Haley Stevens

Ms. STEVENS

Ms. STEVENS. Mr. Speaker, I thank Mr. Whitesides for his comments. How lucky the people of California are to have his representation and how lucky the United States Congress is to have his expertise. Mr. Speaker, I yield now to Mrs. Foushee of North Carolina, another proven expert, leader and fighter, and ranking member on the Science, Space, and Technology Committee.

Ms. STEVENS. Mr. Speaker, I thank Congresswoman Foushee for her ongoing leadership for women in the sciences and for HBCUs that are also so important to our STEM scientific research enterprise. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to pass the floor over to the congresswoman from New Mexico (Ms. Stansbury).

Ms. STEVENS. Mr. Speaker, I thank our science nerds and enthusiasts for their work, just as Ms. Stansbury so nicely laid out. Mr. Speaker, I yield the floor to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Tonko), another great warrior for scientific research and funding and support for the manufacturing economy of this country and a leader in the Congress.

Ms. STEVENS. Madam Speaker, I thank Mr. Tonko for his years of leadership on the Scientific Integrity Act, still very essential legislation for this country. What a profound honor it is to be with colleagues in this democracy sharing these views. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. Takano).

Ms. STEVENS. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Subramanyam) to close us out. He is such a leader, and I am so proud of him for helping with this Special Order hour.

Ms. STEVENS. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his remarks. We will continue to use our voices. To every scientific researcher, science student, and American wondering, we have your back. We will use our voices. We will not be silent in the face of these cuts. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. STEVENS

Ms. STEVENS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize an incredible individual who has taken from this world far too soon, my dear friend, Molly McGovern, the daughter of our colleague Congressman Jim McGovern and his beautiful wife, Lisa, and the sister of her very delightful brother, Patrick. I love all of the McGoverns, but Molly was special. Molly was very much my friend and someone who I loved watching live life. Despite a very rare cancer diagnosis, Molly's light just shined so bright. She made me, even as a Member of Congress, feel special. I watched her go abroad. I let her push me to do fun things, spending every single night of the Democratic Convention with her and her parents. Molly is going to be so missed, but her memory and her impact and who she was as an individual will live on. We will take care of her brother, we will watch out for her parents, and I will continue to toast her with an Aperol spritz.

