Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak in opposition to certain PFAS-related provisions that are included in the National Defense Authorization Act.

While it is important to provide funding for cleanup, it is also critical that efforts to regulate PFAS do so in a way that defines the chemicals consistently, adequately, and properly as supported by sound science. In this current version of the NDAA, what is defined as PFAS is left open to interpretation or defined under an extremely broad definition.

Broad definition risks subjecting thousands of chemicals to unnecessary restrictions and create regulatory uncertainty for numerous products. A few products that could fall under this overly broad definition include lithium ion batteries, semiconductors, refrigerants, and medical devices. These products that could be impacted, provide critical benefits to our military

and our broader society and should be manufactured in the United States.

In the NDAA and with all legislation it is essential that we properly define PFAS up front so that implementing regulations can focus on materials such as PFOA and PFOS where there is scientific consensus for regulation. Throughout bicameral negotiations, I urge the careful consideration of drafting PFAS definitions that are properly focused, targeted, and supported by sound science.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor Rick Shanklin on his retirement from the National Weather Service at the end of this month. His impressive thirty-seven-year career has spanned across multiple states and saved countless lives from natural disasters.

Rick has accomplished many unique feats during his career. He is the only meteorologist to serve in all three NWS offices in Kentucky, as well as pioneering the Kentucky Mesonet. He also is a national expert for rating tornadoes EF3 or stronger and surveyed six EF4 tornadoes.

Rick helped NWS Paducah earn Gold, Silver, and Bronze medals from the Department of Commerce. Both the Governors of Kentucky and Missouri have recognized him for his expertise as well.

I want to thank Rick Shanklin for his service to the First District of Kentucky and the United States over his career. It is an honor to represent him in Congress and I wish him a happy retirement.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to support the Access to Congressionally Mandated Reports Act, which I have worked on along with my House Oversight and Reform Committee colleague, Congressman Mike Quigley.

This bill will help modernize Congress and expand the legislative branch's oversight over the executive branch.

Every year, Federal agencies prepare and submit thousands of in-depth reports to various congressional committees. These reports cover topics such as the implementation status of new agency programs or legal requirements in recently passed laws.

They also cover the ongoing effort of the Federal Government to address waste, fraud, and abuse as well as policy priorities like our Nation's financial stability, cybersecurity, homeland security, and public health readiness.

In short, congressionally mandated reports are a key part of how the United States Congress fulfills its Article I oversight duties over the executive branch.

Beyond holding hearings and passing laws, the legislative branch mandates that executive branch agencies report to the House and Senate on their activities and compliance with the law.

As representatives in the House, we have an obligation to the American people to maintain constant visibility into the executive branch. And congressionally mandated reports are one of our most useful, daily oversight tools.

However, there is a problem. Congress lacks a central inventory of the reports we require Federal agencies to send us. This makes it hard to know for certain if agencies are fulfilling their legal reporting obligations or for new congressional Members and staff to find reports from previous years.

Additionally, the American public has little to no access to these valuable reports, which contain key insights into agency programs and missions that directly affect them.

H.R. 2485 is the solution we need. With the bill's establishment of a single website at the Government Publishing Office we will be able to find the reports we need when we need them.

A fully searchable inventory of these reports makes complete sense in the modern world. This new portal will enable each and every House Member and staffer to do their job on behalf of the American people they represent.

After all, American taxpayer dollars are funding the preparation of these reports as well as the agency activities they report on.

And for sensitive reports containing classified information, there are protections to ensure that only the proper congressional committees will be able to access such reports.

Again, I want to thank my colleague, Mr. Mike Quigley, for working with me to improve and reintroduce this government-wide transparency bill.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 2485.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of S. 272, the Congressional Budget Justification Transparency Act.

This bill is a timely and important reform to ensure Congress and the public can review all Federal spending. This bipartisan legislation make it possible for the public and every member of Congress to readily find and compare the annual budget justification and supporting materials that each agency prepares and sends to Congress. This detailed review is critical to ensuring that our tax dollars are spent properly.

This reform is also needed now more than ever. Last year alone, the Federal Government spent more than $6.8 trillion. Unfortunately, this trend in massive government spending does not seem to be slowing down any time soon.

The Congressional Budget Justification Transparency Act will require all agencies to make their budget justification materials available online in plain language. In doing so, this legislation will empower Congress' ability to conduct oversight of Federal agencies' use of taxpayer dollars by consolidating agency data. It will also provide much-needed transparency to the American people.

Requiring each agency to provide detailed plain language explanations of how they intend to spend taxpayer dollars ensures Americans can review those decisions at any time.

