Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, we cannot rely on words alone to repel Russian aggression in Ukraine nor to extinguish terrorism in the Middle East. Rather, we must also provide material support to our democratic partners, as well. We must not cleave Israel and Israeli funding and Ukraine and Ukrainian funding into two separate spending votes because their fight for freedom is actually one and the same.

The stories of Ukraine and Israel are inherently intertwined, and I am the daughter of their woven histories and struggles. With forged papers, my Jewish father evaded the Nazi threat in Lviv. The vast majority of his family was murdered in the Holocaust, but the few who survived emigrated to the United States, Australia, and Israel.

It is an absolute dereliction of our duty to democracy to condition and politicize our support for Israel or Ukraine. To do so would signal to our adversaries abroad that we don't have the willpower, that we don't have the courage, to stand up to authoritarianism or extremism wherever it rears its ugly head.

We cannot send that message. We cannot appease evil. We cannot afford to backslide in defense of democracy.

Madam Speaker, I rise for the indefatigable, musical, mystical, magical Mr. Murray Savar.

Murray, you have been the pied piper for more than 40 years--two generations--for our community's young women and girls. Students have been entranced by you and have literally found their voice and their agency under your spell.

You are priceless. Your life is an exemplar of the impact that one person, one teacher, can have on hundreds and thousands of lives, an impact that you have had by joyfully meeting the mundane world where we are with a song every single day. Southeastern Pennsylvania is so lucky that you have called it home for so many years.

I am here--just one person--standing in on behalf of more than four decades of parents and students in our community.

To quote a song that you taught generations to love, I say, ``Thank you for the music, for giving it to me.''

Murray, your community loves you and wishes you Godspeed.

Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. Chairman, defense-centric, small businesses, and the industrial base face unique challenges in creating new advanced production lines, scaling, expanding manufacturing capacity, and in competing and leading to issues with how to best support our warfighters with key advanced defense capabilities.

For many of these U.S. businesses, translating investments into marketable products and services remains a challenge. As job creation engines, start-ups are vital to the American economy, but they often lack the resources to bring good ideas to market or to establish a contract with the Department of Department.

That is why I introduced my bipartisan bill, H.R. 3147, which establishes a defense industrial base advanced capabilities pilot program, to help small businesses bridge that gap between creating innovative ideas to help our servicemembers, and the time that it takes to get to full production capacity.

This bill builds on the success of SBIR and STTR programs to further increase private-sector commercialization of innovations derived from federally funded R&D.

I was very proud to see this bill included in this year's NDAA in Section 853 of the House-passed bill and in Section 831 of the Senate- passed bill, and now we just need to fund it.

Due to its targeted support to small businesses, it is no surprise that the U.S. Chamber of Commerce has made this effort a top legislative priority, and I am very proud to have had their support over the years to make this much-needed change.

What does this amendment do?

This amendment would direct $50 million in O&M defense-wide to the Defense Production Act purchases account to fund the Advanced Defense Capabilities Pilot Program. Funding in fiscal year 2024 would accelerate the scaling, production, manufacturing, and acquisition of defense-centric advanced capabilities to bolster DIB resilience and modernize and increase our competition advantage versus China and other adversaries.

The public-private partnership pilot funding would increase support and investments for domestic small, advanced defense-focused businesses, and stimulate key defense-centric industrial base markets, create new production lines, decrease defense-centric manufacturing supply chain vulnerabilities, provide advisory and scaling support, and unlock private equity capital for advanced warfighting capability aligned with the National Defense Strategy.

Due to this targeted support to small businesses, it is really no surprise that the U.S. Chamber of Commerce has made this effort a top legislative priority, and I am very proud to have their support.

As a former engineer and entrepreneur, I know how urgent this legislation is, and we have to support our talented entrepreneurs in translating their innovative ideas into marketable products and cutting edge technologies and to make sure that many endeavors don't fail because they lack access to capital.

Mr. Chair, I very much appreciate your support for this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from Minnesota (Ms. McCollum), the ranking member, in support of my amendment.

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

Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to instruct.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks on this motion to instruct.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today because this House has a choice. We can either stand up for the rights of servicemembers and military families or we can allow the Republican-led House, and specifically the extreme faction of the Republican Conference, to continue their assault on reproductive freedoms.