Ms. STEVENS

Ms. STEVENS. Mr. Speaker, it is a profound and humbling honor, as always, to address the Congress, the House of Representatives here in our Nation's Capitol. Of course, I am doing so on behalf of my incredible constituents in southeast Michigan, but also for all the residents of Michigan and this great Nation for, you see, the exercise of our democracy is ensconced and inscribed here in our House Chamber and on our House floor. We use both our voice and our vote to move our Nation forward. As you so declared, Mr. Speaker, I am, indeed, in the minority party, and so to gather time on the House floor is sometimes a struggle. To gather time in a committee is sometimes a struggle. You push for your 1 minute, your 5 minutes, your maybe 15 minutes if you get it. Well, today I asked for an hour. I asked for an hour because last week we had an hour booked and, of course, the House adjourned early. We all paid witness to the incredible history that a Senator from New Jersey gave to this country by breaking the largest filibuster on record. Senator Cory Booker spoke for over 25 hours in the Senate Chamber on behalf of the voices of this Nation who have questions. Of course, we know there are 435 Members in the House Chamber, with each of us representing about 800,000 people. My colleagues from Rhode Island represent just shy of half a million people. In Michigan, I represent just about 800,000 people. We are the tenth largest State in the Union, with 13 House Members and 2 Senators here to move the will of our Nation and to pass the Nation's laws. It is an interesting thing to do so when the size of the institution is remaining as it has been described somewhat by laws. They said in 1913, we would have 435 Members, and we haven't added new Members to the body since. I am not addressing you, Mr. Speaker, to propose controversy, but I am here to speak on behalf of the people of Michigan, who deserve fair and equal representation for the taxpayer dollars that they provide to the Nation's Treasury. When you look at the largest freshwater basins of our Great Lakes, when you look at the arsenal of democracy, when you see our incredible trade unions from Saginaw up to Iron Mountain working and making and delivering--the only polysilicon manufacturing in the Nation exists in Michigan, in a place called Hemlock by a company called Hemlock--you want to make sure that Michigan has its fair and equal representation. However, Mr. Speaker, it has been a point of frustration for my State of Michigan that in my 41, nearly 42 years of existence on this Earth, that my State is always losing representation every time we dare to reapportion the size of the Chamber. Now, we are a close-knit group, the Michigan delegation. The dean of the Democrats is a woman named Congresswoman Debbie Dingell. Take a minute and understand who that is. Deborah Insley Dingell is the dean of the House Democrats of Michigan, the wife of John Dingell, the daughter-in-law of John Dingell, Sr., people who stood in this Chamber and passed things of historical importance. John Dingell was the last World War II veteran to serve in this very Chamber, Mr. Speaker. He was a respected individual and is still referenced often by colleagues from both sides of the aisle. In fact, I will never forget coming to Congress in 2019 in the 116th session of Congress. It was my first term. I got sworn in on January 3, as we do. Mr. Speaker, I said to my good colleague, Congresswoman Dingell: I would very much like to sit down with your husband because I knew there was a tradition where he would sit down with all new Members. Of course, I wasn't just asking personally. I was asking because we had four new Members of Congress from Michigan: Mr. Levin, Ms. Tlaib, Ms. Slotkin, and myself. I thought it would be nice for all of us to maybe meet with the Dingells. It was winter, and we knew Mr. Dingell's health was failing or shaky. It started to fail, and we were supporting Mrs. Dingell as a delegation. Dan Kildee of Flint was our dean then, and we rallied to show our love and our support. Tragically, we lost Mr. Dingell on an early February day. Mr. Speaker, it was really quite surreal to be in this very Chamber in my first couple of weeks, in this Congress and in the House of Representatives, paying tribute not only to a Michigan legend but an American legend. We recognized Mr. Dingell in so many ways. We recognized Mr. Dingell in speeches on the House floor from the Democratic leadership under Ms. Pelosi and Mr. Hoyer. If we remember him, even Mr. McCarthy gave some nice words for Mr. Dingell. I was so surprised that a Member of the opposing party would have such kind and inspirational things to say about the former dean of the House of Representatives, 59 long years. Of course, Mr. Kildee booked one of these hours with his colleagues from Michigan to recognize Mr. Dingell. We each got some time to do so as Members. I used that time to share my reflections about Mr. Dingell, and it was so very humbling. It was never anything I expected to do in my second month in this Chamber, but I did it. The very next day, a sacred and incredible man, Mr. John Lewis, came up to me on the House floor. It is very crowded on the House floor, Mr. Speaker. You notice this when we are voting. It is 435 people packed here on the House floor. There is staff. It is sometimes hard to move around. You have to get your vote in, Mr. Speaker. You can't get too entranced in the conversation, or you miss a vote. Mr. Lewis came up to me, and he tapped me on the shoulder. He said to me that he heard my words about his friend, John Dingell, and that he appreciated them. I have shared that story on a few occasions but not necessarily publicly. I have shared it back in my district and with friends and in memory of both Johns, both legends, both titans of the 20th century. I have shared it with our Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries in recognition of the moments of passing the torch that we find ourselves in, in American Government and as we push for American change. It was really something else that Mr. Lewis and I had that exchange. It caught me by surprise. Sharing it right now is incredibly humbling, and I appreciate and am grateful for the time to be able to do so, Mr. Speaker, on this House floor. We know that we are a Nation of great passion, of great debate, and of people who come from all over to pay witness to our lawmaking. People come from all over to get their ideas and their thoughts across. They look up at a Capitol that inspires them, that moves them, and that brings together our democracy. Next year, we will celebrate 250 years of America's very existence as a Nation. It is really quite something. In some ways it seems like a long time, and it also seems like a short time. We know we are still writing America's story. We know that we don't engage in politics on the House floor such as campaigning. I would like to make an ethical reflection about our politics which is that at some point an election is had. An election is had. An election happens, and we have to govern. We are governing. We have to govern. We are always thinking about the last election and then the next election. We also have to think about governing. We have to look at it responsibly and reasonably. Of course, we recognize that it can feel right now in this moment frustrating for people, for Members, for the passions that so many have if you are not in the governing seat of authority. Of course, I remember that quite well in the 117th session of Congress. If it is okay, Mr. Speaker, to recognize what the makeup of that session was, we had a Democratic House, a Democratic Senate, and a Democratic President. Of course, we had a country in the early days of 2021 that was still reeling from the effects and the implications of a pandemic that wasn't yet over. In fact, people, if we recall correctly, Mr. Speaker, were just beginning to take that vaccine. We were just beginning to push for people to get vaccinated, not forced. I don't think people want to be forced to do anything, but we wanted to put an end to the pandemic. A colleague, of course, through the great tradition of our Michigan delegation, a gentleman by the name of Congressman Walberg, a longtime serving Member of this institution and now the chairman of the Education and Workforce Committee that I sit on, he and I had been working on a resolution together. We had actually introduced it in the 116th Congress at the very end of the session. With the introduction of this resolution, we said to ourselves and to the Nation that we wanted the American people to get vaccinated. We also really wanted to make sure that our teachers could get vaccinated because people, Mr. Speaker, wanted to get their kids back in the classroom. They wanted to get them back in the classroom safely and soundly. I know we don't like to dwell on this pandemic period, but I share that