Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to clause 2(a)(1) of rule IX, I rise to give notice of my intent to raise a question of the privileges of the House.

The form of the resolution is as follows:

House resolution directing the Committee on Ethics of the House of Representatives to release to the public the committee's report on its investigation into allegations against former Representative Matt Gaetz.

Whereas, on April 9, 2021, the Committee on Ethics of the House of Representatives announced that it had begun to investigate allegations that Representative Matt Gaetz may have engaged in sexual misconduct and/or illicit drug use, shared inappropriate images or videos on the House floor, misused State identification records, converted campaign funds for personal use, and/or accepted a bribe, improper gratuity, or impermissible gift in violation of the rules of the House, laws, or other standards of conduct;

Whereas, over 3 years, the Committee on Ethics of the House of Representatives compiled an extensive investigative record pursuant to Committee Rules 14(a)(3) and 18(a) into allegations that Representative Gaetz may have engaged in sexual misconduct and illicit drug use, accepted improper gifts, dispensed special privileges and favors to individuals with whom he had a personal relationship, and sought to obstruct government investigations of his conduct;

Whereas, on November 13, 2024, Representative Matt Gaetz announced his resignation from Congress;

Whereas, there is precedent for the Committee on Ethics of the House of Representatives to continue investigating and release reports of investigations into former Members of the House of Representatives;

Whereas, in 1987, the Committee on Ethics of the House of Representatives released a report on its investigation into allegations of the misuse of campaign funds, improper gifts, the failure to reveal business interests on his financial disclosure, and the acceptance of a bribe by former Representative Bill Boner following his resignation from Congress;

Whereas, in 1990, the Committee on Ethics of the House of Representatives released a report on its investigations of sexual misconduct allegations, which included having sexual intercourse with a minor and making sexual advances toward a congressional employee, against former Representative Don Lukens following his resignation from Congress;

Whereas, in 2006, the Committee on Ethics of the House of Representatives released a report on its investigation into sexual misconduct allegations, which included sending sexually explicit images to at least one minor, against former Representative Mark Foley following his resignation from Congress;

Whereas, in 2011, the Committee on Ethics of the House of Representatives continued its investigation into allegations of sexual misconduct against former Representative Eric Massa following his resignation; and

Whereas, given the serious nature of the allegations against Representative Gaetz, a failure of the Committee on Ethics of the House of Representatives to publicly release its report on its investigation undermines the committee's credibility and impedes the safety, dignity, and integrity of the legislative proceedings of the House: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved, that the Committee on Ethics of the House of Representatives shall immediately release the latest draft of its report and a summary of its findings to the public, including any conclusions, draft reports, recommendations, attachments, exhibits and accompanying materials, with such redactions as may be necessary and appropriate to protect sensitive information, including witness identities, relating to its investigation into allegations against former Representative Matt Gaetz.

Mr. Speaker, I missed Roll Call vote 479. Had I been present, I would have voted as follows: YEA on Roll Call No. 479.

Madam Speaker, pursuant to clause 2(a)(1) of rule IX, I rise to give notice of my intent to raise a question of the privileges of the House.

The form of the resolution is as follows:

House Resolution, directing the Committee on Ethics of the House of Representatives to release to the public the Committee's report on its investigation into allegations against former Representative Matt Gaetz.

Whereas, on April 9, 2021, the Committee on Ethics of the House of Representatives announced that it had begun to review allegations that Representative Matt Gaetz may have engaged in sexual misconduct and illicit drug use, shared inappropriate images or videos on the House floor, misused State identification records, converted campaign funds for personal use, and accepted a bribe, improper gratuity, or impermissible gift in violation of the rules of the House, laws, or other standards of conduct;

Whereas, the Committee on Ethics of the House of Representatives has completed its review into allegations pursuant to Committee Rules 14(a)(3) and 18(a) that Representative Gaetz may have engaged in sexual misconduct and illicit drug use, accepted improper gifts, dispensed special privileges and favors to individuals with whom he had a personal relationship, and sought to obstruct government investigations of his conduct;

Whereas, on November 13, 2024, President-elect Donald Trump announced his nomination of former Representative Matt Gaetz to serve as Attorney General;

Whereas, on November 13, 2024, Representative Matt Gaetz announced his resignation from Congress;

Whereas, there is precedent for the Committee on Ethics of the House of Representatives to release reports on former Members of the House of Representatives, should information in those reports remain relevant to the function of Congress;

