Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of military assistance for Israel and Ukraine and the Indo-Pacific, all regions in which our Nation has forged critical strategic alliances. Make no mistake, in a dangerous world, these precious alliances help secure liberty forward against all enemies, foreign and domestic.

The largest land war since the Second World War is raging on Europe's continent at the eastern edge in Ukraine following Russia's initial brutal invasion in 2014.

The question before us is: What is liberty's worth for our generation? We are not being asked to fight, but only to aid Ukraine's valiant soldiers to drive Russia, the third largest military in the world, out of their homeland.

It is day 617 of that brutal war. Few believed Ukraine could shoulder this wretched war beyond a few weeks, but Ukraine's will to win inspires us and subjugated people everywhere.

Over centuries, Ukrainians survived the absolute butchery of Lenin, Stalin, and now Putin, all tyrannical mass murderers. No place on Earth lost more lives to mass murder and forced starvation than did Ukraine during the 20th century, 10 million to 14 million people, only God knows.

Now is the time to turn a page for liberty in the annals of history. This GOP's leadership's willful ignorance of the history of Russian oppression and murder is mind-bending. The necessity for America, the leader of the free world, to defend liberty, will prevent the blood of Putin's tyranny running across not just more of Ukraine, but of Europe and likely other places, including the Middle East.

Putin has refused to condemn Hamas and has gone as far as comparing Israel's defensive actions to Nazi Germany's seize of Leningrad. In return, Hamas has called Russia its friend.

They understand these conflicts are connected. Why don't we?

Vote ``no,'' the imperative vote for liberty.

Mr. Speaker, surely the new Speaker cannot remain committed to his macabre choice of providing military assistance to Israel while denying it to Ukraine, which is fighting against Putin's invasion in the largest land war in Europe since the Second World War, or Taiwan, whose people are fighting so valiantly to oppose Communist Chinese encroachment on their sovereignty.

While posing for photos, the Speaker claimed he cannot identify adequate funds, so he wants to raid the Internal Revenue Service of sophisticated accountants who hold billionaires and corporate tax cheats accountable for not paying their fair share of taxes, including illicit criminal groups funding terrorists.

These cuts will decrease revenue--are you ready?--$26.7 billion. You heard me right.

Extremist Republicans kneel before the thrones of Wall Street scions while blocking military assistance to valiant nations and people fighting for liberty against evil empires that hate liberty, like Xi's China and Putin's Russia.

Mr. Speaker, that is what I call warped thinking. The Speaker should go back to the drawing board.

Liberty and justice first and always.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I share the gentleman's strong passion for making sure that America has the very best deterrent on the face of the Earth in view of what we are facing not only in the Middle East, but obviously, as you stated, in Ukraine and with what is happening on the high seas around the globe. We are so proud of our nuclear Navy.

I rise in reluctant opposition to this amendment because of my dear friendship with Congressman Garamendi, and I respect his efforts to try to have a responsible nuclear deterrent and weapons program.

I understand that. This amendment itself would prohibit funding, as has been stated, for the plutonium pit production at the Savannah River processing facility.

We all know that plutonium modernization is a key aspect to meeting our nuclear weapons stockpile requirements and maintaining the Nation's nuclear deterrent.

On both sides of the aisle of our subcommittee, we have had complete support, really, in ensuring that our country maintains a safe, secure, and credible nuclear deterrent while also addressing the threat of nuclear nonproliferation and terrorism.

However, on our side of the aisle, at least, we continue to be troubled by the unsustainable spending in the Department of Energy's weapons program.

I have to say that the concerns about the budget deficit and so forth attend to every agency, including this one.

There have been cost overruns at a level that are historic, and I think we have to have rigor in terms of managing whatever funds are allocated to that important task.

I wholeheartedly agree with Chair Fleischmann that the National Nuclear Security Administration needs to improve its program management--I hope they are hearing us--given that more than half of its projects are over cost or behind schedule. That is not really a good record for something so important.

Mr. Chair, I thank the gentleman for yielding. We, as a committee and as a Congress, have to face the realities of future defense caps and begin making important decisions to prioritize within those programs. Only through strategic prioritization can the program achieve success in meeting the needs of stockpile requirements and maintaining our Nation's critical nuclear deterrent.

Nonetheless, prohibiting all funds to one strategic investment of plutonium modernization at the Savannah River Plutonium Processing Facility is not the right approach at this time.

Mr. Chair, I thank all of my colleagues. In working together, we will find the right path for America. I urge my colleagues to vote against this amendment, and I thank Congressman Garamendi for making sure we spend our dollars wisely.

Mr. Chairman, I rise as the designee of the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).

Mr. Chair, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chair, I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. Garamendi).

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

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

Mr. Chair, I invite the gentlewoman to come into any pulmonary ward in this country and see the cancers that attend to people who have suffered from carbon ingestion in their careers.

This amendment prohibits funds to implement the Industrial Decarbonization Roadmap published by the Department of Energy in September 2022.

The purpose of the roadmap is to develop a strategic approach to decarbonizing the Nation's industrial sector--I come from industrial America--while simultaneously creating good-paying jobs for American workers, spurring economic growth, developing U.S. leadership in these new technologies, and creating a cleaner, more equitable, and healthier workplace for all Americans.

The industrial sector represents 30 percent of energy-related carbon dioxide emissions in the United States. To address the climate crisis, we must address these emissions. We have a lot more people living in this country now. When I was born, there were 146 million. Today, we have about 335. It is going to go up to 400 million people. We have to think about our way of life and how we meet the demands of a new era.

In addressing these emissions, we will also dramatically improve air quality and reduce millions of early deaths in our country and around the world.

The roadmap focused on proven steps for energy technology innovation: advancing early-stage research and development, investing in multiple process strategies, and scaling through demonstrations and integrating solutions, including on the factory floor and places where equipment is repaired.

America has always been about the future. A successful industrial decarbonization strategy is critical to supporting the existing 11.4 million workers in American manufacturing and growing a future workforce in the clean industry transition.

There is a lot of training that has to be done there. How is it that our firefighters across this country, just in the last few years, have discovered the cancers that attend to working in that extremely dangerous and important patriotic service to the people of our country? Their equipment is important, and what happens to their lungs and their bodies is really important.

Again, I invite you to come with me into the hospitals of this country and meet the families of workers who have died and the people suffering because of carbon ingestion.

While it is clear we need an all-of-the-above energy strategy that taps domestic oil and gas and invests in clean energy, we must continue to promote energy innovation, a cleaner workplace in all sectors of the economy, and in the American home as well.

Mr. Chair, I strongly urge my colleagues to vote against this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, mining is a really difficult industry. I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Chair, as a daughter of automotive and truck America and an aficionado of NASCAR and having spent a lot of my time on drag strips across the country, including my own reasons, I really rise in strong opposition to this amendment because it is not about the future. It is about the past.

This amendment prohibits funds for the Department of Energy's SuperTruck 3 program within the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy. It is hard to make an engine. It is hard to conceive it. It is hard to build it. It takes a lot of creativity to understand propulsion. The parts of the country that I represent specialize in that.

The Department of Energy initially launched the SuperTruck initiative in 2009 to improve heavy-duty truck freight efficiency by 50 percent. That is a gulp.

The second iteration, SuperTruck 2, sought to double fuel efficiency for 18-wheeler trucks.

SuperTruck 3 is currently working to improve medium-and heavy-duty truck efficiencies and reduce emissions of freight transportation, that is underway.

This program consists of a public-private partnership with General Motors, Ford Motor Company, Daimler Truck North America, Volvo Group North America, and PACCAR.

Now, I want America to succeed. I want the free world to succeed. This program is building on a proven track record. Within 7 years, four truck makers exceeded the SuperTruck 1 goals and the five SuperTruck 2 projects are on track to more than double their fuel efficiency.

I invite the gentlewoman to come with me through some of these companies and some of these research sites to see what it takes to make America more fuel efficient.

These efforts help create good-paying jobs here at home and boost American supply chains, not in China, not in Japan, not anywhere else in the world, but right here.

Oil prices are on the rise again. Our transportation sector is currently largely dependent on petroleum and thus subject to oil price volatility and what will become diminished supplies in the decades ahead. I don't want America to be stuck on the whims of dictators throughout the world. It is common sense we should be developing energy alternatives and promoting energy proficiency and advancement in our transportation sector.

While it is clear that we need an all-of-the-above energy strategy that taps domestic oil and gas, we must also invest in alternative energy options to diversify our energy portfolio, including hydrogen, hydrogen fuel cells. Where the market is moving, the companies are moving. We need to help to propel that advancement sooner rather than later.

Mr. Chair, I strongly urge my colleagues to vote against this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I yield to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Fleischmann), the chair of the Energy and Water Subcommittee.

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

I rise in opposition to the gentlewoman's amendment.

Mr. Chair, first, I oppose the amendment because the Department of Energy is charged with implementing congressionally directed energy efficiency standards. They are implementing the laws we passed.

The Department of Energy drafts energy efficiency regulations with the full participation of the manufacturers and the public at large, and they do issue their guidelines and regulations for review.

