ARPA–H Act

Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution H. Res. 1191 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Madam Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Burgess), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

General Leave

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks.

Madam Speaker, yesterday, the Rules Committee met and reported a rule, House Resolution 1191, for three measures.

First, it provides for consideration of H.R. 4176 under a structured rule. The rule self-executes a manager's amendment, provides 1 hour of general debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking member of the Committee on Oversight and Reform, makes in order three amendments, and provides a motion to recommit.

Second, the rule provides for consideration of H.R. 5585 under a structured rule. The rule provides for 1 hour of general debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, makes in order one amendment, and provides a motion to recommit.

Third, the rule provides for consideration of H.R. 7666 under a structured rule. The rule self-executes a manager's amendment, provides 1 hour of general debate equally controlled by the chair and ranking member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, makes in order 17 amendments, and provides en bloc authority and a motion to recommit.

Finally, the rule extends recess instructions, suspension authority, and same-day authority through July 13, and any requested roll call votes on suspension bills considered from June 21 to June 24 may be postponed through July 15.

Madam Speaker, I stand in support of the three bills in this rule: H.R. 7666, the Restoring Hope for Mental Health and Well-Being Act; H.R. 5585, the Advanced Research Projects Agency-Health Act; and H.R. 4176, the LGBTQI+ Data Inclusion Act.

I want to start by thanking Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Pallone and Ranking Member McMorris Rodgers for their work crafting a bipartisan package to tackle the growing mental health crisis in our country.

During the COVID-19 pandemic, we have seen a dramatic rise in global mental health illness associated with anxiety, depression, and collective grief.

In my State, almost 45 percent of North Carolinians reported symptoms of anxiety or depression in February 2021, with more than 22 percent unable to get necessary care, largely because of prohibitive costs.

Almost 130,000 children ages 12 through 17 in North Carolina suffer from adolescent depression. Multiply that nationwide. More than half of the children in North Carolina did not receive any care in the past year. Once they reach high school, these children are twice as likely to drop out of school as their peers.

These statistics tell just part of the story of families disrupted, education delayed, and the barriers facing Americans striving to achieve their full potential and well-being.

Congress has a duty to address this crisis with the same urgency with which we passed COVID-19 legislation.

Today, we are doing just that with H.R. 7666, the Restoring Hope for Mental Health and Well-Being Act, which will provide improved access to healthcare for mental illnesses and substance abuse disorders.

This legislation boosts compliance with mental health parity laws, supports mental health care through telehealth, and reauthorizes key programs that fund mental health services, all deeply needed by our people.

This rule also includes H.R. 5585, the Advanced Research Projects Agency-Health Act, ARPA-H.

For decades, the United States has been the leader in biomedical research around the world. However, our country has recently shown signs of slowing in this sector.

Promising research opportunities are put on hold due to high cost, complex coordination, long wait periods, and many other factors.

My State of North Carolina became the first State in the country to have a State-supported entity dedicated to promoting growth of the life sciences industry after the creation of the North Carolina Biotechnology Center in 1984.

In my district of Wake County, the Research Triangle Park stands as the largest research park in North America. ARPA-H will have profound influences in North Carolina's economy and the national economy and stimulate the development of breakthroughs in health research that will benefit millions of Americans.

H.R. 5585 will authorize $500 million each year for the next 5 years to support ARPA-H and fund groundbreaking research and development to continue saving American lives.

Finally, this rule includes H.R. 4176, the LGBTQI+ Data Inclusion Act. Most legislators agree that good policy should be evidence-based. Our Government collects demographic data to ensure we can identify whether certain groups of Americans are facing obstacles to the equal opportunities they need to thrive. However, Federal agencies are not currently required to collect demographic data on sexual orientation and gender identity. We need this data to know how to address issues faced by the LGBTQI+ people and combat discrimination.

In 2019, UCLA found that nearly one in four LGBTQ adults in the South, including in my State of North Carolina,

live in poverty, a rate higher than the overall poverty rate in the United States.

