entreat His guidance; a prayer that we remember Him as the Father of every good thing that we have, and everything as a Nation and people we aspire to be.

Whereas, We the People of the United States of America continue our search for a more perfect union and;

Whereas, we are a people conceived in liberty and dedicated to the proposition that all are created equal, yet like in the days of Abraham Lincoln, when he observed that ``We have forgotten the gracious hand which preserved us in peace and multiplied, and enriched, and strengthened us;''

Whereas, ``We have vainly imagined, in the deceitfulness of our hearts, that all these blessings were produced by some superior wisdom and virtue of our own;''

Whereas, we confess we are self-consumed, prideful, and unloving, quick to point out the speck in another person's eye while missing the log in our own;

Whereas, we are trusting in our wealth and skill, and leaning on our own understanding;

Whereas, we have become ungrateful, lovers of pleasure, stubborn, hard-hearted, divisive, and unforgiving;

Whereas, we confess that instead of speaking of forgiveness, we cry out for vengeance. We have allowed the poisonous root of bitterness to grow up and trouble us;

Whereas, the global pandemic of COVID-19 has intensified fear, unknowns, chaos, and confusion;

Whereas, the impact of lockdowns and isolations has been severe, further exacerbating the breakdown of mental health, families, communities, and our Nation;

Whereas, we are divided, perhaps like we haven't seen since the Civil War, when Abraham Lincoln, President Abraham Lincoln, by faith, prayed, saying:

May we again devote ourselves to prayer and acknowledge as

a people and as a Nation our dependence upon the overruling

power of God. Let us confess our sins and transgressions in

humble sorrow, yet with the assured hope that genuine

repentance will lead to mercy and pardon;

Whereas, by faith, at the 1787 Constitutional Convention, when the outlook looked grim, Benjamin Franklin appealed to the delegates and urged prayer, asking: ``I have lived a long time, and the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth--that God governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without his notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without his aid?'' and

Whereas, during World War I and at the signing of the Armistice, President Wilson proclaimed: ``Complete victory . . . God has indeed been gracious, let us thank him.'' and

Whereas, this year marked the 80th anniversary of the initial National Bible Week declaration made by President Franklin D. Roosevelt just weeks before the start of World War II; and

Whereas, George Washington Carver, born a slave during the Civil War, testified in 1921 in front of the House Ways and Means Committee expounding on the myriad of ingenious uses for the peanut transforming the economy and which had been revealed to him by faith as he regularly walked through the woods at 4 a.m., and

Whereas, President John F. Kennedy said: ``The guiding principle of this Nation has been, is now, and ever shall be `In God We Trust,' '' and

Whereas, Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., encouraged to us ``Pray daily to be used by God in order that all men might be free,''

Therefore, be it resolved by those assembled, we pray that in this hour of our great need, our Sovereign God will come and do again as He has done in days gone by; we pray for a time of healing from our brokenness, broken lives, broken families, broken communities, and broken systems.

We resolve to humble ourselves, pray, seek God's face, turn from our wicked ways, and thank and praise the God of our ancestors who has given us wisdom and strength and who controls the course of events; and

Therefore, it behooves us to call upon the people of our Nation to humble ourselves before our Creator and acknowledge our complete dependence upon Him, to repent of our pride and selfishness, and to ask the Lord to break our hearts for the things that break His heart;

That we may not miss hearing His voice, and that He will pour out His spirit, once again, on our Nation and leaders; and

We proclaim a year of National Humiliation, Fasting, and Prayer. What might God do in the next 365 days if we commit to reading His Word daily and praying together for our Nation? In our families? For the young generation, this generation in misery and despair? We are expectant that He will do immeasurably more than all we could ask or imagine and that He will hear from heaven, forgive our sins, and heal our land. May He be as original with us as He has been with others. Amen.

Madam Speaker, my heart is heavy as I rise today to honor the life of my dear friend, Senator Douglas Ericksen, who passed away on December 17, 2021 after a battle with COVID-19. My prayers are with Doug's family as we mourn his passing.

Doug dedicated his life to working on behalf of the people of Whatcom County, serving in both the Washington State House of Representatives and Senate for more than two decades. Throughout his tenure, Doug was a champion for the rights of every individual, and he was a fierce defender of the Constitution.

In Eastern Washington, Doug will always be remembered for being a strong advocate of the Snake River dams--which isn't common for someone from the West side of Washington. His pragmatic approach towards finding balanced solutions to our State's biggest environmental problems made him a special partner of mine for many years, and I will miss his leadership--along with his quick-witted humor--dearly.

Above all else, Doug was a remarkable husband to his wife Tasha, father to his daughters Elsa and Addi, friend, and neighbor. His loss will be felt deeply across the entire state of Washington for many years to come, but I thank God for giving me the blessing of calling Doug my friend.