The end result is people save money. They save money on water heaters. They save money on what it costs to wash clothes at home and on refrigerators.

When these standards are set forth, they also promote innovation. You get a lot of new inventions across the country, and we can see the results of that every day. The benefits are real.

As a result of the Department of Energy's efficiency actions in the past, cost savings for American families and businesses are projected to reach nearly $2 trillion by 2030. It not only makes sense for the consumer. Frankly, it makes sense for the country because it means that the systems to supply the energy are also more efficient. It drives us to be better at what we do.

It is estimated per household the energy efficiencies achieved already have amounted to over $6,000 of savings for every American every month when you pay every one of those bills: your gas bills, your electric bills, everything else you have to pay for in your house.

The Department of Energy estimates that this specific rule would slash household utility costs by over $11 billion annually to save consumers $198 billion on their energy bills over 30 years when we look at the whole. With the population growing, we have to do a better job of trying to save resources in order to make sure that everyone has the ability to access them.

Stopping the Department of Energy from finalizing, implementing, or enforcing energy efficiency standards basically is bicycling backward and will only create uncertainty for manufacturers and consumers.

For consumers, costs go up when we don't pay attention. With respect to the proposed energy efficiency standards for consumer water heaters, I urge my colleagues with concerns to participate fully in the rulemaking process, as I have done with respect to my concerns about the proposed energy efficiency standards for distribution transformers. That is appropriate. It is a response people can take to the proposed rule and companies can take.

Congress has vested the Department of Energy with the authority to promulgate these rules. Let us fully participate in the process. Let's make

America better. Let's modernize America.

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

Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to this amendment.

Madam Chair, I have long been a champion of ensuring that the United States maintains a safe, secure, and credible nuclear deterrent while addressing the threat of nuclear proliferation and terrorism.

I wholeheartedly agree with Chair Fleischmann that the National Nuclear Security Administration needs to improve its program and project management given that more than half of its projects are over cost or behind schedule.

We must also face the realities of future defense caps and begin making important decisions to prioritize within this program.

As one step in the prioritization process, the National Nuclear Security Administration proposed pausing, not phasing out, construction of this facility to focus resources on high-priority items necessary for nuclear weapon modernization efforts.

Only through strategic prioritization can the program achieve success in meeting the needs of stockpile requirements and maintaining the nation's nuclear deterrent.

We should not prohibit the NNSA from pausing certain activities, especially since those issues will be resolved through conferencing funding levels.

Madam Chair, I urge my colleagues to vote against this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Madam Chair, this amendment the gentlewoman has offered raises serious constitutional issues and may amount to an unconstitutional bill of attainder.

This is not the way to handle policy disputes, with Michael Conner, the Assistant Secretary of the Army for civil works.

This amendment prioritizes, I am sad to say, legislative theater over the American people, and it has no chance of becoming law.

Madam Chair, I strongly urge my colleagues to vote against this harmful amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I yield to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Fleischmann), the chair of the Energy and Water Subcommittee.

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

Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to this amendment.

Madam Chair, this amendment would prohibit funds for the Corps of Engineers to implement or enforce guidance from the 1996 memo called Approval of Perpetual Beach Storm Damage Reduction Easement As a Standard Estate. That is engineering language. While this may sound like a lot of jargon, it is actually an attempt to have one area of Florida treated differently than other areas.

Beach renourishment is an important function of the Corps of Engineers and includes the adding of sediment onto or directly adjacent to an eroding beach, something that our country on many coasts now is experiencing. The Corps of Engineers generally requires that real estate easements are granted when performing work, which makes sense, because the taxpayers are footing the bill for the improvement.

Further, it seems particularly of interest to taxpayers that, if our taxpayer dollars are improving private property, then there should be an easement provided.

In this case, that wasn't required in the past, but the Corps of Engineers realized it wasn't following standard procedures and decided to implement that going forward.

This really comes down to one basic question: Do we want to treat one area of the country differently than all the rest of the areas are supposed to be treated? I believe we should strive for consistency in implementing the laws and regulations of this country, especially when it comes to projects funded with taxpayer dollars.

For these reasons, I urge my colleagues to vote against this amendment.

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

Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

This amendment prohibits funds provided by this act from closing campgrounds or parks operated by the Army Corps of Engineers and located at or around Lake Sidney Lanier, Georgia.

I can certainly understand the strong interest in preventing the Corps from closing campgrounds and parks in a particular area. Frankly, I wish my area had one, but we don't have Corps facilities like that. The gentleman has been blessed.

The Corps of Engineers is one of the Nation's leading Federal providers of outdoor recreation. Its recreation sites receive 262 million visits each year and include more than 400 lake and river projects in 43 States. Unfortunately, the Corps of Engineers' recreation funding has been declining in recent years.

I support the notion that we do not want the Corps to begin closing recreation sites due to lack of funding. However, this is an issue that affects hundreds of sites across dozens of States. I do not believe we here today should begin the practice of using funding prohibitions to carve out special designations, but instead should develop a comprehensive solution, fair to all regions across our Nation, to address the challenge of funding the Corps' recreation sites.

I would welcome the opportunity to work with the gentleman on that and obviously the chair of the full committee.

For this reason, I oppose the amendment at this time, but look forward to working with my colleagues to develop a solution to the larger problem. Maybe we can even give a little attention to the Great Lakes. Wouldn't that be great?

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

Madam Chair, I rise in strong opposition to this amendment.

Madam Chair, as I understand it, this amendment prohibits the use of funds for the Department of Energy's Office of Scientific Workforce Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion.

This bill already includes harmful riders that show Republicans are not interested in bills that can gain bipartisan support and become law.

During our full committee markup--I remember it well--Republicans added a provision that prohibits funds for any diversity, equity, and inclusion office, program, or training. The underlying bill already includes section 606 that prohibits funds related to advancing racial equity and support for underserved communities and related to diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility in the Federal workforce.

In addition, section 605 of the underlying bill prohibits any activities related to ``critical race theory'' that, as we heard during the markups when I asked the question, none of my Republican colleagues could even define. I don't see a definition in your presentation here today.

How many times do the individuals on the other side of the aisle need to emphasize that they do not like the words ``diversity, equity, and inclusion?''

I know when we were educated, we were always taught about ``e pluribus unum,'' out of many, one. That is what makes our Nation great, that we aren't just one widget, that, in fact, our common experience is our shared heritages, wherever they might be from. It makes us a more interesting place, and it also connects us to the broader world beyond our shores.

I really do not understand why these provisions are necessary on an energy and water bill, and I hope that my colleagues would stop targeting those who may be different from themselves--or they might think they are--and embrace acceptance or at least tolerance of others.

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

Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Madam Chair, I rise in strong opposition to this amendment.

Madam Chair, this amendment would prohibit funds for the Interagency Working Group on the Social Cost of Greenhouse Gases.

In my part of the country, we recognize what greenhouse gases are. We have to contain methane at many landfills that have let that stuff belch out into the atmosphere. The satellites that take photos of the Earth from a distance can show us that when we weren't conscious of greenhouse gases, we were breaking through the ozone layer, and we have been able to heal that over time with concerted effort. Those who care to know about greenhouse gases have plenty of evidence around us.

We know that the work of this particular group is crucial to making sure the government accounts for the potential impacts of government actions on the climate.

Now, I just left a group of farmers back in Ohio, and I can tell you that their fields are being washed out because of added rainfall at a level they have never seen before.

We have the saltwater creeping up the Mississippi River right now. I was just talking to one of the Members on the other side of the aisle yesterday concerned about Baton Rouge and what is happening with the ocean and saltwater coming north. This has never happened before. This is very unusual.

Whether it is gases in the air--I think of Canada this past summer. In

my part of the country, we never had the kind of fog, I call it, that came from those forest fires down into our region and even made it here to Washington, D.C., and down to the panhandle. This is all new.

As I have said, it is undeniable that we are witnessing growing weather events stemming from climate change occurring in real time, even to the point where we can see it with our own eyes.

As of the end of August, there have been more than 23 disasters in 2023 alone costing at least $1 billion each. With the costs of trying to pick up after these terrible events, whether we are talking about Hawaii or other places in our country that have been hit hard, our homeland security and disaster assistance accounts have tripled because of what is going on.

We know that the events this year have exceeded the previous records set in 2020, and we still have a few more months to go before this year is done. We don't have the luxury to pretend that climate change isn't impacting us--whatever name you call it--or that our actions aren't somehow related to it.

Tell the American citizens who lost businesses or homes and loved ones from hurricanes, wildfires, and other recent natural disasters, and those who continue to face unrelenting flooding in the Midwest, that there are no costs from climate change because there sure are.

It is already past time for aggressive action to address climate change and its impacts.

The truth is that it is having catastrophic social and economic impacts here in the United States and across the globe, and these are real and unrelenting. Pretending that it doesn't exist simply won't make it go away.

Madam Chair, I strongly urge my colleagues to vote against this harmful amendment and would enjoy talking to the gentleman at any time about my part of the country and what we endure. From what I see in your part of the country, you have issues there, as well.

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

Madam Chair, I rise in strong opposition to this amendment.

