Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commemorate the life of Vincent Omar Leggett, a tireless advocate for the Chesapeake Bay and the founder of the Blacks of the Chesapeake Foundation.

Vince Leggett was a devoted historian and conservationist whose passion for the Chesapeake Bay was unmatched. Through his leadership of the Blacks of the Chesapeake Foundation, Vince shed light on the untold stories of Black life along the Bay and brought new depth to our understanding of the Bay's heritage.

I extend my heartfelt condolences to Vince's family, friends and all who knew him. His commitment to the Chesapeake community inspired countless individuals--including myself--we will honor his memory by continuing his vital work to protect and celebrate the Bay and its diverse communities.

I include in the Record an article by Christine Condon.

`He Was the First': Vincent Leggett Remembered as a Singular Voice for

Black History of the Chesapeake Bay

(By Christine Condon)

Carnelious Jones was volunteering aboard the Amistad, a

replica of the historic cargo schooner, when Vince Leggett

walked into his life.

Jones, whose company had donated fuel to the Amistad, had

been told that an ``admiral'' would board the vessel before

it sailed into Baltimore's Inner Harbor. So Jones, a Navy

veteran, expected a stern military man in uniform--not the

sedan that pulled up nearby (several minutes late), and the

jovial man who climbed aboard in a white captain's hat.

That was Vince Leggett, who had been named an Admiral of

the Chesapeake Bay in 2003 by then-Gov. Parris N. Glendening.

He was the third Black person to receive the honor,

recognizing a lifetime of service to the Nation's largest

estuary.

``I saw that he had done some astonishing things,'' Jones

said. ``So, I approached him and I shook his hand, I told him

I was happy to meet him, and thanked him for his

accomplishments.''

When the ship reached the shore, Leggett brought Jones to

his tent, featuring artifacts he'd collected for his book

about the Black history of the Chesapeake Bay. Jones was

enthralled.

``I'm from the south--in Tennessee,'' Jones said. ``I was

amazed at just how outspoken everything was, and how much

development as it relates to the African American story was

so publicized and so published.''

Vincent Omar Leggett died Nov. 23 at 71-years-old. A pillar

of the Anne Arundel County community, who served on the

school board, directed the Annapolis housing authority and

even became the first Black chaplain of the Annapolis fire

department, Leggett was perhaps best known for his work on

the Chesapeake Bay.

Beginning in the 1980s, through his foundation, Blacks of

the Chesapeake, Leggett gathered and preserved the legacy of

Black bayside communities, watermen, captains, seafood

industry workers, and sail makers. For Leggett, it began with

the recognition that the history books often omitted these

stories. So, he told them himself, penning ``The Chesapeake

Bay Through Ebony Eyes,'' and serving for decades as an

encyclopedia of the Bay's Black legacy.

``He wanted everybody else to know that it was more. We

were just not shucking them oysters,'' said Jones, the vice

president for new business development at Blacks of the

Chesapeake. ``We had contributors, to this day, into this

maritime industry.''

Leggett also had stints at the Maryland Department of

Natural Resources, as chairman of the Wiley H. Bates Legacy

Center, as a board member for the Seafarers Yacht Club of

Annapolis, and on the list goes. Friends remember him as a

talented historian and orator, who also served as a lobbyist,

an advocate, and perhaps above all--a leader.

Leggett was also the driving force behind a successful

decades-long effort to preserve the historic Elktonia-Carr's

Beach Heritage Park, the last remnant of the Black-owned

beach land that welcomed Black families during segregation,

and hosted music legends such as Ella Fitzgerald and Aretha

Franklin.

Along the way, Leggett inspired a new generation of

historians and environmental advocates, forging a path for

Black voices where none existed before, said R. Kenyatta

Rowel Jr., CEO of Breaking Boundaries Environmental, a

Maryland-based environmental restoration firm he started in

2022.

``Vince paved the way as a trailblazer for all of these

activities, all of these places and spaces for people like

me.'' Rowel said. ``He was the first.''

Rowel remembers a recent event he attended with Leggett at

the Whitehall Plantation near Annapolis. For Rowel, who grew

up nearby in a historically African American community called

Mulberry Hill on the Broadneck Peninsula, the event was

already special. But Leggett made it even more so.

``He was talking on the mic, and he introduced me and my

company to have a few words. And to me, that was a moment I'm

never going to forget,'' Rowel said.