because we reintroduced that resolution early into the 117th Congress. I know we don't--well, maybe we do. Maybe we don't want to dwell on some of the actions that occurred in the early days of the 117th Congress. There was an attempt to certify the election that is usually pretty standard. We saw that happen this term. It was, again, pretty standard. On that day, January 6--I know people hear that day a lot--it was not so standard. It was kind of frenzied to say the least. It was very divisive for this Nation. It was very divisive for this Chamber. I think it is fair to say that people are still not over it, and we need to be honest about that. Of course, we have taken thousands of votes since then. I thought it was responsible to continue to encourage and support our educators, the great educators, the great Michigan Education Association, the AFT, the American Federation of Teachers. These are incredible unions that protect their members and want to make sure they are getting, at the very least, fair pay, raises, pensions, and the like because, gosh knows, it is not easy to be a teacher. It is certainly easier to be a teacher when you are safe from a deadly and lethal virus that killed a million Americans. Mr. Speaker, to reflect on our present time and the moment we find ourselves in, it is right and fair for us, and for me as a Member of Congress, who is the co-chair of the House Manufacturing Caucus and is a ranking member on the Research and Technology Subcommittee for the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, to make some notes and snapshots of what is taking place right now. It is not to accept that we have a lot of actions going on right now that are somewhat challenging to our Constitution. Article I is important to read and remember and to recognize about how the Nation's laws get passed, how the dollars get appropriated, and how the governing of our Nation is authorized. It is authorized through the Congress, through the House and the Senate. Of course, it has been somewhat jaw-dropping to see the frontward leading of this Nation by executive order. This is not to break the rules of House and pass insult. It is just a reflection because, of course, all of these reciprocal tariffs were announced. Mr. Speaker, I am just pulling up my note on these reciprocal tariffs because it was an executive office announcement to do reciprocal tariffs. On April 2, a 25 percent tariff on all auto imports went into effect. Of course, I hail from Michigan. I am well-versed, alongside Mrs. Dingell, in the functionality and the drivers of our American auto industry. That largely comes from the fact that I was born in Metro Detroit, and I grew up around the car industry. My grandfather came to Michigan by way of Buffalo to work in a Ford plant. He was a UAW member and raised three children and had a big family. He made a good life and got a good wage and moved to a bigger house in Warren. Mr. Speaker, why I had booked the Special Order Hour last week was because my father was visiting. My father, Jim Stevens, James R. Stevens, of Shelby Township, he now resides in Shelby Township. He has always been a hybrid Macomb, Wayne, and Oakland Counties man. My father, Jim Stevens, was visiting. It was the first time he had visited Washington since I was sworn in, in 2019. We had talked about this trip for a long time. I wanted my dad to come and be a part of Congress. He got here on Tuesday; and then, boom, the votes were closed for the week. They ended votes. Dad didn't get to come to the committee hearings or watch the floor. I thought it would be neat to have him see me give an address for this length of time by watching in the gallery. Of course, he can always watch on C-SPAN; but I thought it would be nice to have him watch in the gallery. I thought it would be nice to share a little bit about his life and his journey. I mentioned his father who worked for the Fords. That is how they call it back home. The Fords is a family business. My father was born January 3, 1945. It would be interesting to look at what session of Congress was getting sworn in then during such a different time in this Nation's history. Yet it is history, and it is air that my father was breathing even as an infant. It was America at the beginning of 1945, when a war was still being waged around this world. The real threat of tyranny and some, rightfully--and I join in this--say evil was taking place. America helped end a world war in Asia and in Europe. That war gave us the word ``Holocaust,'' the murder of over 6 million Jews whose names we can't in days even share because it is that many names. My father grew up in this post-World War II industrial world order that was being led by the United States of America. So many remarkable things came about within our own country and around the world from American leadership. Mr. Speaker, think about what we were able to do with the auto industry, that arsenal of democracy, that engine of our military might, the Rosies who filled in because the men were away, fighting and serving in battle. These are unbelievable and historic tales of bravery that we should continue to share for a very, very long time to come. Of course, this period of time was also met with some social change, progress, and pushing. Not all the Rosies went back to the home. My mother's aunt, my great-aunt Ada, was in Cleveland. I guess you could say she was a Rosie, Mr. Speaker. She was in a factory. She was tough. She never married. She worked so hard, and they kept her on in that factory after the war ended. I really believe, Mr. Speaker, that this is a history that was shared and has been shared, not my family's history, but, of course, for our Nation, it has been shared in so many brilliant and beautiful ways. Some people know about this movie ``Forest Gump.'' It kind of captures in a lot of beautiful ways this plight of the 20th century America. Now, Mr. Speaker, I am a millennial. I was born in 1983, not 40 years after the conclusion of World War II but almost. Of course, the millennials, as we were closing out the 1900s, really felt as though America was at the top of the world. We were unstoppable. We invented the internet. Our auto industry was booming. The sport utility vehicle, Oakland County, Michigan, being really one of the most wealthy, if not the wealthiest county in America, and that is to say that our auto industry really had continued into the late 1900s to propel the economic engine of this Nation. It is a thing of beauty because it wasn't the haves and have-nots. People were making money, not just the executives. Of course, we have a very strong, vibrant, and incredible UAW, United Auto Workers union. At the end of the 1900s it was very large in number, very powerful, and very right to stand up for hardworking men and women like my grandfather. So as we think about the 20th century and we look at where we are now, the quarter 21st century, I say this so much it might drive some people crazy, but it is important to realize where we are standing and what moment we are in because it is the mid-2020s. It is a really exciting and inspiring time. I remember getting into Congress in the year 2019, and, of course, I was on the Science, Space, and Technology Committee. We were recognizing in a committee hearing the 50-year anniversary of the Moon landing. Some of my colleagues were alive and remembered when we landed on the Moon. Of course, they remembered when they landed on the Moon. My father remembers it, and my mother does too, somewhat, that we sent people to the Moon. My contribution to that committee hearing, Mr. Speaker, was reflecting on that history is so deeply important, but articulating the moonshot of the next 50 years remains our imperative. Of course, being the good Representative I am of the State of Michigan, I believed that the moonshot of the next 50 years, and I still do, is hailing from the place that I call home, the advancements in mobility, where are our auto industry is innovating, growing, and moving towards. Now, Mr. Speaker, I came to Congress by way of an advanced manufacturing research lab, and I was working with a lot of incredible small manufacturers, mid-size manufacturers, and even large-scale manufacturers in this space that the acronym IIoT captures, Industrial Internet of Things. In short and simply, it is the digitization of our manufacturing process. Now a lot of people are calling it artificial intelligence, how we design, produce, manufacture, and ship capital-intensive, large-scale equipment made of steel. Now, I happen to know enough about the auto industry and how complex and interconnected it is that in Michigan we have this rich, unbelievable concentration of suppliers. We call them suppliers. These are really unbelievable enterprises that put so much into making door panels, making interiors, and making sure that we have got the full sweep of mobility opportunities from, of