Madam Speaker, Doug Ericksen lived an amazing life that deserves to be celebrated. In honor of his legacy, passion, and contributions that inspired so many, I ask my colleagues to join me in recognizing Washington State Senator Doug Ericksen. May God grant him eternal peace in His kingdom.

Madam Speaker, first, to my colleague and friend, Andy Barr, what a beautiful tribute to Carol. And I join my colleagues, everyone here today, in strong support of the CAROL Act. We love you. We love Carol. Our hearts go out to you.

I am sitting here, and I am thinking what a beautiful tribute. And to Eleanor and Mary Clay, I just saw their Christmas card, and I was thinking they are beautiful, and they are loved, and they shine brightly just like their mom did. I know that this has been such a difficult time, and to see Andy step forward, bring this legislation-- the CAROL Act that is going to help thousands of others across the country--to highlight important research that needs to be done so that others will not have to go through something similar because Andy has led in such a strong way. We are grateful to know Andy, and we want him to know that he is not alone.

I will always remember the times that I was with Carol. She was one of those people who seemed to do it all and do it all so well. And my memory of her is one of just lighting up the room. She shined so brightly. And Andy continues to shine. And their girls are shining today.

We join today in strong support of this legislation. It is going to help us get answers so that others will not be impacted the same way. And let's get this done, as Carol said.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize one of Eastern Washington's finest young men, Cole Baerlocher.

Cole is a student at Washington State University, and he recently was elected to serve as the next national president of the Future Farmers of America.

For Cole, his family, and our entire community, this is a huge deal. Cole is from Colfax, the county seat of Whitman County, the top wheat- producing county in America.

Having him serve as the face of this organization is a tremendous honor. The FFA has more than 735,000 members; 37 candidates were considered for the honor of serving as president. Only one was selected to lead, and that person was Cole.

Cole, I know I speak for our entire community when I say congratulations on this incredible achievement. We could not be more proud. Go Cougs!

Madam Speaker, on October 20, 2021, I was not present for the vote on H.R. 3635, the Strengthening America's Strategic National Stockpile Act of 2021. Had I been present for the vote, I would have voted in favor of the legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this bill. We all agree on the need to modernize and invest in our Nation's infrastructure.

In fact, Energy and Commerce Republicans have led on dozens of bills to close the digital divide, increase our energy security, clean energy deployment, make investments in safe drinking water and make our roadways safe.

Our solutions target Federal investments that are paired with comprehensive permitting, regulatory, and licensing reforms to reduce barriers to deployment and spur private investment.

Unfortunately, this bill does not lift barriers that make projects expensive, and in many cases impossible.

On energy, this bill's rush-to-green will compromise America's reliability and affordability.

On broadband, this bill fails to target funds to unserved areas based on accurate FCC maps.

It also ignores the most important policy for safer roads: A national framework for autonomous vehicles.

Overall, it prioritizes spending and investments in urban centers at the expense of more rural areas of our country. This is the wrong approach.

Finally, this bill paves the way for the radical, multi-trillion- dollar tax-and-spending spree that Speaker Pelosi is rewriting behind closed doors at this very moment. The programs and funding levels agreed to by the Senate will be massively expanded in her bill. We have already seen this from the provisions marked up by our committee.

This tax-and-spending spree will radically expand the Federal Government's command and control over our lives. It will raise costs on families and leave us less safe, less prosperous, and more dependent on foreign adversaries like China.

Again, this is not the approach that we should take. This is taking us down a dangerous road. To win the future, I urge my colleagues to reject this bill.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Guthrie), the ranking member on the Health Subcommittee.

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Indiana (Mrs. Walorski).

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Bilirakis), ranking member of a subcommittee on Energy and Commerce.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Missouri (Mrs. Hartzler), who has fought for life so long.

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

Madam Speaker, I rise today praying that this House will be defenders of truth, humility, and justice.

I rise today in strong opposition to H.R. 3755. The abortion on demand until birth act is extreme. Abortion for any reason, at any stage of pregnancy, until birth, is not the will of the American people.

I spoke with a pediatric cardiologist just this week who shared with me what is possible today. It is just amazing, because of technology, what is possible.

We all know that we can look into the womb and see the development of the baby day by day, week by week. This cardiologist told me that, today, doctors perform prenatal surgeries and treatments to save lives. He said doctors can perform surgeries on 20 different organs. That wasn't possible in 1973 when Roe v. Wade was decided. In fact, the first successful fetal surgery wasn't until 1982, many decades later.

Look how far we have come. Science has evolved. It is my hope that we will learn from this and come to reject abortion because it is inhumane; it is not following the science; and it doesn't reflect the latest research or modern medicine.

Abortion is the sharpest soul-searching question before us as a Nation. This question pierces every heart. People have strongly held beliefs and stories, and both sides are guilty of dismissing one another.