LGBTQI+ youth, in particular, face high levels of homelessness and are at greater risk of depression and suicidal thoughts than their peers. With good data, we can implement good programs aimed at eliminating these disparities and help members of this community reach their full potential.

As Cathy Renna of the National LGBTQ Task Force says, ``If we don't get counted, we don't count.'' This community is asking to be counted. Our Nation has already gone through the poor policy of Don't Ask, Don't Tell. We now have a responsibility to reverse the effects of this policy to help members of the LGBTQI+ community live as their authentic selves.

We can do that by allowing individuals to voluntarily disclose their sexual orientation and gender identities. In other words, by asking and letting them decide to tell.

Madam Speaker, I urge support for the rule and the three bills it contains, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I include in the Record a June 11, 2021, CNN Business article entitled ``LGBTQ+ Americans aren't fully counted by the government. That's a big problem.''

[From CNN Business, June, 11, 2021]

LGBTQ+ Americans Aren't Fully Counted by the Government. That's a Big

Problem

(By Anneken Tappe and Alicia Wallace)

Government data help policymakers find and fix problems for

people in need. But that's tricky if some groups aren't

represented in the stats.

This is the case for the LGBTQ+ community, and it's a huge

problem. Here's an example: The government's monthly jobs

report shows how many men and women, Black, White, Asian and

Hispanic workers are unemployed. The stats lay bare a lot of

inequities, but there are no comparable federal data on

LGBTQ+ workers.

``We are invisible in federal statistics, when it comes to

some policymakers,'' said

Justin Nelson, co-founder and president of the National LGBT

Chamber of Commerce (NGLCC).

Put more bluntly: ``If we don't get counted, we don't

count,'' said Cathy Renna, communications director at the

National LGBTQ Task Force.

Official stats, including the Census, are used to decide

how federal funds are distributed--to the tune of $1.5

trillion. But data gaps in the jobs reports, health surveys

and the decennial Census affect millions of people: 5.6

percent of US adults identify as lesbian, gay, bisexual or

transgender, according to a Gallup survey published in

February.

Official data are needed ``to ensure that LGBT people are

included in efforts to reduce unemployment through increased

labor force participation, as well as to monitor compliance

with anti-discrimination provisions,'' researchers at the

UCLA School of Law's Williams Institute wrote earlier this

year in support of adding LGBTQ+ questions to the Current

Population Survey, which helps create the jobs report.

Recent research has found higher rates of poverty,

unemployment, health disparities, and workplace

discrimination among LGBTQ+ adults, according to the Williams

Institute. The negative outcomes were even greater among

transgender individuals and LGBTQ+ people of color.

Examples of how data can change outcomes for the LGBTQ+

community include the establishment of the Massachusetts

Commission on LGBTQ youth, school training services and

ongoing research after former Governor William Weld sought to

respond to an increase in LGBTQ+ youth suicides; the

improvement of individuals' medical care following research

asking patients about their sexual orientation and gender

identity; and the creation of equity programs within the Los

Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services

following a study that showed LGBTQ+ youth were

overrepresented in the youth foster system and experienced

harsher treatment.

Although independent research from the Williams Institute

and established pollsters such Gallup have provided some data

about the community, that research just doesn't carry the

same weight as government stats in leading to funding of

direct services and addressing the needs of people in the

queer community, Renna said.

Across government agencies, academics and the LGTBQ+

community itself, people have expressed a desire to better

understand the needs of that population. The government is

doing research to figure out how to best ask about sexual

orientation and gender identity.

But the business of big, robust data sets is complicated.

Government statistics are pretty sophisticated and the

methodology behind surveys goes through a lot of prodding.

But when it comes to the LGBTQ+ community, government

institutions haven't done enough research yet to make broader

improvements to the data.

The worry is that reporting errors on questions surrounding

sexual orientation and gender identity may lead to much

bigger errors in the eventual data.