course, the engines, and we have got companies like Allison Transmission that is working on electric engines. They are still, of course, doing the internal combustion engine, Mr. Speaker. We have original equipment manufacturers who have been aggressive in ushering in their vision of a mobility future. It is no surprise for me to share in this House Chamber what we have heard from the chief executive officer of General Motors, Mary Barra, that 6 years ago she wanted to see a fully zero emission General Motors. I was surprised to hear the vision in some respects but also I wanted to recognize that she had a vision. She came to the bipartisan delegation of Michigan and said such a thing, and they are working on implementing new mobility. I haven't had a chance to ask her. Of course, I am not a board member of General Motors. I have not had a chance to ask her at the one-half decade mark where we are to becoming fully zero emission in the 2030s, 2030, but I know that they are selling more and more of these electric vehicles, as well as internal combustion vehicles. Of course, Mr. Speaker, I find this exciting and thrilling as a steward of Michigan and Michigan's economy, as a younger individual who had worked in a political atmosphere on the Presidential campaigns of 2008, and got to go work in the administration of Barack Obama in the Treasury Department. I was in the Treasury Department. Mr. Speaker, I know we don't hail from the same party. Of course, you are sitting in the Speaker's chair. What was so remarkable about the start of the Obama Administration and the Treasury Department right there on East Executive Avenue is that it is basically a part of the White House campus. The Obama administration officials came in and were met by Bush administration officials. We tangoed. We worked together. We danced together on behalf of a nation in an economic recession. We called it a GR, capital G capital R, Great Recession this Nation was in. A lot of unbelievable and painful things were happening, of course, Mr. Speaker. First of all, the housing industry was going kaput to say it lightly. There was a massive foreclosure crisis. There was a run on banks like in equity firms like Lehman Brothers. They had this whole Wall Street endeavor that the Bush administration alongside the House of Representatives had to engage in. There was this hanging issue around our auto industry and the fact that the capital markets and the lack of sound healthcare policy in this Nation, our companies were shouldering every burden, not burden, but responsibility of healthcare. People need healthcare, Mr. Speaker, we know that. Aging is real. I talk to my dad about it. I said: Dad, let's do the doctor checklist. He has got hearing, he has got throat, and he has got mobility, his physical mobility, and on and on and on. His mental faculties are incredible, yea for that, but there is a need for medical attention as people get older, and the UAW rightfully protects their retirees. We are proud of what they are able to do for the retirees. However, the country pre-ACA, Affordable Care Act, ran into some severe challenges. Ford had gotten its loan before the recession hit, and General Motors and Chrysler hadn't done that. They were tragically and frighteningly staring bankruptcy in the face. So, Mr. Speaker, what I was able to do was, being the passionate 20-something-year-old I was for my State grappling with this Presidential election that I was a part of and saw go to victory, I thought: Should I go back to Michigan or should I maybe work in a car dealership or something? It was not my degree, but I thought maybe I could help. Then I heard they were going to do an auto initiative, an auto rescue. So I put up my hand to work on that auto rescue. By fate and chance I met a man named Steve Rattner in the halls of President Barack Obama's transition office. I am nearly convinced, Mr. Speaker, that as he heard my thick Midwestern accent, he decided to bring me on as his Chief of Staff needing someone from Michigan who didn't have ethical conflicts with a managed industrial bankruptcy of General Motors and Chrysler. We didn't hire anyone in the auto industry. We didn't want to have conflicts. We brought together this amazing team. It didn't matter who voted for what, we just got the best talent in and put forward an initiative, an industrial initiative, the likes that this Nation had never seen. Yes, Mr. Speaker, it was money, the taxpayer money out of the Troubled Asset Relief Program. GM, General Motors, left the stock market. I reflected on the 15-year anniversary of this auto rescue last year in this Chamber during another one of these addresses. Mr. Speaker, it was really quite remarkable because GM left the stock market. They did a new initial public offering, an IPO. It got back on the stock market. They repaid the government. The government actually made some money off of the investment that they made in the companies. We had an old company. We had a brownfield initiative for some of the stuff that was going by the wayside. Of course, my friends at the UAW reminded me that too many plants have shuttered this century. In the year 2025, when you look at the last 25 years, Mr. Speaker, too many plants have shuttered. It is really quite outrageous, Mr. Speaker, to hold up this article from The Detroit News that was written on April 4 of this year, that a stunning number of battery factories are being canceled. Why are factories being canceled in the year 2025, Mr. Speaker? Are we supposed to call the Chinese Communist Party and ask them to go and get these batteries and start making these batteries? Are we just not going to have batteries made in the United States of America? Why would it be acceptable to have battery plants shutter in the United States of America? This isn't an exercise of ego or id or personhood. This is about persons' lives. This is about how we manufacture and produce in the United States of America. I don't like reading that factories are being closed, Mr. Speaker. I don't like reading another headline written by Patricia Cohen on April 3 that says that the trade war that we are in risks forfeiting America's economic primacy. Now, this is just one article. There is another one by Oren Cass. He is the chief economist at American Compass. I guess that is a conservative think tank. That is what the printout says. He writes a newsletter on Understanding America. Mr. Cass says: Stop freaking out. Tariffs can still work. I guess that is the debate that we are in. What I don't like, though, Mr. Speaker, was the tariff proposal that was so aggressive and coming down at us so fast and hard. I value so much my relationship and the leadership of Shawn Fain at the UAW, the United Auto Workers union. I was looking at this and saying: Maybe we can finally start to get our fair share. Maybe we can have a little reciprocity. Maybe the industrial world order that we brought together in 1945 and beyond is a time that we, of course, need to honor, recognize, and appreciate, but for 2025, we do need to look at who is buying American cars and how we are setting the rules of the road. I had the privilege as a Member of Congress last term to go to a NATO meeting. I was invited to a NATO meeting over in Portugal. It was very exciting to be with a bipartisan delegation of Members of Congress for a few days. It was during a recess period. I thought it was worthwhile to do it. I was actually shocked that there were not American cars in Portugal. I thought, my goodness gracious, where are your Fords? Where are your General Motors? Where are your Chevys? Anything? My goodness gracious, we boast and love making vehicles in Michigan and selling to the world. I do this program called Manufacturing Monday. There are hundreds of parts, components, that get made in any car. I visited hundreds of manufacturers, Mr. Speaker, and I mean, really, I go onto their factory floors. It is not a showboat thing. It is a geek-out. It is really exciting to geek out with these makers and innovators. It really is an amazing thing to go to see this stuff in action. They are selling all over the world, and they are employing people in Michigan and all over our country. It is a really a delightful thing. It is important to our economy. We want to keep doing that, and we want to sell our nameplates. Jeep is a fantastic brand. I am not pushing, and I am not trying to sell cars on the House floor. I am just mentioning that we are not seeing a lot of them overseas, Mr. Speaker. When we have this approach, what was called liberation day, and we will see what unfolds from it, where we have been grappling and frustrated and watching as Michiganders is this tariff policy on Canada. I have this other article here that someone sent me: ``Using Tariffs to Make Canada a State? It's Been Tried Before,'' by Joseph Thorndike. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time is remaining.