For those of us who stand for life, we must do a better job of listening and loving. Fear and despair are only leading to more arguments, anger, discord, and insecurity.

For me, personally, I have never had an abortion, but I gave thoughts in my younger years as to what I would do if I found myself pregnant and alone. It would have been a desperate situation. I can imagine abortion seeming like an easy solution. It breaks my heart, though, to think that anyone would consider abortion as their only option or the best option.

Growing up, I was not much of a baby person. I was 35 and single when I was elected to Congress, and I didn't even know if being a mom was part of my future. Today, I can testify that bringing a new life into the world is the most amazing thing ever. It is the best part of life.

We have two daughters and a son, Cole, Grace, and Brynn. Cole, now 14, was born with the most common chromosomal abnormality. It is called Down syndrome. When he was born, the doctors gave us a long list of challenges and chances for heartache.

I understand the uncertainty. I understand the fear. But I couldn't imagine my life without Cole. His life is worth living.

Yet, in this debate, Down syndrome has been at the forefront. Just yesterday, a woman named Heidi with Down syndrome lost her court challenge against the British Government over its law allowing abortion up until birth for babies with Down syndrome.

This cannot become America's future, where we cherish life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness for all.

Like in the U.K., the bill before us is discriminatory. It allows for abortions based on a baby's sex, race, or disability.

It would override counseling requirements that protect women from coercion from people who have abused them. It would prohibit laws designed to protect against sex trafficking and the exploitation of young girls and women. It would weaken protections for medical professionals who have religious objections to abortion.

Despite what the majority says, this bill does not codify Roe v. Wade. This is radical.

Under this bill, viability is whatever the abortionist deems it to be.

I urge all of my colleagues today to stop the abortion on demand until birth act.

Open your minds to science, technology. Look and see the mysteries of the mother's womb. Open your ears to the cries of the unborn.

May hearts break and may we celebrate life. Let's uphold the value, the dignity, and the potential of every life.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Bucshon), a member of the Energy and Commerce Committee.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Foxx), a classmate and a champion for life.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Walberg), a colleague from the Energy and Commerce Committee.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Tennessee (Mrs. Harshbarger), a champion for life.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Pence), a champion for life.

Madam Speaker, such a sad day. It is beautiful outside, the Sun is shining.

I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Minnesota (Mrs. Fischbach), a champion for life.

Madam Speaker, continuing to celebrate life, I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith), the biggest champion of all.

Madam Speaker, as we continue to celebrate life, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Michigan (Mrs. McClain).

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Schweikert), a champion for life.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, standing for life, standing as someone who has carried a baby and lost a baby, standing and continuing to celebrate life, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, continuing to stand, celebrating life, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker,

Open up, O heavens, and pour out your righteousness. Let the

Earth open wide so salvation and righteousness can

sprout up together.

I, the Lord, created them.

What sorrow awaits those who argue with their creator.

Does a clay pot argue with its maker?

Does the clay dispute with the one who shapes it, saying,

Stop, you're doing it wrong?

Does the pot exclaim, How clumsy can you be?

How terrible it would be if the newborn baby said to its

father, Why was I born?

Or if it said to its mother, Why did you make me this way?

It is the word of the Lord.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Cammack).

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Fortenberry), my classmate and champion for life.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Van Duyne), who is a champion for life.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Louisiana (Ms. Letlow), who is the 31st pro-life Congresswoman.

Madam Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to stop this bill. Open your minds to science and technology. Look and see the mysteries of the mother's womb. Open your ears to the cries of the unborn. May hearts break, and may we celebrate life--life in the United States of America--life for the living and the unborn.

Vote ``no.''

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Hyde amendment and urge us to be warriors for human dignity and human value.

We must cherish every person's unalienable human right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

With technology today, we can look into the womb and watch the development of a baby day by day. Doctors are able to administer lifesaving care to babies before they are born. It is a miracle to witness, and it is proof that life begins at conception.

Our laws should reflect this science and the truth. For decades, my colleagues across the aisle, including President Joe Biden, agreed. I urge them to join us to protect life.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the Committees on Energy and Commerce, Ways and Means, and the Judiciary be discharged from further consideration of H.R. 18, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 2467, the PFAS Action Act, and I urge my colleagues to join me in voting ``no.''

The decision to oppose H.R. 2467 was not easy, but this version is not the right approach.

PFAS contamination is a serious problem in many congressional districts. That is true for me, too. My district has PFOA and PFOS contamination at Fairchild Air Force Base in Airway Heights, Washington, and I very much want it cleaned up.

I have problems, though, with H.R. 2467's overwhelming, heavy-handed, and unscientific approach. I am struggling with why this aggressive expansion of Federal power and spending is the best answer that the people's House can provide.

What does this massive proposal mean, and are we ready to go this far?

