Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I thank Congressman Takano for bringing us together this evening for a very important discussion.

Kilmar, Andry, Jefferson, Kevin: a devoted father married to an American citizen, a makeup artist who faced persecution in his home country because he is gay, a man with a valid work authorization and pending asylum hearing, and a son of a government worker attacked for his opposition to a corrupt regime.

These are just a few of the hundreds of men who have been sent to a foreign prison with conditions so inhumane that El Salvador's Justice Minister has said that the only way out is in a coffin.

These men came to our country, in many cases through approved legal pathways, seeking a better life for themselves and their families. In response, we sent them to another country without any due process to be abused and tortured, and we are paying that government $6 million to do so.

These are not deportations, but they are government-enforced disappearances. They are illegal. They are horrific. They are the tactics of a dictatorship, not a democracy.

We cannot let them get away with this. This is the red line that they cannot be allowed to cross.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New Jersey for yielding.

I rise in strong opposition to this resolution. I am honestly having a hard time understanding why we are considering this resolution today.

In the first 9 weeks of 2025, the House majority has made no progress on funding the government for the remainder of the fiscal year, and they have made no attempt to hold the Trump administration accountable for its actions, whether it is ignoring court orders to stop withholding congressionally directed funding or dismissing hardworking Federal employees or upending our closest trade and national security partnerships.

Instead, today, we are taking time on the House floor to consider a minor rule that EPA was legally obligated to develop. The rule in question--to limit hazardous air pollutants from rubber tire manufacturers--was finalized in November of last year.

At no time, as far as I can remember, did the Energy and Commerce Committee conduct any oversight of that rules development during the years EPA took to collect data and then propose and finalize the rule. It was certainly never the subject of a hearing. Why would it be? This rule only affects 12 facilities across our country and does not even meet the Congressional Review Act's definition of economically significant.

Hazardous air pollutant emission limits have existed for most parts of rubber tire manufacturing since 2002. However, a 2020 court ruling required EPA to address all unregulated hazardous air pollutant emissions from a major source category. When EPA carried out a required technology review, it was obligated to propose limits for the unregulated rubber processing subcategory of rubber tire manufacturing.

I understand this is getting into the weeds of the Clean Air Act, so let me be as clear as possible for our Members. This rule requires a very small number of rubber processing manufacturers to take reasonable steps to reduce hazardous air pollutants. It is not overly burdensome to manufacturers. It is achievable, based on cost-effective, existing pollution control technologies, and it does fulfill EPA's legal obligation to regulate harmful air pollutants from all segments of the rubber tire manufacturing process.

While the economic impacts on these firms are small, the rule will reduce air pollution, resulting in greater public health protections for the communities near those 12 facilities.

This resolution is just the latest on a long and growing list of legislation to give a free pass to polluters. I urge Members to oppose it.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of my constituent, Evelyn Reali Bianchi, who will soon be celebrating her 95th birthday.

Evelyn, the oldest of five children, was born on March 9, 1930, to Italian immigrants, Dominick and Marina Reali of Amsterdam, New York.

Evelyn met and then married John Bianchi in 1957. They have two children, Ann and John.

Evelyn went back to work right away and began a decades-long career in the insurance industry, followed by employment at St. Mary's Hospital under Sister Rita Jean DuBrey.

Evelyn joined the St. Mary's Hospital auxiliary in the early 1960s, served a

term as president, and still is an active member today. She was also a Columbiette for many years.

Until a few years ago, Evelyn also enjoyed a side job as a tailor. She has always been a good cook and baker, sharing her culinary skills with her daughter and her son.

I congratulate Evelyn on decades of love and committed service to her family and to her community.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition, strong opposition, to this resolution.

For the past 5 weeks, Elon Musk and congressional Republicans have been running around calling any Federal spending debt they don't like waste. The empowerment exercise of Elon Musk is a rather interesting saga. He is a person who did not have a background check, was not confirmed or had a process of approval through the United States Senate, and is functioning through a ghost agency of government oversight of efficiency. He is now the determinant to go forward and reduce government in a way that is not utilizing the strength of inspectors general or institutional memory that can best guide the academics to do that with the greatest degree of efficiency.