Whereas, the decision by the Committee on Ethics of the House of Representatives not to release its report on its investigation into the serious allegations against former Representative Matt Gaetz impedes the ability of the Senate to provide advice and consent on this nomination; and

Whereas, a failure of the Committee on Ethics of the House of Representatives to release its report on its investigation impedes the dignity and integrity of the legislative proceedings of the House: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved, that the Committee on Ethics of the House of Representatives shall immediately release to the public the committee's report on its investigation into allegations against former Representative Matt Gaetz, including any conclusions, recommendations, attachments, exhibits, or accompanying material.

Mr. Speaker, last month, Congresswoman DeLauro and I, along with Senators Van Hollen and Durbin, led over 80 congressional Democrats to urge the Biden administration to impose financial sanctions on certain members of the Netanyahu

government--specifically, Israeli Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich and National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir for their role in the rise of settler violence, settlement expansion, and general destabilization of the West Bank.

I represent one of the largest Palestinian populations in the United States. I have had constituents who have lost loved ones, have had family land seized, and even, as American citizens, have been detained in Israeli prisons simply for the crime of visiting their families.

I am also a staunch supporter of Israel and categorically support their right to defend themselves and recover hostages taken during the horrific acts of October 7.

Let us be very clear: There is no conflict between supporting the Nation of Israel and the dignity of the Palestinian people so long as you are committed to a permanent and durable regional peace in this lifetime. That peace will never be realized until people on both sides of the green line have equal property rights, security, and opportunity.

That is not possible as long as Israeli hostages are being detained or as rockets continue to fly into Israel from Hezbollah, Hamas, and Iran, but it is also not possible as long as Palestinians on the West Bank are having their property confiscated, livestock killed, and their communities bulldozed.

Violent settlers in the West Bank have carried out almost 1,300 known attacks against Palestinians since October 7. At least 25 new outposts have been established. Seventy illegal outposts were recognized and are eligible for funding by the Israeli Government. All of these actions are illegal under international law.

Earlier this year, President Biden issued Executive Order No. 14115 that authorized the imposition of sanctions on anyone determined ``to be responsible for or complicit in, or to have directly or indirectly engaged or attempted to engage in . . . actions . . . that threaten the peace, security, or stability of the West Bank.''

To date, President Biden has used this order to sanction Palestinian militant groups, organizations involved in violent extremist activity, instigators from the settler movement, and the outposts from which violent attacks are launched.

Just as it is appropriate for Israel to target Hamas leadership in their response to October 7, it is necessary for the United States to target financial sanctions on the leaders of the extremist settler movement.

This brings us to Ministers Smotrich and Ben-Gvir. They have distributed rifles to extremists. They have allowed those extremists to attack humanitarian aid convoys. They have prevented the Palestinian Authority from accessing the international banking network. These ministers' stated goal is the annexation of the West Bank, and they have acted in ways that violate both the spirit and letter of the President's executive order.

Frederick Douglass famously said that ``the best friend of a nation is he who most faithfully rebukes her for her sins--and he her worst enemy who, under the specious . . . garb of patriotism, seeks to excuse, palliate, and defend'' those sins.

It is out of love for the Palestinian people and a deep, abiding friendship with Israel that we must now rebuke Ministers Smotrich and Ben-Gvir for their sins.

Mr. Speaker, I urge President Biden to heed the calls of over 80 Members of Congress and use his executive order to issue these sanctions and to help put a stop to settler violence in the West Bank.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Metra Commuter Railroad on its 40th anniversary of providing reliable, affordable, and safe transportation services throughout the state and for residents of Illinois' 6th Congressional District.

In the last forty years, Metra has made significant progress revitalizing and rebuilding stations, tracks, and signals, purchasing new locomotives and railcars, and modernizing and stabilizing and expanding services across the region. Metra also provided a crucial lifeline during the global pandemic.

I commend Metra on these advancements and was proud to lead the Illinois Delegation's support efforts for its recent Federal Transit Administration's Rail Vehicle Replacement Program grant application. Metra was selected as one of only three recipients nationwide to receive a grant. This $100 million federal investment will support the procurement of new, multi-level railcars to replace those from the 1970s and improve the safety, comfort, and accessibility to all passengers boarding Metra trains.