I cannot stress this enough: what we are addressing today is not about one, two, or just a handful of legacy chemicals. PFAS are, instead, an enormous and diverse class of manmade chemicals. EPA's ``Master List of PFAS Substances'' contains more than 9,000 distinct chemicals, and the definition in this bill would apply to every one of those 9,252 chemicals and their uses.

Since the late fall of 2020, Congress has enacted 31 separate provisions to address PFAS. Congress has compelled cleanup of PFAS at military installations, banned certain uses of PFAS chemicals in products, pushed cooperative agreements for cleanups with States, and authorized $500 million for removing emerging contaminants, especially PFAS, from drinking water.

Similarly, EPA has advanced nine major regulatory efforts for PFOA, PFOS, and some of the other PFAS chemicals.

EPA Administrator Regan also has commissioned a multiyear review process at EPA to consider any necessary modifications and to identify new strategies and priorities related to PFAS.

I want strong scientific backing for anything that we do to address PFAS chemicals. I am concerned that the mandates in the PFAS Action Act will frustrate EPA's existing science-based plans. This bill instead will cement policy choices with long-range implications. It will overwhelm EPA's existing resources to tackle environmental and public health challenges beyond PFAS.

The PFAS Action Act is not a measured approach. It prejudges outcomes, showing little regard for objective science, risk assessment, transparency, and public input.

For example, the bill requires EPA to make regulatory determinations within 5 years on 9,250 PFAS chemicals--and without public participation.

This impossible deadline is a lawsuit waiting to happen. It requires every manufacturer and processor to conduct comprehensive testing on all 9,252 PFAS. This will overwhelm existing domestic laboratory capacity to focus on any other scientific or public health matter.

Like it or not, some PFAS chemicals have specific properties that aren't easily addressed with other chemical types, like stability and water, oil, stain, and heat resistance. This makes them crucial in making semiconductors, lithium ion batteries in electric vehicles, solar panels, wind turbine parts, medical devices and drugs, and protective gear for our military and law enforcement.

This bill would create a hostile environment in the United States of America for their manufacture and use. It will create a de facto ban in the marketplace and a boon for trial lawyers. It prevents new PFAS from coming on to the market for 5 years. This will result in the drying up of investment in safe PFAS chemicals and PFAS product purchases. It also will signal to trial courts that all PFAS are hazardous.

It singles out PFAS manufacturers and uses a complex and expensive regulatory approach. It uses an unattainable standard to ban incineration of PFAS-contaminated material. This will federalize local trash collection and clog our Nation's remaining landfill capacity.

It attaches permanent, open-ended cleanup liability to any person who has ever been associated with PFAS, regardless of whether you were a good actor.

Mr. Speaker, cleanup liability is:

``Strict,'' so your intent is irrelevant;

``Joint and several,'' so you are not just responsible for your fair share, you are responsible for everyone's shares;

And, ``retroactive,'' so it doesn't matter if the liability occurred 5 years, 10 years, 20 years, or 50 years ago or even further back.

Given the compliance costs, the sidelining of investment, the endless liability under CERCLA, tort lawsuits, and the inability to make or finance safer replacement chemicals and products, it is not hard to see how H.R. 2467 creates a de facto ban on 9,252 chemicals. It threatens the viability of every industry that needs these chemicals and products that benefit our society.

Make no mistake, Mr. Speaker, this bill essentially bans the materials that are necessary for America to win the future. That includes protective gear for law enforcement at a time when violent crime is surging in our country.

In drafting this legislation over two Congresses, the majority never called

EPA to testify on the bill. Now we are left with the opinions of the politicians and the White House, not the career scientists and the experts who will have to implement it. So much for trust the science.

In addition, the Congressional Budget Office has had trouble scoring this bill and a nearly identical bill from last Congress. That is because there are so many PFAS chemicals, and the mandates in this bill have no limits on either the Federal Treasury or the private sector. The bill also poses a significant burden on EPA's time and the lack of additional resources EPA will have to tackle other issues critical to their mission.

We all want to have a good solution to address PFAS contamination, but this bill falls short, unfortunately.

Mr. Speaker, I urge Members to join me in opposing this approach. We can do better.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Bucshon), an exceptional leader on the Energy and Commerce Committee and a cardiothoracic surgeon.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to clarify that the previous administration, as well as the current administration, has been taking several actions in connection with PFAS; this large group of chemicals. We are talking about 9,252 chemicals; not just one.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Walberg), a member of the committee and a problem solver.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from North Dakota (Mr. Armstrong), another dynamic member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Palmer), our policy chairman and a member of the Energy and Commerce Committee.

Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Crenshaw), another member of the Energy and Commerce Committee and a decorated Navy SEAL.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Joyce), a physician and member of the Energy and Commerce Committee.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Upton).