Parliamentary Inquiry

Sure.

Mr. Speaker, I was using that to set in context my comments because, again, waste addressed in an efficiency exercise is important, but ironically, today, we are finally on the House floor talking about an EPA rule that reduces actual, literal waste, and Republicans want to undo it.

The oil and gas industry is the largest industrial source of methane pollution. Each year, oil and gas operators emit the equivalent of $2 billion worth of wasted natural gas, and that can come via venting, perhaps flaring, and leaks. The methane polluter fee makes certain that companies are held accountable for their waste.

This is an effort to provide for efficiency for the general public because methane waste is not only exacerbating climate change, but it is also bad for Americans, especially through their energy bills.

Consumers still pay for natural gas that is wasted, but this resolution will let those polluters off the hook. It also hurts American companies that are innovating new technologies enabling leak detection and repair, creating whole new pollution reduction industries.

These new technologies are turning waste into economic value, all while protecting our environment.

I suggest that that is an exercise we should all embrace, but oil and gas industry polluters aren't willing to take meaningful mitigation actions voluntarily if it eats into their bottom lines.

It is why we have historically enacted environmental laws to make sure polluters pay for the damage that they do to the public. The methane polluter fee is the next chapter of that environmental success story by incentivizing companies to perform leak detections and repairs that provide high-quality and good-paying jobs that employ thousands of Americans across our great country.

We should be holding polluters accountable, lowering energy costs for hardworking Americans, and supporting new domestic industries, but when it comes down to a choice between reducing everyday Americans' energy bills or lining the pockets of oil and gas executives, Republicans will choose Big Oil each and every time.

Let's stop wasting methane without consequence, and let's not leave American consumers to foot the bill.

Mr. Speaker, I urge Members to oppose this resolution.

Parliamentary Inquiry

Mr. Speaker, I rise to share the story of a Federal scientist who was fired by President Trump and Elon Musk.

In the employee's own words:

I was the quality manager for an FDA human and animal food

laboratory which tests foods for allergens, pesticides,

colors, and food additives, and microbial pathogens such as

E. coli and listeria. I was directly responsible for ensuring

that laboratory practices adhered to proper requirements.

Third-party lab accreditation provides confidence to the

public that testing is performed properly and results are

trustworthy.

Science, expertise, dedication, skill, and safety is what we lose with these cruel and senseless firings.

They do not, as DOGE claims, boost efficiency. They remove the experts who keep our communities safe. Without these public servants, our health

and our well-being are at risk. I humbly respect our Federal workforce.

Mr. Chair, it was quite remarkable to go back home to New York's 20th District last week after spending 12 hours moving this monstrosity through the Budget Committee. Everywhere I went folks were imploring me, begging and pleading, to stand up to this cruelty.

Moreover, that is after weeks of receiving nonstop calls from thousands of activated and engaged constituents, many of whom are reaching out to me for the very first time.

I held a townhall at Albany High School and, like many of my colleagues' in recent weeks, it was packed. The energy in the room was palpable: fear, helplessness, and anger.

Why, Mr. Chairman, are we forcing through legislation that will hurt the very people we represent?

My constituents should never have to stand up and tell me they will interrupt their lives to stand up and fight with me in D.C. against the Republican agenda, but they did.

Our job is to serve the American people, not rip access to basic necessities away from them at the behest of a President who declared himself king. Frankly, it is insulting to me, to this institution, to the working families of New York's 20th District, and to every American who is still struggling just to get by.

Nevertheless, here we are, blowing a $3 trillion hole in our national debt to serve billionaire oligarchs instead, billionaire oligarchs and donors who will never have to wonder whether they can afford to go to the doctor, retire with dignity, or even put food on the table to feed their children at night.

It is outrageous, it is a rip-off, and it is a heartless betrayal of the American people, the middle class, working families, and future generations.

My district has asked me: Where is the solution to this?

It rests right in this Chamber. Let us assume the responsibilities, the duties, the authority, and the power we have by the Constitution with the power of the purse placed in our hands here in the House of Representatives. Let's act accordingly.