Ms. STEVENS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to read Thorndike's words. Again, I am not using a name. We are musing. We are hearing in the zeitgeist musings about plans to annex Canada. I am not musing that. I am a Member of Congress. I don't think we need to annex Canada. Personally, I love the relationship that the United States has with Canada. I am in a border State. We have a lot of Canadians who immigrate to the United States. They marry Michiganders. They live in our neighborhoods. Some of their workers come in to work in our hospitals. We have these great nurses. Of course, we have a phenomenal manufacturing partnership with Canada. We have a lot of shared memberships with the union. Remember, it is an international union, so the UAW has members in Canada. The trades have members in Canada, including the Steelworkers, who are very important to all of this as well and who know very much what good tariff policy could mean for them. I support them in that, but we don't need to be bullying Canada to become an annexed State. We need to make sure that we have strengthened security and good trade. When we hear, Mr. Speaker, oh, my goodness gracious, about blanket tariffs on our neighbors from the north, all aluminum imports face a 25 percent tariff, well, that is coming from Canada. I am the co-chair of the Aluminum Caucus, Mr. Speaker. It is a bipartisan caucus. I have these relationships in the aluminum sector, and they are telling me that they have these smelters that American companies have in Canada that are making the aluminum. I don't know if you have ever seen aluminum get made, but it is really like baking a cake, and steel and all of that. The steel, oh, my gosh, when I was working for the President in 2009 and '10, we spent time with the Steelworkers and the steelmaking process. These smelters are $6 billion. It confuses me how we are going to get a $6 billion smelter in the United States of America. Maybe we should do that. It would be nice to do, but where are you going to get the $6 billion? You know, these Wall Street people are all upset about the market right now. We had a really great industrial policy in '22, a bill I helped author, the CHIPS and Science Act, Mr. Speaker. It was a very bipartisan initiative, and it was money that we put out into the marketplace to say we will have chip manufacturing in the United States of America. It was a sizable amount of taxpayer dollars to say that we would have chip manufacturing, but what was even more incredible, Mr. Speaker, is that, yes, it was sizable dollars, but it was quadruple matched by the private sector, a public-private partnership. The initiative actually paid for itself four times over by the conclusion of the previous President's term. I think we need a very comprehensive industrial policy that matches the moment of time that we are in, Mr. Speaker. Of course, strategic tariffs that the previous President and the President before did have helped, but we are feeling the squeeze in Michigan, and it is news unfolding before our eyes. Again, I reference the article here: ``A stunning number of electric vehicle, battery factories are being canceled.'' We just read about another Intel factory in Ohio. I met with these remarkable people at the Laborers' International Union this morning, or just as it was heading into afternoon time, rather. I met with the Laborers' International Union, and the members from Michigan who hail from all over the State were sharing with me some of their concerns. They were saying to me, Mr. Speaker, that there are projects that are going to shutter. There is a bridge in Bay City that has been demolished and has had concrete set. We have a good Congresswoman from Bay City who is aware of that project, of course. They are saying if the dollars get canceled, we are not going to have a bridge. They are not going to be able to complete it. It is an insult to their work. It is an insult to their labor. Then, of course, Mr. Speaker, we have another concern of our laborers, which is an enterprise that I had mentioned, the largest polysilicon manufacturer in the country, actually the only one, and one of three in the world. It is this very remarkable enterprise called Hemlock. They received some tax credits from industrial policy legislation that we passed in the 117th session of the Congress. This is so very essential to our country and our world's manufacturing prowess. I really, Mr. Speaker, do not want to go overseas for that polysilicon. I want to see the work of polysilicon manufacturing in the United States of America expand and grow. I would like to see it expand and grow. What my friends at the Laborers' Union shared with me, Mr. Speaker, is that if we cancel the credits, if we squeeze out the money, the work will stop. Why would we hand that gift to our competitor? I say this from this Chamber as one vote and one voice to just continue to push for sound and reasoned industrial policy. Not everything needs to be a reaction to who is in charge. Mr. Speaker, today, I have put forward an announcement from my office about bills to lower costs, reintroducing four bills that I wrote last term in the Congress: the Healthy Affordable Housing Act that I have reintroduced with my colleague Congressman Ritchie Torres; the Fix Moldy Housing Act; the First Time Homeowner Savings Plan Act; and the Home Accessibility Tax Credit Act. These are all bills I just introduced today. Some of them had Republicans on them last term. The Home Accessibility Tax Credit Act is a great bill, and I am proud to have Senator Angus King as my companion on this bill. It is a refundable tax credit to help seniors and Americans with disabilities, including our veterans, retrofit their homes to meet their accessibility needs. In the United States of America, Mr. Speaker, we want everyone to succeed. We want everyone who can work to have access to a good job. In 2023, Detroit reached its highest level of jobs in over 50 years, Mr. Speaker. People were moving into the city of Detroit. It was really something else to see that happen. That is not to ignore the frustration and the pain of high costs. I am not here and not standing here, in part because the rules don't allow it, but it is appropriate to not play the blame game. It is important to play the solution game for the United States of America. As somebody who served in a bipartisan way--yes, I was an appointee of the administration of the two-term President Barack Obama. I served in his first term on the U.S. auto rescue, the initiative responsible for saving General Motors and Chrysler and hundreds of thousands of Michigan jobs and very clearly saved millions of jobs across this great Nation. It was really something else. I mean, they were saying don't let them liquidate. We didn't let them liquidate. We went forward, and we did the right thing. I came into Congress and started the Democratic Manufacturing Working Group, became the co-chair of the Manufacturing Caucus, started the Women in STEM Caucus, became a co-chair of the Robotics Caucus and passed things like the American Manufacturing Leadership Act, making sure we had an Export-Import Bank that was reauthorized. We did that in the 116th session of the Congress so that we can export, so that we can sell American-made goods. The question really is, Mr. Speaker, as we look out to the mid- century mark, waving maybe frantically good-bye as much as we want to cling to the great half-century of America in the 20th century, we know that competition is ripe, that we cannot rest. When you talk to autoworkers and auto executives, they know how ferocious that competition is with the Chinese Communist Party. It is a competition, but they are a different system of government and business. Our preference is to say that we certainly would like to do business how we do business, but they are a different society. They somehow got into the WTO and didn't really adopt some of the ways that we do business. We want to make sure that the economic might of the United States of America continues to lead the free world. While this Chamber may be largely empty because we remain very busy in the Nation's Capital, and I do not expect my colleagues to listen to me deliver such an address, Mr. Speaker, I do dare say, Mr. Speaker, that this is something that we can all agree on, that we can all work on, and that approaches, sentiments, and certainly emotions that run high in politics, of course, might differ. The idea that America should and must win and must continue to propel and to inspire as a vibrant, growing economy and democracy is what should win the day. Mr. Speaker, in speaking from my humble perch as a Representative of the great State of Michigan, that is my contribution to the Halls of this Chamber this afternoon. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. STEVENS