``Questions for relatively small populations must be

formulated especially carefully; if they are not, even

relatively small sampling or reporting errors can lead to

large errors in estimates,'' the US Bureau of Labor

Statistics told CNN Business in an email.

The questions the Census Bureau asks also have to go

through an established process to review wording and

effectiveness. Ultimately the Office of Management and Budget

approves any new questions.

When the government surveys households, for example to

learn about America's employment situation, one person

answers questions for other members of their household. That

can make it harder to get accurate data on members of the

LGBTQ+ community, especially if a person hasn't come out to

their family, or if the survey respondent is uncomfortable

talking about another household member's sexual orientation

or gender identity.

``Not everyone's out,'' Renna added. ``Some of us live in

places where you can be fired if you come out.''

The NGLCC, which leans heavily on community-driven surveys

and private sector research, has yet to meet with the Census

and BLS on inclusive data-gathering efforts, Nelson said. But

he said he is optimistic about the Biden-Harris

Administration's efforts to broaden the scope of its data

collection.

President Joe Biden last week, in officially recognizing

June as Pride Month, urged Congress to pass the Equality Act

to ensure civil rights protections for members of the LGBTQ+

community and their families.

``We are a strong part of the economic fabric . . . not

just in Pride Month,'' Nelson said. ``We need to get

inclusive on data collection immediately, because the sooner

we can normalize that data collection, the less opportunity

there is for erasing it.''

The people behind government surveys are doing research to

move toward a world in which official data are more

inclusive.

Figuring out how to best ask about things as personal as

sexual orientation and gender identity is at the forefront of

that research. The willingness and ability to answer

questions about sexual orientation and gender of other people

is just as critical, the Census Bureau told CNN Business.

The last BLS research paper on the topic is from 2017.

While it's feasible for the government to ask these

questions, the paper recommends more in-depth analysis.

``The reality is that it's very chicken and egg,'' Renna

said. ``If you don't have the data, you can't understand the

community. If you don't ask the community questions, you

don't have the data.''

Some government surveys already collect information on

gender identity and sexual orientation, including the

National Health Interview Survey, the National Crime

Victimization Survey and the National Survey of Children's

Health.

Last year, the 2020 Census made history by including same-

sex marriage and same-sex unmarried partners as options on

its survey. The Bureau of Labor Statistics--which uses

surveys to compile the government's monthly jobs report--

began including same-sex married couples in its tally of

married workers in January last year.

Considering that only 20 percent LGBTQ+ people live in

same-sex married households, these surveys leave out the vast

majority of the community, said Kerith Conran, the Blachford-

Cooper research director and distinguished scholar at the

Williams Institute.

And there is a greater dearth of data especially when it

comes to LGBTQ+ youth, transgender people and gender

identity, she added.

Earlier this year, Conran and her colleagues highlighted

those and other inequities in a public comment urging the US

Census Bureau and BLS to add sexual orientation, gender

identity and sex assigned at birth questions to the Current

Population Survey.

``There are ongoing health and economic inequities that

aren't going to go away unless people start paying attention

to them,'' she said in an interview with CNN Business.

Data on sexual orientation and gender identity aren't

collected consistently across states--for example, only 30

states included the SOGI module in a US Centers for Disease

Control-backed behavioral risk survey in 2019. This creates

big gaps in the data, particularly in regions such as the

South and Midwest, Conran added.

``Those are the places where non-discrimination protections

and social acceptance are also lacking,'' she said. ``In the

places where people probably have worse conditions, [there

are] less data available to see what's going on for people.''

Madam Speaker, we rely on all kinds of data to inform our policymaking.

Right now, LGBTQI+ Americans aren't represented in Federal statistics, like for unemployment, poverty, health, and discrimination.