They didn't want a President to circumvent Congress, they didn't want an agent who never had a background check and who was never confirmed by the U.S. Senate and who is wielding a chain saw at our programs and not showing sensitivity, compassion, and intellect in academics that will make the true difference.

Mr. Speaker, had I been present, I would have voted NAY on Roll Call No. 38.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to bring attention to an issue that should concern all Americans.

This evening, in this Special Order, we will be talking about scientific integrity. To be a problem solver today, I believe it is important for leaders to embrace scientific integrity, and we will talk about that throughout the course of the next hour.

Every day, our Nation's scientists are making vital contributions to our public health, economy, and national security.

Modern society as we know it is only possible due to Federal investments in everything from medical research and food safety to severe weather forecasting and pollution reduction. These contributions extend far beyond our own borders, lifting up people all over the world through life-changing scientific breakthroughs and innovations.

Under normal circumstances, federally funded scientists could often avoid the noise and clamor of public political debates. As the world has seen over the last 2\1/2\ weeks, the Trump administration is anything but normal.

The President and his billionaire cronies took no time at all to begin attacking our world-renowned institutions that support publicly funded science.

They are shamelessly attempting to destroy the visionary ideals of great leaders like President Franklin Roosevelt, who created the Federal Office of Scientific Research and Development during the Second World War. The creation of this office led to untold advancements in radar technology and nuclear energy, becoming a roadmap for our government to advance independent, fundamental, and necessary scientific knowledge for the benefit of all.

After the war, our government treated science as a necessary answer to clear and present threats. Today that is not the case. Federal research and development are primary targets of political attacks from this administration.

Science is no longer the answer but a direct threat to the cruel, backward, and barbaric Trump-Musk agenda. We can only look at the President's first term in office to know how his administration will treat the scientific community.

What exactly is on the table here? What is at stake? It is scientific integrity.

``Scientific integrity,'' as defined by the National Science and Technology Council, ``is the adherence to professional practices, ethical behavior, and the principles of honesty and objectivity when conducting, managing, using the results of, and communicating about science and scientific activities.''

Inclusivity, transparency, and protection from inappropriate influence are hallmarks of scientific integrity. Integrity in research is essential--essential--for maintaining scientific excellence and keeping the public's trust.

It is true that administrations from both parties may have violated scientific integrity at some point during their time in office, but the first Trump term exceeded them all with well over 150 reported attacks on science. They suppressed studies, altered reports, interfered in scientific processes, ignored concerns, refused to adopt scientifically backed guidelines, and politicized health assessments.

The level of damage from these attacks was, indeed, staggering and affected every single agency that employs science in its decisionmaking process.

That is why, as an engineer myself, I have consistently made it one of my top priorities in Congress to right the ship of America's science policy because science lives at the very core of a healthy democracy.

As part of that broad effort, I am proud to lead the bipartisan Scientific Integrity Act, which was reintroduced today alongside my dear friends and colleagues, Representative Lofgren, Representative Beyer, Representative Bonamici, and Representative Stevens, and over 100 original cosponsors.

This legislation establishes consistent scientific integrity policies across all agencies so that scientists, Members of Congress, and the American people can put their faith in Federal research findings.

Thanks to the efforts of the Biden administration, more than 28 Federal agencies have some form of scientific integrity policy today, but standards remain inconsistent.

America's most important science is conducted, reviewed, communicated to the public, and incorporated into policymaking in ways that must be transparent and free from inappropriate political, ideological, financial, and other undue influences.

My colleagues and I are fighting to ensure that sound, evidence-based policy is always readily available for policymakers and that scientists and advisers should never feel threatened to speak the truth.

This is a critical moment.

America is facing unprecedented challenges in the form of a rapidly changing climate, environmental contamination, and countless other concerns that threaten our public health, national security, and general welfare. We cannot afford to let the integrity of our scientific enterprise be demolished.

The Trump administration and Elon Musk are direct threats to U.S. scientific leadership on the global stage. My colleagues and I will highlight many of the most recent and egregious violations of scientific integrity by this new administration.

From removing data and censoring research at the CDC to the politicization of career scientists across government, this administration has once again made it clear that they do not care about scientific integrity.