Mr. Speaker, please join me in paying tribute to the dedicated professionals at Metra who have continuously serviced Illinois with vital transportation as they celebrate forty years of service. I thank Metra Commuter Railroad, and wish them a happy anniversary.

Madam Speaker, since we will not be together on Halloween, I thought I would share some spooky stories with you, and these spooky stories are all real, verbatim, and lifted directly from the Republican Party's playbook, Project 2025.

The Department of Education should be eliminated. Eliminate the Head Start program.

The Department of Labor should amend its hazard order regulations to permit teenage workers access to work. In other words, back to the mine, Timmy.

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration should be broken up and downsized. No more weather forecasts.

Finally, no public education employee shall use a name to address a student other than the name listed on a student's birth certificate.

This, of course, will be a problem for James Donald Bowman, James David Hamel, J.D. Hamel, or, as they now identify, J.D. Vance.

This is truly scary because it is a real plan, but Madam Speaker, I hope you and all Americans' fears are only imaginary in 2025.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today as a former CEO who would have personally benefited from this legislation. I rise in strong, dare I say, vehement, opposition to this legislation.

Let me be very clear. The job of a CEO, especially in capital- intensive businesses like the one I used to run, is to be a prudent and responsible steward of other people's capital.

I should also be candid and say that sometimes investors can be a pain in the butt. When you are the CEO, you are managing their money. They may call you, and they may ask questions about wanting to dig into the details of your hiring policies. They may want to dig into the details of your internal governance policies. They may want to understand the degree to which your company is hedged out against future risks, ESG or otherwise.

It is very tempting in those moments, from my personal experience as a CEO, to say: ``You all don't understand this business as well as I do. I am so much smarter than you. I am going to ignore your questions because they are not material,'' and hang up the phone.

That is a great way to become an ex-CEO, which is exactly as it should be. When you tell them that they don't understand what I know about my company, they are inclined to correct you and say: ``No. It is not your company. It is my company.''

My Republican colleagues are doing exactly that with this bill. They are telling investors and shareholders that they do not have a right to decide what is material in their interest in these companies. Maybe that is an individual investor. Maybe that is a pension fund. They are saying that they don't matter.

Mr. Speaker, let me tell you, our Nation's CEOs thank my Republican colleagues for their service, for looking out for them.

Now, we will always have a few lousy, self-interested CEOs who would like to fleece their investors, who would like to hide their liabilities, who would like to tell you to shut up and pound sand because you don't understand their business.

It is sad to me to see the Republican Party choose to associate with them and say we have their backs. I am proud to stand with our Nation's good CEOs and, more importantly, with all of our Nation's investors in strong opposition to this antimarket, antigrowth legislation.

Mr. Speaker, again, I oppose H.R. 4790 because it impedes shareholders' engagement with the companies they own, limits visibility into corporate decisionmaking, and ultimately weakens the foundation of America's strong free market.

For this reason, at the appropriate time, I will offer a motion to recommit this bill back to committee. If the House rules had permitted, I would have offered this motion with an important amendment to this bill.

My amendment would require companies to disclose when they abandon commitments to diversity, equity and inclusion, or DEI.

DEI initiatives at companies lead to more innovative and productive organizational cultures. Establishing a diverse workforce helps companies attract and retain top talent and ultimately drives better business outcomes.

I ask unanimous consent to include in the Record the text of this amendment immediately prior to the vote on the motion to recommit.

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

Madam Speaker, let me pose a question to everybody in here. Why do pension fund managers, why do State treasurers, why do individual investors invest in ESG funds? Well, I will give you a hint. It is the same reason that they invest in high-yield bonds or mid-cap international equities or real estate investment trusts or anything else that is a part of a diversified portfolio. It is because they believe that it will make them more money; not ``know.'' None of us know, but they believe.

Maybe my colleagues across the aisle don't believe that companies that attract and retain diverse talent create more long-term value. Maybe my colleagues across the aisle don't believe that climate change is real and don't believe that companies who are repositioning their assets for a world with higher sea levels, with more frequent forest fires, and with rapidly moving consumer demand in favor of cheaper, cleaner energy are better positioned to win the future.

That is your right. Nobody is telling you that you have to wake up and stop investing in sleepy companies that are missing out on what is happening in the future.

Yet, here we are. Having defended your right to invest however you want, you are now saying that fiduciaries with opinions different from your own should not be free to invest as they see fit. That is not pro- market.