This gap severely impacts our ability to make smart decisions that may affect their community, let alone decisions that will help those in their community. It is imperative that we begin to let these individuals count in our Federal data system just as we do race, ethnicity, gender, and age.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, a group of 156 organizations committed to advancing equality and opportunity for the LGBTQI+ community, including the YWCA, wrote to Congress in support of H.R. 4176.

They said in their letter: ``Collecting this information in federally supported surveys, such as the Current Population Survey and the National Health Interview Survey, is essential to improving the well- being of LGBTQI+ populations across key areas of life. For example, although data are limited, research indicates that LGBTQI+ communities experience disparities across multiple domains of life compared to non- LGBTQI+ populations.''

This inclusive data ``is a crucial tool to better identify and address these disparities and to promote more equitable outcomes and opportunities for LGBTQI+ communities.''

Madam Speaker, I include in the Record the letter signed by the 156 organizations.

June 14, 2022.

Hon. Carolyn Maloney,

House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform,

Washington, DC.

Hon. Raul Grijalva,

House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Dear Chairwoman Maloney and Congressman Grijalva: As a

group of 156 organizations committed to advancing equality

and opportunity for lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender,

queer, intersex, and other sexual and gender diverse

(LGBTQI+) people in the United States, we are writing to

voice our enthusiastic support for the amendment in the

nature of a substitute and passage of the LGBTQI+ Data

Inclusion Act (H.R. 4176).

The LGBTQ Data Inclusion Act, as introduced, would

facilitate the collection of voluntary, self-disclosed

demographic data on sexual orientation and gender identity

across federal surveys. The amendment in the nature of a

substitute would add variations in sex characteristics (also

known as intersex traits) to the data voluntarily collected,

and would accordingly change the bill title to the LGBTQI+

Data Inclusion Act. Collecting this information in federally

supported surveys (such as the Current Population Survey and

National Health Interview Survey) is essential to improving

the well-being of LGBTQI+ populations across key areas of

life. For example, although data are limited, research

indicates that LGBTQI+ communities experience disparities

across multiple domains of life compared to non-LGBTQI+

populations. This includes evidence of higher rates of

poverty, unemployment, and economic instability experiences

of homelessness and housing insecurity; worse mental and

physical health outcomes; heightened barriers to access

adequate health care, and widespread experiences of

discrimination. Due to the intersecting forces of racism,

xenophobia, ableism, ageism, and transphobia, for LGBTQI+

communities of color, LGBTQI+ people with disabilities,

LGBTQI+ older adults, and transgender people, these

disparities are often even more pronounced. LGBTQI+-inclusive

data collection is a critical tool to better identify and

address these disparities and to promote more equitable

outcomes and opportunities for LGBTQI+ communities.

Currently, most surveys fielded by the federal government

not collect data on sexual orientation, gender identity, or

variations in sex characteristics. For example, although some

surveys, such as the decennial census and American Community

Survey, ask questions that allow for the identification of

cohabitating same-sex couples, it is estimated that only 1 in

6 LGBTQ individuals are captured by those kinds of questions.

Although progress has been made in recent years, the overall

lack of routine data collection on sexual orientation, gender

identity, and variations in sex characteristics poses a

significant obstacle for policymakers, researchers, service

providers, and advocates dedicated to improving the wellbeing

of LGBTQI+ communities, especially those living at the

intersection of multiple marginalized identities.

The federal government collects survey data on a wide range

of subjects and populations and is uniquely positioned to

engage in LGBTQI+-inclusive data collection to generate

accurate, consistent, and representative data at a scale that

allows for the disaggregation necessary to describe the

diversity of LGBTQI+ communities. As demonstrated in the

recent consensus report by the National Academies, questions

about sexual orientation, gender identity, and variations in

sex characteristics can and should be added to federally

supported surveys. By doing so, federal agencies can take

meaningful steps to fulfill the Biden-Harris administration's

priorities to promote equity for LGBTQI+ and other

underserved communities through various actions, including

but not limited to expanding data collection efforts.