They do not care about our national security or competing with China.

They do not care about saving American lives threatened by the climate crisis.

They do not care about public health or ensuring the safety and well- being of families from the threat of the deadly viruses that we have seen, like COVID-19.

The scientific knowledge we carry forward is critical for our continued survival, even as its validity is being questioned at a scale unprecedented in modern history.

America has both the skill and the structure to develop the knowledge that we need. Thankfully, many are rising to the defense of scientific integrity, and the reality is that this should not be a partisan issue.

Over the many years that I have led this bill, my colleagues across the aisle have been more than willing to join the effort. It passed out of the House Science, Space, and Technology Committee back in the 116th Congress with overwhelming support from both parties.

I like to think that we all recognize how important sound science is to

making any sort of progress in our great Nation. Indeed, a tremendous amount of progress was made under the last administration.

It is in the interest of all Members of this body, from every district across our country, to support scientific integrity and to support the outstanding scientific talent who come from all over the Nation and globe to do research right here in our Federal agencies or with federally funded grants or at our world-class academic institutions.

I hope that my colleagues across the aisle hear this and understand what is at stake. Decades of repair will be necessary to undo the damage that has already been done.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from the Eighth District of Virginia (Mr. Beyer), my good friend.

Don is a member of the Ways and Means Committee, but the gentleman is also an active person who is working for improvement as it relates to scientific integrity. We appreciate his sponsorship of the bill and his work to drive soundness and reflection of science in all of our policy discussions.

I thank the gentleman for joining us.

Mr. Speaker, I thank Representative Beyer for joining us in this fight and for his very challenging observations that he has shared. His activism on behalf of this bill and science, in general, is most appreciated.

Mr. Speaker, within the first few weeks of the Trump administration, we

have seen an onslaught of attacks on scientists, on science, and evidence-based decisionmaking.

At the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention alone, we have seen public communications halted, critical datasets made inaccessible, and scientific manuscripts purged of terms deemed to invoke so-called gender ideology.

CDC researchers were instructed to remove references to or mentions of a list of forbidden terms such as: gender, transgender, pregnant person, pregnant people, LGBT, transsexual, nonbinary, assigned male at birth, assigned female at birth, biologically male, biologically female.

Now, this effort to scrub scientific terms, erase demographic data, and silence researchers is not just wrong; it is dangerous.

Health disparities exist. The data proves it. Ignoring those disparities, preventing experts from studying them will not make them disappear. It will only make our response to crises weaker, less effective, and certainly less equitable.

When we can't track racial and ethnic disparities, gender, and sexual orientation in health outcomes, we lose the ability to make informed, evidence-based decisions.

Doctors and policymakers rely on clear, unaltered data to guide their work. Without it, we risk failing in the fight against public health crises like HIV, mpox, and maternal mortality.

Let me be clear: This is not just about words on a website. This is about access to lifesaving information.

It is about whether we allow science to function as it should or whether we allow political interference to dictate what truths we can or cannot acknowledge.

I urge all of my colleagues, this administration, and all who value truth in science to push back against this alarming trend.

Scientific integrity must be protected not just for our research community but for the millions of Americans whose health and well-being certainly depend on it.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Foster), a good friend, and a very active, outspoken, bold voice for scientific integrity, he represents Illinois' 11th District, and is a member of the Financial Services Committee.

Mr. Speaker, we appreciate Mr. Foster's participation this evening and for his work as a scientist, engaging all of us in the importance of having unadulterated science policy and science research done so that we can move forward with a pure truth and science-based and evidence-based discussion.

Mr. Speaker, so scientific integrity, or the lack thereof, has its consequences.

Once again, we are witnessing a troubling pattern: Science and public health experts are being sidelined.

The decision to purge members of the EPA's Science Advisory Board and Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee is nothing short of a setback for scientific integrity.

These panels exist to provide statutorily required, independent, science-driven public health reviews, not to serve as a revolving door for political agendas.

History has shown us what happens when we weaken those advisory bodies by replacing well-respected academic experts with representatives that are financially tied to regulated industries.

The last time a similar purge took place, key air quality standards were delayed and polluters were given a pass. And who suffers? Children with asthma, seniors with heart and lung

disease, and communities already burdened by pollution suffer.