For Leggett, it began with his upbringing in Baltimore, and

family trips fishing and boating on the Chesapeake Bay, Jones

said. The experiences tied him to the outdoors, and were the

first spark for his eventual effort as a historian.

``It wasn't a research project. It was part of his

livelihood,'' Jones said, ``That's the difference.'' Though

he grew up in Baltimore, where he also earned his bachelor's

degree from Morgan State University, Leggett ultimately built

his life in Anne Arundel County. He and his wife Aldena lived

in Arundel-on-the Bay enclave in Annapolis, according to an

online biography, where they enjoyed ``beautiful bay views,

fishing with their grandchildren and planning their next trip

to the golf green.'' For Jones, that day aboard the Amistad--

a reproduction of the ship famous for its 1839 slave revolt--

began a yearslong partnership and friendship with Leggett,

focused on achieving shared goals for the Bay's Black

community and its legacy.

He looks back fondly on their frequent early morning phone

calls, beginning as soon as 4 a.m. and continuing for 90

minutes--or until Leggett left to make his wife coffee or

breakfast as she headed off to work, Jones said.

To this day, Jones and others marvel at Leggett's ability

to balance it all. The early morning and late evening

meetings, the positions on countless boards and committees,

the appointments with legislators, community members and

advocates.

``There are people every now and then that come through,

that--it's unexplainable,'' Jones said.

Much of Leggett's legacy lives on in the vast array of

artifacts he amassed amid decades of research on the Bay's

Black history. Today, much of the collection is stored in

warehouses, but it is being digitized and shared publicly

online, thanks to a partnership with the Maryland Archives.

To Leggett, the history of the Bay should include not only

Harriet Tubman and Frederick Douglass, but everyday Black

Marylanders, who let him into their homes--and into their

worlds. In a way, he became their representative--their

messenger, Jones said.

``The ones that passed, he would put a book inside of their

coffin. The family would give

him the artifacts of the waterman,'' Jones said. ``They

trusted that he would do something with it.''

In the archives, Leggett himself, and his foundation, is a

part of the history. In 2000, the Library of Congress

designated the foundation as a Local Legacy Project.

The archive includes not only artifacts and images

documenting Black life in the Bay region, but also

documenting Leggett and his foundation--photos of him at a

book release or a boat show, examples of exhibits and more.

``He had collected a large collection at that time. Papers,

posters, his own personal documents, correspondence with

different officials, really chronicling the 30-year history

of Blacks of the Chesapeake,'' said Corey Lewis, assistant

state archivist at the Maryland Archives.

``You couldn't tell the story without Vince,'' Lewis said.

For the past several years, interns from local universities

have helped document the collection, conduct research and

find places to put the artifacts on display, Lewis said.

Leggett made a point of working with each intern directly,

pointing out figures in photos and telling their stories,

ensuring the online collection would be complete, Lewis said.

``He could have just given us the collection. But he found it

important--we found it important--for him to come in, sit

down and spend time with them,'' Lewis said.

Joel Dunn, president of the Chesapeake Conservancy, said he

was incredibly proud to work alongside Leggett to preserve

Carr's Beach, a crowning achievement for Leggett's legacy.

Today, the beach is set to be transformed into public

parkland. The more recent acquisition--a home on the

property--could become a visitor center. Dunn believes it

should bear Leggett's name.

Getting the land was far from simple, Dunn said, as the

waterfront properties were incredibly valuable. It took

millions, including from local government, the Conservancy

and Blacks of the Chesapeake, to save the land from another

fate, such as residential development. Leggett, who had an

existing relationship with landowners and a proven track

record of preservation, was instrumental in sealing the deal.

``Vince was so knowledgeable about that history, and all

the acts that played there. And the years and months that

they played,'' Dunn said. ``He just was such a great

storyteller. That, I think, was a really key part of winning

over the landowner and the elected officials and garnering

the resources we needed.'' There is a particular memory of

Leggett that still plays on in Dunn's mind. It was Juneteenth

this year, when Leggett planned a celebration at Carr's

Beach--complete with music acts, a fish fry and fried

chicken. And there Leggett was, in the middle of it all,

dancing on the very beach that he helped preserve. ``Now,

multiple generations ever after Vince Leggett will be able to

experience that place and learn about that place and

experience that history, because of his hard work and

passion,'' Dunn said. ``I'm so glad he got to enjoy that. I

wish he had more time.''

Mr. Speaker, I certainly support this legislation to pay tribute to the giant Elijah Cummings.