Let me tell you that if you have fallen in love with State-directed capitalism, I would encourage you to talk to, I don't know, maybe some Chinese

or Soviet economic leaders who can tell you how that plays out.

Yet, we find ourselves here with the Republican Party introducing legislation that not only rips off the policies of Lenin and Mao, but also unsurprisingly rips off Project 2025 because what all those have in common is you would like to use the power of the State to protect your political allies against the vicissitudes of a competitive market.

Let's be really clear, though. This is not just about politics. Real Americans in red States, I would point out, are losing money today because of these policies. In Texas, anti-ESG laws like the one you are proposing are costing the State nearly $700 million in lost economic activity and more than 3,000 jobs.

In Kansas, the State budget office has estimated that anti-ESG laws there would cost retirees $3.6 billion in lost returns over 10 years. That is what you are imposing on the rest of the world if you accomplished this.

Madam Speaker, I get it, competition is hard. It is scary. Climate change is real, and no matter how nightmarish certain White folks of low character might find the realization of Martin Luther King's dream, it is the only way that we move forward as a society. In the name of free markets and a brighter tomorrow, I would urge a ``no'' vote.

On what basis?

Mr. Speaker, I reiterate, as I hope was clear from the plain text of my remarks, they were not directed at anybody in the Chamber.

Mr. Speaker, I close by saying, in the name of free markets and a brighter, more tolerant tomorrow, I urge a ``no'' vote on this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 7686.

Mr. Speaker, we recently celebrated the 2-year passage of the CHIPS and Science Act. In those 2 years, we have reinvigorated domestic semiconductor manufacturing, and we are revitalizing the American scientific enterprise. The positive impact of that legislation can be felt in everyone's district, so we should be proud of this bipartisan accomplishment.

In the same vein, as with all great legislation, we need to perform some legislative maintenance and improvements. The CHIPS and Science Act has many provisions focused on improving research security. One of those provisions, section 10631, prohibits the distribution of Federal research awards to individuals participating in foreign talent recruitment programs.

Universities and research institutions are ultimately responsible for ensuring that their faculty members are aware of and compliant with that prohibition, but the current law contains two independent, lengthy, and--I know this is the first time this has ever happened-- rather complex prohibitions, which makes good faith implementation efforts difficult to achieve.

We have heard that there is a need for clearer definitions, specifically for the ``malign foreign talent recruitment program.'' H.R. 7686 amends the Research and Development, Competition, and Innovation Act to better clarify that definition.

The need for this clarification has been affirmed by the National Science Foundation. The agency believes that this change will aid Federal science agencies' work in ensuring compliance.

For all of my colleagues, please do keep in mind that this legislation is very sensitive in its nature. Even minor changes to these definitions can have decisive consequences that can make institutional compliance problematic.

Both Democratic and Republican staff have worked surgically, shall we say, to ensure that this amendment makes the necessary corrections so that institutions can faithfully carry out these research security efforts.

On that note, I would like to state my enthusiastic support for this bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, I close simply by thanking Mr. Garcia and Ms. Stevens on our side for all of their hard work on this extremely well-constructed bill. I urge all of my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on

Mr. Speaker, we often talk about kitchen table issues, and what better time to elevate those issues than this week, which you all have declared in honor of refrigerator freedom.

Specifically, as I was walking around July Fourth, I heard a lot of issues from my constituents about refrigerators.

Some of them asked: Who put the meat in the crisper drawer?

That was a big fight.

Why aren't you using the egg holder for your eggs?

If you use the last of the mustard, don't just put it back in the fridge; go to the store and get some more mustard.

That is a fight.

There is the always controversial: Should we or should we not replace a perfectly good refrigerator just because it doesn't match our cabinets?

These are the real issues that are bothering Americans around their kitchen table when they talk about refrigerators. If those sound silly, I will only point out that those issues are vastly more important, more substantive, and are legitimate points of debate. You can argue both sides of any of those issues more than anything in this bill because this bill doesn't address those issues. All it does is gut efficiency standards that if left in place will save American consumers more than $3 billion on their utility bills over the next three decades.

I am going to say this very slowly so everybody across the aisle can understand: If you save energy, then you don't have to pay for energy.

I think you all know this, Mr. Speaker, because some of you have probably at some point said to your kids: Shut the window. I have got the AC on. I don't want to waste energy. I don't want to waste money when I cool my house.