I want to thank my colleague, Congressman Mike Quigley, for working with me on H.R. 22 which we were able to pass through the House back on January 5 of this year. I was glad to see the Senate's recent action advancing this much-needed reform bill through Congress.

This legislation illustrates the importance of working across the aisle to improve congressional oversight to ensure American tax dollars are spent efficiently and effectively. Today the House sends the Congressional Budget Justification Transparency Act to the President's desk.

Mr. Speaker, I look forward to working on many more bipartisan government accountability bills and encourage my colleagues to support this bill.

Madam Speaker, I rise to oppose the PFAS Action Act.

As the ranking member of the House Oversight and Reform Committee, I have participated in many hours of hearings during the previous Congress where we explored issues involving PFAS materials and heard from witnesses spanning many perspectives on this important issue.

As legislation and regulations are advanced to address PFAS issues, it is critical that we ensure that these efforts define the chemicals of concern consistently, adequately, and properly as supported by sound science. In the current bill, however, what is ultimately classified as a PFAS material is either left open to interpretation by EPA or broadly defined. Using either approach risks subjecting potentially thousands of chemicals to unnecessary regulation or restriction.

As we have heard previously in the House Oversight and Reform Committee, and as we have heard on the floor this week during debate on various amendments, a broad definition of PFAS could subject such key products as lithium-ion batteries, semiconductors, refrigerants, and medical devices, to name just a few, to regulation and restriction. All these products provide important benefits, and some, in the case of batteries and semiconductors, have been specifically highlighted by President Biden as part of his efforts to review and reshore critical supply chains.

It is, therefore, essential that we properly define PFAS, so that implementing regulations can focus on those materials, such as PFOA and PFOS, where there is scientific consensus for regulation, while also ensuring that unnecessary regulations are not placed on key uses of

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California for yielding.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize a great Kentucky Statesman and a true friend. This past weekend, Kentucky lost one of its best. My dear friend, and the former majority leader of the Kentucky House of Representatives, Bam Carney.

Bam represented his home county of Taylor and Adair County in the Kentucky General Assembly for many years. He rose as high as majority leader, and remained there and would have been there as long as he wanted to be majority leader until he fell ill. And those of us who have kept up with Bam over the past year and-a-half know that he fought a battle that few people could have fought over the past year and-a- half.

I am sad to report that this past weekend, Bam passed away, but he will never be forgotten. The history books will write about Bam Carney, and they will talk about his role as majority leader of the Kentucky House of Representatives. They will also talk about his role as a great educator, and a leader for education in the Commonwealth of Kentucky.

Madam Speaker, I want to take a few moments to recognize Bam Carney, my friend. When you are involved in politics, you get to meet a lot of political people. And I had the pleasure of serving in the Kentucky House of Representatives with Bam Carney. I remember when he arrived in Frankfort, Kentucky, a few years after I got there. And Bam immediately made an impression on me. He wasn't like everybody else in Frankfort. Bam was genuine. What you saw is what you got. Bam and I became very close friends. In fact, I considered Bam Carney one of my best friends. We worked together on legislation, our families became close, we played a lot of golf together. I never beat Bam, by the way. Not many people did beat Bam Carney on the golf course. But we became friends. He stayed at my house on weekends. We traveled together. Bam was someone that you could trust. Bam was someone that--in politics it is rare to say--but you always knew where he stood. And if he told you something, then that was good as gold because he stuck with his word.

Bam wasn't like most politicians. Bam didn't want to hide from the controversial issues or the tough issues, the issues that Bam knew might not be the most popular issues in his district. But Bam did what was right and what he felt was right for the people he represented.

Bam was a career educator; a basketball coach. Bam played college baseball

at Berea. Bam was a Christian. In fact, one of the last things that he said was he was ready to go to heaven. And I know that is where he is right now. Bam was a great brother, a great father. Bam was a great leader, a great friend, just an all-around great person.

Kentucky lost a great statesman this past weekend in Bam Carney. I hope that those of us who knew Bam can learn from the greatness of Bam Carney, the great person he was, the great leader he was, and the great representative of the people that he was. Bam represented the people, not the special interests.

Madam Speaker, I can't say enough heartfelt things to Bam Carney's family: His mother, his brothers, his sister, his two sons. They have endured a lot over the past year and-a-half through Bam's sickness, and they never left his side, never gave up hope; always having a positive attitude. Bam Carney is the kind of person that we all need in legislative bodies, someone you can count on and someone that is honest and someone that is in the legislative body for the right reason.