I have so many memories of Elijah. The first memory I have is that we both represented Baltimore for many years together. I started to notice that he and I, even though we represented different parts of Baltimore, there would be events that were for the benefit of the entire city, and we would always be showing up at those together. It gave me great pride because I felt like that showed we had some shared values about what was important. His leadership in those places was unrivaled.

A second observation I have is that--and certainly Kweisi knows this intimately--Elijah was always the person who the family wanted to come to give the eulogy at the funeral. It was because oftentimes he had a deep connection to the family that made a difference. They also knew that he would articulate what that person had meant to the community better than anybody else could. It was always an inspirational time when you would sit there and hear those powerful words with that powerful voice kind of enveloping you.

The thing I remember most is the story he would tell about when he was sworn in and his father was sitting up in the gallery. Many of us know this story. His father began to cry. Afterward, Elijah went to him and said that he noticed that he was crying. He had never seen his father cry. He observed that not even when his own mother died had his father cried. He asked why he had been crying. His father said: You think it is because you became a Congressman, don't you?

Elijah said yes. His father said no, that was not the reason, although he was very proud of him. He said that he was crying because, looking at Elijah, he could see what he could have been.

That is an observation that many generations of Americans who encounter barriers could make looking at the success of the next generation and the generation beyond, ``I see what I could have been,'' and how emotional that is. Elijah was representing all of those generations, but in the same way, they were saying that those children and grandchildren could look at an Elijah and say not that is what I could have been, but that is what I can be. This is why he made such a powerful difference in the lives of so many.

If we could all reach a little bit for the kind of service that Elijah Cummings gave to this country, the world would be a better place.

Mr. Speaker, I thank Congressman Mfume for leading this effort to pay tribute to our former colleague, our former friend, a giant, Elijah Cummings.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding her time.

I thank Chair Westerman and his staff for working with Congressman Mfume and the whole Maryland delegation over the last few months. It has been a pleasure. I appreciate very much the work to get the bill to the floor.

I thank Congressman Mfume not just for his leadership on the bill, but for the very, very kind and generous words that he just gave with reference to my father and his support for this effort from the outset. I obviously thank the bipartisan Members, the Maryland delegation both in the House and the Senate, who supported this effort.

If my colleagues were to go to Fort McHenry today, they would see that there is a glass case there. Inside it is a picture of my father and the honorary ranger's hat that was given to him years ago by the National Park Service because they understood what a close association he had with the fort for so many years and all that he had done over the period of his time here in Congress.

He understood, in many ways, Fort McHenry is the beating heart of Baltimore, given its history, given its location, given its status as a cultural treasure there in the city and in the region, and he did everything he could to lift it up.

I thought what I could do to add to this discussion today is a quote from an oral history. My father, about 3 years before he passed away, agreed to sit for 20 hours of oral history, videotaped, where he went back over the course of his career.

He was asked: What are some of your greatest achievements or things that you are proud of? And one of the things that he talked about was Fort McHenry. These are the words of Paul Sarbanes:

``The fort, which had been turned over eventually to the [National] Park Service, obviously had tremendous potential as an educational venue and as a tourist site, and it occupies a very strategic location in the Baltimore Harbor, but it had serious preservation problems,'' as Congressman Mfume alluded to.

He goes on to say: ``That fort was there from the early 1800s on. Well, we were facing a real problem because we were coming up towards the bicentennial of the War of 1812. It was down the road a ways, but you have to anticipate these things because it takes time to get there. We needed desperately a new visitor center.

``We had a tiny visitor center there at Fort McHenry, but it was completely inadequate to the current flow of people that were coming through, let alone what we hoped would be a significant uptick in attendance. So we went to work to try to get a visitor center, and we were able to do that in fairly short order as it turned out. We really put a lot of intense effort into that. First we got a study authorized by the Park Service, requiring the Park Service to authorize the necessity and desirability of the visitor center. And then their report came in positive about that, so we put legislation in to actually authorize the new visitor center, and then we had to get the money. Anyhow, we got it all into place and we got it in time for the bicentennial, so we had a new visitor center there at Fort McHenry, and we get huge numbers of people coming through.''

My colleagues can hear in those words his sense of pride for securing that funding and resources for the visitor center but really to make the fort available for people across the country. It was near and dear to his heart, and nothing could be a finer tribute than to name the visitor center after my father, Paul Sarbanes.