That is the same thing here in these standards.

Also, I think, as anybody who has ever sat around a kitchen table knows, Americans kind of like to save money on their energy bills. Here we find ourselves with efficiency standards in place that lower Americans' utility bills, and Republicans are proposing legislation to block Americans from access to cheaper energy in the name of refrigerator freedom. God bless refrigerators.

I oppose this bill because it is bad for consumers, it is bad for the environment, and, quite honestly, it is bad for this institution because it is a waste of our time.

Furthermore, at the appropriate time, Mr. Speaker, I will offer a motion to recommit this bill back to committee. If House rules permitted, I would have offered this motion with an important amendment to this bill, and my amendment would require that the act not take effect until the Secretary of Energy submits to Congress a certification that this act, including amendments made by this act, will not result in higher energy costs for American consumers.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my amendment into the Record immediately prior to the vote on the motion to recommit.

Mr. Speaker, I hope my colleagues will join me in voting for this motion to recommit.

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

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

Mr. Chair, I rise today in support of my amendment to require the Department of Defense and HHS to examine barriers to access for military pilots and air traffic controllers seeking mental health care.

Today, when military and civilian aviators report that they have sought mental health care, they are faced with delays, confusion, and overbroad regulations in the process of returning to work.

What that means practically is that even minor mental health concerns can derail careers for safe, well-trained pilots and air traffic controllers who just want to get better. That has created a culture of silence and has disincentivized aviators from seeking care and ultimately made our skies less safe.

In May, the Air Force took a good first step forward by allowing these pilots and air traffic controllers to receive an extra 60 days of treatment without losing their wings. My bipartisan amendment builds on that to help destigmatize mental health care and ensure that those who seek care face no more consequence nor any less scientifically robust standards for being re-cleared for duty than they would if they were seeking physical healthcare.

Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting access for mental health care for pilots and protecting the health and readiness of our Armed Forces and keeping our skies safe.

Mr. Chairman, we have heard several times this legislation is better than the status quo. There are a whole lot of reasons that is not true, but I want to focus specifically on this bill's utter failure to address the use of cryptocurrency by terrorists, foreign adversaries, and criminals.

By the way, Treasury asked us specifically to address those issues with a whole bunch of reasonable changes. We introduced amendments. Every one of those amendments was rejected.

The anti-money laundering provisions that are in this bill simply duplicate existing requirements. Yet, the bill's supporters have actually argued, and Treasury has agreed, that the status quo is not sufficient to address the challenges created by cryptocurrencies.

How do we know that cryptocurrencies are a problem for money laundering? Because the bad guys love crypto. Let's give some examples.

North Korean hackers have stolen $3 billion in cryptocurrency since 2017. White House national security officials said last year that crypto theft and cybercrime have funded half of North Korea's nuclear program.

Russia and Venezuela are both using crypto to evade U.S. sanctions.

Venezuela recently said that because of the bite of sanctions, they are now moving to accept payments in crypto because that allows them to get money that we, in Washington, cannot track.

The Treasury Department is reviewing more than $20 billion of cryptocurrency that was laundered through a Russian-based cryptocurrency exchange.

The Treasury Department has noted that Hamas, the Palestinian Islamic Jihad, ISIS, and al-Qaida are all using crypto to finance terrorist attacks globally.

Crypto is the preferred means of payment for fentanyl trafficking. Chinese businesses that sell fentanyl chemical ingredients to Mexican cartels have accepted millions in crypto payments. They have sold enough ingredients to make more than $54 billion worth of fentanyl pills. That is enough to kill 8.6 billion people, if you are counting.

Blockchain analytics firm Chainalysis said in January that virtual currency is the dominant choice for buyers and sellers of child sexual abuse content.

FinCEN basically said the same thing. It said that perpetrators of online child sexual exploitation are increasingly using convertible virtual currency to avoid detection.

I could go on and on. These are not cherry-picked statistics. These are statistics from U.S. officials and from crypto firms, people who are entrusted with protecting our national security and who care about this stuff.

The Treasury Department asked for new rules to address this. Every single one of those proposals was objected to either in the Financial Services Committee, the Ag Committee, or in the Rules Committee.

If that was all this bill did, that would be one thing. In fact, this bill goes out of its way to make it weaker by basically saying that anybody who uses unhosted wallets, decentralized, or DeFi services is exempted from regulation, ignoring recommendations from both the Trump and Biden administrations.