Passage of this bill is essential to better understand the

experiences of LGBTQI+ communities, generate policy solutions

that are inclusive of LGBTQI+ people and their needs, and to

evaluate the effectiveness of those policies to reduce

disparities and advance equity. Again, we strongly support

the amendment in the nature of a substitute for the LGBTQI+

Data Inclusion Act (H.R. 4176) and urge Congress to quickly

take up and adopt this important proposal.

Thank you for your consideration. Please do not hesitate to

contact Caroline Medina and Madeline Shepherd with any

questions.

Signed in partnership,

1Hood Power, A Better Balance, Ace and Aro Alliance of

Central Ohio, Advocates for Youth, AGE of Central Texas, AIDS

Action Baltimore, AIDS Alabama South, AIDS Foundation

Chicago, allgo, American Academy of HIV Medicine, American

Psychological Association, American Public Health

Association, American Trans Resource Hub, Amida Care, APLA

Health, Arizona Trans Youth and Parent Organization, Athlete

Ally, Atlanta Pride Committee, Austin LGBT Coalition on

Aging, Autistic Self Advocacy Network, Believe Out Loud,

BiNet USA, Brooklyn Community Pride Center, Inc., Cathedral

of Hope United Church of

Christ, Center for American Progress, Center for Applied

Transgender Studies, Center for Black Equity, Center for

Disability Rights, Center for Economic and Policy Research,

Center for Law and Social Policy (CLASP).

Center for Reproductive Rights, CenterLink: The Community

of LGBT Centers, Colors+, Compton's Table, Corktown Health,

Council for Global Equality, CrescentCare, Damien Center,

DBGM, Inc., Dolan Research International, LLC, Elton John

AIDS Foundation, Engel O'Neil Advertising & Public Relations,

Equality California, Equality Illinois, Equitas Health, Erie

County Dems LGBTQIA+ Caucus Erie Gay News, Family Eldercare,

Family Equality, Family Values @ Work, Fenway Health,

Freedom for All Americans, Gay Elder Circle, Georgia

Equality, GLBTQ Legal Advocates and Defenders (GLAD),

GLMA: Health Professionals Advancing LGBTQ Equality,

GLSEN, GLSEN New Mexico, Health Equity Alliance for LGBTQ+

New Mexicans, HealthHIV, Hetrick-Martin Institute,

Hispanic Federation, HIV + Hepatitis Policy Institute, HIV

Medicine Association, Howard Brown Health, Hugh Lane

Wellness Foundation, Human Rights Campaign, interACT:

Advocates for Intersex Youth, Jacobs Institute of Women's

Health.

John Snow, Inc., Justice in Aging, Kachemak bay Family

Planning, Lancaster LGBTQ+ Coalition, Lawrence, Lee McAvoy,

LMHC, Let's Kick ASS AIDS Survivor Syndrome, LGBTQ Center OC,

LGBTQ Community Center of Southern Nevada, LGBTQ Victory

Institute, LGBTQ+ & Equity Consulting, LLC, LGBTQ+ Spectrum

of Findlay, Los Angeles LGBT Center, Lyon-Martin Community

Health Services, MAZON: A Jewish Response to Hunger,

Methodist Federation for Social Action, Michigan Organization

on Adolescent Sexual Health (MOASH), Minority Veterans of

America, Movement Advancement Project, Naper Pride, NASTAD,

National Center for Lesbian Rights, National Center for

Transgender Equality, National Coalition for LGBTQ Health,

National Community Reinvestment Coalition (NCRC), National

Family Planning & Reproductive Health Association, National

LGBT Cancer Network, National LGBTQ Task Force, National

LGBTQ+ Bar Association, National Organization for Women,

National Women's Law Center, National Working Positive

Coalition.