For my Democratic colleagues and I, this choice is clear. We will fight. We will fight for the freedom of servicewomen and for their families, and I urge my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to please do the same.

Many of our servicemembers joined the Armed Forces prior to the overturning of Roe v. Wade last June, and they did so with the understanding that they and their families would be treated with dignity and would receive comprehensive and high-quality healthcare services, regardless of where they were stationed--and, yes, that also includes access to abortion care.

Since Roe was overturned, servicemembers and their families have had access to travel and to leave if they need to seek reproductive healthcare, but unfortunately, that freedom is now being threatened today.

Mr. Speaker, today, for the very first time since 1973, 14 States have passed outright abortion bans. Seven more have passed partial bans, and six more have tried but have been stopped by the courts.

Nearly 120,000 servicemembers are currently stationed in Texas. This is a State that has implemented a draconian anti-choice law and now has among the worst maternal health outcomes for women in the entire Nation. Our servicewomen deserve better.

This issue has been politicized, and it has been distorted. Outright lies have been spread by elected officials and by anti-abortion activists alike.

I will set the record straight. Here are the facts: Women in States with abortion bans are nearly three times more likely to die during pregnancy, during childbirth, or soon after giving birth. Let that sink in. We are stationing our women in uniform and their families in States where they are three times more likely to die during pregnancy.

No servicemember should have to accept a reality where they could literally die as a result of the anti-choice State law where they are stationed.

These are the conditions that our servicewomen and their military families have to consider when they decide to serve. Nearly half of servicemembers no longer have access to abortion care, and that is not counting even the members of their families, as well.

Our servicemembers signed up to serve our country with the understanding that one day they may have to make the ultimate sacrifice, the sacrifice of their life.

Let me remind the Chamber and those who are watching that we have an all-volunteer force. Again, I will repeat: We have an all-volunteer force.

As we look to recruit and retain the best fighters and the greatest minds that this Nation has to offer, we really cannot restrict the very freedoms that we ask women and men in uniform to potentially die for.

It is also important, as we talk, to go beyond the facts and figures and to share the personal and human impact of these anti-abortion laws and the choices we are facing here this week in this body.

In Texas, the second-largest State for Active-Duty servicemembers in our country, Amanda Zurawski was 18 weeks pregnant when her water broke, putting her at a high risk for developing a life-threatening infection. Doctors told Amanda that her life was in danger and that the fetus was going to die, but doctors could not provide the medical care that she needed because their hands were tied by Texas law.

Amanda eventually did develop sepsis and did eventually nearly die. Heartbreakingly, her ability to be and get pregnant in the future might be damaged, as well.

Amanda survived, and she survived to share this story about her harrowing experience to hopefully prevent others from having this experience, as well.

This story and the data that we have talked about today is why I am working with my colleagues, led by my dear

friend and fellow veteran, Congresswoman Mikie Sherrill, to try to codify this basic travel policy.

This body decided that women cannot be trusted to make their own reproductive healthcare choices, and instead, the majority in this House has decided to make it harder for servicewomen and their families to access care; to make it harder for them to make their own healthcare choices; to make it harder for servicewomen and military families to decide on their own if, when, and how to start their own families.

Also, a single United States Senator is holding up more than 300 military promotions and counting, hollowing out the military leadership and hurting our military readiness in the process. He is doing this all because he is that adamant that women in uniform cannot be trusted.

As a veteran myself, let me say out loud and clear that his actions are a disgrace, and Americans agree.

Again, more data: 70 percent of our constituents believe that women should have access to abortion care.

Mr. Speaker, the grave concerns I have outlined don't even begin to scratch the surface of all the harmful amendments that are also tacked on to this bill. Quite frankly, it is an embarrassment to this institution that our governance is just so fractured, so unable to agree on something so simple as letting a woman in uniform make the best care decisions for her family, her career, and herself.

Sadly, this is indicative of where we are today. I grew up in a military family, and I myself served. My parents didn't always agree on politics, but they shared a common love for the promises that this Nation offered my father, a refugee and Holocaust survivor who became a Navy aviator.

I have colleagues on the other side of this aisle with whom I work and respect, which is why I am deeply saddened to see a bipartisan bill that has endured for 60 years fall victim to this kind of partisan politics because the bipartisan bill that we passed originally out of committee by 58-1 is literally no longer recognizable.