Madam Chair, all I wish to say on this is there is an old expression: Don't try to fool Mother Nature. I would say and advise, don't ignore Mother Nature.

I strongly urge my colleagues to vote against this harmful amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to this amendment.

Madam Chair, here is another amendment that prohibits something else. The gentleman's amendment would prohibit funding for the American Climate Corps.

I have been a long-time supporter of the idea of engaging young Americans in helping to build our country forward as the original Civilian Conservation Corps did many, many years ago.

People who became a part of that saw a part of America that they had never seen before. They made friends. They learned new skills. It gave people a pride in our Nation that was incalculable.

The whole intent of the American Climate Corps is to engage young Americans in helping our Nation build forward, whether they would be weatherizing homes, planting trees, installing solar infrastructure, mitigating coastal erosion, permitting fires and flooding--the gentleman talked about some of the needs of our national forests-- constructing and maintaining public trails, and so much more.

From the western Great Plains to the coast and Great Lakes, we are witnessing the wreckage brought about by changing climate with a ferocity that knows no bounds.

Our success in tackling this challenge will require bold and innovative strategies and connecting to the younger generation.

Last month when the President announced the American Climate Corps, he talked about training young people in high-demand skills for jobs in the clean energy economy, as well.

This program will give a new generation of Americans the skills that our grandparents had, which are necessary to access good-paying jobs that are aligned with high-quality employment opportunities after they complete their paid training and service. It is really a program for America and for the next generation, and I would welcome that.

It used to be that most persons had someone in their family who joined the U.S. military. Today, less than 1 percent of America's families are connected to the U.S. military.

We have to find other means to engage our younger people in patriotic service, and this is one of those. I believe we must continue to invest in America's next generation, our future workforce, and this is such a positive way to do it.

I strongly urge my colleagues to vote against this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Madam Chair, I rise in opposition.

Madam Chair, this amendment raises serious constitutional issues and may amount to an unconstitutional bill of attainder. This is not the way to handle policy disputes with the Secretary of Energy for our country.

This amendment prioritizes legislative theater over the American people and doesn't have a chance of becoming law.

I strongly urge my colleagues to vote against this harmful amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I would say in reaction to what I just heard on the floor here, there must be two Jennifer Granholms because the one I know is simply exceptional.

Madam Chair, I yield to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Fleischmann), the chair of the Energy and Water Subcommittee.

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

Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, his amendment would prohibit any funds to enforce COVID-19 mask mandates.

I must say, America used to focus on big issues. I remember as a child we tried to figure out how to eradicate polio coast-to-coast, and you know what, we did it.

America was inspired by a great a President, John Kennedy, to land a man on the moon, and we did. America did it. We worked together to defeat Soviet communism, and guess what, we did it. We have remnants of that tyrannical regime still seated, and history will show whether we meet the challenge or not. But most of America wants to defeat Vladimir Putin's unconscionable invasion, unprovoked to the adjoining nation of Ukraine.

This amendment is one more controversial poison pill policy rider dealing with face masks. You know what, I didn't really come to Congress to worry about the face masks. I find the majority's odd interest in this peculiar.

Preventing diseases reduces healthcare costs, such as hospitalizations, pharmaceuticals, and benefits employers by resulting in less employee absenteeism. I find it very odd--here we are moving into Halloween and people are spending millions of dollars on masks to go all around the country and parade around in neighborhoods in masks.

Yet, when we talk about facial masks to fight the COVID-19 virus, which is a wicked one, it has been politicized to a level that it is almost a theater of the absurd.

From January 3, 2020, to September 27, 2023, there were how many deaths in our country from COVID?

Madam Chair, there were 1,127,152 deaths from COVID-19 in our country alone. That is 1,127,152 deaths. Some of the people who died we knew and loved, and some were people serving in this room.

Madam Chair, I strongly urge my colleagues to vote against this harmful amendment and to focus on great quests, not ridiculousness.

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise to oppose the gentleman's amendment.

Mr. Chairman, the Department of Energy is charged with implementing congressionally directed energy efficiency standards. So the Department is fulfilling the obligations in law. Now, if individuals want to comment on that there is a way to do that, to fully participate in the rulemaking process, and I urge our colleagues to do that.

Again, the gentleman's interests seem to be rather narrow, and to create false fears--whether it is masks or whether it is trying to get better equipment--more energy efficient equipment in the country to help everyone, businesses that use ice making machines, and homeowners who have ice making in their home.

This specific rule would save Americans over $44 million in annual operating costs. That is pretty good. We make American industry more efficient and we make it cheaper. They save money.

We are trying to act in the interest of the American people. There is a quote in this Chamber, ``Let us develop the resources of our land, call forth its powers, build up its institutions, promote all its great interests and see whether we also in our day and generation may not perform something worthy to be remembered.'' That is what we should aspire to.

In saving the American people money in helping them to promote their companies to save money to make America better, I think that we are on the right path. I think the gentleman's amendment is misdirected, and I oppose it.

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

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

Mr. Chair, the Department of Energy is charged with implementing congressionally directed energy efficiency standards, and I think it is safe to assume that virtually all Americans, let alone all the people in this room, have benefited from these types of efficiency standards over the course of their lifetimes.

Today, the typical new room air-conditioner uses 39 percent less energy than its 1990 counterpart. In that 33-year time span, the Department of Energy raised the efficiency standard for room air- conditioners three times, and real results happened.

The Department of Energy estimates that these new standards will save American families and consumers approximately--are you ready?--$1.5 billion per year on their electricity bills.

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

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

Mr. Chair, this amendment raises serious constitutional issues and may amount to an unconstitutional bill of attainder.

This is not the way to handle policy disputes with Mr. Rodrigues, the Assistant Secretary for Electricity at the Department of Energy's Office of Electricity. He has very impressive credentials, with over two decades of work in industry in California and Arizona, parts of our country that understand the new pressures on producing power. Look at the forest fires that have occurred out there and the stresses on the environment that cause millions of people not to have electricity. He has actually lived in places in our country that have experienced it first.

He has impressive degrees in law and obviously in business, so I don't think they are being fair to this gentleman, and this is certainly not the way to handle this.

This amendment prioritizes legislative theater over the American people. It has no chance of becoming law.

Mr. Chair, I strongly urge my colleagues to vote against this harmful amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

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

Mr. Chair, first of all, the gentleman's amendment raises serious constitutional issues, and like others this afternoon, may amount to an unconstitutional bill of attainder. This is really not the way to handle policy disputes with Andrew Light, Assistant Secretary of Energy for International Affairs.

First of all, I think I have to say: Energy security for our country understands the global environment in which we exist and function, and that is both the commercial marketplace as well as on the defense ledger.

This is a very, very important job. This gentleman has very broad experience prior to coming to his current position, even in the area of atmospheric sciences, trying to understand some of the science as well as the security issues involved in America remaining energy independent in perpetuity here at home.

The amendment prioritizes legislative theater again over the American people. It doesn't have any chance of becoming law, and I strongly urge my colleagues to vote against this harmful amendment.

Mr. Chair, I yield to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Fleischmann), Chair of the Energy and Water Development, and Related Agencies Subcommittee.

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

Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chair, I have a parliamentary inquiry.

When the gentleman began his remarks, he referred to the Interior bill. This is the Energy bill. I wonder if the gentleman could clarify that.

I think the Record will have to be corrected.

Mr. Chair, I rise as the designee of the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).

Mr. Chair, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chair, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Castor).

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

Amendment No. 59 Offered by Mr. Rosendale

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

Mr. Chair, as of the end of August, there have been more than 23 disasters in our country, just this year, costing at least a billion dollars each--each. That exceeds the previous record set in 2020, and we have not even finished this year yet.

This morning, as I drove to work, I was listening to the Representative from Hawaii talk about the recovery in Maui and ongoing efforts there and the struggle and the positive attitude of the people to try to rebuild. Don't try to tell American citizens who have lost businesses or homes and loved ones from hurricanes, wildfires, other natural disasters and who continue to face unrelenting flooding in the middle part of the country that there are no costs from climate change.

Talk to any insurance company, property insurance company. Disaster costs have risen substantially across this country, and they are growing. In fact, they have tripled. The Federal Disaster Assistance Office, just the Federal side, it is billions and billions and billions more dollars.

It is already past time for aggressive action to address climate change and its impacts, and pretending that it doesn't exist won't make it go away.

We must maintain American leadership for our clean energy future and not cede all the economic opportunity, which Congresswoman Castor just talked about when she was here on the floor, to China and other countries who surely want to be right at our ankles and try to dump product into this country.

We have to stand on our own two feet and be as great a Nation as we really are and seize the horizon.

Mr. Chair, I strongly urge my colleagues to vote against this harmful amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to a dear friend and congressional colleague who passed away late last month, Senator Dianne Feinstein of California.

I was deeply saddened at the news of the passing of Dianne, whom I worked with closely over many years on energy independence for our Nation and to protect the waters of the United States, which are amongst our Nation's most precious resources. Her acute mastery of the energy and water needs of our Nation had no comparison.

Throughout her career, Dianne shattered glass ceilings, first on the San Francisco Board of Supervisors, serving as the board's first female president, then as the first woman to serve as mayor of San Francisco, and, finally, as the first female Senator from the State of California.