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Westerman), a leader on the Natural Resources Committee.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Comer), the lead Republican on the Oversight and Reform Committee.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, may I inquire how much time I have remaining?

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

Unfortunately, this bill is not just limited to legacy contamination. It creates a hostile environment for the manufacture and use of PFAS, present and future.

The ban in this bill is a de facto ban on 9,252 PFAS, as well as numerous lifesaving and critical products containing PFAS.

A de facto ban is a system where many suppliers of a product are allowed, but the environment is so completely hostile to its existence, that the product might as well not be made.

The aggressive, unscientific regulatory approach in this bill, coupled with its extremely limited exemptions, will create stigma and uncertainty, and that will result in increased litigation in trial courts for products containing PFAS.

If you start stacking up the negative market pressures created through:

One, increased compliance costs;

Two, limited disposal options;

Three, sidelined investments;

Four, unquantifiable and permanent liability under CERCLA;

Five, tort lawsuits aided by legislative stigma;

Six, marketplace challenges;

Seven, the inability to make or finance a safer replacement chemical or product, it is not hard to see how H.R. 2467 creates a de facto ban on 9,252 chemicals and threatens the viability of these industries and the industries that need them and the products containing them that benefit our society.

Unfortunately, this is not a new tactic. It has been done before with the war on coal under the Obama administration, and now we are seeing it with the rest of fossil fuels and any product that some decide they don't like.

The word ``ban'' may not appear, but by creating massive costs through regulatory barriers and mandates, uncertainty, and taxes, a de facto ban is created by the cost of doing business. The cost of doing business becomes too high and we, as Americans, become dependent upon other countries, dangerously dependent upon other countries. It jeopardizes manufacturing in our country, and then we wonder why people are not manufacturing in the United States.

It has been done on coal, it has been done on fossil fuels, and today it is being done on American manufacturers.

We can do better. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this bill. Let's go back, let's do better. We all want to protect clean drinking water. That is a shared goal. Let's stay focused on that goal. Vote ``no'' on this bill.

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

Madam Speaker, I claim the time in opposition, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Madam Speaker, we all believe that we must have clean water. Unfortunately, this is not a thoughtful or scientific approach.

H.R. 2467 is opposed by a broad diverse, collection of interests that are concerned about its aggressive, over-the-top, unforgiving, and simultaneous mandates, obligations, and expenses.

These include: The United States Conference of Mayors; National League of Cities; National Association of Counties; American Water Works Association; Association of Metropolitan Water Agencies; National Association of Water Companies; National Association of Clean Water Agencies; National Rural Water Association; Association of California Water Agencies; The Water Environment Federation; American Chemistry Council; American Coatings Association; American Forest and Paper Association; American Fuel and Petrochemical Manufacturers; American Petroleum Institute; Flexible Packaging Association; National Association of Chemical Distributors; National Association for Surface Finishing; National Council of Textile Organizations; National Electrical Manufacturers Association; National Association of Surface Finishing; National Association of Printing Ink Manufacturers; Plastics Industry Association; United States Chamber of Commerce.

Madam Speaker, I include these letters in the Record.

July 21, 2021.

Re Opposition to H.R. 2467, the PFAS Action Act of 2021.

Dear Representative: On behalf of organizations

representing the nation's municipal governments and drinking

water and wastewater systems, we write in opposition to H.R.

2467, the PFAS Action Act of 2021. While we support taking

action to reduce the prevalence of PFAS in the environment,

the legislation would run counter to the important ``polluter

pays'' principle that guides Superfund site cleanups under

the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and

Liability Act (CERCLA), and would step back from the

transparent, science-based process of regulating drinking

water contaminants under the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA)

and clean water operations under the Clean Water Act (CWA).

We urge you to vote against this legislation in its current

form.

H.R. 2467 would require EPA to designate PFOA and PFOS as

hazardous substances under CERCLA within one year, and to

make a determination on designating all remaining PFAS within

five years. These hazardous substance designations are

intended to make sure polluters are held responsible for

paying for the cleanup of contaminated Superfund sites, which

we support. But the bill as currently structured would also

mean that municipal drinking water and wastewater utility

ratepayers could face staggering financial liability to clean

up PFAS that was legally disposed of following the water

treatment process. We believe water and wastewater utilities,

when acting in accordance with all applicable laws, should be

provided an exemption to protect the utilities and water

customers from bearing the costs of cleanup.

In the case of drinking water systems, if PFAS is removed

from source water in order to comply with a drinking water

regulatory standard, the utility then becomes the possessor

of filtration media that contain those PFAS. The utility must

then dispose of these PFAS-laden filters, typically by

sending them to a hazardous waste landfill in accordance with

applicable law. However, should that landfill ever become a

Superfund site, then the water utility could be treated as a

PFAS polluter--and be responsible for a portion of the

cleanup costs--forcing local ratepayers to cover the cleanup

bill after they already paid to remove the contaminants from

their source water.