New York Transgender Advocacy Group, North Carolina AIDS

Action Network, NW PA Pride Alliance, Inc., one-n-ten, Out &

Equal Workplace Advocates, one-n-ten, Out To Innovate, Out

Youth, OutCenter Southwest Michigan, OutNebraska, Outright

Vermont, PFLAG National, PGH Equality Center, Philanthrofund

Foundation, Positive Women's Network-USA, PowerOn, a program

of LGBT Technology Institute, PrEP4All, Prevention Access

Campaign, Pride at Work, Pride Center of New Jersey, Prism

United, Project Weber/RENEW, Resource Center, Roots of

Change, SAGE, SAGE Metro Detroit, San Diego Pride, SF LGBT

Center, SIECUS, Silver State Equality-Nevada, Still Bisexual,

The AIDS Institute, The Center on Colfax, Denver, CO, The

Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights.

The LGBT Center of Greater Reading, the Montrose Center,

The Source LGBT+ Center, The Trevor Project, The Well

Project, Thriving Mental Health Counseling NY PLLC, Trans

Maryland, Transgender Education Network of Texas (TENT),

Transgender Resource Center of New Mexico, Transhealth

Northampton, Treatment Action Group, U.S. People Living with

HIV Caucus, Umoja Behavioral Health PC, Union for Reform

Judaism, University of Nevada Las Vegas, URGE: Unite for

Reproductive & Gender Equity, Vivent Health, Waves Ahead

Corp, We Are Family, Whitman-Walker Institute, Woodhull

Freedom Foundation, YWCA USA.

Madam Speaker, I ask the gentleman if he is prepared to close, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, the three bills in this rule have the potential to transform the health and opportunities of millions of Americans.

The Restoring Hope for Mental Health and Well-Being Act reauthorizes and establishes 35 critical programs that provide access to mental health care and substance use disorder treatment across the country.

Recognizing the benefits of telehealth during the COVID-19 pandemic, this bill promotes behavioral health integration into primary care through increased access to telehealth as part of the pediatric mental health care access grant program reauthorization.

The bill also requires self-funded, non-Federal governmental healthcare plans to comply with mental health parity laws. Mental health care is healthcare, and it is time we treat it as such.

The Advanced Research Projects Agency-Health Act will jump-start our Nation's investment in medical research and innovation. I am privileged to represent part of North Carolina's Research Triangle Park and see the breakthroughs that happen there. By establishing and funding ARPA- H, we ensure that research like this will continue, that more people will be able to access groundbreaking treatments and cures, and that our Nation remains a leader in medical innovation.

The LGBTQI+ Data Inclusion Act will equip our government agencies with the data they need to reduce barriers and challenges facing this community. Good data helps us make good policy. Without data, we are forced to legislate blindly and guess at solutions to close disparities.

Madam Speaker, I note that the LGBTQI+ Data Inclusion Act does not mandate that anyone disclose information about their gender identity or sexual orientation. Under this bill, individuals choose whether to share that information or not.

This bill, which we take up during Pride Month, will help us ensure the LGBTQI+ community is represented in policies aimed at closing disparities and helping underserved groups.

Madam Speaker, I urge a ``yes'' vote on the rule and the previous question.

Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

Madam Speaker, before I start on the colloquy and go through the schedule, I was just talking to the Republican whip, my friend, Mr. Scalise. We were talking about a friend of ours, his name is John Bresnahan; he is

a reporter. He has covered Capitol Hill since 1994, I believe, is the note I had. He is an excellent reporter.

He reports the facts. He reports the truth. As I know Mr. Scalise agrees, reporters who do that not only serve us, but more importantly, their major purpose is to serve the American people because we know that a free press telling the facts and the truth to the American people give them the opportunity to make solid decisions for our democracy.

I wish John Bresnahan a happy 60th birthday, and hope that he has many, many more. I have had 23 more than that, so I appreciate the fact that he is still going strong.

Madam Speaker, I want to tell Mr. Bresnahan that he made the same promise to me, which is why we did this. If he was going to sing it, I was a little reluctant to do this, and he didn't. I join the whip in wishing John Bresnahan, a friend, a very careful and honest reporter, the very best 60th birthday and many more to come.