Again, I thank the delegation for its support of this. I thank Chairman Westerman, Ranking Member Grijalva, Ranking Member Neguse, and others on the committee for this bipartisan effort to pay tribute to Paul Sarbanes.

Mr. Speaker, I thank Representative Ramirez for yielding.

I salute the Progressive Congressional Caucus for pulling together this Special Order to talk about the importance of strengthening our democracy.

You are absolutely right to begin the discussion tonight by reminding us that this is the anniversary of September 11, the tragedy that struck our country.

This is a day when, as patriots, we stand up as Americans. We salute the flag. We salute our history. It is very appropriate that it is a day on which we want to speak to the need to strengthen and deepen our resolve when it comes to making sure the democracy of this country, that connected tissue, is as strong as it can possibly be.

The sad reality is that over a period of years now, many Americans have become more cynical because they look at Washington, they look at the places where laws are made, and they feel that it is more distant from them; that it doesn't fully express their voice, their dreams, their hopes, and aspirations.

A lot of that has to do, as you know, with throwing obstacles in the way of voters as they try to access the ballot box or making it difficult for their priorities to be carried forward because of the insidious influence of dark money and other forces that are behind the curtain.

We have applied ourselves over a period of many Congresses now to try to channel the grievances that our constituents have expressed into pieces of legislation that can begin over time if we can get them passed to restore that fundamental faith in democracy.

These include the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act, which would restore the protections of the 1965 Voting Rights Act. By the way, a piece of legislation that at every opportunity for reauthorization, until very recently, was supported in a bipartisan fashion. Republicans and Democrats understood that you needed to have these voting protections in place.

Unfortunately, over the last few years, for reasons difficult to discern sometimes, our Republican colleagues have fallen away from this commitment, and we have had to carry it ourselves.

That is one important piece of legislation that Democrats are supporting that repeatedly we have brought to the floor of this House, and we have passed here. It has been a more difficult prospect on the Senate side, but we have the hope that that opportunity will present itself, as well.

Another critical piece of legislation that I felt privileged to carry and exercise some leadership on is the Freedom to Vote Act. It started out as the For The People Act. It has evolved over a period of two or three Congresses. We have passed it four or five different times out of this Chamber, again, running into the blockade on the Senate side. This is a bill where every provision of it is designed to respond to that cynicism that Americans are feeling. The first 300 pages of the Freedom to Vote Act were penned, were authored by our late colleague, John Lewis, the freedom fighter who inspired so many of us before he came to Congress and during his time in Congress.

He understood that we had to make it possible for people to access the ballot box without having to run an obstacle course every 2 years, to put in place these fundamental reforms that every American and every community can benefit from: automatic voter registration, same-day registration, early voting, mail balloting.

All the things that make it possible when somebody gets up on the morning of that day when they have decided to cast their vote and know that that is not going to be a difficult transaction. They can do that. They can access their democracy in a straightforward way. That is one centerpiece of the Freedom to Vote Act.

Another grievance we heard from Americans for many, many years is, why should politicians be able to choose their voters instead of the other way around? We have seen what extreme partisan gerrymandering has done across the country. It means that in the House of Representatives, we don't actually have a fair representation of what the vote is out in the country.

This makes average people out there feel disrespected. Voters feel like their voice is not being given the weight and the due that it deserves, so included within the Freedom to Vote Act are provisions that would establish an objective, independent way of determining how districts should be drawn so that we are respectful of the voters. It is another key piece of this reform package.

The last critical dimension of this is what to do about the undue influence, the sinister, insidious influence that money has over the political system.

Your voice consists of two basic components in a democracy. One is that you can cast your vote freely and fairly, but the other dimension of it is if you send people to Washington, if you elect them, if you pull the lever for them, your expectation is when they get there, they will fight for your priorities and won't get hijacked or captured by special interests and big money. The reality is very different, unfortunately, and it leaves people feeling disempowered.

Two key reforms that are included within this legislation are the DISCLOSE Act, which would require that we have transparency in terms of this dark money that is flooded into our system, and another piece, which I know Representative Ramirez feels very passionately about, is a small donor matching system that can support candidates' efforts to get out there and run their campaigns free from dependence on big money and deep pockets.

This legislation would create a system where for every dollar you raise from small donations, grassroots donations, you get a 6-to-1 match from something we call the Freedom From Influence Fund.