Today, Mr. Speaker, is about choice, choice in more ways than one. We can either let this far-right minority continue to hold our national security hostage to their radical agenda, or we can refuse to allow them to play politics with our national security and with the health and well-being of our servicemembers.

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

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

Just before I introduce our next person, I want to emphasize that this is not a new policy. The DOD is not simply creating a new policy out of thin air. The DOD is, in fact, using precedent from the nonavailability of care and simply allowing women with reproductive health service needs to be able to have effective travel and reimbursement for said travel. Again, this is not a new policy, and it simply updates a policy that allows for travel reimbursement to ensure that we have equal access to healthcare.

Thankfully, we have a President in Joe Biden who is responsive to the needs of our military servicemembers and who supports this effort.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Minnesota (Ms. McCollum).

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

Here are the facts: Not a single dollar is going toward paying for an abortion under the current DOD travel policy, which only provides for leave and travel reimbursements for servicewomen who are forced to travel for their healthcare due to restrictive laws of the State that they are stationed in, in line with a very longstanding DOD policy that has always provided for travel and leave where specialized healthcare is not provided or allowed for.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Michigan (Ms. Slotkin).

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

We don't get to choose what our facts are. The chilling effect that is happening right now on recruiting is caused by a variety of things, but the number one reason, the number one contributing factor to a servicemember's decision to enlist or reenlist, is the support of their spouse.

If we are showing the entire country that we don't trust women and families to be in control of their own healthcare decisions, why would they encourage anyone in their family to reenlist or to enlist in the service at all.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Crow).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), former Speaker of the House.

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from California.

Mr. Speaker, just a reminder that President Biden knows personally what it means to support those in uniform and to keep the administration's promise to make sure that our servicemen and -women are protected as they serve us all.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Smith), the ranking member of the Armed Services Committee.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Garamendi).

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time I have remaining.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Moulton).

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 such time as I may consume.

I would like very much, Mr. Speaker, if I could ask you to ask my colleagues to not presume to judge who I am.

I stand here as a woman who has worn the uniform, who has given birth while wearing the uniform. To have assumptions about who I am or what I am and to judge me or any of my other colleagues who have worn the uniform is an offense to me, and I would ask that you advise them not to presume anything about me.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, a far-right minority in Congress has spent the last 9 months holding this process, this NDAA, hostage--again, a reminder that this passed with overwhelming bipartisan support. They are currently struggling to even pass a rule for Defense appropriations, let alone to pass the budget itself.

They have gone through attacks on servicewomen, on LGBTQ servicemembers, on immigrant servicemembers, and so much more. Their allies in the Senate are risking our military readiness with asinine confirmation holds and ignoring the repeated requests of our most senior military members to stop.

Time and time again, they have used must-pass, historically bipartisan legislation such as the NDAA to force an extreme agenda on our servicemembers and many others in our country.

As an Air Force veteran and as a proud military child who lived and served across this great country and in many other places outside of this country, I did so with the full protections of Roe v. Wade.

It not only saddens me but also pains me to think that we would give servicewomen orders without the full reproductive freedoms and protections that I had when I was able to serve.

Today, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to choose to be on the side of our servicemembers, military families, and all Americans who love and support them by supporting this motion to instruct.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, today Appropriations Committee Republicans struck down community project funding requests for three projects related to LGBTQ organizations, and one was from my community.

The decision to strip this specific request from the bill, a request previously approved by the Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, and Related Agencies Subcommittee is not based in reasoning or legitimacy, but instead on bigotry and discrimination.

My office's selection process for Community Projects Funding is recognized as one of the most thorough and fair in Congress. We use an independent board of community leaders from our district. That means today the committee overrode the will of my constituents.

My district is a vibrant community in the suburbs of Philadelphia, and I would venture to say that many on the committee who voted against this funding have never visited it. It is demonstrated in the fact that they couldn't pronounce the name of the city of Reading and pronounced it Reading.

They have not visited the LGBT Center of Greater Reading itself like I have many times, and they have never seen the food pantry that helps those who have been rejected by their family or the warm spaces that welcome people in the winter and allow them a clean space to live and be themselves. These are basic human needs.