My Republican colleagues will boast that in this rule there is specific language that says brokers and dealers are required to comply with anti-money laundering requirements. They are already required to do that. This bill does nothing to address that. It is exactly the same. They are going to brag about saying it is now illegal to speed.

What we should have done is we should have made provisions to ban anonymous actors, to prevent you from saying: I want to move crypto from my account to yours, and I am going to move it through an anonymous party so you can't tell what a bad guy I am. It should have banned people from using digital asset mixers that allow you to take a whole bunch of people, combine all their money together, and then give you something where you can't trace it through.

If you want to understand how crazy this is, I would encourage you to go to your bank and try to deposit $10,000 in cash at your bank. Your bank will say: You have to tell me where that money came from. I am going to take you behind the counter, and we are going to have to take your picture and get your fingerprints, because I do not like money laundering, and I am obliged to protect it.

By comparison, if you want to move a million dollars of crypto from one person's account to another, send it through these mixers or send it through these anonymizers, you can do it.

Mr. Chair, we have got all of these mixers that are used. Why were they not included in there? I don't know.

I know why the crypto industry doesn't want them included in there, because they are profiting from people who are using these illicit services.

The largest cryptocurrency exchange that stands to benefit from this regime helped to finance a legal challenge to the Treasury Department's case against Tornado Cash, which was the largest asset mixer in the world.

This is a bad bill. It fails to address known problems. What it does do, however, is make the United States safer for drug traffickers, for terrorist funders, for child and drug traffickers, and for those who buy and sell child pornography. I did not know those groups had such advocates in Congress, but I am proud to oppose them and encourage all my colleagues to do the same.

Madam Speaker, it is Police Week, the week when law enforcement officers who keep us safe all over the country come to Washington to remind us how important they are and when Members of Congress introduce resolutions and bills and give speeches in this Chamber letting them know how grateful we are for their service.

I rise today partly to share in that gratitude. It is my privilege to represent the 19th Ward in Chicago where neighborhoods like Mount Greenwood and Beverly have long been home to huge chunks of the Chicago police force from rank-and-file beat cops to the Cook County Sheriff himself. I am also proud last March that I was able to bring home $372,000 in Federal funding for police equipment in the village of Alsip.

I am grateful for all of the service from our law enforcement officers but for a bigger reason.

We are a nation of laws, and we only survive as a nation of laws if those laws are consistently and predictably enforced, and it is our brothers and sisters in law enforcement who make sure that they are.

I do find myself wondering how all these floor speeches this week look to them. How do all these pretty speeches sound to the local police chiefs who were pleading with us in 2020 to provide them with funding to shore up lost State and property tax revenue during the COVID downturn, who knew that they couldn't stay open without it, and they also know every single Republican voted against the American Rescue Plan that kept their officers paid?

How do all these pretty speeches look to the Capitol Police officers who are defending us right now? How do they feel when these speeches come from the same lips of Members who still refer to people who assaulted the Capitol Police as ``political prisoners'' or in one case as a ``martyr''?

How do all these pretty speeches sound to the FBI officers or local police who depend on the FBI to coordinate when crimes cross State lines when they come from the lips of Members of Congress who are regularly and consistently calling to defund the FBI?

How do they sound to ATF officers who are forced--thanks to dumb laws led by my Republican colleagues--to spend hours every day tediously stripping personal identifying information from gun sales databases, making a mockery of the claim that it is people not guns that kill people?

How do all these pretty speeches sound to the victims of financial fraud who depend on the NLRB to protect them from wage theft or the CFPB to protect them from junk fees or the SEC to protect them from financial crimes when the Republican Party is consistently trying to defund all three? After all, if somebody steals $1,000 from you, you are out $1,000. That is just as true if the crook is wearing a burglar's black mask or a huckster's white collar.

On that subject, how do all these speeches sound to our Nation's criminals? You know who they are; they are the ones who every April misrepresent their income and assets and commit tax fraud because they trust that the Republicans are going to consistently block funding and resources for the law enforcement professionals at the Internal Revenue Service.