By the way, that fund would not be taxpayer underwritten. We would put a small surcharge on government settlements with big corporate lawbreakers and high-end tax cheats. That would go into a special fund, and that would underwrite the matching funds to come in to support these candidates.

What I like about that is the people who are leaning on our democracy and trying to break it are going to have to pay to create a system that can lift up our democracy.

All of these things are designed to respond to those grievances that Americans feel. These key pieces of legislation--the John R. Lewis Voting Rights

Advancement Act, the Freedom to Vote Act, the Native American Voting Rights Act, the D.C. statehood bill--are very simple in what they are trying to achieve: Give a voice to all Americans.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the Progressive Caucus for pulling us together this evening.

Mr. Chair, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me time.

Mr. Chair, I rise with respect to an amendment that I introduced with Congressman Bilirakis that has already been made part of the en bloc, which has been agreed to. I am very appreciative of that, but I just want to put a very few words on the record.

Mr. Chair, that amendment would provide funding to the Department of Energy's Office of International Affairs to establish the U.S.-Eastern Mediterranean Energy Center, a research center for energy innovation and collaboration with our eastern Mediterranean allies, Greece, Cyprus, and Israel.

Building off of the success of the U.S.-Israel Energy Center, the U.S.-Eastern Mediterranean Energy Center was authorized by the bipartisan Eastern Mediterranean Security and Energy Partnership Act of 2019, which was enacted in appropriations legislation for fiscal year 2020.

In the Department of Energy's own words, this center will strengthen the region's energy security, bring economic growth for countries across the region, deepen geopolitical ties among participating governments, and open commercial opportunities for U.S. companies.

The legislation explicitly notes the earlier legislation that authorized this partnership, that the U.S. Government should establish the United States-Eastern Mediterranean Energy Center, as authorized by section 204 of the Eastern Mediterranean Security and

Energy Partnership Act of 2019. This center would serve as a critical venue to further this collaboration.

I am thankful for the support of the amendment. I thank, in particular, the chair and ranking member of the Appropriations Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development, and Related Agencies.

Mr. Chair, I appreciate the opportunity to put these important words on the record.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to thank my constituent, Joann Farley, who is retiring on May 31, 2024 after over 21 years of outstanding service to the House of Representatives in financial administrative and support roles. Joann lives in Annapolis, MD, and I am proud to represent her here in Congress.

Joann is retiring after having lent her talents and skills to the Chief Administrative Officer (CAO) for over two decades. The daughter of a U. S. Army soldier. Joann grew up on several Army bases and eventually landed in Marina, CA, where she started her federal career as an aide for the Supply Department of the Naval Postgraduate School. In August 1982, she met a young Navy Lieutenant, Norm Farley of Annapolis, MD, who decided then and there that he wanted to marry her, and the two married in 1984. As a Navy wife moving from base to base, she continued her career in various positions with the Navy, IRS, Army Research Center and Department of Veterans Affairs. She and Norm were blessed with three children: Laura in 1989, Jared in 1992 and Jacob in 2000. Eventually the family landed in the Washington. D.C. area. where Joann worked for the Department of the Air Force, the Naval Academy and the National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration.

In March 2003, Joann began her career with the CAO as a Vendor Management and Financial Counselor, processing payments and providing financial services and optimization of resources to House offices to ensure adherence to House rules and regulations. She managed and enforced over 50 vendor contracts to ensure swift and comprehensive vendor response, safeguarding House terms and conditions. Her knowledge, experience and courteous attentiveness enabled her to be an invaluable asset to the House of Representatives. Joann also formed long-lasting friendships with her customers and colleagues, among whom she is well respected and will be dearly missed.

Joann became a proud grandmother in 2019 when Laura gave birth to twins Lilyana and CeCe, and later, granddaughter Raina was born in 2023. She and Norm recently purchased a home in Cape Coral, FL, where Joann will enjoy her retirement spending time with her family, pursuing various creative and home improvement projects, and enjoying winters in sunny Florida as a `snowbird.'

I congratulate Joann on her retirement and I ask my colleagues to join me in thanking her for her distinguished service to the House and our Nation. I wish her all the best as she begins a new chapter in her life.

Mr. Speaker, I thank Congressman Mfume for organizing this very important and special tribute. It is a tribute, as you have already heard, to the six hardworking men who lost their lives during this collapse of the bridge on March 26. They got up that morning-- early, early in the morning--because they were out there in the middle of the night on this shift not knowing, obviously, what was going to happen. Their families could have no inkling of what was going to happen on that tragic day, but they were just out there doing their job.