On behalf of my community and on behalf of the LGBTQ community, I express my vehement opposition to stripping lifesaving funding from the LGBTQ Center of Greater Reading.

Mr. Chair, later today, I will offer the motion to recommit on this bill.

I stand with my colleagues who have stood shoulder to shoulder in support of our brave servicemembers in an effort to put together this bill for the last nearly 1 year. I stand with the spirit of those who are currently serving in uniform who are sick and tired of this legislative body politicizing their lives, their livelihoods, and their bodily autonomy.

I rise today in honor of my grandfather and my father, who served full, distinguished careers in the military, and my mom and my grandmother, who served as military spouses, each for over 30 years.

I rise today as someone who was born and grew up on a military base and moved across this Nation and to other countries. I rise as someone who raised my own hand and my own child when

the time came. I rise for my cousins who serve today.

I don't need my colleagues to tell me what it is like to be a mom in uniform because I lived that experience, or a child in the military. I lived that, too.

Here I am today, standing up on behalf of all servicewomen and military families who are willing to risk their lives for our freedoms, yet we are not willing to protect theirs.

What I have seen on the floor over the past 2 days has really saddened me: targeting LGBTQ families like my own, targeting libraries, targeting the reproductive freedoms of servicewomen and military families stationed in States that do not respect their own bodily autonomy.

Chair, we even saw a colleague refer to our Black servicemembers as ``colored people.''

To my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, let me make a few things clear. We agree there are threats around the world like China that we should be spending our time and efforts on. We agree the historic recruitment challenges we face are a risk to our national security. We agree the brave men and women who serve in uniform should not be used as political pawns.

So why did this Republican-led body decide to take a historically bipartisan piece of legislation from the House Armed Services Committee hostage by adding scores of extreme GOP culture war priorities to it, including, least of all, a clear-as-day backdoor policy to a national abortion ban?

Chair, I want the American people to know that Democrats support our men and women in uniform. We proudly voted forward by 58-1 a bipartisan piece of legislation to increase their pay, to improve their housing, and to expand their access to childcare.

However, the GOP is putting that bipartisan progress in jeopardy, and the toughest part is that they know it. I have a great deal of respect for the handful of my colleagues who recognize the extreme turn that this legislation has taken, and I thank them.

So, I look at them again, and I look to them again. We must do what is right by our servicemembers. Put the political gamesmanship aside and return this extreme bill back to committee where it can return it to its bipartisan nature.

I will work tirelessly across the aisle to ensure that we give the President, our Nation, and, in fact, our globe a bill that truly provides for the collective defense of our American values.

It really saddens me to say that this bill does not do that. This bill will hurt our recruitment and retention.

It makes it extremely difficult for a proud veteran like myself and so many others to look at future leaders of America and say that, yes, this military is a home for you.

I took the uniform nearly 30 years ago, and it is a travesty that servicewomen today will have less freedoms than I did.

Chair, I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this MTR and send this extreme bill back to committee where we can truly deliver for those in uniform.

Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.

Madam Chair, I thank Representative Sherrill for yielding me time.

Madam Chair, I rise today in opposition to this harmful and dangerous amendment, a back door to a national ban on abortion.

I also rise saddened and frustrated that we find ourselves here in this legislative body deciding whether or not we trust our women in uniform and our military families to make healthcare decisions for themselves.

Let me say loud and clear, as someone who has worn the uniform, who had a child as an Active-Duty member, and who has a uterus, unlike many who are opining on this subject, I trust women to make the best decisions that they are able to for their own health and their families' health.

It is insulting that we have to stand here and ask our colleagues to acknowledge our servicemembers' and military family members' bodily autonomy.

I grew up in a military family, moving dozens of times. When I graduated and when the time came, I also raised my right hand.

Today, that same woman stands before you perplexed. Why would any woman want to enlist when her fundamental freedoms and those of her family are no longer her own?

The percentage of Active-Duty servicemembers who have no or severely restricted access to abortion is now 46 percent. I strongly urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment.

Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to this amendment.

Instead of debating the very many pressing national security issues that our country faces, my Republican colleagues are, unfortunately, using this amendment and many others to continue their needless crusade against the LGBTQ+ community.