Wastewater utilities would face similar liability through

no fault of their own because they receive PFAS chemicals

through the raw influent that arrives at the treatment plant.

This heterogenous influent can come from domestic,

industrial, and commercial sources and may contain PFAS

constituents ranging from trace to higher concentrations,

depending on the nature of the dischargers to the sewer

system. In any case, the influent is not generated by the

utility, but the utility is responsible for treating it under

scientific and regulatory authorities provided for under the

CWA. Because wastewater utilities cannot halt treating

continual industrial or domestic wastewater inputs which

likely contain PFAS in some concentration, they should be

protected through a targeted CERCLA liability exemption.

It is particularly disappointing that H.R. 2467 would offer

a CERCLA liability shield to airports that release PFAS into

the environment through their use of firefighting foam. It

defies logic that the legislation fails to extend that same

liability protection to water and wastewater systems that

have no choice but to dispose of PFAS found in water

supplies, and whose ratepayers would be ultimately

responsible for all of the costs associated with a Superfund

site cleanup. As passive receivers of PFAS, water and

wastewater utilities should be afforded the same liability

protections that the legislation would award airports in

order to keep CERCLA liability focused on the corporations

that created the pollution in the first place. Our

organizations have repeatedly asked Congress for CERCLA

liability shields in the legislation similar to those for

airports but have been rebuffed.

Additionally, many of our organizations oppose provisions

in H.R. 2467 that would amend SDWA by requiring EPA to

promulgate a national primary drinking water regulation for

PFOA and PFOS within two years, establishing a unique and

expedited drinking water contaminant regulatory process for

other chemicals in the PFAS family, and eliminating EPA's

discretion on whether to issue drinking water health

advisories related to PFAS. In sum, these changes would

undermine the development of transparent, science-based

drinking water standards, and would place undue cost burdens

on our communities and ratepayers while leading to premature

regulatory decisions that lack public review and scientific

validity.

While we share the goal of addressing PFAS contamination

and holding accountable those entities that are responsible

releasing it into the environment, H.R. 2467

would instead assign environmental cleanup liability to

innocent water systems and their customers. We have no choice

but to oppose the legislation and encourage you to vote

against it in its current form.

Sincerely,

American Council of Engineering Companies, Association of

California Water Agencies, California Association of

Sanitation Agencies, National Association of Counties,

National League of Cities, National Water Resources

Association, Water Environment Federation, American

Water Works Association, Association of Metropolitan

Water Agencies, National Association of Clean Water

Agenices, National Association of Water Companies,

National Rural Water Association, The U.S. Conference

of Mayors.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding and for his leadership on the subcommittee.

I rise today, unfortunately, in strong opposition to H.R. 2668, the Consumer Protection and Recovery Act, which represents a missed opportunity for both our committee and this Chamber.

Energy and Commerce has historically been the committee of bipartisanship and compromise. Unfortunately, this bill fails to meet that standard in the committee's rich history.

The legislation before us today is another go-it-alone approach that we have come to expect from House Democrat leadership.

In all my time on the committee, I am not sure I have seen so many process fouls or so much disregard for the minority as I have with H.R. 2668.

It fails to include an amendment put forward by Representative Gus Bilirakis, our fearless leader and ranking member on the subcommittee that received bipartisan support in our committee markup.

H.R. 2668 has been shadowed by a series of procedural fouls beginning with the intentional exclusion of Republican FTC commissioners from Energy and Commerce's hearing on this legislation as opposed to the Senate Commerce Committee hearing where they were invited to discuss 13(b) authority at length 1 week before.

Perhaps the Republican commissioners were excluded from our hearing because the majority did not want to hear the truth about their bill.

If the majority had led a better, more fair process, this legislation would have been significantly improved or at least built on the trust that we could come together on solutions crafted around sound legal arguments and analysis by all the proper experts.

To be clear, I share the goal of H.R. 2668, to protect people from scammers. But this bill is missing much-needed guardrails that the committee Republicans offered as amendments.

My biggest concern with this legislation, it fails to prioritize due process and ensuring proper analysis. This bill was pushed through a subcommittee markup without a good-faith effort to address the real concerns that we were raising.

We were given less than a week's notice late on Friday before the markup, and shortly before that DOJ sent us incomplete answers to a letter addressing the legitimate concerns raised by our members. This was followed by what seemed like a coordinated response to our questions for the record from FTC Acting Chair Slaughter shortly thereafter.

Mr. Speaker, committee members on both sides of the aisle received just 38 hours of notice regarding the inclusion of this legislation during a full committee markup resulting in criticism from both sides of the aisle.

I doubt many Members of this House believe Congress should operate in this manner. I do think we can all agree that both Republicans and Democrats want to protect people from malicious actors and that the FTC must have the necessary tools to do so.