Let's be clear: Sound science is the foundation upon which we built public health protections.

Just last year, based on expert recommendations from the CASAC, EPA strengthened fine particle pollution standards for the first time in over a decade.

The reason was simple: The science was sound.

Fine particulate matter from sources like fossil fuel combustion and wildfires is directly linked to lung disease, heart attacks, and premature death.

The evidence demanded action and public health won, but now that progress is at risk. This move sends a dangerous message that politics matters more than science and that corporate interests carry more weight than public health.

That simply is unacceptable. The American people deserve clean air and strong environmental protections grounded in facts, not the whims of special interests.

I will not stand by while scientific integrity is undermined, expert voices are silenced, and our Nation's environmental safeguards are eroded.

I will continue fighting to ensure that science, not politics, guides our policies and that the health and well-being of our communities remain the top priority.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Bonamici), a good friend and colleague, who is a bold voice on the Science, Space, and Technology Committee.

Congresswoman Bonamici from Oregon's First District has been preaching scientific integrity for a long while, and we appreciate her joining us this evening.

Mr. Speaker, I thank Representative Bonamici for joining us this evening but, more importantly, for her work on science, tech, and space as a committee member and for her leadership in fighting for scientific integrity.

Earlier, Mr. Speaker, I made mention of ongoing censorship at the Centers for Disease Control. We are seeing climate-related information targeted in other agencies, too. It is not just targeting CDC. We are seeing climate-related information disappearing from government sites, from NASA to the Department of Agriculture.

This isn't just about tweaking websites. It is a deliberate effort to erase essential data that researchers, farmers, businesses, and communities across the country rely on. We have seen this playbook before. The Trump administration is once again using the same tactics from its first term, removing climate language, pausing programs, and undermining science.

Take the USDA's Partnership for Climate-Smart Commodities, for example.

It is a program designed to help advance sustainable practices. It has funded critical work with food companies, nonprofits, and universities to help farmers shrink their carbon footprint, develop more resilient crops, and restore land. By halting programs like this, the administration is stripping our agricultural sector of the very tools it needs to withstand worsening floods, droughts, and wildfires.

We cannot afford to turn back. We cannot allow climate denial to override science. The cost of inaction is already upon us.

In just the last few years, extreme weather has wiped out entire peach crops in Georgia, flooded farms in North Carolina, and worsened citrus greening disease in the Florida oranges crop. Wildfires in the West have devastated vineyards, while droughts have forced ranchers to shrink their herds.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues and this administration to reject this dangerous retreat from science. We must defend the data, research, and progress for which we have fought because, in the case of a worsening climate crisis, denial is just not irresponsible, but it, indeed, is deadly.

Scientists knew that change was coming under the Trump administration, but few were prepared for the chaos and fear caused by a flurry of executive orders and policy shifts that have destabilized the American engine for innovation and discovery. Overnight, researchers were left questioning whether their work, funding, or even careers could survive a political assault on science itself.

This is not an abstract concern. It is an existential threat to our Nation's scientific enterprise.

Scientists should be focused on their next breakthrough, not their next paycheck. They should be in the lab, not fighting for the right to pursue knowledge free from political interference.

Instead, we see confusion, delays, and outright fear gripping our research institutions. Postdoctoral fellows are scrambling to pay their bills because their stipends have been frozen.

Research projects essential to public health, economic prosperity, and national security are being reviewed not for their scientific merit but for whether they contain words like ``diversity,'' ``women,'' or ``underrepresented.''

Our United States has long been a beacon of research excellence because we uphold principles that transcend politics. We have built a system that rewards rigorous peer-reviewed research, fosters a diverse and dynamic workforce, and keeps American innovation at the forefront globally.

Those principles are now under attack. We cannot allow political ideology to dictate which discoveries are pursued and which are silenced. We cannot allow critical research--whether on climate change, public health, or emerging technologies--to be derailed by shortsighted political mandates. We certainly cannot allow the United States to cede its leadership in science and technology to competitors that are eager to capitalize on our self-inflicted wounds.