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the time today on the floor of the U.S. House of Representatives to recognize the great life of a great Kentucky leader and a great Kentucky friend, Bam Carney.

Honoring the Life of James Otis Catlin

Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor the life of Mr. James Otis Catlin of Sebree, Kentucky, who passed away earlier this month-- July 9, 2021--at the age of 90. James was a hard worker throughout his life. He was a proud Korean War veteran, earning a Bronze Star and Purple Heart.

His love for our country and servicemembers continued after his military career, and he joined the Austin Collins American Legion Post 243 in 1952, eventually becoming its oldest member.

James was a dedicated servant of the Lord and an active member of Sebree General Baptist Church. His humble service touched many in Webster County and all of Kentucky's First Congressional District.

I will always be grateful for the sacrifice of our Nation's heroes. I was proud to represent James in Congress, and his enduring legacy of service and faith will live on through his family, friends, and all those he impacted.

Honoring Mark and Lori Wilson

Madam Speaker, for 141 years, on the first Saturday in August, people from all over Kentucky make their way to the small community of Fancy Farm in far Western Kentucky for the annual Fancy Farm picnic, hosted by St. Jerome Catholic Church in Graves County.

Thousands gather to enjoy good food, good people, and good old- fashioned political stump speaking. Over 19,500 pounds of pork and mutton are served, along with hundreds of pounds of fresh home-cooked vegetables and homemade pies and cakes. All funds raised benefit St. Jerome Catholic Church for charitable endeavors. Additionally, the Fancy Farm picnic is entirely a community effort made up of local volunteers.

Madam Speaker, today, I would like to honor two of those volunteers-- Mark and Lori Wilson--for their 15 years of service as chairs of the picnic-speaking committee. Mark and Lori have dedicated countless hours to make the Fancy Farm picnic a great success.

I was especially honored when Mark and Lori asked me to serve as master of ceremonies at the 2012 Fancy Farm picnic when I was Kentucky's commissioner of agriculture. Their efforts to create a successful picnic every year are invaluable.

Mark and Lori Wilson will be stepping aside and paving the way for new community leaders to step up and fill this role. However, I know that Mark and Lori will continue to be an active presence not only on the Fancy Farm stage, but in their proud Graves County community. I personally appreciate not only their years of service, but also their friendship.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Ann Whitaker for her upcoming 50th anniversary with the Annie Gardner Foundation in Graves County, Kentucky.

Ann began her career with the Annie Gardner Foundation on July 5, 1971, as an administrative assistant. She has helped so many in the Mayfield community, going above and beyond to assist the less fortunate in their times of need. Those who are lucky enough to know Ann describe her as dependable, compassionate, and sincere.

Anyone who spends half a century with one organization is incredibly dedicated and genuinely loves what they do. Ann is loved by all of those in her community, and I am honored to represent her in Congress.

Once again, I congratulate Ann on this achievement. I look forward to hearing about all the wonderful work she will continue to do in her role at the Annie Gardner Foundation and beyond.

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

Madam Speaker, through their work, inspectors general help improve government efficiency and effectiveness. Their nonpartisan audits and investigations work to root out waste, fraud, abuse, and mismanagement in all Federal agencies. In fact, the Committee on Oversight and Reform and IGs have this common mission, but IGs occupy a unique spot within the Federal Government. They have a responsibility to their respective agency and to Congress through the notice requirements.

When the political parties of the executive branch and Congress are different, political fights can understandably erupt. Unfortunately, this has recently led to a politicization of IG investigations.

That takes us to today's bill. Many provisions in this bill are a step in the right direction to empower IGs to conduct robust oversight. However, I remain concerned about some of the provisions in this bill.

Title I in this bill would unnecessarily constrain the President's ability to remove an IG, shifting the delicate balance between the executive branch and Congress. Maintaining the current balance would enable Congress to use its own oversight authority if it believes there is wrongdoing by the President or an agency head in the removal of an

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 yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, I am excited to listen to the enthusiasm from my colleagues on the other side of the aisle and their newfound passion for oversight. The Republicans on the Oversight Committee have been asking for many hearings on many different areas of potential oversight, potential waste, fraud, abuse, and mismanagement in the Federal Government. But thus far, in this new Congress, my friends on the other side of the aisle have only been interested in oversight of the previous administration.

I am getting really excited for the taxpayers of America because I feel like, today, I am hearing that my friends on the other side of the aisle are interested in ensuring that there is good government, that we have transparency.