H.R. 2668 grants FTC brand-new authorities under section 13(b) of the FTC Act, to seek financial penalties for what it alleges is fraud and anticompetitive behavior. It does so without the inclusion of guardrails to protect due process. This is a huge, missed opportunity to enact a national privacy standard.

Last Congress, Senator Wicker rightfully identified privacy and 13(b) reform as policies that could be easily legislated together and should. Even this bill's prime sponsor, Mr. Cardenas, acknowledged his effort to include a national privacy standard with a legislative fix for 13(b).

We must do our job. We cannot have California dictating policy for the other 49 States.

If my colleagues are so concerned about urgently granting the FTC with new authorities to protect people, why aren't we urgently passing a national standard, which we all agree will protect their data privacy?

This legislation fails to address much-needed FTC reforms, to increase transparency, establish a national privacy framework, and ensure due process. There should be no lack of will to take on fraudsters, scammers, and abusers of our personal information.

We need to sit down, work it out, and move comprehensive FTC reform legislation forward together.

I urge my colleagues to vote ``no.'' We can do better.

Madam Speaker, my heart is heavy as I rise today to honor the life of my dear friend, Hoyt Humphreys ``Larry'' Larison, who passed away on December 11, 2020. My prayers are with Larry's family as we mourn his passing.

Born and raised in Montana, Larry was a lifelong member of the Pacific Northwest community who later planted his roots in Eastern Washington. This is how I got to know Larry as a leader and strong champion for education and entrepreneurship.

Larry committed his life to creating opportunities for the next generation of American leaders, serving on the Whitworth University School of Business Advisory Board in Spokane and sponsoring multiple annual scholarships for students across the region.

Larry was generous with not only his financial contributions but also his time and wisdom, playing an active role in various organizations throughout his life. He served as Chairman of the Republican National Committee Small Business Advisory Council under President Ronald Reagan, Director of Finance and Governance Committees for Spokane

Mobius Science Center, and Director of the Finance and Marketing Committee for the Spokane County Boys and Girls Clubs, to name a few.

Larry always felt indebted to have these opportunities in life and never took anything for granted. He had an amazing impact on the lives of so many in Eastern Washington, and I was grateful for his friendship and insights.

I will never forget his passion for being outdoors and enjoying God's beautiful creations in the Western United States. Above all, I will always remember how proud Larry was to be an American. He embodied the American spirit by seizing every opportunity and encouraging others to chase their dreams. He always gave time and encouragement to everyone he knew, and we are better for his impact on our lives.

Madam Speaker, Larry Larison lived an amazing life that deserves to be celebrated. In honor of Larry's legacy, passion, and contributions that inspired so many, I ask my colleagues to join me in recognizing Larry Larison. May God grant him eternal peace in His kingdom.

Madam Speaker, my heart is heavy as I rise today to honor the life of my dear friend, Sharon Silzel, who passed away on December 17, 2020 after a long battle with Parkinson's Disease. My prayers are with Sharon's family as we mourn her passing.

Sharon spent her first 30 years in Spokane, Washington as a dental and orthopedic assistant before answering her true calling--politics. In 1994, she hopped on the campaign trail, helping to elect George Nethercutt to the very seat in Congress that I have the honor of representing today. She was a force as a volunteer on my first campaign for Congress and remained a supporter and friend through the years.

In every sense of the word, Sharon was a trailblazer. After marrying her soulmate Jack in 2001, Sharon moved to Washington, D.C. where she served in the White House screening student correspondence for President George W. Bush.

Upon returning to Eastern Washington, Sharon kept her passion for politics alive as a member of Ponderosa Republican Women where she continued to champion the values that make our nation the greatest in the world.

Her love for politics never stopped Sharon from fully immersing herself in the Spokane County community. She was well-known by her neighbors as a faithful member of St. Anthony Catholic Church and proud supporter of Trinity Elementary School.

I knew Sharon to be a faithful follower of the Lord, and her light touched the lives of so many from Spokane to Washington, D.C. and everyone she met in between. Each and every one of us who had the privilege of knowing Sharon in this life are better because of it, and I thank God for giving me the blessing of calling her my friend.

Madam Speaker, Sharon Silzel lived an amazing life that deserves to be celebrated. In honor of her legacy, passion, and contributions that inspired so many, I ask my colleagues to join me in recognizing Sharon Silzel. May God grant her eternal peace in His kingdom.

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

Madam Speaker, I rise today on H.R. 3684, the INVEST in America Act.

I support improving America's infrastructure, but even a broad definition of infrastructure doesn't include creating a massive network of centralized planning, unreasonable regulations, and undisciplined debt. This is not how we win the future.

We have shown how working together can result in positive improvements for drinking water systems. Take the America's Water Infrastructure Act of 2018, AWIA, which was a huge bipartisan win for water infrastructure. Today, while the bill before us renews several AWIA authorizations, H.R. 3684 is plagued by significant controversial policy choices.