It goes without saying that regardless of sexual orientation or gender identity, the servicemembers and civilian employees who work at the Department of Defense provide a great sacrifice and great service to our great Nation. With this amendment, my Republican colleagues are once again attempting to erase and censor the LGBTQ+ community in our Armed Forces and in those workplaces.

For 17 years, Don't Ask, Don't Tell prohibited servicemembers from being openly themselves without the threat of being discharged. I served during this time. Since its repeal, our country has made significant strides to acceptance in our Armed Forces and in the DOD.

With this amendment, anti-equality lawmakers are attempting to take us backward by prohibiting servicemembers and DOD employees from displaying the Pride flag, a symbol of strength and acceptance of the LGBT community, individuals, and the many ongoing challenges that continue to be faced by that community.

Regardless of whether you are a servicemember serving overseas or a civilian employee working at the Pentagon, all of our servicemembers and defense employees should have the opportunity to celebrate their identity and their truth, and this amendment would take that away.

With the enactment of the Respect for Marriage Act, we saw possibilities for progress when both Democrats and Republicans came together in support of the LGBTQ community, yet instead of embracing this bipartisanship and progress, with this amendment, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are espousing an anti-equality and anti- trans agenda.

At a time when the LGBTQ+ community is facing a deluge of attacks in States across our Nation, now more than ever, we must come together in support of that community, their heroes, and those who honorably serve our country.

Once again, I stand here as a veteran, the mother of a gay daughter, an ally to LGBTQ servicemembers and DOD employees, and in strong opposition to this amendment.

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

Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Massachusetts (Ms. Pressley).

Mr. Chair, may I inquire how much time I have remaining.

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

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

We agree that we should not be spending our time and wasting our time on this issue. We agree that flags have purpose and flags have meaning. We agree that we should be flying properly approved flags.

However, what we don't agree on is that we should be taking our Nation back. This is all of our Nation, not just for some.

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

Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to this amendment.

Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to this harmful and very misguided amendment; and let's do start with the facts.

This amendment, dare I say, is a naked attempt at discrimination, an attempt to ban books such as those who depict families with two moms or two dads. To block those stories is to block the story of my own daughter and her wife, as an example.

My colleagues on the other side of the aisle like to say that they are for individual rights and freedom, but it is perhaps more accurate to say that some of them want the individual right to deny other people and other families their rights and freedoms, as well.

The Federal Government does not and should not get to choose what my children or my daughter's children read.

As a parent myself, I also have children, and a former teacher, I believe that the beauty of books is in its ability to expose us to worlds and ideas that are outside of our own. Our schools should be focused on creating environments that support every student, all students, and not censoring their individual experiences.

Here is where we clearly do agree. Parents across the country want their children to learn in safe and affirming environments, which is why I am also in vehement opposition and, frankly, quite disgusted by some nonstop attempts that seem to be coming from our colleagues on the other side of the aisle to label content that they don't like as pornography, as a shield that, frankly, in my opinion is hiding blatant bigotry.

So I rise on behalf of my daughter and the LGBTQ+ people whose experiences must be told. This bill, this amendment doesn't stop with LGBTQ+ people or servicemembers. This amendment also yields other harmful consequences.

How the text is currently written would allow for further draconian and out-of-touch interpretations that could ban books simply like Judy Blume's, one that we have probably all read, those of us of a certain age and gender, ``Are You There God? It's Me, Margaret.'' or other stories that teach young people about puberty, their bodies, or contain information about health and sexual education.

America is a country of freedom of speech and freedom of ideas, and yet my colleagues across the aisle want to ban books that enable the next generation to thrive.

So today I rise, dare I say, to allow people to be able to choose what they

read to their children, or what their children read.

As a child in DoDEA schools, I actually got to be exposed to this exact situation where I had the opportunity to read a lot when I was growing up in Defense Department schools, and I can't imagine a world where my parents didn't have the ability or the authority to decide what it was that I was going to be able to read.

I urge my colleagues to vote against this very harmful amendment and against all efforts that politicize military and hurt military readiness and national security.

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

Mr. Chair, how much time do I have remaining?

Mr. Chair, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Mrs. Sykes), my colleague.

Mr. Chair, I would just urge my colleagues please to vote against this harmful amendment and other amendments that are similarly working very much to destroy and distract from what I think is really important, which is the national security of our Nation.