One thing that I would like to mention in this bill is that the Oversight Committee is responsible for oversight, and we want to work with the inspectors general. We have a lot of agreement in this bill, and I will talk about that during my closing remarks. But I do believe there is the potential for us to compromise and have a bipartisan bill that actually might have a chance to become law down the hall.

But I hope that this newfound enthusiasm for oversight will carry over, and we can do what the Oversight Committee is supposed to do and not rely as heavily on unelected bureaucrats.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Just a couple of things I want to make sure that everyone understands with respect to this bill. This bill is a combination of 10 different bills. Republicans support seven of the 10 bills. Seven of the 10 bills we could pass pretty close to unanimously in this Chamber that would strengthen the IGs and not hamper a President's ability to terminate an IG that may not agree with their ideology.

No one in Congress would hire a staffer that adamantly opposed their ideology. No one in the private sector would have a staffer be a spokesperson or an employee that fundamentally disagreed with the direction that person wanted to lead their company. And the same should be true with the President of the United States.

With respect to President Trump's termination of inspectors general, I want to mention a couple of terminations that the President did. President Trump removed the Intelligence Community Inspector General Michael Atkinson because he flaunted strict whistleblower procedures to provide the Ukraine whistleblower report to Chairman Schiff.

Now, we support good government. We want to protect whistleblowers. We want to encourage whistleblowers to come forward. Adam Schiff did more to damage prospective whistleblowers than any Member of this body. And the IG was complicit with him in that. That was a rightful termination by President Trump.

Acting Inspector General Christi Grimm purposely released an outdated and misleading report claiming there were shortages of medical equipment at hospitals which was found to be entirely inaccurate and likely was politically motivated. That is why President Trump terminated her.

So there are examples of a President rightfully terminating an inspector general, and I don't think that this bill is the right path to move forward. This is overlegislating.

We are passing a lot of bills out of this Chamber that are dead upon arrival in the Senate. When we pass a bill that has bipartisan support, that makes a difference in the Senate. We

could achieve that, and I have an amendment that goes a long way towards making this bill bipartisan.

So with respect to oversight, I think the American people are upset over COVID-19. Speaker Pelosi created a Select Committee on the Coronavirus Crisis, which is a subsidiary of the House Oversight Committee, we share the same staff. We have been asking for hearings on the origins of COVID-19 and had no response, no luck from my friends across the aisle, so we had a hearing today. We had a forum. And it was very productive. And I think the people of America appreciated that. That is oversight.

So our committee can go a lot further with respect to oversight, and I think that we could come to a bipartisan compromise to strengthen the IGs without politicizing the IGs, without hampering a President's ability to get rid of a bad IG.

I strongly oppose this bill. I hope through the amendment process it can get better, that it can pass in a bipartisan manner, and we can strengthen the IGs, and we can send a message to the Senate that we have a bipartisan bill that you should take up and President Biden can hopefully sign into law.

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

Madam Speaker, I rise to oppose the amendments en bloc.

Madam Speaker, some of the amendments in the proposed package attempt to be helpful and improve the bill, but most are just Band-Aids attempting to cover up flawed provisions.

For example, one amendment attempts to paper over the flaws in title I by expanding the requirement for the President to provide his or her rationale to Congress detailing why an IG was removed.

Yes, understanding the President's rationale for removing an IG is very important to Congress. This amendment, however, fails to address the fundamental issue in the section, specifically limiting the reasons for an IG's removal or transferred to only nine constraining reasons.

Another provision in this package seeks to amend title II, but title II already passed earlier this Congress as a standalone bill by voice vote under suspension. This amendment to title II would undermine that broadly supported bill by creating an easy-to-abuse loophole for a President to remove an IG immediately, rather than waiting the 30 days for Congress to review the required notice of removal.

My Democrat colleagues have stated constantly that the goal of their legislation is to ensure that it is incredibly difficult to remove an IG, yet they support an amendment that would gut this and allow our President to circumvent the will of Congress. This is what happens when the majority decides to go it alone rather than seeking to work together to craft strong bipartisan legislation.

This bloc of amendments is the perfect analog for this legislation-- many good provisions mixed with a few poison bills, which undermine the intent of the legislation as a whole. Therefore, I must ask my colleagues to vote against this package of amendments.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

Madam Speaker, I have an amendment at the desk.

Madam Speaker, this amendment strips out the three provisions of this legislation that do not have bipartisan support in order for the IG Independence and Empowerment Act to move forward with the full support of the U.S. House. Both sides of the aisle can then come back to the table to fix the remaining provisions in a manner that addresses concerns on both sides of the aisle.