She would go on to become the longest serving woman in the history of the U.S. Senate and was a champion for LGBTQ rights and our environmental needs throughout her career.

My thoughts and prayers are with her dear daughter, Katherine, and all who knew and loved her, including her staff in the Senate. Rest in peace, my dear friend.

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record an opinion piece celebrating her life, which was published this past month.

[From the Washington Post, Oct. 2, 2023]

Opinion--Our Nation Is in Dire Need of Leaders Like Dianne Feinstein

(By Hillary Rodham Clinton)

One day, on the floor of the Senate in 1993, Idaho

Republican Larry Craig condescended to Dianne Feinstein, the

Democratic sponsor of a proposed ban on assault weapons.

``The gentle lady from California needs to become a little

bit more familiar with firearms and their deadly

characteristics,'' he said. Craig, a board member of the

National Rifle Association, had picked the wrong target.

``I am quite familiar with firearms,'' Dianne responded,

with fire in her eyes. ``I became mayor as a product of

assassination. I found my assassinated colleague and put a

finger through a bullet hole trying to get a pulse. I was

trained in the shooting of a firearm when I had terrorist

attacks, with a bomb in my house, when my husband was dying,

when I had windows shot out. Senator, I know something about

what firearms can do.''

Craig was left sputtering, and the Senate passed the

assault weapons ban thanks to Dianne's tireless advocacy. My

husband proudly signed the ban, and it helped keep millions

of Americans safer for a decade.

Feinstein, who passed away on Thursday evening, was a giant

of the Senate. She was brave, honorable, honest and unafraid

to do what was right for her constituents and her country. We

both came to Washington in 1993, I as first lady and Dianne

as a senator. When she used her first floor speech to support

the Family and Medical Leave Act, I knew I had found a

kindred spirit.

When I joined Dianne in the small sisterhood of Senate

women eight years later, I gained an appreciation for her

blend of principle and pragmatism. In an institution known

for show horses, she was a workhorse. Perhaps because she had

been a mayor, she believed in delivering results, not

rhetoric--and that's what she did.

Dianne was tough and sometimes formal, but she had a big

heart and enormous compassion. She was an early advocate for

LGBTQ rights and people suffering from HIV and AIDS. As a

trailblazer for women in politics, she opened space for those

of us who followed.

I learned a tremendous amount from Dianne. We strategized,

commiserated, laughed, drank California chardonnay and one

time even planned a covert operation: Dianne hosted a secret

meeting in the living room of her Northwest D.C. home, where

then-Sen. Barack Obama and I made peace after the grueling

2008 primary. We chose to meet there because we both trusted

Dianne. (She let us in, offered a glass of wine and left us

alone.)

For all of us who loved Dianne, her passing is a deep

personal loss. It is also a loss for our country when we are

in desperate need of leaders willing to show half the

backbone she displayed throughout her storied career.

Her calm determination in the wake of the 1978

assassination of San Francisco Mayor George Moscone and city

Supervisor Harvey Milk by a fellow council member reassured a

shaken city. That tragedy didn't just make her mayor; it gave

her a mission. She took on the NRA and won. She became a

champion for the rule of law and democratic institutions and

refused to be intimidated by anyone.

As the chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee, she

exposed torture and other abuses committed by the CIA after

9/11, despite efforts to keep her silent. She was a strong

supporter of the intelligence community, but she believed

those abuses could not be covered up. ``History will judge us

by our commitment to a just society governed by law and the

willingness to face an ugly truth and say `never again,' ''

she said.

Those are words we should remember as we face the

challenges ahead. Dianne has left the national scene at

another moment of political violence and threats to the rule

of law. So, we must again face ugly truths and do what is

right.

The cries of an insurrectionist mob have barely faded from

the halls of the Capitol. Former president Donald Trump,

whose incendiary rhetoric has repeatedly incited violence,

recently said Army Gen. Mark A. Milley, the just-retired

chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, had committed ``a

treasonous act'' for which ``in times gone by, the punishment

would have been DEATH!'' As President Biden noted, while most

Republicans may not agree, the silence is deafening.

Trump and his supporters have also suggested that if he

regains the presidency, he will seek to gut checks on

executive power, weaponize the Justice Department to pursue

political opponents, eviscerate the civil service and attempt

to put himself above the law. This is a man who has been

indicted on a charge of a conspiracy to overturn an election

and called for the ``termination of all rules, regulations,

and articles, even those found in the Constitution.''

We should believe him when he tells us what he'll do next.

We could have used Dianne's voice in the fights ahead.

Democracy needs champions. So do our institutions, creaky and

frustrating as they might be. The United States needs leaders

willing to respond to attacks on the rule of law with the

same fearlessness that Dianne showed when she exposed

unlawful ``enhanced interrogation techniques.'' We must

summon the passion of Dianne's answer to Sen. Craig back in

1993. We all can honor her legacy by finding in ourselves the

courage that Dianne showed on that bloody day in 1978.

Dianne's journey has ended, but the fights of her life are

far from over.

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

Mr. Chair, I appreciate Chair Fleischmann very, very much for his serious attention to our complex bill and his cordiality and very constructive attitude throughout.

I begin by thanking our diligent staff for all their hard work on this bill. On the minority staff, I thank Scott McKee, Jocelyn Hunn, and Adam Wilson. On the majority staff, I thank Angie Giancarlo, Perry Yates, Nora Khalil, Richie O'Connell, Scott Prutting, and Janet Harrington. On my personal staff, I thank Margaret McInnis and Mayely Boyce.

As we work on this Energy and Water bill, I place in the Record how deeply saddened I am by the passing of our dear colleague in the other body, Senator Dianne Feinstein, who dedicated the best years of her life to our country.

As Energy and Water appropriators, Dianne and all of us worked closely over many years to protect the waters of the United States and to build a brighter, cleaner energy future and to assure America's nuclear capabilities are secure.

Her acute mastery of the energy, water, and security needs of our Nation had no comparison, and her dignified, noble public service is truly a great loss to our Nation.

There is not time during our bill's consideration today to fully express my thoughts, but I am so deeply saddened for California's loss, for our Nation's loss, and for all who grieve the loss of the longest- serving woman in Senate history.

All I or any of us can do is laud Senator Dianne Feinstein's productive career of exemplary effective public service. Rest in peace, my dear friend.

We consider this important measure at a moment in which the United States economy is growing at record rates, producing historic levels of job growth due to the laws enacted by the last Congress.

With historic job growth, revenues are now coming into the private sector and the Federal Government at much higher levels than before because post-pandemic, millions more people are working. Companies are earning money.

The American people again are doing what America does best: being productive and leaving our Nation to the future in better condition than we found it.

Indeed, this gross domestic product/debt chart clearly illustrates as a result of robust economic growth, our Nation has bent the debt curve as a percentage of GDP for the first time in modern history.

Here we go. It is going down. That is where we want it to go, yes. We are beginning to pay down our Nation's accumulated debt, largely amassed from the costs of past wars, the old debts that were not paid for by those that conducted them at the time.

Then we had the pandemic and, sadly, over several decades, the tax cuts that were enacted allowed the wealthiest and most productive powerful corporations in our country not to carry their fair share of the tax load. I think it is important that everyone share in our Nation's responsibilities.

In this context, I must offer that I am unable to concur with my able colleague, Chairman Fleischmann, on this particular appropriation bill. I prefer a more realistic energy and water allocation that meets the critical energy and water needs of our Nation, not just for today but for the energy independence and the water security for America in perpetuity. We are not out of the woods on this, we have got a lot of work to do.

Energy and water security are national security--think about it. Yet, the nondefense spending in this bill is $6.4 billion lower--25 percent lower--than last year's effective level. That is a radical, irresponsible reduction. It repeals over $5 billion for critical energy programs from the Inflation Reduction Act that would have helped American families save money on their monthly energy bills while simultaneously creating thousands of jobs, good-paying jobs, in new energy technologies.

For energy and water needs, it is not an overstatement to say people in our Nation live or die by decisions being made here in Congress.

Since World War II, America has paid a terrible price for its unconscious slide into foreign dependency on imported energy. While we have made strides toward energy independence after a half century of effort, starting in the late 1970s, we still haven't scored at the home plate of U.S. energy independence in perpetuity.

Recently, I read an article that said our country is going to import petroleum after 2040. Well, guess what? I am not voting for that. Our position must be to keep American energy and our people secure here at home. That is one of the major purposes of this bill.

Hasn't our Nation learned repeatedly the hard way that when gasoline prices top $4 a gallon, our economy is thrown into deep recession. It is pretty clear. It should be obvious why U.S. energy independence is so vital. No foreign power should ever again make America vulnerable.

Energy security is national security. We must ensure energy security within our own borders. We cannot depend on foreign sources in the event of energy disruptions that are natural or malignly concocted to do us harm.

Energy impacts every person's well-being. It allows our Nation to be free, and free of foreign malign influence. How well we know our Nation's fate can be impacted by events outside our borders.