Ms. STEVENS. Mr. Speaker, I was unable to vote on the Legislative Day of March 24, 2025. Had I been present, I would have voted YEA on Roll Call No. 72, and YEA on Roll Call No. 73.

Ms. STEVENS

Ms. STEVENS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of my bill, H.R. 1318, alongside Congressman Kennedy of Utah, the United States Research Protection Act. I certainly thank Mr. Kennedy for his bipartisan leadership on this exciting and important topic and, frankly, an essential topic. In the 117th Congress, we got the CHIPS and Science Act done. It included a lot of provisions focused on improving research security. This landmark law also included a prohibition on Federal researchers' participation in foreign talent recruitment programs sponsored by adversaries of the United States seeking to undermine our Nation's competitiveness. This is a serious and very real topic. By installing safeguards and creating informed practices for our agencies, institutions, and researchers to implement, the CHIPS and Science Act is continuing the innovation ecosystem necessary to win into the mid-21st century. From my vantage point of serving on the Science, Space, and Technology Committee and the Select Committee on the Strategic Competition Between the United States and the Chinese Communist Party, I certainly understand the risks. Many of us who are delving into these topics have really glommed on to the risks posed to our research enterprise from adversaries like China and Russia. The committees that are enabling us to operate in a bipartisan way have also explored the methods used to circumvent the safeguards that our country has put into place, including going through third-party countries. This is why we want to ensure our research institutions have the best interests in mind, the best talent going to them, American talent, doing very innovative things, but they need to have the necessary clarity to faithfully implement research security measures that the CHIPS and Science Act put into place to protect our national research assets. H.R. 1318 clarifies--it is always nice to clarify in legislation--the definition of malign foreign talent recruitment program so that our beloved universities and research institutions can readily ensure that their faculty members are not affiliated with malign foreign talent. The National Science Foundation affirmed that our amendment, this adjustment, would improve their ability to ensure institutional compliance because people want to follow the law. They need the guardrails, and they need the clarity of the law. So even minor differences in definitions can have large consequences and can make implementation difficult. So we have the chance, and this year we are eager to make this one right and to strengthen the United States and to strengthen our research enterprise. We have got a good example in this bill of how to address gaps in policy and improve the efficiency of our agencies. In this case our academic stakeholders are the ones who came to us, and they said that we have a problem with a definition in a law that we wrote. So in a bipartisan and in an informed process we worked with these stakeholders, and we worked through the committee, the agency, and certainly the NSF, to fix this issue. This is how improving efficiency and accountability at our agencies should be handled, with stakeholder consultation and congressional action. This bipartisan bill passed the 118th Congress. The Senate didn't act, but we are going to encourage them in the 119th to act when we urge all of our colleagues in the House Chamber to support this bill once again. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. STEVENS. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time to speak on this bill, and I am prepared to close. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, I thank, again, my colleague, Mr. Kennedy for his were very affirming and wonderful remarks on the importance of this legislation. I think from what everyone can hear today, we have bipartisan technical improvement legislation that will only strengthen our Nation and our research enterprise. Mr. Speaker, I urge everyone to vote ``yes'' on H.R. 1318, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. STEVENS

Ms. STEVENS. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time to speak on this bill, and I am prepared to close. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, it is always a good thing when we have a Lucas bill, and particularly when it is a bipartisan bill, and usually it is. You just heard his remarks in this debate. He has really nailed this one. H.R. 1325 remains an important and necessary piece of legislation that I am proud to support and urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. STEVENS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I join my colleague and chair, Mr. Babin, and rise in support of the Commercial Remote Sensing Amendment Act of 2025, H.R. 1325. We are very pleased to see this legislation being reintroduced this Congress, and certainly it is coming from the leadership of our former chair of the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, Mr. Frank Lucas, and our ranking member, Ms. Zoe Lofgren. It is another bipartisan bill. Commercial remote sensing is a vibrant and growing industry. Data and imagery from commercial remote sensing satellites are used widely in energy, agriculture, disaster monitoring, mapping, and national security applications such as maritime surveillance. Commercial space-based images provide vital scientific information on the health of our Great Lakes informing policy in my beloved home State of Michigan and across the basin. These images also provide visibility and insight into life-threatening events, such as the before and after observations of the devastating Palisades and Eaton wildfires in southern California. In 1992, Congress, led by the Science, Space, and Technology Committee, authorized the Secretary of Commerce to license and regulate private-sector parties to operate commercial remote sensing space systems. Since that time, the commercial remote sensing industry has changed quite dramatically. Today, companies from across the world are launching commercial remote sensing systems and selling the data. We must ensure that the United States remains at the forefront of this industry, especially as the Chinese Communist Party is advancing in the remote sensing sector. As a 2024 report from the Center for Strategic and International Studies plainly put it: ``Should any one country dominate the commercial remote sensing market, not only could it gain economic advantages, but it would also control the information narrative about the entire planet, from the environment to natural resources to human conflict.'' So this bill provides Congress the transparency and insight we need to oversee the licensing and regulation of private remote sensing systems. It modifies the timeline for completing licenses to conform with updated regulations. It also requires information to provide Congress with details on licensing related to regulatory changes. Further, it extends the requirement for an annual report on commercial remote sensing licenses through 2030. I am very enthusiastic about this important bipartisan commercial space legislation. It is always a good day in the Chamber when Chair Babin is talking about commercial space legislation, and it is always a good day when we are doing bipartisan things on behalf of American competitiveness. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on H.R. 1325, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. STEVENS