Specifically, my amendment strikes title I, which would artificially constrain the President from removing or reassigning an IG to one of nine specific reasons listed in the provision.

As drafted, title I would have the effect of prohibiting a President from removing an IG who is acting in bad faith and undermining a duly elected President's policies in a purely partisan manner.

My amendment also strikes title III, which strictly limits who the President could name as the acting inspector general to the ``first assistant.'' This provision does not include any commonsense exceptions, creating unintended consequences.

For example, it could elevate an individual to acting IG who may be engaged in the same misconduct which caused the original IG to have been removed.

Lastly, my amendment strikes title V of the bill, which grants inspectors general the authority to issue subpoenas to compel the testimony of former Federal officials, including political appointees.

While I support granting IGs testimonial subpoena authority, the current provision lacks necessary safeguards and could result in it being used in a politically abusive manner.

Madam Speaker, I support the goals behind these provisions, as well as the other seven titles of the bill, which have strong bipartisan support. However, my amendment addresses the problematic language in these three sections. That is why I ask my Republican and Democrat colleagues to pass this amendment to enable us to negotiate a bipartisan solution for the inspector general community that can be signed into law.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays. The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to section 3(s) of House Resolution 8, the yeas and nays are ordered.

Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further proceedings on this question are postponed.

Amendments En Bloc Offered by Mrs. Carolyn B. Maloney of New York

Madam Speaker, I rise today with a heavy heart to report some very sad news that late last week Kentucky lost a champion, and my congressional office lost a friend and a true warrior with the passing of our beloved field representative, Amelia Brown Wilson, at the young age of 39.

Amelia was born and raised in Monroe County. Like me, she graduated from Monroe County High School and her family and my family go back many generations through Monroe County.

Amelia was someone that I noticed coming up along the public school system as someone who was going to be a future superstar, someone who had class, who had brains, who had a work ethic, who had charisma. And I followed Amelia through her educational career. Amelia's older sister Kelly and I played ball together on the varsity girls' and boys' basketball team of Monroe County. We also went to Western Kentucky University at the same time. Amelia obviously was a little younger.

Amelia went to the University of Kentucky because she was the biggest University of Kentucky fan in the history of Kentucky. She got three degrees from the University of Kentucky. I don't know anyone else that can say that. Amelia got her bachelor's degree, her master's degree, and her Ph.D. all from the University of Kentucky.

Amelia worked right out of the University of Kentucky in the Cooperative Extension Service as the family consumer scientist for Fayette County, which is Lexington, Kentucky, for many years.

Amelia and I always kept in touch, and I knew she was someone with a very bright future.

But while Amelia was at University of Kentucky, she had to receive a liver transplant, and she went through that battle. And for the 20 years after her liver transplant she battled sickness almost daily, but you would never know that because Amelia always had a positive attitude.

Amelia was one of the kindest, most sincere people that you would ever meet. Amelia is someone that everyone who met her loved her, respected her, and was inspired by her, especially if they heard her story.

Amelia was very active in the Kentucky Organ Donor Program. She was a spokesperson for that program and gave speeches around the State and got thousands and thousands of people to sign up on the back of their Kentucky driver's license to be a Kentucky organ donor.

So we will never know how many lives Amelia saved because of her testimony and her story that she would deliver all over Kentucky.

When I was elected Commissioner of Agriculture in Kentucky, I asked Amelia to come join me at the Department of Agriculture and be my Kentucky Director of Agriculture Tourism. She did that.

Madam Speaker, I had about 275 employees. I can say with confidence that Amelia was the most popular employee in the Kentucky Department of Agriculture. Everybody loved her. And when I got elected to Congress in 2016, Amelia followed me. She was the one employee who I asked to go from the Kentucky Department of Agriculture in Frankfort, Kentucky, with me to create my new field office in Madisonville, Kentucky. Amelia was my field representative for the northwestern part of the First Congressional District of Kentucky.

Madam Speaker, every county judge and every mayor--every elected official--Democrat and Republican--in those counties worked with Amelia, respected Amelia, loved Amelia, and are saddened by the tragic loss of Amelia's life this past week.

I can't say that I have ever met a person who was more sincere and more inspiring than Amelia Wilson. She is a Christian. She is someone who lived a purpose-driven life, and she is someone who we will all greatly miss.

Heaven gained an angel last week with Amelia Brown Wilson. Our prayers go out to her husband, Allen; and her mother, Sarah Faye; and her sisters, Kellie and Keri Jo.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to congratulate Terry Hamby of Trigg County, Kentucky, for receiving the Distinguished Public Service Award for his outstanding leadership as chairman of the World War I Centennial Commission. Under Terry's leadership the commission completed the construction of the United States National World War I Memorial here in Washington, D.C.