First, it authorizes drinking water loan fund spending amounts that are triple those requested in the President's fiscal year 2022 budget, $1.35 billion versus $4.14 billion.

It also layers an expensive, new, 10-year, $45 billion public and privately owned lead service replacement program on top of two existing EPA programs. It does so even though EPA is at least 2 years away from determining where lead service lines should be replaced, and the costs involved.

Second, the legislation makes radical changes to EPA's regulatory authority for drinking water contaminants. It promotes stringency rather than health.

It will raise costs on all customers, including low-and middle-income families and punish communities with the lowest rate bases.

H.R. 3684 strikes the requirement in the Safe Drinking Water Act that costs of a regulation be in line with its health benefits. That allows communities to protect public health without overspending their finite public health resources on minimal risks. Communities must be allowed to prioritize their limited resources on their most pressing concerns.

The INVEST in America Act also removes language permitting our lowest and smallest communities--with EPA approval--to use more affordable technology that protects people's health.

This bill authorizes $4 billion to pay off unpaid bills from the last 15 months--even though Congress has already provided at least $1.1 billion to do this. Importantly, water systems that participate in this program are prohibited from collecting old amounts from their customers for 5 years, regardless of income. This will cripple water systems' ability to meet expenses and plan.

If that is not enough, H.R. 3684 creates a new, $8 billion entitlement program at the EPA. This is EPA's first-ever entitlement program. It creates barriers for smaller, poorer, water systems and requires EPA to study the need for this program only after it starts handing out all this money.

Without dramatic changes, I can't support this bill, and I urge opposition. I encourage all Members of the House to support Republican amendments that correct its deficits, including my amendment with Ranking Member McKinley, which builds upon the 2018 bipartisan efforts and reauthorizes more than $11 billion for the bipartisan drinking water programs from AWIA.

I also have to address the so-called auto safety title that the majority dropped into this bill.

In mid-April we agreed with the Energy and Commerce Committee Democrats to circulate a draft auto safety title to stakeholders, largely written by the Democrats, that included a proposal promoting autonomous vehicles. We worked in good faith--even when the majority backed off on their commitment for a legislative hearing. Our patience seemed to be rewarded with this rushed measure without even a markup.

It is notable that the framework for autonomous vehicles is missing in this legislation before us. We must provide a pathway for America to beat China and lead in the testing and the deployment of AVs.

This deficiency is a gift to the trial lawyers who make money off of unsafe roads.

It rewards the Teamsters, who completely misunderstood that our jurisdiction only includes passenger vehicles and not trucking. Their opposition hurts their brothers and sisters in labor who want to make these vehicles.

Sadly, this failure will hurt vulnerable communities. AV legislation, autonomous vehicles, self-driving cars, would deliver a whole new form of mobility for seniors and people with disabilities.

Our economy and national security is also compromised here as well. Inaction cedes the leadership of driverless cars to China, just like we did for communication equipment companies. It is not acceptable. We can do better.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to amendments en bloc No. 5.

En bloc No. 5 is filled with proposals that spend excessively on new programs, create duplicate programs, ignore scientific and public input, and place serious burdens on rural communities.

For instance, one amendment, which I might add is very well-meaning, creates a new program with a price tag of $200 million per year, or eight times the amount for the existing program that covers physical upgrades and training to deal with all terrorism threats and resilience.

There is a proposal in this bloc to require EPA to establish a website for testing private water wells. Yet, for those seeking information, EPA already has a website to provide information to the public on private well testing, preventing water pollution, identifying contaminants, and contacts for emergency response.

In another area, en bloc No. 5 requires GAO to provide Congress policy options for best practices for EPA to use with States and local governments to include the public in a consolidation process.

The study is unnecessary and punitive to rural communities. Section 1414 of the Safe Drinking Water Act already has mandatory assessment requirements for systems that have problems.

Mr. Speaker, I have identified here only a few of the provisions that I find troublesome. There are other matters in this amendment that are difficult when it comes to workability and also that have other policy concerns.

On a separate note, I must express my opposition to the inclusion in the previous bloc of amendments of the NO EXHAUST Act, a partisan Energy and Commerce bill. This amendment provides subsidies for the rich to buy electric vehicles at the expense of the taxpayers and everyone else's electric reliability and utility bills.

The amendment makes no consideration for American jobs, our growing reliance on China for critical minerals to make batteries, or the strain that electric vehicles undoubtedly will place on the grid.

The amendment even mandates new building codes so everyone has to install expensive electrical equipment in their homes and buildings for EV chargers, even if nobody is driving an electric vehicle.

These kinds of policies will harm hardworking American families, especially those in our rural communities.

Mr. Speaker, I urge Members to join me in opposing this en bloc amendment.