News outlets are correctly reporting that Russia's unprovoked war on Ukraine is being waged on more than one front, surely including energy. Russia is known for manipulation of global oil and gas prices through reserves they control. In fact, global oil prices surged to nearly $100 per barrel in September after Saudi Arabia and Russia continued their curtailment of oil supplies.

The sharp escalation in geopolitical risk in the Middle East from the brutal Hamas terror attack in Israel has oil markets on edge. Check it out. Let us not forget that the Middle East accounts for more than one- third of the world's seaborne oil trade. Again, energy resources are intricately bound to the fate of liberty halfway around our world. Let us make our home front impenetrable.

Energy also allows our private sector and its workforce the ability to flourish in a modern economy with millions and millions upon millions of living wage jobs in energy production and conservation, across all sectors: natural gas, ethanol and biodiesel, nuclear, fossil fuels, thermal heat recovery, renewables, advancing sectors of hydrogen and fusion energy, and advanced nuclear platforms.

Meanwhile, imaginative energy conservation and other developing technologies are being created by America's amazing inventors in new building materials, solar and electrified windows, biofuels, geothermal and thermal heat recovery, wind and wave energy, to name but a few. America will never ever lose through power of invention because we are a free people.

Let me turn to our water responsibilities. New, major engineering challenges lie before America. Ask the citizens along the drought- stricken Mississippi and the Louisiana corridor as saltwater creeps north, or the flood victims in New York City.

Across our Nation, cities are having to manage water and wastewater loads for which they were not engineered. In rural America, farmers are losing crops because of increasing rainfall, an inability to manage water in their fields, and drainage systems that were built for another era. Frankly, a century or a century and a half ago. Well, times are changing.

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and Bureau of Reclamation are needed now more than ever to handle regional approaches to new and changing water flows, whether it is down the Mississippi, along our coasts, in the Great Lakes, or the dry, irrigated West.

There is an old expression: ``Don't try to fool Mother Nature.'' I would say: Don't ignore Mother Nature. This is one such moment in American history. I must express the Energy and Water Appropriations bill before us is completely inadequate. It does not meet our country's needs in this new era of climate change.

If I need offer more proof, Americans and America are paying billions more in disaster relief. This country paid over $150 billion last year in disaster damage, significantly higher than the $60 billion average from the last 30 years. How about that--doubling and a half. Well, that is a big warning sign that one simply can't ignore.

We ought to be investing that money upfront to avoid those disasters by properly funding this bill. We must robustly meet the needs of the future, not flounder in the past.

In other areas of the bill, I continue to be troubled by the unsustainable spending in the Department of Energy's weapons programs. We know we have to keep a tight lid on them because they have a tendency to overspend when we don't watch.

Further, I am concerned how this bill cuts nuclear nonproliferation programs that reduce nuclear risks and counter the global challenge of nuclear proliferation.

Finally, the bill includes numerous controversial poison pill policy riders that sadly show extremist Republicans are not interested in bills that can gain bipartisan support and become law.

Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to oppose this bill. America can and must do better on the new age frontiers of energy and water.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 6 minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro), the ranking member of the full Committee on Appropriations.

Mr. Chair, I look forward to responding to my dear friend, former Chair Simpson. However, first, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Wasserman Schultz), the ranking member of the Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies Subcommittee, who does such a phenomenal job.

Mr. Chair, I wish to offer a few thoughts here regarding what our esteemed colleague, Mr. Simpson, said about the Federal balance sheet.

If you think of your own checkbook, when you work and earn money, you have an entry that is positive. You have a payroll check or earn interest on something. Then, if you have to pay a bill, you put a minus sign and subtract it, and you see what is left.

What is interesting about the arguments from the folks on the other side of the aisle is, they only talk about what is subtracted. They don't talk about what is being added. Both revenues and expenditures are a part of the Federal budget.

It is interesting to me. I have served in Congress for a while now, and the other side never talks about revenues. They only talk about expenditures. The interesting thing about revenues is when an economy is booming, you are bringing more revenue into the Federal Government. The Federal debt, as a percent of our economic prowess right now, is decreasing because we are growing the economy. What we are spending in this bill causes more economic growth. That is a good thing.

What the other side is not talking about is that there are a lot of free riders in our country, and they are not paying their fair share of revenues into the Treasury. We have to talk about that side of the budget, too. There are a lot of people who are what I call free riders. We are paying for them. Some of the richest people in this country and some of the biggest corporations aren't paying their fair share of the load. You have to look at both sides of the ledger.

I wanted to put that on the floor today in order to adopt the proper policies. It will be a most interesting discussion as we move forward with the new debt commission that has been formed. It will be interesting if they bring both pages in the ledger, both the revenues and the expenditures.

As our chart shows, the Federal debt, as a percent of GDP, is going down for the first time in modern history. We better not do anything that stops that because it is one of the answers, as well as getting those who are free riders to pay their fair share.

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

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

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

Mr. Chairman, Congress needs to write bills that meet our country's needs, and I reiterate my disappointment that the energy and water bill before us today does not adhere to the agreed to levels in the bipartisan Fiscal Responsibility Act of 2023.

The American people are counting on us to work together, not draft partisan bills that will never become law.

I urge my colleagues to oppose this bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I rise in support of this amendment. I know it took a lot of effort on the part of the chair, and we appreciate your cooperation. The en bloc contains noncontroversial amendments from Members of both parties, and I have no objections. I urge support of the amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this amendment.

Let's be clear. This amendment reduces funding for the Army Corps of Engineers' investigations account by $715,000, with the amendment description's stated intent of eliminating funding for the Delaware River Basin Commission.

I will note that the actual bill language of the amendment only reduces funding for the account. It does not in any way eliminate funding for the Delaware River Basin Commission.

However, I vigorously oppose the stated intent behind this amendment, especially since the Delaware River Basin, which flows into the Delaware Bay and then into the Atlantic Ocean, covers over 13,000 square miles in four States.

As established by law through the Delaware River Basin Compact that went into effect in 1961, the Commission consists of the Army Corps of Engineers and the four basin State Governors. Those States include Delaware, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and New York.

The Corps of Engineers in these States work as equal partners for planning, development, and regulatory actions for the river basin. Frankly, all across the country we are facing issues that deal with very large watersheds and basins that in the past centuries and decades didn't face what we face today with water flows.

While the Commission's work could be further discussed, my strongest reason for opposition to this amendment is that the underlying bill provides $715,000 to the Delaware River Basin Commission as community project funding on behalf of two Members of this body. The community project funding process allows Members of Congress to request funding for their community to meet urgent needs that they identify. There is a rigorous process for vetting and inclusion of community project funding, including strict transparency and accountability rules. I am shocked that one Member would target another Member's community

project funding through an amendment on the floor.

Mr. Chair, I strongly urge my colleagues to vote against this amendment.

Mr. Chair, I thank Congressman Neguse for yielding and compliment him on the hardworking representation of the people of Colorado.

There could not be a more complex water system than the one that his community is a part of, and most of America has no idea about the plumbing of the West, so I really compliment him.

I know that funding provided in this bill will help advance or complete projects to protect the Humpback Chub, Bonytail, Colorado Pikeminnow, and Razorback Sucker that are feeling the impacts of drought while allowing water development projects to proceed.

We know many reports, including one from the United Nations just a couple years ago, talked about the extinction of natural species across our country and world. We must combat these efforts to prevent biodiversity loss, particularly in areas like the Colorado River, which was diverted for the first time in American history recently. That is a showstopper by anyone's measure.

We need to provide the resources necessary to continue this collaborative work in the Upper Colorado and San Juan Basins.

I thank my colleague for his leadership on this. I also thank the chair of the subcommittee for his great effort to try to accommodate as many members as possible.

Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chair, first of all, I have great respect for the gentleman who offers this amendment, but I do find myself in the position of opposing it.

In step with the myriad amendments offered by Republicans to reduce leadership salaries, this amendment seeks to reduce funding for the Bureau of Reclamation's policy and administration account by $5 million, ostensibly to fund it at the fiscal year 2022 enacted level. However, in fiscal year 2022, $64.4 million was appropriated for policy and administration, so this amendment reduces this funding by $4.321 million below the fiscal year 2022 enacted level.

The Bureau of Reclamation brings water to 31 million people and is the second largest producer of hydroelectric power in the United States, producing enough electricity to serve 3.5 million homes. This account funds day-to-day Bureau of Reclamation management, administrative, and policy functions that are necessary to ensure effective and efficient implementation of all Bureau of Reclamation programs from which 31 million people receive water and 3.5 million homes receive electricity. That is a big job.

This account also funds the Office of the Commissioner and regional offices. This leadership is critical for ensuring that one in five Western farmers has irrigation water for 10 million acres of farmland that produce 60 percent of our Nation's vegetables and 25 percent of its fruits and nuts.

According to the United States Census Bureau, my colleague comes from a district of approximately 751,000 people, of which approximately 1.5 percent are in occupations related to farming, fishing, and forestry. I don't think the gentleman's amendment benefits his district.

With the West reeling from the historic megadrought, the worst in 1,200 years, where we have just had to divert the Colorado River for the first time in American history, why would any of my colleagues want to hamstring the Bureau of Reclamation's management and the direction and guidance necessary to achieve Reclamation-wide program and mission accomplishment? This is a moment in American history when we need to help them.