The CHIPS and Science Act, which I was proud to support, underscores our commitment to a broad, inclusive, and merit-based research enterprise. It recognizes that diversity is not a threat to science; it is a strength. The next great discovery, the next cure, the next technological revolution could come from any lab, any researcher, any corner of this country. I truly believe the pioneer spirit is really in our DNA as a nation, but only if we let science be science.

I stand with the scientific community in calling for the protection of scientific integrity and the rejection of any effort that seeks to muzzle, manipulate, or politicize research.

We must ensure that American scientists can continue to push the boundaries of human knowledge, free from fear and with full confidence that their government stands behind them.

I ask again, Mr. Speaker, that people join us in this effort for the Scientific Integrity Act to be passed in this House, moved to the Senate, and signed into law. It is about the strength of our Nation, the future of discovery, and, again, honoring the pioneer spirit of America.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank Ranking Member McGovern for yielding time.

Mr. Speaker, if the previous question is defeated, Democrats plan to offer a vote on the SUPPORT for Patients and Communities Reauthorization Act.

The SUPPORT Act, which House Republicans unceremoniously abandoned after billionaire-in-chief Elon Musk tanked the end-of-year bipartisan package, would have reauthorized a wide range of prevention, treatment, and recovery programs that included a 2-year extension of scheduling for fentanyl-related substances.

This bipartisan approach, which focused not only on disrupting the drug supply but also investing in the full spectrum of prevention, treatment, and recovery, passed the House overwhelmingly by a vote of 386-37, as was made mention by Representative McGovern, in the 118th Congress.

Passing this vital legislation would have helped continue our progress against the overdose epidemic which finally saw overdose deaths start to decline during the Biden administration

after skyrocketing during the first Trump administration.

It is indeed clear that Republicans just aren't serious about addressing this crisis. They are using cheap sound bites and photo ops to exploit parents' pain and to distract Americans while President Trump, Elon Musk, and their cronies rob us blind and dismantle the very programs that individuals rely on to get treatment and live a life of recovery for their situations.

With last week's Federal funding freeze, Trump and Musk immediately halted over some $8 billion in programs working to combat the opioid crisis, including: $6.5 billion for SAMHSA that would support naloxone distribution in our communities, drug-free community programs to keep kids off drugs, and medication-assisted treatment programs. It also authorized $1.5 billion for addiction research at the National Institutes of Health to help deliver the next generation of lifesaving treatments.

Unfortunately, that is not all.

As we speak, Republicans are cooking up plans to steal over $2.5 trillion from Medicaid, jeopardizing healthcare for 72 million people and decimating the single biggest payer for substance use care, just so that they can give more tax breaks to Elon Musk and his billionaire buddies.

Cutting lifesaving prevention and treatment services to the bone while trying to restart a failed 1980s war on drugs?

America should just say no.

In closing, I urge my colleagues, Mr. Speaker, to defeat the previous question so that we can vote on a real plan to tackle this epidemic that continues to ravage our communities.

Mr. Speaker, in the past 2 weeks, a series of executive actions have directly targeted the LGBTQ+ community, attacking fundamental rights, fueling division, and ignoring reality.

LGBTQ+ people, including trans individuals, are part of every community. They serve in Congress, lead businesses, defend our Nation, and care for others as doctors, first responders, and educators. Like everyone, they deserve dignity, respect, and protection under the law.

Many of these executive actions violate the Constitution and Federal law. They will face fierce opposition, but their immediate harm is undeniable: threatening jobs and essential healthcare, restricting access to accurate identification, weakening nondiscrimination protections, and exposing individuals to greater harassment simply for being who they are.

I stand with the trans community in New York-20 and beyond. I will fight these actions with everything I have because equality, dignity, and justice are nonnegotiable.

Absolutely.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from California for yielding.

Yes, they are a good family. I enjoy being their Representative.

It is absolutely a powerful moment this evening in the House to hear everyone, your friends, your colleagues, recap the history you have written as a Congress Representative and the service you have provided in this House.

It is my colleague, our colleague Congresswoman Barbara Lee that has been a progressive champion and who is a fierce advocate and dear friend during my time in Congress.