Ms. STEVENS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from the West, Mr. Begich and Mr. Whitesides, along with Mr. Kennedy, who appear to be three freshman Members of Congress, have come together in an important way to introduce H.R. 1368. I continue to urge a ``yes'' vote on the DOE and NASA Interagency Research Coordination Act. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. STEVENS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the DOE and NASA Interagency Research Coordination Act, H.R. 1368. The gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Begich) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Whitesides), the vice ranking member of the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, introduced this bill. It is another great bipartisan bill. These Members of Congress from the Western part of this Nation fully understand and appreciate what it means to have coordinated interagency activities on behalf of our competitive abilities. Enhancing this type of collaboration between the Department of Energy and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration will have a multiplier effect on the creative, innovative, and inspiring work of these two agencies. It is an important tool in furthering agency missions and the Nation's goals in science and exploration. The Department of Energy and NASA's partnership is already demonstrating impressive results. For example, earlier this year, NASA and the DOE collaborated on selecting an award for continued industry work on a space microreactor design that could provide a supply of power for use on the Moon and beyond. Just last week, scientists posted new data from the Department of Energy's ground-based Dark Energy Spectroscopic Instrument, providing insights on the mysterious dark energy of the universe that NASA's science satellites also study from space. We are on the tipping point of major things. We are working on and seeing efficiency breathe its way into our government. The whole deal here is that if we get H.R. 1368, the Department of Energy and NASA will build on their longstanding partnership and do even more. They will save the taxpayer money, and they will advance this Nation. They will showcase that we are not getting in the way of where we want to go as a country because we are trimming bureaucracy. The act authorizes the agencies to carry out cross-cutting and collaborative R&D activities and identifies nuclear power and propulsion, high energy physics and astrophysics, Earth and environmental sciences, and quantum information sciences as potential areas for joint activity. I only hope that the citizens of America are tuned into this debate in this moment because this is really exciting. The bill directs DOE and NASA to coordinate activities through MOUs, memorandum of understanding. The legislation authorizes the use of reimbursable and nonreimbursable agreements. Again, the effective utilization of the taxpayer dollar of which we here in the United States Congress are stewards of. In addition, I will be providing direction on a merit review process between the two agencies, reporting and compliance with research security requirements in carrying out collaborative activities pursued under the act. This is a practical and awe-inspiring bill to maximize the research and development activities and capabilities and results of our Federal agencies. Mr. Speaker, I enthusiastically urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on H.R. 1368. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. STEVENS

Ms. STEVENS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I join the chairman of the committee to rise in support of the Cost- Share Accountability Act of 2025. I thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Obernolte) and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Foster) for reintroducing this bipartisan, commonsense bill. The Department of Energy spends billions of dollars every year supporting research, development, demonstration, and commercialization activities. Per the Energy Policy Act of 2005, the Department of Energy requires not less than 20 percent for research and development and not less than 50 percent for demonstration or commercial application activities to be provided from a non-Federal source so that all stakeholders have some skin in the game and to control costs for taxpayers. To ensure that the cost-match requirement is not a barrier to entry, the Secretary of Energy has the discretion to reduce or eliminate this cost-share requirement if the Secretary determines that it is necessary or appropriate to do so. While it is important that the Secretary has this flexibility, current law contains no permanent requirement for the Department of Energy to notify Congress of the use of this flexible authority to reduce or eliminate such requirements. Thus, H.R. 359, the Cost-Share Accountability Act of 2025, will direct the Department of Energy to provide quarterly reporting requirements to Congress on the use of the Secretary of Energy's cost- share waiver authority. This bill would ensure that Congress is able to perform its oversight responsibilities and help inform future potential legislation to modify the cost-share requirements. Mr. Speaker, I again thank our colleagues from both sides of the aisle for introducing and reintroducing this bipartisan bill. I urge everyone to vote ``yes'' on H.R. 359, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. STEVENS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, it is a thing of beauty to watch Mr. Obernolte and Mr. Foster legislate together. I have seen it for a number of years on the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology. It is one of the reasons why I am so excited for H.R. 359 and to see its passage here in the House of Representatives. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleagues for introducing this bill and for their work. I urge a very strong ``yes'' vote on H.R. 359, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. STEVENS