There is no one who better understands the sacrifices of our servicemembers than Terry. He served for 26 years in our Nation's military, first in the Naval Air Wing during the Vietnam war before joining the U.S. Army Reserve.

After his retirement, Terry continued to honor and serve our Nation's military, and was appointed to the World War I Centennial Commission, and elected chairman in 2017. In just four years under his leadership, the United States National World War I Memorial was completed and opened to the public.

I am privileged to represent Terry in Congress, and I appreciate all he does to recognize our Nation's military. I join Terry's family, friends, and all of those impacted by his life of service in congratulating him on this enormous contribution to our Nation.

Congratulating Vernon Anderson

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Mr. Vernon Anderson of Calloway County on his induction into the Kentucky Trapshooters League Hall of Fame.

Vernon has qualified 10 times for the Kentucky State trapshooters team and has been a member of the Kentucky Trapshooters League's board of directors for the past 12 years. He humbly describes himself as a consistently good trap shooter, but anyone who can hit 99 out of 100 moving targets at various distances is nothing less than a great shot.

Vernon has always paved the way for younger generations to participate in trap shooting. In 2015, his activism led trap shooting to become an official high school sport in Kentucky. He then became Calloway County High School's coach, where he has passed on his knowledge and passion for the sport to students.

Once again, I would like to congratulate my friend Vernon on this great honor and thank him for his continued service to the students of Calloway County, Kentucky.

economic issues and rising inflation

Mr. Speaker, I rise to discuss the current state of our economy.

With ill-advised lockdowns finally ending, our economy should be firing on all cylinders. Unfortunately, we are, in many ways, stuck in the mud.

America has seen a string of disappointing jobs reports that fall short of expectations, and excessive government spending is driving up what is effectively a tax increase on every American--inflation.

Over 8 million jobs are available, even as the government pays people not to work. This is creating a dramatic workforce shortage and forcing our job creators to compete with the heavy hand of government. In fact, our labor participation rate sits at just 61 percent, the lowest total this century when you exclude the opening months of the pandemic.

And the massive spending rammed through by President Biden and Speaker Pelosi is only hurting us. Inflation is surging, affecting the price of everyday items Americans buy, like milk and gasoline.

This $2 trillion in new spending came despite an economy that was reopening and on the mend, and it made Americans less likely to work and the government more likely to waste hard-earned tax dollars.

But for our Democrat friends, this wasteful spending knows no bounds. President Biden has proposed an outrageous $6 trillion Federal budget that is a slap in the face to every American taxpayer.

Instead of focusing on a responsible infrastructure bill that repairs our roads and bridges and puts people to work, we see a focus by this body on ramming through the Green New Deal and more wasteful spending.

As leaders, we must change course to create a stronger recovery. As our economy reopens, we must respect taxpayers, support small businesses, and empower Americans to prosper through the dignity of work.

Honoring the Life and Service of Private First Class Ernest Robertson

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Private First Class Ernest Robertson of Russell County, Kentucky, who served and paid the ultimate sacrifice in the Korean war. Ernest was killed in action at 24 years old, but his remains have never been recovered.

After basic training at Fort Knox, Ernest was assigned to the U.S. Army's Far East Command, M Company, 19th Infantry Regiment, 24th Infantry Division. On April 23, 1951, he suffered a terrible injury and was captured by North Korean forces. On May 6, one day after his 24th birthday, Ernest was killed in action.

The service and sacrifice of our troops must never be forgotten, even long after they have perished. It is truly a tragedy that some brave soldiers have not yet made it home after their horrible death. We must appreciate their sacrifice and remember the cost of freedoms we enjoy here in the United States.

I join with all the First District of Kentucky in thanking Private First Class Robertson for his service, and his family for their efforts to remember him. He will always be in our thoughts.

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

Madam Speaker, Juneteenth is an important day, and remembering and celebrating the emancipation of African Americans in the United States is certainly worthy of commemoration. All Americans should celebrate our fight for freedom.

It is a fitting tribute first celebrated in the State of Texas to commemorate the day in 1865, when President Abraham Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation was recognized in that State.

I do plan to vote in favor of this bill that passed unanimously in the Senate yesterday. However, I would be remiss if I did not discuss the procedure leading up to consideration of this legislation.