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

Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. I rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment.

I hear what he is saying, but I think that we have to work harder together to embrace the future and not just depend on the past.

I agree with him on fossil fuels and rare earths. We visited the fossil fuel energy center in southwest Pennsylvania. I was fascinated by some of the work going on there. I think we need to fund it, and we are.

This amendment reduces funding for the Department of Energy's energy efficiency and renewable energy account by $1.2 billion, and I don't think that that places America in the position I want her to be in, which is number one in the world.

Now, that proposal is also on top of another $466 million reduction in the underlying bill itself and the $1 billion reduction incorporated by the manager's amendment.

This funding provides for clean, affordable, and secure energy and ensures American leadership in the transition to a global clean energy economy.

I will tell you, this past year in my region of the United States-- and it came here to Washington, ultimately--a very strange haze began floating down from Canada into the United States due to the forest fires up there and the changing nature of the environment. I have lived in the same place my whole life, and I never saw anything like that before. It ruined my rhododendron plant. All that gunk got all over it.

I was talking to a friend who came up from Florida, and he goes: Marcy, the winds took that all the way down to near the panhandle in Florida.

I said: Are you kidding me? It got down that far? The Earth's ecosystem is changing, and we have to catch up to Mother Nature.

The account being targeted funds the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, the Office of State and Community Energy Programs that supports important services like the Weatherization Assistance Program to save energy, the Office of Manufacturing and Energy Supply Chains, and the Federal Energy Management Program itself.

Those programs focus on energy technology ranging from biofuels--the first biofueled F-16 flew out of the 180th Fighter Wing in my district. That was a great moment. That was almost 15 years ago.

Biofuels have now become such an important part of our economy, as well as hydrogen, solar, wind, and a whole broad range of energy technologies to make America energy independent in perpetuity-- geothermal, what we are learning on that; advanced manufacturing; building efficiency and weatherization; and the list goes on.

Without these programs, we are jeopardizing U.S. leadership across a range of possibilities. The world is set to invest a record $1.8 trillion in clean energy in 2023, and that is expected to climb to $4.5 trillion by the year 2030. We want to be a leader. With $4.5 trillion per year on the line, we have the choice to embrace American leadership and invention.

Let me just mention that if the Department of Energy's goals are achieved, the hydrogen industry will produce $140 billion in revenue and over 700,000 jobs by 2030.

Mr. Chair, I strongly urge my colleagues to vote against this harmful amendment, but I am very happy to continue to work with the gentleman to find ways that we can reach accommodation.

Mr. Chair, I thank the gentleman for yielding and rise in strong opposition to this amendment.

The underlying bill already cuts the energy efficiency and renewable energy program by $1.5 billion or 42 percent below last year.

Now, there are a lot of people that are complaining about that, and I would be the first one to say that our country should not cede any new markets or capitulate to global competitors in the field of energy.

I think that we have to keep our foot on the accelerator in many energy sectors. The gentleman is right. Texas has been a leader in so many ways; certainly in wind energy, but not just that.

In terms of the solar industry and how do we pay down the debts that prior Congresses and administrations racked up? We grow our economy.

By growing our economy, more revenues come in, and they are. They are coming into the private sector. They are coming into the government.

A whole lot more people who aren't paying their fair share of taxes should be, and that would help. The way we balance budgets is not to kill economic growth.

One of the areas we grow in is energy. These are jobs that are good jobs, and they create wealth for the Nation.

We have to keep up our dominance in this country. For the solar industry, which is something I am terribly interested in, I represent the most important domestic manufacturer of solar in our country.

Overall, the whole industry across our Nation supports 333,000 jobs now. Mr. Chair, 20 years ago, they were in a very different position, and 40 years ago, they almost didn't exist.

America is now creating utility scale solar, and the invention of the American people is unstoppable. We can't give a signal that we are going to capitulate to anybody, but we have got to develop these new energy sectors.

The gentleman is right about the grid. The grid is worn out all over this country. Ask anybody in Ohio about that. It has been underinvested.

We will find a way by growing the economy, and some of the new bills we have passed for infrastructure have allowed us to modernize the grid.

Well, let's connect the dots. We can choose to give up American leadership in these technologies, or we can actually put our foot on the accelerator.

I really think that the gentleman's amendment, though he believes it is well intentioned, does move America backward, and I cannot support it, and therefore, I oppose it.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I rise in opposition to this amendment. I am sure the gentleman offering it is well-intentioned.

I will say, in many of the energy technologies that I have observed, unlike the real estate industry, they always say real property, you can tangibly touch it, you can see that it is there, you can measure it. ARPA-E really focuses on that which is not yet measurable.

If you see the movie ``Oppenheimer'' and you look back at the history of our country and how we began to actually move into atomic energy, it was very experimental and very dangerous. The government got involved, and at that point in history we had to win a war. We learned a whole lot about nuclear energy at that point, but part of it was uncontrollable.

I was at an event yesterday with companies that are working on unbelievable technologies, which aren't quite solved yet, but where we can take metals like titanium and nickel and do things with them to carry current that we never were able to do before. They are working with research labs because it is so utterly complicated.

I would say to the gentleman, you know, sometimes private enterprise doesn't invest because the research has to occur through a longer period of time, and you need programs like ARPA-E who do the most amazing work. Our fracking technologies, our drilling technologies for natural gas, those came through not the private sector initially, they came through the Government of the United States because there wasn't any private sector company willing to invest.

I know in my own district, where we are known for the glass industry, some of the research that has been necessary to thinly layer different types of material in order to produce more efficient solar panels actually had to be assisted with government help because there were no angel investors in my part of the country. So the Department of Energy, through photovoltaic research, discovered inventors who were doing great things in America, and helped them to move their technology forward. Now we have the greatest domestic producer of solar in the middle part of the country--not California, not the East Coast, not the South, but in the Great Lakes region.

What I have seen out of ARPA-E is high-level basic research that most companies, frankly, aren't dedicated to. It is very different than the real estate industry, it is over a longer time horizon.

Mr. Chair, I strongly urge my colleagues to vote against this amendment.

Mr. Chair, I rise in strong opposition to this amendment and in support of the Appalachian Regional Commission.

Let me say that the Commission itself is a partnership between the Federal Government and 13 State governments, focusing on 423 counties across the Appalachian region.

Residents in part of Pennsylvania--evidently the gentleman's area is not covered--are served by this Commission. Since 1965, the Appalachian region has been struggling, and they have made progress. They have made significant progress.

The number of high-poverty counties in Appalachia has been cut by 60 percent since 1960. It is a long road. The regional poverty rate has been cut by more than half. God bless them.

However, the region still lags behind the Nation and continues to encounter challenges such as the severe substance abuse crisis, as well as a downturn in the coal economy. This is the part of America that we have to lift up.

I have been very impressed with the work they are doing in terms of restoration of the natural environment and expanded tourism. They are working together collaboratively.

Mr. Chairman, I strongly urge my colleagues to vote against this amendment. Let's help the American people who need it.

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

Mr. Chair, this amendment is one more controversial poison pill policy rider that sadly shows extremist Republicans are not interested in bills that can gain bipartisan support and become law.

Now, let's have a little math. In 2012, before the Bush tax cuts, the Congressional Budget Office showed revenues exceeding primary spending for the next 65 years and that debt as a percentage of GDP, our gross domestic product, everything that we make in a year, would decline indefinitely. How about that. That was 2012.

Since then, tax cut extensions and the Trump tax cuts have added $10 trillion to the debt to date, and their cost will increase enough over time to account for the entire long-term growth in debt ratio. The Trump tax cuts are costing us $2 trillion per year. Just look at it. It is unbelievable. Remember, those benefits are disproportionately enjoyed by the most wealthy.

If we truly want to protect the American taxpayer, we should be marking up bills at levels agreed to between the President, Speaker McCarthy, and signed into law in the Fiscal Responsibility Act rather than bringing the government to the verge of a shutdown and now marking up bills that don't just break the deal but obliterate it by cutting critical domestic investments.

I can't wait for the Debt Commission to actually get the facts out there for the American people, because I have been listening to this all evening. It is very much off the mark. Let's get serious about passing bills that can gain bipartisan support and become law.

Mr. Chair, I strongly urge my colleagues to vote against this harmful amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment.

Mr. Chair, the Department of Energy is charged with implementing congressionally directed energy efficiency standards. When the gentleman blithely says he doesn't like unelected bureaucrats, the people who work in these departments are trained and actually help consumers.

Frankly, I think it is helpful for consumers to know, when they are going to buy a blouse, let's say, whether it is cotton or rayon. It is sort of nice to have the label on there. If you are driving a car, it is nice to know how many miles per gallon the car is going to get. You sort of get a sense of if you are going to buy this one or another one. With refrigerators, I think it is really great that you see how much energy it uses so you can buy a more efficient refrigerator, so you have your electricity bill go down.

I don't know why the gentleman is objecting to helping the American consumer make better choices. In accordance with the statutes that we have passed, the Department of Energy has published regulations in the Code of Federal Regulations--in other words, it is not by some whim-- for more than 60 categories of appliance and equipment types. That helps consumers make good choices.

