Sean Casten

Mr. CASTEN

Mr. CASTEN. Madam Speaker, we are in a constitutional crisis. The President of the United States is trying to delete the 14th Amendment, ignoring Congress' constitutional power of the purse to illegally block Federal spending, exposing the identities of our intelligence officers to our enemies, and sending Elon Musk's unvetted minions into our financial systems to steal Americans' private information. In the normal course, these violations would be prosecuted by the Department of Justice, but their leadership has put personal politics over the rule of law. In the normal course, Congress would act as a check and balance, but Republican leadership in both Chambers is most charitably described as missing in action. We are only 19 days in. The White House is now dismantling USAID, pulling back on our soft power at the precise moment when China and Russia are trying to increase their influence over global affairs. Is this because of social media conspiracies, foreign influence operations, or just because Elon Musk is still angry that USAID helped to topple apartheid in South Africa? There are no good answers to that question. They are targeting the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, stripping our ability to make weather forecasts in the wake of rising seas, surging hurricanes, and ever more devastating wildfires. Take away our ability to give advance notice of those storms, and Americans will die. They are opposing competitive markets, as they refuse to enact existing laws to build out EV charging networks and renewable energy because my colleagues on the other side of the aisle know that to do so would be to bring resources onto our system that would further erode the market share of more expensive and dirtier energy. Madam Speaker, they have now stolen data from the Treasury Department files so that Elon Musk, a man who gives Nazi salutes and actively campaigns for the neo-Nazi party in Germany, can access personal information that could potentially be used to target his political enemies. This is the very foundation of fascism, all of which leaves us in this Chamber with a choice. As we sit here on the fulcrum of history, we can act to make these 19 days a footnote to an otherwise noble history of these United States, or we can go to our graves knowing that we did nothing during the 19 days that forever destroyed this 250-year-old experiment. We can choose evil in this moment. We can choose to ignore everything that Jesus preached in the Sermon on the Mount as we persecute the meek so we can enrich the merciless. We can choose cowardice. We can give $1 to a homeless man on the way to work so we can take away hundreds of millions of dollars from housing assistance once we get there, telling ourselves that to do anything else would be to cause our seat to be filled by a less compassionate soul. We can decide that if we aren't in leadership, then our job is just to follow orders. Sometimes that excuse works. It didn't at Nuremberg. There is no difference between any of those choices. They all lead to the same outcome. For this reason, I will be offering a fourth option. At the appropriate time, I will offer a motion to recommit this bill back to committee. If the House rules permitted, I would have offered this motion with an important amendment to this bill to say that it shall not take effect until the illegal freeze of taxpayer dollars that Congress appropriated to the Department of the Interior, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and other agencies has stopped; civil rights and employment protections for nonpartisan Federal public servants are restored; and DOGE and billionaires like Elon Musk no longer have unlawful access to Federal Government systems and the private, sensitive data of taxpaying Americans. Madam 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. CASTEN

Mr. CASTEN. Mr. Speaker, last week I spent an afternoon at the National Air Traffic Control Center in Aurora, Illinois. I had been invited to discuss some work our office has been doing to make sure these folks are not penalized for seeking mental health care. None of us could have anticipated that our visit would be after the crash of American flight 5342 in Washington, but it is safe to say that that office was shook. Then we started talking about mental health. One employee said that their staff still remembers the arson attack on the facility back in 2014 and that they were nervous that recent budget cuts have limited their ability to maintain security levels at the facility. Another employee asked how should they interpret announcements from the Trump White House that Federal employees were going to get laid off. Would they have a job? If they got laid off, who was going to do their work? How would they continue to support their families? A female air traffic controller asked why Donald Trump immediately blamed the crash on DEI hiring practices. It wasn't lost on any of us that our air traffic controllers, like our society, are not exclusively straight, White men. She was wondering if she was about to get fired solely on account of her gender. Now, let that all sink in. These are hardworking Federal employees who have dedicated their lives to keeping our skies safe. They are overworked, underpaid, and now they are wondering whether the President of the United States, his Republican enablers, and his IT goons are about to fire them, curtail their pay, and blame them for airline tragedies because of the way they look, who they love, and how they pray. What possible good comes to the American people by having a bunch of stressed-out air traffic controllers? The United States Government can't function without these nonpartisan civil servants: our air traffic controllers, our TSA agents, our VA hospital workers, and the people who make sure your Social Security payments get through. Why would we want to break that? Maybe you want to break it because you are carrying out Russia's foreign policy. Maybe you want to break it because you are just a grifter who has figured out that you are going to short the stock market after you tank it. Maybe you are just a coward. Maybe you are an idiot. Maybe you think it is better to be proximate to power than to stand up for whatever is right. Whatever it is, it ain't patriotism, and it scares the dickens out of me that standing up for America in 2025 is a partisan endeavor.