I thank the gentleman, in particular, because in every setting now, every public statement he has made, he has led with concern and focus on those six workers that were lost. They were husbands, they were dads, brothers, friends, and our deepest condolences go out to their families who are feeling that incredibly profound loss.

This is also a tribute to the first responders who sprang into action, and, as a result, were able to save other lives on the day of that collapse, and they continue, these first responders, to search for the remaining bodies of those that were lost under very dangerous conditions because they want to reunite them with their families and their loved ones. They will be remembered as heroes, and they deserve today's tribute.

We also want to pay tribute to the response, the immediate response. Within minutes of this disaster, President Biden made clear that the Nation was going to step in and step up. He put his team, led by Secretary Buttigieg and others, on the task. In Baltimore, we could feel that embrace and that support right out of the gate.

This is a tribute to the executive branch response. It is a tribute to President Biden and his team. It is also a tribute to Governor Moore, who also stepped up that day, and, frankly, every day since, to show the solidarity of this response and this unified command.

We are going to push through this. Baltimore gets knocked down sometimes, but we always stand back up. That is the grit of Baltimore. In this case, we know we can't stand up by ourselves. We need President Biden, we need Governor Moore, and we need the United States Congress to be part of a national response for a national project to restore the channel and the Port of Baltimore, which is so critical to the economy of our city, our State, our region, and the Nation, and then, ultimately, as we know, to rebuild the Francis Scott Key Bridge.

That is why we are here paying tribute in the way we are today. Again, I thank my colleague Congressman Mfume for organizing this opportunity for us today.

Mr. Speaker, in haste, I voted No on Roll Call No. 491, when I should have voted Yes.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 1435.

Despite its name, the Preserving Choice in Vehicle Purchases Act, this bill would actually reduce choice for both consumers and the States they live in.

By making egregious changes to the Clean Air Act's Section 209 waiver authority, this bill would add significant impacts on our collective ability to adopt clean vehicle technologies, combat climate change, and promote environmental justice.

It would not only imperil California's statutorily granted ability to seek waivers to implement more protective standards for vehicle emissions, but it would also significantly hamper the rights of any States that have chosen or may choose to follow California's lead.

Under Section 177 of the Clean Air Act, States may voluntarily adopt any California vehicle emissions standard that has been granted a waiver from EPA. To date, 17 States, including the State of Maryland, where I live, have done so.

No one is forcing States to adopt California's standards, but for many State across the country, like Maryland, doing so makes a lot of sense.

That is why, in March of this year, our Governor, Governor Moore, announced the adoption of the Advanced Clean Cars 2 Rule, which will align our State with the emissions standards pioneered by California and speed our transition from internal combustion engines to electric vehicles.

According to the Maryland Department of the Environment, this will provide in-State health benefits of nearly $40 million per year by 2040, to say nothing of the energy savings, climate impacts, and economic benefits of building out our green economy.

The bill before us today would take away Maryland's freedom to adopt regulatory standards like these that meet its needs and would encroach on the rights of all States that choose to follow California's lead in adopting vehicle emissions standards that will provide benefits to each and every one of our communities.

H.R. 1435 is a blatant attack on States that are taking ambitious steps to curb air pollution from cars and trucks and create greener, healthier futures for their residents.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I was unable to vote today. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall No. 272, H.R. 1606; and ``yea'' on rollcall No. 273, H.R. 3672.

personal explanation

Mr. Chair, I thank the ranking member for yielding.

Mr. Chair, I rise in strong opposition to this bill.

Today, we are arguing about a proposed Department of Energy efficiency standard for stoves, not just gas stoves, but every sort of kitchen stove.

Let me be clear about what this proposed rule is and what it is not. It is not a ban on any type of appliance. Let me repeat that: It is not a ban on any type of appliance. Instead, it is a well-reasoned proposal to help us save energy and reach our environmental goals, two very important objectives that we need to undertake here in the United States Congress.

Since the Energy Policy and Conservation Act was passed in 1975--so this is not something that came out of the ether; it has been around a long time--it has been the Department of Energy's job to put forth efficiency standards for kitchen ranges and ovens and to update them once every 6 years. This is what the Department has done here.

In its detailed proposal, the Department of Energy examined its statutory ability to implement the standard, consider its economic impact on manufacturers and on consumers, and calculated the potential energy savings.