Ms. STEVENS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, this is a real honor and a delight to be speaking on behalf of and in support of the Mathematical and Statistical Modeling Education Act, otherwise known as H.R. 730. We have here in the House Chamber gallery an audience of about 75 people. It is really quite amazing to have the outside public in the Hall of the House of Representatives watch this debate today, because if you are interested in government, maybe sometimes you are attuned to what is going on, on social media or the cable news, and sometimes that really misses the mark of what we are doing here in the Nation's Capital, which is bipartisan legislation committed to moving this Nation forward. Mr. Speaker, I don't say that lightly. I look at Representative Houlahan and Representative Baird, two Members of the class of 2018, both in their fourth term. I have passed legislation with both of them. Now they have joined together to pass H.R. 730, a STEM bill, science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. You don't have STEM without mathematics. We call on the National Science Foundation to support mathematical and statistical modeling education starting in elementary school and secondary schools. These activities include providing grants to academic institutions and nonprofit organizations that improve data, science skills, enhance computational thinking, and enable access to professional development opportunities. My friends, this is how we compete and win on the world's stage. It is so very important to me, as somebody who worked in a manufacturing research lab. I have brought in expert witnesses to the Science Committee that, yes, our great chairman has been a part of for his whole tenure in Congress. We have heard this from the researchers. I have heard this since before I came to Congress. We need this skill set. This is what we want to say to the young people we have observing the floor right now. I don't know the full curriculum that they are in and whatnot. I imagine there is an interest in government. STEM is also of note. When we were doing STEM education in the lab I was in, we had a great researcher. This man had a great engineering degree, and we would do the STEM education. He would tell the students that he didn't always pass his math classes the first round, but he had the surrounding cushion to help him go back for a second round. That is what it is all about in America. If you want to be an engineer or if you want to contribute to our advanced manufacturing economy, we want your talent. With the Baird-Houlahan bill, what we are going to do is see NSF do what it is already doing but double down for a continuing educational experience at the NSF so that students can thrive. What we don't want is a bunch of one-offs and all of a sudden you are graduating high school and maybe you had some exposure to these computational skills. We are competing across the world with talent. Our schools need to have the best ability to thrive. I urge everybody in this data-driven, AI, exciting world that the United States is leading, and encourage our colleagues on both sides of the aisle to say, yes, we want this bill, H.R. 730, to move forward. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. STEVENS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Houlahan) for her remarks.

Ms. STEVENS. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania.

Ms. STEVENS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time to close. Mr. Speaker, I thank our wonderful sponsors of this bill. It is really quite exciting. We continue to move toward urging colleagues to vote ``yes'' on H.R. 730, the Mathematical and Statistical Modeling Education Act. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. STEVENS

Ms. STEVENS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I am rising in support of the DOE and USDA Interagency Research Act, H.R. 1326. I thank the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Lucas), again, our former committee chair, for reintroducing this legislation alongside the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren), our ranking member of the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology. The Department of Energy and the United States Department of Agriculture have a long and established history of partnering to address multidisciplinary research areas like biomass energy development, sustainable aviation fuels, and various methods for improving clean energy development and deploying that development in rural America. H.R. 1326 is going to codify and strengthen these cross-cutting and collaborative research and development activities between these two departments, the Department of Energy and the Department of Agriculture. This bill positions these agencies to overcome future international competition challenges while accelerating the production of biofuels, renewable chemical feed stocks, and conversion systems that can support clean energy technologies and, of course, rural economic growth. Mr. Speaker, I join in encouraging my colleagues to support this legislation, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. STEVENS. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests to speak on this bill, and I am prepared to close. I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, let's make this a reality with H.R. 1326. I urge a ``yes'' vote, and, Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. STEVENS

Ms. STEVENS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, hopefully, our friends and colleagues in the other Chamber are listening because we are moving once again to pass an incredible piece of legislation, H.R. 1350, the DOE and NSF Interagency Research Act, that I and Dr. Jim Baird have introduced yet again to see it, hopefully, pass in the House, and we eagerly await the Senate to take it up. Simply put, H.R. 1350 authorizes collaborative research between the Department of Energy and the National Science Foundation in areas that are essential to our national competitiveness. This legislation will build on the longstanding partnership between the Department of Energy and the National Science Foundation to leverage the unique investments and expertise in a wide range of fields, including quantum science, artificial intelligence, fusion energy, and, of course, advanced manufacturing. Alongside these research partnerships, this legislation also authorizes collaborative initiatives in education, training, and development to build a stronger workforce in the science, technology, engineering, and mathematics fields. Lastly, this legislation promotes secure data and information transfer capabilities between these agencies so that we are not working in silos but are working together in a safe and secure environment to develop a shared, agile data ecosystem. In August 2024, the Australian Strategic Policy Institute updated its dataset, exposing a dramatic shift in U.S. technology leadership. Once dominant in 60 of the 64 critical technologies, according to this policy institute, the U.S. now leads in just 7. China has surged from 3 to 57 since the start of the century. This is not to put a wet blanket on our incredible country and our innovation capabilities. We want to be measuring, coordinating, and strategic, and we want to be effective stewards of any taxpayer dollars, which is why this bill is not appropriating any such thing. We are in a wake-up call moment, but this isn't over. To reclaim our edge, we have to empower our top science agencies to unite, to collaborate, and to drive the innovation necessary to lead before any of our competitors seek to leave us behind. That is why we have this bill. As the chair said, this has passed the House. Our colleagues in the Senate just need to do their jobs. This collaboration between NSF and the DOE is not new. In fact, they have an extensive history of joint activities, such as support for the development of the Vera C. Rubin Observatory, a world-class tool for scientific discovery and astronomy located in Chile. We are proud of that partnership. A testament to the power of these collaborations, this observatory just reached a major milestone with the installation of the Large Synoptic Survey Telescope, the LSST, the largest digital camera ever built. This facility will soon be ready to scan the sky for the next 10 years, creating an ultrahigh definition, time-lapsed record of our universe. The DOE and NSF Interagency Research Act strengthens the legislative foundation of our beloved CHIPS and Science Act, a landmark bill that enables both agencies to foster a more collaborative research environment to maximize their collective impacts for our Nation. Mr. Speaker, for all of these reasons, this bipartisan legislation falls upon us, and I encourage all of my colleagues to support it. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Baird), my dear friend and one of my favorite colleagues--if that is okay and germane to say--for his collaboration on this bill. We are both midwesterners. He is an incredibly accomplished academic, veteran, and businessman from an important part of our Nation. I have had the sincere privilege of collaborating on legislation with the gentleman since we were first sworn into Congress. Mr. Speaker, we are again partnering on H.R. 1350, and I urge my colleagues to vote in support of this bill, as I have done in other sessions, so that we can implore the Senate to do their part. We are introducing this bill early in the 119th session. We will pass it through the House and, hopefully, see this become law. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.