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

Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Madam Chair, today I rise in support of my amendment which would simply require Congress to approve by vote any regulation with an economic impact over $1 billion rather than $100 million as the current underlying bill is written.

Congress does have a responsibility to ensure that Federal dollars are spent appropriately with congressional intent and oversight in mind. Yet all of us in this Chamber know just how challenging it can be to come to a consensus despite all of our best efforts, let alone to find the time and the space on the calendar to do so.

Requiring a vote in both the House and the Senate on any regulation with a price tag of $100 million will put in jeopardy consumer protection, healthcare access, and environmental safety. We simply cannot afford in good faith to have this threshold this low. The American people cannot afford for the implementation of these items to be stalled.

The rulemaking process is designed to implement laws that have already passed Congress. However, the laws that we write and the dollars we spend do, of course, have tangible impacts, which is why my amendment would ensure that only the rules that are over $1 billion would see a vote.

As a point of reference, during the Trump administration only 26 out of 1,327 rules had a price tag of over $1 billion. Again, less than 2 percent of the Trump administration's 1,300 rules would, therefore, require a vote under the new threshold. To drill down on the math, that would mean less than 30 votes rather than 1,321 votes.

A little bit of back-of-the-envelope math for us: we here in the House are in session between 27 and 30 weeks a year. I would say we do 20 votes a week which is generously around 600 votes a year; not nearly close to the 1,321 votes that we would have had to have taken during the Trump administration.

Again, I cannot stress enough that regulations do have an impact on real people and American lives. They do ensure aircraft safety and food quality, and they do prevent hazardous material from entering our air and water. As a consequence and because of that, we cannot take unnecessary risks by delaying these quantity of votes.

So, Madam Chair, for all of these reasons, I do urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to please vote ``yes'' on this, my commonsense amendment. I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I yield to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler).

Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I cannot stress enough that regulations do, of course, have an impact on real American people and real American lives. Once again, I will emphasize that they ensure aircraft safety and food quality and prevent hazardous materials from entering our air and our water. We cannot take unnecessary risks.

If there is one thing the last several months have taught us about this body and the way that we move, is that we cannot move with expedience and that we definitely take an enormous amount of time to vote on any one piece of legislation.

The idea that we would be standing here week after week month after month voting on thousands of bills in this way is really a demonstration of the fact that we don't simply understand how this body works.

So for that reason, I very much urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this commonsense amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, over 13,000 people in the United States have died from gun violence this year alone. Let me repeat that: Over 13,000 people in the United States have died from gun violence this year alone, and it is only April. This means that over 100 people are dying by gunshot every single day.

We have to take action to stop this epidemic. We have to address the scourge of gun violence and the multiple reasons that we find ourselves here almost every single day having the same conversation.

People should be able to ring the wrong doorbell accidentally or drive into the wrong driveway without the fear of being shot. We cannot continue to glorify guns while vilifying and frightening our fellow Americans. More guns are not the answer. Improving public safety and supporting our law enforcement will make us safer and can help change public sentiment so that people will stop seeing guns as solutions and our neighbors and each other as threats.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to please work together on finding our common ground with actual solutions to gun violence. The American people are asking us to do this. We must work together. We must move forward rather than pushing each other apart.

Mr. Speaker, last week, tragedy struck my community when an explosion rocked the R.M. Palmer chocolate factory in West Reading, claiming the lives of seven people and injuring many others.

Most people know Palmer chocolate for their Easter bunnies and other holiday treats, but we know them as an important part of our community.

Since the tragedy, our first responders have been heroes.

Our neighbors, nonprofits, and local businesses have set up programs to help and, in some cases, literally have given the shirts off their backs for those who were impacted.

Similarly, and also not surprisingly in our community, government leaders at the local, State, and Federal levels are also on the ground, collaborating together to support our community and recovery.

I speak today full of grief for the families and friends of those whom we have lost, and I speak today full of gratitude for the strength and dedication of so many in our community who are doing so much.

We see you, and we honor you. We are very proud to stand with you.

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. Chairman, while there is a great deal of divisive and partisan debate on the energy bill that is being considered this week, I rise to offer a bipartisan, commonsense, and straightforward amendment to protect U.S. national security in times of energy crisis.

The amendment closes a dangerous loophole that has existed since 2015 which allows our foreign adversaries to purchase our strategic oil supply.