Finally, how do you think all these speeches sound to E. Jean Carroll's rapist, the guy who was subsequently convicted in court of lying about that rape and still hasn't paid the $83 million fine imposed by law enforcement professionals for that lie, much less the $355 million fine imposed on him for unrelated financial fraud? He is the guy who most of you wouldn't trust with your retirement savings. He is the guy who none of you would trust for an evening alone with your teenage daughter, but who all of my Republican colleagues think should be the next President of the United States.

Oscar Benavides, the former president of Peru, famously said: ``For my friends everything, for my enemies the law.'' That is not how a country of laws works but it is how fascism is built. It is not the way that you ensure that everybody has equal protection under the law, nor is it the way to honor the men and women who dedicate their life to that principle. I hope that next year on Police Week that isn't such a partisan idea.

Mr. Speaker, first, I remind my colleagues that Donald Trump called the Saudis and said to please do everything they can to raise the oil price because gasoline is so cheap, and they did. I appreciate them keeping the gas price up.

In the words of a great American, I regret that I have but 3 minutes to explain all the stupidity in this bill, so I am just going to focus on the methane emissions reduction plan for now.

Nobody really understands methane out there in the public, so let's just put this in terms folks understand. Imagine that you live in a town that has two dairies. They take cow milk and turn it into downstream products.

One of them makes milk. They make cream. They make half-and-half. They make 2 percent. They are a productive plant. They don't waste anything. They have good jobs. They grow the American economy.

The one next door says: We are just making 2 percent. We are going to throw away all the cream. We are going to throw away all the half-and- half. We are going to pour it in the river, and the town is going to stink to high heavens of sour milk. You can't swim in the water. In addition, by the way, we are not making much money because we are throwing away all of our product.

Now, let's imagine that the government came in and said: We want both of these businesses to be competitive. We want workers in both of those plants to have good jobs and a good future, so we are going to provide you with the capital to capture that cream so you can sell it, stop polluting, and make more money.

Then, let's imagine that one political party said: How dare you cry over spilled milk? Spill the damn milk. We want to keep pouring that cream in the river. We want to keep this factory open so that they can keep spilling cream and wasting money.

That is what this bill does. It says to a gas pipeline company that is leaking methane, the thing they sell, that rather than give them the ability to sell more, rather than help stop polluting, we want to protect their right to be a bad citizen and uncompetitive, so we can drive more business to China because our gas is going to be too expensive. We are going to spill all ours.

This bill is so stupid. If my colleagues love pollution, hate capitalism, hate competitive American businesses,

vote for this bill, but don't be stupid. Let's get back to real work.

Madam Speaker, I thank the chairman for granting me more time because there is still so much silliness left in this bill.

I will shift now to the elimination of the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund. Let's talk about what this program does.

This program helps to pay for projects that reduce climate pollution, help grow energy independence, lower energy bills, and revitalize communities that otherwise would not be funded.

So what does that mean? These are projects that are good projects that help people out, but they struggle to get capital.

Maybe it is an inner city school that would like to put solar panels on the roof to cut their energy bills, lower their pollution, but they are not in a town that can afford to raise the bond to do that.

Maybe it is an Appalachian coalfield Superfund site that would like to build a green space and grow their community, help attract capital, but they are struggling to get money.

Maybe it is a rural area that needs an EV bus program to reduce pollution, but you could never justify private money investing there, but it helps out the local folks.

No, all of those projects--I could go on--but what do they have in common? They lower greenhouse gas emissions. They put more money in the pockets of local communities we all represent. They would help the neediest among us. They would create local jobs and most importantly, they would be cheaper than fossil energy.

I get it. That is a real problem for my colleagues across the aisle. The natural gas industry wants the price of energy to be expensive because that is how they make money.

As I mentioned before, during COVID, April 2020, Donald Trump called the Saudis and said: I am going to take troops out of your country unless you cut oil production because our oil industry is hurting. They did it. That is what you did.

I don't remember anybody saying: Boy, we should call the Saudis and do the other when the price of oil went up. I understand what you are rooting for.

So why do you want to defund that program? I don't know.

Maybe you are concerned that energy is just too damn cheap. Maybe you think that unemployment is too low and would like to--I don't know-- help your party win the next election. Maybe you just misremember that speech.

It doesn't say blessed are the powerful. It doesn't say blessed are the polluters. It doesn't say blessed are the least meek.

I don't know why you are doing it. For goodness' sake, in the meantime, vote ``no'' if you care about making sure that pollution goes down, energy prices go down, and the American people win.

Mr. Speaker, had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall No. 58.