Just a few mere hours ago, the Committee on Oversight and Reform, which has jurisdiction over Federal holidays in the Federal workforce, learned that this legislation would be taken up today. Our committee's job is to ensure the efficient and effective operation of the executive branch agencies.

Unfortunately, we have not had ample time to consider the effects of granting the entire Federal workforce another day off work. And we do not know what effect, if any, this bill will have on Federal programs and missions that our government delivers to the American taxpayer each day.

For instance, due to the rushed process, we do not yet have an estimate from the Congressional Budget Office of how much this bill will cost. I know my friends on the other side of the aisle have never really been concerned about the cost of a government program, but the people on this side of the aisle and the American taxpayers have a concern about the cost of legislation that we pass on the floor of the House of Representatives.

According to a 2014 analysis by President Obama's Office of Management and Budget, it cost Federal taxpayers $660 million in payroll and holiday premium costs when Federal employees were given an extra holiday on the day after Christmas that year by executive order.

Because we are not following regular order, which would have included a legislative hearing and committee markup, we do not fully understand the impacts of this new Federal holiday and the true costs of lost productivity.

Nevertheless, I thank my colleagues for the time to speak on this historical legislation.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Higgins).

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

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Davidson).

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Massie).

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, 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 continue to reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

I join my House colleagues in recognizing the significance of Juneteenth as a national holiday. This is significant legislation. The vast majority of

States already recognize the day as a holiday, or observe it, and establishing a Federal holiday mostly impacts the Federal workforce. I, therefore, support moving forward to designate this new Federal holiday. It is a day worthy of all Americans' support.

I want to congratulate those who have worked so hard to make this happen.

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

Madam Speaker, I rise today to stand with the people of Israel and their right to defend themselves against the Iranian-funded terrorist groups, Hamas and Hezbollah.

Last week, these terrorists began firing missiles into Israel and killing Israeli citizens. Since these unjustified attacks started, we have seen Members of Congress and the media rush to declare a moral equivalence between Israel and its attackers.

Let me be very clear: There is no moral equivalence between the State of Israel and terrorists who shield themselves with children, target civilian

centers for missile attacks, and openly desire to destroy the Jewish people.

Israel is a sovereign, democratic Nation and is entitled to defend itself. The indiscriminate violence against Israeli citizens must end. Time and time again, Israel has proven itself to be America's strongest ally, and we must have Israel's back in their time of need. I urge my fellow Members of Congress and the Biden administration to stand firm with Israel against those who seek its destruction.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the Lindsey Wilson College football team of Columbia, Kentucky, for winning the 2020 NAIA National Football Championship.

The Lindsey Wilson football team finished their undefeated season as national champs Monday night, beating Northwestern College from Iowa 45-13, adding another championship to their season after already winning the Mid-South Conference. Even more impressively, the Blue Raiders dominated opponents every game during the regular season, outscoring them by an average of 32 points a game.

Lindsey Wilson College did not have a football team from 1935 to 2009. Football was reintroduced to campus in 2010, after an 86-year absence, and it has not taken long for the Blue Raiders to reach the pinnacle of NAIA football.

I commend Athletic Director Willis Pooler and Head Coach Chris Oliver for building a championship-caliber program in just over a decade. This accomplishment is also a testament to every player's hard work and dedication during an unprecedented year.

Once again, congratulations to the national champion Lindsey Wilson College football team on this outstanding achievement.

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

Mr. Speaker, America's Federal Government should be of the people, by the people, and for the people. But with H.R. 51, America's government will become of the Democrats, by the Democrats, and for the Democrats.

Let's be clear what H.R. 51 is all about. It is about Democrats adding two new progressive U.S. Senators to push a radical agenda championed by the squad to reshape America into the socialist utopia they always talk about.

If you doubt me, just listen to what our colleague, Congressman Jamie Raskin, recently told The Washington Post. He said:

There is a national political logic for D.C. statehood too,

because the Senate has become the principal obstacle to

social progress across a whole range of issues.

So there we have it. H.R. 51 is not really about voting representation. It is about Democrats consolidating their power in Washington.

There are numerous problems with H.R. 51. Mainly, it is flatly unconstitutional. Every Justice Department from President Kennedy's to President Obama's has been consistent that a constitutional amendment is needed to grant the District statehood.

Robert F. Kennedy said that granting D.C. statehood without a constitutional amendment was inconceivable. He also said granting D.C. statehood, as attempted by H.R. 51, would produce an absurdity. This absurdity is the 23rd Amendment which acknowledges the existence of a Federal District warranting three electoral college votes.