As the law is currently written, oil from the Strategic Oil Reserve is sold by the Department of Energy to the highest bidder with few exceptions on what countries can purchase from the U.S. supply. That means that our fiercest adversaries, like China, Russia, Iran, or North Korea and other sanctioned governments, can purchase and export our strategic oil. In fact, companies owned by and affiliated with the Chinese Communist Party have won purchase contracts during the past two Presidential administrations.

Simply put, this loophole threatens our national security, and it poses serious harm to American families. The American people need Congress to act and to act quickly.

That is why I reached across the aisle to introduce the Banning Oil Exports to Foreign Adversaries Act with my colleague, Representative Don Bacon. My amendment includes the straightforward and commonsense solution put forward by our bill. It prohibits the export or sale of the Strategic Petroleum

Reserve to China, North Korea, Russia, Iran, and any country currently under U.S. sanctions.

In January, my colleagues and I voted to pass a bill through the House of Representatives that would prohibit the sale of our strategic reserve to China, but that legislation does not go far enough.

Do we want North Korea buying American oil? How about Iran or Russia?

As a veteran and one of the most bipartisan Members of this body, my position remains clear. We must make sure that we put national security over party politics. We must ensure that our foreign adversaries are not allowed to profit at the expense of American safety and security.

My amendment reflects the fact that Congress has more work to do on this to close this dangerous loophole, not just for China but for any foreign adversary that poses a threat to our Nation.

Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues, both Republicans and Democrats alike, to support this amendment and to include the bipartisan Banning Oil Exports to Foreign Adversaries Act in this legislation.

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

Madam Speaker, I stand before you today to honor the AmeriCorps, to honor AmeriCorps week, and the AmeriCorps members who have dedicated their lives or part of their lives to serving others.

I have experienced firsthand the unifying power and impact of national service, during both my own service first in the Air Force and then later as a chemistry teacher through the AmeriCorps, Teach for America.

It was life changing, I hope not just for me. I was honored this week to be able to visit with AmeriCorps senior volunteers who work in our schools as foster grandparents to see that service is still indeed alive and thriving in the hearts of so many Americans.

In fact, since 1994, 57,000 residents of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania have volunteered over 79 million hours of time. Service is a critical component in addressing many of the challenges we face as a Nation today, including how divided we feel from one another.

Please join me in expressing our gratitude to the AmeriCorps members, both past and present, who commit themselves to serving others.

Let's embrace national service and challenge ourselves and one another to serve whenever and wherever we are able.

Mr. Speaker, I do not believe that noncitizens should have the ability to vote. Full stop. I think a regular review of criminal code is a good idea and a good exercise for any State or local government. Full stop. I also believe that States and local governments and municipalities have the right to self-determination on these very issues.

Today, I voted on two curious proposals that my colleagues in the majority felt as though we should be spending our time, limited precious time, voting on.

I do not believe it is my place to vote to overturn or disapprove of choices made by the people of Washington, D.C., nor do I think this is a sincere use of Congress' focus and time.

These early weeks of the 118th Congress have been focused on voting on headline grabbing, divisive, meaningless, and unserious legislation. The American people want us here in Washington working on our most pressing challenges, issues like addressing our debt, our economy's recovery, the safety of our planet and communities, and bettering the lives of our citizens.

I look forward to working on these real issues. Let's finish the job.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in remembrance of the Holocaust and the day that we mark to remember it.

This is a 1-minute speech--60 seconds.

Lucy Jampoler, Hanka Awin, Christine Winecki, and Andrew Christopher Alexander Jampoler. These are the names of the four people in my family who survived the Holocaust.

It took me 10 seconds to name them. If I stood here and named every Jew who died in the Holocaust, it would take me 140 days. I wish I had that time.

Sylvia Yoma Tarquine, Monica Yoma, Jason Karol Alexander Jampoler, and Christina Jampoler Houlahan--me. James Yoma, Molly Elise Houlahan, Carolyn Deane Houlahan, Lukasz Jampoler, Lilka Jampoler, and Harper James Yoma. These are the lives that now flourish here because my four family members served.

It would take me nearly 1 yearlong to name all of us if I could name everyone who has been produced as a result of the people who survived the Holocaust.

Mr. Speaker, let us take the time. Let us never forget. We must never forget.