Barbara, what impacts me most is that you are a powerful voice, a very bold voice, a very determined voice, a passionate voice, and oftentimes a lone voice because you felt the moment that challenged you had to be addressed by your fierce loyalty to awesome causes.

Your efforts in this body will be remembered for your courage, your tenacity, and your strength of spirit. You have dedicated your time as an elected Representative to serving those in need, sometimes the voiceless, whether it be the global HIV/AIDS community, those in need of housing or reproductive healthcare rights, and certainly education and fairness in education.

Your advocacy for your constituents in the East Bay area spans decades, ranging from your time as a social worker, as a congressional staffer, as a small business owner, as a State legislator, and certainly your powerful record as a Member of Congress.

I have been honored to work with you on issues that are close to my heart including the entire climate issue, to make certain we hand over our planet in better stead to those who will follow us, certainly the addiction policy efforts that you have made treating those with the illness of addiction with high regard and high priority, and the expansion of STEM education. These are all important areas.

You, my friend, have been a titan of this body. I am honored to have served with you. I think in many of the gatherings that we have had and in offering the official goodbyes, it is so obvious that you are genuine. You are authentic.

As we have heard from your very first moments of life, there was a reason. Your mom shared with the world that you were saved in that moment to live a life of service. It has proven itself so true.

I am honored to be with you. I will take good care of those constituents in the 20th Congressional District.

God bless you, and God speed.

Mr. Speaker, had I been present, I would have voted YEA on Roll Call No. 502.

Mr. Speaker, during Roll Call Vote number 500 on H.R. 5009, I mistakenly recorded my vote as YES when I should have voted NO.

Mr. Speaker, it is an honor and pleasure to say thank you, Cathy, and to wish you well. I know there was much celebrating when you were named chair, breaking that barrier, becoming the first woman to lead Energy and Commerce.

As we know, we just heard from our colleague, Anna Eshoo, that there is this breadth and depth to the committee that enables us to serve people in so many ways on so many issues. On behalf of the Democrats in the House, I thank you for the opportunities you presented to work together to do a lot of legislation and certainly to effect policy in the realm of energy and environment, which have been strong points for the committee and certainly of particular interest for me.

I do appreciate all the work on the challenged, the differently abled, the people in our society who teach us much by their daily walks in life. I know your son is an inspiration to you. Thank you for carrying the torch for legislation that enables people to showcase their abilities, to be able to be included in a very powerful way. It is a lifesaving, life-changing opportunity that we can present the given community. I thank you for that forcefulness.

Personally speaking, thank you for the assistance on the medication- assisted treatment effort, the MAT Act, which will, in my opinion, save lives as we enable people to prescribe for those who are struggling and living with the illness of addiction. That is going to be a major difference for so many people that we will never ever meet. That is the joy and I think the soulfulness of this job, where we are able to assist those who will be here in this universe well after we have gone or people who live here and share the moment with us but that we will never meet. Those are great opportunities for us to express in compassionate measure making a difference on behalf of individuals who have deep challenges each and every day in life.

Thank you also for the efforts on bringing together, with our side, with Ranking Member Pallone, to be able to do the Parkinson's bill. There are 1 million people in this country who live with Parkinson's, and the fact that we are able to provide for an effort, an all-out effort, a collaborative effort with agencies in the Federal Government, working with clinicians, patients, and caregivers to make a difference, to make certain that we focus on a cure, better, earlier prognoses, and better treatments. These are measures that will really speak to the dignity of the individual and deliver hope to the doorsteps of so many people who struggle with that illness.

There are countless achievements. I know you will leave here with your heart filled with opportunities that presented themselves where you were able to deliver. On behalf of this side of the aisle, I say thank you. I am sure we haven't heard or seen the last of you. I wish you well as you go into the next phase of life.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Walberg).

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Allen).

Mr. Chair, I yield to the gentlewoman from Indiana (Mrs. Houchin).

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman (Ms. Tenney) from of New York.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Lee).

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Idaho (Mr. Fulcher).

Mr. Speaker, I believe that leaves the individual of focus this evening, the chairwoman of the Energy and Commerce Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Washington (Mrs. Rodgers).

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