While H.R. 51 includes an expedited process for the 23rd Amendment's repeal in Congress, the problem is this would not happen until after D.C. becomes a State. This would create mass confusion as H.R. 51 is reviewed by the courts for years.

The Constitution is the foundational document upon which all laws of our country rest, and Congress cannot simply dismiss it with sham legislation. But that is what H.R. 51 attempts to do. Democrats want to rewrite the Constitution without going through the proper process of doing so.

During our committee's markup of H.R. 51, I offered an amendment that would assure the 23rd Amendment's repeal prior to statehood being granted, but Democrats opposed this amendment.

Why are Democrats pushing such a problematic bill through the House?

Why are they working so hard to advance D.C. statehood instead of pursuing a constitutional amendment that

would engage the entire country through a process intended by our Founding Fathers?

Because they know Americans have firmly rejected D.C. statehood.

I urge my colleagues to vote with the vast majority of Americans and reject this unconstitutional and impractical bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Hice), the Republican leader of the Government Operations Subcommittee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Biggs).

Mr. Speaker, if this bill is about race, I wonder why your majority leader, Steny Hoyer, voted against this very bill in 1993.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Jordan).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Keller).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Grothman).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from South Carolina (Ms. Mace).

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

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

I must admit, I am a little disappointed in the remarks of the majority leader. When I saw him approach the podium, I thought he was going to give us a detailed explanation as to why he voted against this very bill in 1993. Instead, he lectures us on having the exact same position today that he had in 1993. Hypocrisy runs deep.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Higgins).

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

(Mr. SESSIONS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Good).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from South Dakota (Mr. Johnson).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. LaMalfa).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Harris).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Griffith).

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

Mr. Speaker, listening to the debate, I wonder if our friends on the other side of the aisle would be so passionate if Washington, D.C., were 90 percent Republican as 90 percent Democrat.

H.R. 51 goes against the Founding Fathers' intent. It is unconstitutional, impractical, and a blatant power grab.

The Founding Fathers created the Federal city--this Federal city--to be separate and apart from the States which it would serve as the seat of government. They designed it this way so there would be no super State that could unduly influence Federal affairs and international relations.

Now, I understand the people of the District's desire for representation in Congress. I think that is a legitimate concern, and it is not a new one.

If Democrats truly wanted to grant the wishes of D.C. residents, then they would address the constitutional issues with H.R. 51 since it does not stand a chance in court. We all know that. This does not stand one chance in court.

Additionally, Democrats could explore other options other than statehood, but they are not interested in any of them since they don't add two new progressive Senators to the U.S. Senate.

Serious policy proposals like retrocession, allowing D.C. residents to vote in Maryland Federal elections, and most obviously, the passage of the constitutional amendment have been called for by many of my Republican colleagues.

No State has required a constitutional amendment to be admitted to the Union; not one. But D.C. is unique. The 23rd Amendment guarantees the District three electoral college votes. There is no precedent for granting statehood to a territory with electoral college votes or such a special place in our Constitution. H.R. 51 is an unconstitutional bill.

D.C. is also massively unprepared to assume the costs of the programs and benefits it receives by being the Federal seat of government. The new State will very likely levy a commuter tax to make up the funding gaps currently backed by the Federal taxpayers. H.R. 51 provides no guarantee to the American people that they will not be on the hook funding the new State for years, if not decades.

This bill is nothing more than an attempt to ignore the constitutional process and gain an advantage in the U.S. Senate, all to advance a radical agenda that continues to come out of this House and stalls in the Senate.

Democrats know a constitutional amendment granting D.C. statehood would be rejected, just as it has been in the past. H.R. 51 is intentionally designed to circumvent the Constitution and the will of the American people.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to reject this unconstitutional and impractical legislation. I urge a ``no'' vote, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize the bravery and sacrifice of the Parrish Brothers of Burkesville, Kentucky.

Barney, Watson, and Taylor Parrish each honorably served their country during World War II, with Barney paying the ultimate sacrifice. The Parrish Brothers' service to our country did not end after World War II as Watson and Taylor continued defending America during the Korean War. During the war, Watson was seriously wounded and returned to duty less than a week later, where he also paid the ultimate sacrifice. After the Korean War, Taylor returned to Kentucky and continued serving others and raising a family in the First District of Kentucky. The family's sacrifice was awarded two purple hearts and a bronze star.

The legacy of the Parrish family leads us all to reflect on the freedoms we hold dear and the sacrifices American heroes make to protect them. The service and sacrifices they bravely gave should not and will not be forgotten. I join their family in friends to celebrate their legacy and honor their noble service to our country.