The Department of Energy drafts the energy efficiency regulations with the full participation of equipment manufacturers and the public at large. The process includes thorough consideration of all comments and concerns.

In following the law, the Department of Energy has issued proposed or final standards for 24 product categories so far this year. Again, these actions are by congressional direction. They just don't pick them out of the air. Actually, it is a process of law. These actions result in direct energy savings while also improving the reliability and performance across household appliances and commercial and industrial equipment.

There is a quote from Daniel Webster in this House that tells us in our time and our generation, may we perform something worthy to be remembered. That is a really good quote to think about.

I think it is safe to assume that virtually all Americans, let alone all of the people in this room, have benefited from some of these types of efficiency standards over the course of their lifetimes.

The benefits are real. As a result of the Department of Energy's efficiency actions, cost savings for American families and businesses are projected to reach nearly $2 trillion by 2030. The Department of Energy estimates that this specific rule would slash household utility costs by $1.5 billion annually, which is something the American people want to do, and save consumers $24.8 billion on their energy bills over 30 years. That is a big deal.

Further, if Congress does not like these standards, that should be addressed by new laws through the Energy and Commerce Committee, not by funding prohibitions. I would suggest to the gentleman, he might want to go before that committee.

Stopping the Department of Energy from finalizing, implementing, or enforcing energy efficiency standards will only create uncertainty for manufacturers and consumers.

With respect to the energy efficiency standards for consumer furnaces, if my Republican colleagues are concerned about the rule's potential to increase costs for homeowners, then I would suggest that they should not be seeking in this bill to rescind the Inflation Reduction Act funding for home energy efficiency rebates, which will help many hardworking Americans afford energy efficient heating units that will actually save them money on their utility bills in the long term.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise to share my deepest condolences upon the passing of United Steelworkers' president, Tommy Conway, who passed away this past weekend at 71 years old.

The steelworkers of the United States, the labor movement, and our Nation have lost a true hero who helped to revitalize and reinvest in the U.S. steel industry.

As someone who spent much of my career working to save industrial America, including in Ohio and across our country, I can say that there was no greater advocate to save this lodestar, vital U.S. industry than Tommy Conway.

Tommy understood to his core what America makes and grows makes and grows America and he was absolutely committed to making things in America and making sure, as president of the United Steelworkers, that he fought every single day to protect workers, make sure they had good pay, retirement security, and safety on the job.

Tommy was dedicated to the idea that all working people should be able to live a good middle-class way of life. Something we both understood growing up in union households was what unions truly mean to workers and families--moving into the middle class.

Conway will be missed by many but never forgotten, and I hope Tommy's longtime partner, Carol, his three sons, and six grandchildren are comforted in knowing how much good he has done for so many and what a great man Tommy Conway was.

Mr. Speaker, I thank Ranking Member McCollum for her steadfast leadership and yielding time.

Mr. Speaker, this bill provides military support for Ukraine. I firmly stand on the side of Ukraine, on the side of liberty, and against Russian tyranny.

Such support to Ukraine is both necessary and noble. Given the immensity of the ongoing onslaught by Russia to do less is acquiescence to Vladimir Putin and his expansionist lethal ambitions.

America's commitment to delivering aid to Ukraine is rooted in the enduring U.S.-Ukraine relationship, a partnership that dates back to Ukraine's Declaration of Independence as a captive nation from the clutches of the Soviet Union when it collapsed in 1991.

Since that pivotal moment, the United States has consistently backed Ukraine, providing vital support for sovereignty, security, and development through foreign assistance. The urgency of our cultural, political, and economic ties with Ukraine has gained even greater significance in the face of Vladimir Putin's unprovoked aggression. The free world cannot turn a blind eye to the consequences of failing to deter Putin's expansionist ambitions after his 2014 annexation of Crimea.

The world's inaction then led to the horrifying events of February 24 last year when Russian tanks rolled into Kyiv, Ukraine, to impose foreign tyranny over 40 million people. In response to Ukraine's brave resistance, Putin has unleashed a calculated campaign of terror. He invaded, bombed cities, kidnapped children, and committed grievous war crimes with the intent of erasing Ukraine's very identity as a free nation.

More than 120,000 lives have been lost; 170,000 troops have been injured on the scrimmage line of liberty in Europe; 20,000 wounded amputees are a grim reminder of Putin's butchery. Valiantly, Ukraine has not surrendered. The free world must meet Russia's latest salvo against freedom.

Ukraine's heroic defenses serve as a beacon of hope. When people unite to defend their freedom, they can overcome the most predatory, formidable enemies. There are implications for global security far beyond Ukraine. Ukraine's plight is not just about its liberty; it is about freedom everywhere.

Let me be clear: Funding for the Ukraine Security Assistance Initiative is not just about financial aid, it is a testament to our full-fledged commitment to a free, sovereign, and democratic nation.

To Ukrainians here in America and abroad, know that the free world and everyone that represents the majority on both sides of the aisle here, all of our colleagues, stand with you.

Freedom means never surrender. Liberty's allies stand by the brave people of Ukraine. With our help, the Ukrainians will defeat Putin's aggression.

Mr. Speaker, our country has no greater responsibility than to protect and defend this Nation and its Constitution from all enemies, foreign and domestic, and I thank Ranking Member McCollum for yielding me time to speak as a member of the Subcommittee on Defense Appropriations.

I am deeply disappointed, I have to say, overall by the bill that the majority has forced to the Floor today. America and our allies are grappling with an increasingly dynamic and dangerous world. Global challenges include real enemies, as well as the unpredictability of nature and climate change, and we now see artificial intelligence threatening to further destabilize the world that we rely on for liberty and prosperity.

Russia is waging a war of aggression against a neighboring democratic state, while China is outpacing our

military development and has positioned itself as a significant geopolitical competitor on many levels.

It is our responsibility and that of the annual Defense Appropriations legislation to ensure we are prepared to surmount these threats. However, the majority's legislation is distracted and consumed by division instead of policies that would ensure the safety of our Nation's most important Defense asset, our brave men and women in uniform.

In another year, I could be proud of important provisions, including support for research, testing and manufacturing of space technologies that would define how our future wars might be fought, many of which, by the way, are being developed in my home State of Ohio.

Instead, this legislation focuses on divisive policies never seen in a Defense Appropriations bill, like banning diversity and inclusion programs in this diverse Nation, targeting women and LGBTQ and servicemembers, and preventing the Department of Defense from addressing the very real dangers of disinformation campaigns and extremist rhetoric in our military.

Enacting these proposals would have disastrous consequences for the morale and readiness of our Armed Forces, worsening the unprecedented recruitment shortfalls they already face. While the legislation maintains funding for many key security commitments to our crucial allies by fully funding key regional security initiatives, it fails to innovate or provide expansion of funding necessary to meet the moment, which is newly defined by the largest war for liberty since World War II, being fought as we speak in the Nation of Ukraine. I could say so much on this.

The Ukrainian people and their east European neighbors----

Might I ask for an additional 10 seconds.

Mr. Chair, I thank Ranking Member Bishop for yielding time for me to oppose this quite unfortunate piece of legislation and quite harmful to agriculture.

The majority can't produce a real farm bill, and they can't produce a budget on time. Now, this legislation today, as it stands, is riddled with divisive policy riders and detrimental funding cuts galore that will hurt American farmers and the American people.

Republicans' efforts to slash funding by 41 percent across agriculture programs to 2000 levels cannot go unchecked. With the lowest funding in more than two decades, this bill weakens American competitiveness in the international marketplace and abandons our farmers.

Our country already imports a third of our fresh fruits and vegetables. We need to produce those in our country because what America makes and grows, makes and grows America.

Through this bill, Republicans also seek to starve the most exploited and vulnerable Americans of food, literally starve infants born to poor women by slashing the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children by $800 million, slashing hundreds of millions in farmers' procurement contracts in the process.

Ohio has 179,262 WIC recipients, so if this bill would pass, many of these recipients--infants, toddlers, pregnant women, breastfeeding women, and postpartum women--will see their allotment drop to as little as, get ready, $11 per month or simply disappear entirely.

A child's brain is largely formed by age 4 and its strength depends on what it eats. If you starve children, you permanently harm their ability to learn, and you impact them for life.

The last thing I will mention is the majority's lack of concern for the exploitation of farmers. One of the many dangerous provisions in this bill is rolling back protections for farmers that prevent megacorporations from imposing debt servitude on farmers. This bill prohibits farmers from being protected from, and I quote, unfair, unjustly discriminatory, or deceptive business practices.

Mr. Chair, lack of enforcement of the 1921 Packers and Stockyards Act, along with unchecked corporate mergers, has allowed megacorporations, even foreign corporations, extreme power at the expense of our livestock producers and contract growers.

This bill blocks fair competition. If we don't support our hardworking farmers, what is this bill supposed to be about? I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this harmful, ill-considered piece of legislation.

Mr. Speaker, this weekend I proudly joined United Auto Workers on the picket line at United Auto Workers Local 12 in Toledo, Ohio, striking Jeep Stellantis in solidarity.