Mr. CASTEN

Mr. CASTEN. Mr. Speaker, the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance defines anti-Semitism, in part, as using symbols and images associated with anti-Semitism and denying the intentionality of the genocide of the Jewish people by Nazi Germany. Here is Elon Musk, giving Nazi salutes, supporting the neo-Nazi party in Germany, and telling them that Germany has ``too much after focus on past guilt.'' This weekend, Mr. Musk was given access to U.S. citizens' personal data and the disbursement of Federal resources, allowing him to decide which Americans are able to access Federal programs like SNAP, Social Security, and Medicaid. Let me be very clear. Putting anti-Semites in charge of the allocation of government resources and personnel does not end well for any of us. Fascism survives only so long as the evil at the top is supported by cowards down below who are willing to look the other way in exchange for some proximity to power. Is the Republican Party going to stand up against anti-Semites and stand up for American people, or will they sit in silent, cowardly complicity with the evil of their leaders? The world is watching us, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. CASTEN

Mr. CASTEN. Mr. Speaker, step right up, and prepare to be amazed. This is an ordinary folder. As you can see, Mr. Speaker, no hidden compartments, and yet inside it is an invisible rabbit. If you like that trick, Mr. Speaker, then you are going to love Donald Trump's national energy emergency. It is also totally imaginary, but as any good carnival barker will tell you, there is a sucker born every minute who falls for this shtick. Let's review the numbers. Under the Biden administration, the U.S. created 16 million jobs, had the fastest growing economy in the OECD, held oil demand flat, drastically cut coal use, and embraced cleaner, cheaper renewables and efficiency. We decoupled economic growth from fossil fuel giving American people more heat, more light, more power, and more money. That put downward pressure on domestic oil and gas prices which caused domestic fossil producers to export into less developed and more remunerative overseas markets. Now, Mr. Speaker, before you say: There is no emergency here, consider this from the perspective of our poor oil and gas producers. They are losing market share. They are making less money. However, they have got an ally in Donald Trump. After all, he is the guy who forced the Saudis to curtail production in 2020 to drive up oil prices and oil industry profits. That is right. He made sure U.S. consumers paid more for gasoline. Ta-da. Don't be a sucker, but if you are, Mr. Speaker, I am available for parties, and I can solve all your invisible rabbit problems. You can keep hopping, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. CASTEN

Mr. CASTEN. Mr. Speaker, last week the Speaker of the House and the majority leader said that the report into serious allegations of misconduct by former Representative Matt Gaetz was ``moot'' because he had resigned from Congress. I rise today to remind my colleagues of four names and 4 years: 1987, Bill Boner; 1990, Don Lukens; 2006, Mark Foley; 2011, Eric Massa. Those are four Members of Congress, spanning each of the last four decades: two Democrats, two Republicans. All four of them resigned from their seats while under investigation by the House Ethics Committee. Allegations against these Members included acceptance of bribes; sharing inappropriate, sexually explicit images; and sex with a minor child. In all of those cases, the work of the Ethics Committee continued even after their resignation. In three of the four cases, the report of the Ethics Committee was released to the public. In none of those cases did anyone have the gall to declare those reports to be moot. Now, in 2024, another Representative has resigned while he was under investigation by the House Ethics Committee for allegations, including acceptance of bribes; sharing of inappropriate, sexually explicit images; and sex with a minor child. Mr. Gaetz is also alleged to have engaged in illicit drug use. We all understand that even the allegation of such activities being committed by one of us cheapens this whole institution. We also all respect the traditions of this House. While they may sometimes need reform, we tread carefully before setting any new precedents. We find ourselves with a tradition going back at least four decades that Members of the House who are under investigation by the Ethics Committee for these sorts of allegations cannot prevent that information from becoming public simply by resigning from their seat, yet that is exactly the precedent that the majority voted to upend last week when they voted to kill the resolution to compel the release of the Ethics Committee report on Mr. Gaetz. Every Member of this body now needs to ask themselves if they believe that the precedent of this House holding itself and its Members to a higher ethical standard is one worth keeping. They need to ask themselves if they believe that even if you resign from this body, future employers, whether in the public or private sector, should know if you can be trusted to represent their institutions with dignity and honor, can be trusted with their financial resources, can be trusted around underage children. Make no mistake: Everyone who voted against the release of the report last week was saying that, no, the time has come for a new precedent where the rules no longer apply to us; where from this day forth, the Republican majority shall loudly proclaim: What happens in D.C. stays in D.C. As our friend and former colleague Elijah Cummings would have reminded us, we are better than this. Upholding precedents and maintaining the integrity of this House is not moot.

Mr. CASTEN

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

Mr. CASTEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise to raise a question of the privileges of the House and offer a resolution previously noticed.

Mr. CASTEN

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

Mr. CASTEN

Mr. CASTEN. 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. CASTEN

Mr. CASTEN. 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. CASTEN

Mr. CASTEN. 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. CASTEN

Mr. CASTEN. 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.

Mr. CASTEN

Mr. CASTEN. 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. CASTEN

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

Mr. CASTEN. 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. CASTEN. 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. CASTEN

Mr. CASTEN. 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. CASTEN. On what basis?

Mr. CASTEN. 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.

Mr. CASTEN

Mr. CASTEN. 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 H.R. 7686. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. CASTEN. 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. CASTEN

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

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

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

Mr. CASTEN. 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.