Our job in Congress, as Congressman Pallone said, is not to be subject matter experts on stoves and cooktop efficiency. Hopefully, we have other things to focus on. Instead, our job is to tell the agencies what their jobs are and set forth the standards by which they should do them.

We have done that here, and the scientific and other experts at the Department of Energy have done their jobs that we have given them in issuing a commonsense, easy-to-implement proposed rulemaking.

Now, rather than debating this CRA, we should be allowing the Department to finish its job and finalize this rulemaking.

We know that energy conservation is actually very popular with Americans. They want us to pursue this. They want the agencies to have responsibility to step up and do that job. The vast majority of Americans understand the gravity of the climate crisis we face.

Mr. Chair, I encourage my Republican colleagues to work with us to improve our energy security and efficiency and to join us in doing the meaningful legislating that the American people sent us here to do.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to this resolution, which threatens the financial well-being of millions of Americans, including more than 260,000 hardworking public servants who have achieved or are working to achieve student loan relief under the Public Service Loan Forgiveness Program.

In 2007, I authored the PSLF program to help relieve the burden of student loan debt for public servants who contribute so much to our communities but often receive far less pay and fewer benefits than their private sector counterparts.

Under PSLF, these individuals--teachers, first responders, community health and social workers, service members and more--are eligible for forgiveness of their remaining federal student loan balances after completing 10 years of public service and making 120 qualifying payments on their loans.

I am pleased that the Biden Administration has made changes to strengthen PSLF and other student loan programs.

Unfortunately, the resolution before us today would reverse that progress, causing significant confusion and financial stress for these individuals.

By rolling back recent regulations, this resolution could put millions of Americans in financial jeopardy, forcing them to make payments on loans they had been told were on pause. It would also delay PSLF borrowers from getting their forgiveness and turn back the clock on those who received loan forgiveness during the payment pause.

This is not only confusing--it is just wrong. Rather than renege on the promise we made to these individuals, we must do everything we can to strengthen PSLF to give public service workers the relief they have earned.

I strongly urge my colleagues to oppose this resolution.

Madam Chair, I thank the chairman for yielding and recognizing me.

Madam Chair, I rise in strong opposition to the Republicans' energy bill.

I have deep concerns about this package overall in terms of its attack on our bedrock environmental laws. As a Marylander, I am particularly alarmed at changes to section 401 certifications under the Clean Water Act, which would endanger the health of the Chesapeake Bay.

To protect our environment and public health, States need to have the authority and tools to regulate pollution in their waters. One section of this bill would narrow States' ability to regulate pollution sources that impact downstream water quality.

This bill would also restrict the conditions and limitations that a State could place on clean water certification, further hampering a State's means of protecting its waters.

That has grave implications for a State's ability to set limits on how much of a particular pollutant a water body can accept while still meeting the State's overall water quality standards. These limits, known as total maximum daily loads, or TMDLs, are required to restore waters impaired by pollution, which is the case for the Chesapeake Bay and most of its tributaries.

That is why I filed an amendment, along with Congressman Bobby Scott, to ensure that this energy bill would not impact a State's authority to establish or implement a State-approved TMDL for an impaired waterway. Unfortunately, Republicans did not allow for this amendment to be offered on the floor today.

As this bill strips away environmental and public health protections across the board, we don't even have the most basic assurances that States will be able to design and execute their own plans to reduce waterway pollution.

For the Chesapeake Bay, this could be disastrous. The TMDLs are the guides by which the seven watershed jurisdictions work with EPA to continue making progress on the larger Chesapeake Bay Agreement.

It is gross negligence, as a matter of legislation, to roll back these key protections for these bodies of water.

Tragically, rolling back these protections is the chief goal of this bill. That is what it is all about. For that reason, I encourage all of my colleagues to oppose it.

Madam Speaker, due to testing positive for COVID-19 and following recommended isolation protocols, I was unable to vote. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye'' on rollcall No. 125, ``aye'' on rollcall No. 126, ``aye'' on rollcall No. 127, ``aye'' on rollcall No. 128, ``aye'' on rollcall No. 129, ``no'' on rollcall No. 130 and ``no'' on rollcall No. 131.

Madam Speaker, due to testing positive for COVID-19 and following recommended isolation protocols, I was unable to vote today. Had I been present, I would have voted ``nay'' on rollcall no. 122, ``nay'' on rollcall no. 123, and ``nay'' on rollcall no. 124.