Our mother helped organize the United Auto Workers nearly 90 years ago at Champion Spark Plug, organizing and negotiating with United Auto Workers founders Victor and Walter Reuther.

Our father, Stephen, who they called Kappy, retired in 1969 from Jeep. Both were able to get better wages and benefits to help our family as we were growing up.

I am including in the Record our mother's brief summary of why she joined the union and worked so hard; primarily to assure seniority rights of employment so you couldn't be fired because the supervisor brought family members to replace you.

A bidding system was established so any open job was put up on the board so the one with the most seniority got the job, if qualified.

Discrimination was outlawed so the foreman could no longer put his pets or relatives on the best job. The right to ask for a pay raise was assured through negotiation and the right to strike granted to employees.

Leaves for illness were granted so people wouldn't be fired if a doctor certification was provided.

I will continue tomorrow and enter the additional three sentences orally, but I just want to say go, UAW. We are so proud of you.

When our mother Anastasia was in her early 20's, she landed a job at the Champion Spark Plug Company in Toledo where she had applied at the employment office every day for one year. She never missed a day of work between any of her jobs. Here, her weekly wage rose to $40 a week. She worked the production line at plug tamping where she was paid based on her output and she always did the maximum number each day. It was at Champion that she was elected to the Charter Committee of the Local 12 United Auto Workers Trade Union that was forming. She summarized for her children why she helped form the union--``primarily to assure seniority rights of employment so you couldn't be fired because the supervisor brought family members to replace you. A bidding system was established so any open job was put up on the board so the one with the most seniority got the job if qualified. Discrimination was outlawed so the foreman could no longer put his pets or relatives on the best job. The right to ask for a pay raise was assured through negotiation and the right to strike granted to employees. Leaves for illness were granted so people wouldn't be fired if a doctor's certification was provided. Bathroom privileges were allowed for personal contingencies. Three months leave was allowed for pregnancy. Layoffs would occur according to seniority. And a grievance procedure was established to curb harassment by mean foremen.''

Elected union Secretary, Mom gained respect by both company and union members for her knowledge of the bidding system, her ability to handle grievances, and her detailed grasp of the labor contract.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to support strengthening the American economy. How? To keep on task creating living-wage jobs for America's workers to lift them into the middle class and to clamp down on billionaires and tax cheats who don't pay their fair share of taxes to balance our budget to keep our economy growing.

If you look at what the United Auto Workers are fighting for as we are here on the floor today, they are fighting for what they have worked for. They deserve decent wages.

The August jobs report from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reports 178,000 more jobs were added nationally.

This is a time of very high job growth in our country, and unemployment is at a near-historic low. Employers in Ohio and across our country have job openings and are hiring, but wages have to go up now, and not only for billionaire owners and financiers. They are not the only ones that should benefit, but the people doing the work--the autoworkers, the waitresses, the tech workers, the people across our country who work in supermarkets.

Madam Speaker, please heal your troubled, divided party. Bring us together. Let's not stall out American progress. Let's grow the economy and pay our bills through growth.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to recognize an important milestone in Rossford, Ohio's history and the history of our region. The City of Rossford begins a weekend celebration today honoring its founding and the 125 years since. The celebration begins Friday evening with a community-wide grand opening celebration and continues Saturday with a parade and outdoor festivities along with exceptional entertainment.

Rossford has a rather unique history. The very definition of a ``company town,'' Rossford was built as a model town by Edward Ford, a founder of the Libbey-Owens-Ford Glass Company. In 1898, Mr. Ford purchased 173 acres along the Maumee River to build the Edward Ford Plate Glass Company. He named the city ``Rossford'' by combining the last name of his second wife, Caroline Ross, with his name.

Because Rossford was a ``company town,'' Edward Ford--who was a generous philanthropist--helped to build churches, schools, and homes. In the heyday of the plants' production, grandfather, father, and son all worked for Edward Ford Plate Glass Company or Libbey-Owens-Ford.

Edward Ford recruited hundreds of European immigrants, especially Eastern Europeans, to work in his new glass company. Thus, Rossford bears a rich and diverse cultural history including descendants of Poland, Ukraine, Hungary, Slovakia, Bulgaria, Germany, Belgium, Italy and other European countries. Mr. Ford also encouraged Americans to migrate from other states to work in his factories. The amalgamation of so many different ethnicities and races brought a beautiful heritage to the Rossford community. Even today, organizations and churches in the city trace their own history to that of the early immigrants.

The primary North-South and East-West arteries of the eastern United States intersect at Rossford. Thus, in addition to putting our region on the map as ``The Glass Capital of the World'' Rossford is also ``The Crossroads of America.'' It is a city representing small town USA while at the same time committed to a bright future.

Even as Edward Ford found Rossford a desirable location 125 years ago and residents through the generations have found it to be true, the area that is now Rossford shares an ancient past as well. In 1963 boys playing in Rossford's Crane's Woods discovered a location where archaeologists later uncovered habitation structures and artifacts including shell-tempered pottery shards, brass decorative objects, and glass beads dating back to the pre-history of Europeans in the 1600s. Burial sites of over 100 individuals were also found. From prehistory, people were successfully living in the region.

Today, Rossford remains a thriving community, living up to the success of its founder and the generations who built the city forward. We honor those forefathers and mothers in the events of this weekend, celebrating the past while investing in the future.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor 12 Sisters of St. Francis of Sylvania, Ohio who are celebrating their Jubilees in Christ's service. The Sisters and community came together in celebration of the 12 extraordinary milestones of faithful service on June 24, 2023.

True to the Mission of the Sisters of St. Francis, the Sisters are ``Called like St. Francis of Assisi to live the Gospel in joyful servanthood among all people, the Sisters of St. Francis of Sylvania, Ohio, as messengers of peace, commit themselves to works that reverence human dignity, embrace the poor and marginalized, and respect the gift of all creation.'' The Sisters of St. Francis live always the message of Jesus Christ as recorded in Matthew 25:40, ``Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.''

In all things, daily life, prayer, word and deed, the Sisters of St. Francis emulate the life and love, the call for peace, giving instead of receiving, extending hope and imbued in the joys of nature that defined the life of St. Francis of Assisi. Through more than a century, they have cared for our community through ``graced encounters.'' Their unselfish, life-giving commitments have educated, healed and inspired generations of our citizenry to noble callings in building families, community and tending our Earth. These Jubilarians set an ethical standard that permeates our way of life.

Celebrating Jubilees in 2023 are:

75th Jubilee:

Sister Geraldine Paluszak

60th Jubilee:

Sister Brenda Rose Szegedy

Sister Carol Ann Grace

Sister Carol Hoffman

Sister Geraldine Nowak

Sister Janet Snyder

Sister M. Jeremias Stinson

Sister Josephine Dybza

Sister M. Josina Antolak

Sister Mary Thill

Sister Patricia Zielinski

50th Jubilee:

Sister Patricia Gardner

These Sisters' ministries have guided them to serve as administrators, educators, healers, professionals, master gardeners, pastoral associates and more. They have held the hands of the poor and marginalized, the sick and fragile on difficult journeys. They have shown through charism God's glory. Through decades of caring service these Sisters of St. Francis of Sylvania, Ohio have demonstrated goodness and courage, passion and commitment, faith and grace. We offer them our heartfelt thanks and warmest congratulations upon achieving such milestones in ministry. May all blessing continue to attend to their precious lives.

Mr. Speaker, this year, we recognize the 100th anniversary of the equal rights amendment. Today, I rise to commemorate, as well, the 60th anniversary of the Equal Pay Act of 1963.

Women in our Nation have made great progress in the fight for pay equality over the past six decades, but it is not nearly enough. We must close the gap.

Women in Ohio earn 79 cents for every dollar a man earns, and that is unacceptable. This pay gap has an impact on women's ability to excel in the workforce, pay for basic necessities, and build retirement savings for a successful future.

This pay disparity has remained relatively stable over the last 20 years, but this status quo will continue unless we work to close it. We must ensure equal compensation across the board and rightfully pay hardworking women their hard-earned dollars.

Women are invaluable members in every workplace and deserve equal compensation for equal work.

Let us prioritize closing the gender pay gap once and for all and lift up mothers, sisters, grandmothers, and daughters in our workforce.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to celebrate and honor the lives of the Oddo brothers, 6 men who courageously served their country as naval seamen following the outbreak of WWII.

Their father, Charles Oddo, was a Sicilian immigrant who settled in Bellevue, Ohio with his wife Mary. They raised their sons to acknowledge the prestige and privilege of being American citizens. Richard, William, Charles, Samuel, Carl, and James Oddo all faithfully served their nation, and are believed to be the largest set of siblings to serve in the U.S. Navy.

Thankfully, all 6 brothers returned home safely to start their lives in their hometown after their honorable service, where the Oddo family still gathers today. Saturday, they will be honored with a plaque at the Dr. Jackson Commemorative Plaque Wall within the Navy memorial. More than 2 dozen family and friends will be in attendance to pay tribute to their heroism.

Ohio salutes these exceptional men, who continued to serve their families, neighbors, and communities throughout their lives.