Madam Speaker, on Tuesday, the House will meet at 12 p.m. for morning hour and 2 p.m. for legislative business, with votes postponed until 6:30 p.m.

On Wednesday and Thursday, the House will meet at 10 a.m. for morning hour and 12 p.m. for legislative business.

Madam Speaker, on Friday, the House will meet at 9 a.m. for legislative business.

On Monday, we will be celebrating Juneteenth as a Federal holiday for the second time in American history. Juneteenth is the day on which the last slaves who were in Texas learned of their new status as free Americans, an extraordinary day in the history of our country, eliminating one of the great blights on the history of America. As de Tocqueville pointed out, we tried to heal our wounds and tried to heal our wrongs, and we are still working on that.

Last year, the Congress took the historic step of enacting legislation to recognize Juneteenth as a Federal holiday, at long last. I look forward to celebrating as we pay tribute to freedom to all men and women being created equal in the image of God. We celebrate the history of the African-American perseverance and triumph over injustice and adversity.

I say triumph--it has been a triumph--but there are battles yet to be won. Juneteenth not only looks back but it looks forward to winning those battles.

Madam Speaker, I see Mr. Green on the floor, who has a resolution on the recognition of the blight of slavery. I thank him for that resolution and look forward to having that considered.

On Monday, we will be celebrating that holiday, but we will be celebrating it as we do Martin Luther King's birthday, as we ought to be in celebrating Washington and Lincoln's birthday, and committing ourselves to the realization of the principles for which they stood.

Madam Speaker, the House will consider bills under suspension of the rules. The complete list of those suspension bills will be announced at the close of business tomorrow.

Next week, Madam Speaker, the House will consider H.R. 7666, which is titled Restoring Hope for Mental Health and Well-Being Act, a bipartisan package of bills led by Chairman Pallone and Ranking Member McMorris Rodgers, to address the mental health and opioid abuse crisis.

The legislation expands access to treatment for opioid use disorders, promotes behavioral health integration, and reauthorizes critical programs to support mental health and substance use disorder, prevention, treatment, and recovery, including in our children.

Madam Speaker, the House will also consider legislation under suspension from Chairman Bobby Scott and members of the Education and Labor Committee to address the mental health, addiction, and suicide on college campuses, which is far, far too prevalent.

Our young people have faced stresses by the pandemic, stresses within our Nation, the divisions on which prey on their minds, so this is a very important piece of legislation. I hope it will be--and I believe it is going to be--bipartisan.

The House will also take up H.R. 6411, the Veterans Affairs' Committee Chairman Mark Takano's STRONG Veterans Act, again, bipartisan legislation to combat veterans' suicide and address mental health, and help our Nation meet its commitment to those who risk their lives and safety for our country.

Additionally, Madam Speaker, the House will consider H.R. 5585, Representatives Eshoo's ARPA-H Act. This legislation would establish the Advanced Research Project Agency for Health, an independent agency tasked with accelerating biomedical innovation and making transformative breakthroughs in the fight against the most challenging diseases confronting our people.

This agency will oversee the next steps in the Cancer Moonshot program and help meet the President's goal of cutting the cancer death rate by at least 50 percent over the next 25 years, and hopefully sooner.

Madam Speaker, as we celebrate Pride Month, the House will consider H.R. 4176, the LGBTQ Data Inclusion Act.

Madam Speaker, I anticipate that the House will vote on a compromised, bipartisan Sergeant First Class Heath Robinson Honoring Our PACT Act, after the Senate takes action on the version agreed upon in May. As the whip knows, that Act was a bipartisan act that dealt with those who were exposed to burn pits and other toxic substances of which they did not know while they were serving on bases, both here and around the world.

This bill, we believe the Senate will take action on, a version agreed upon in May, which preserves much of the House-passed legislation to care for veterans exposed to burn pits and other toxic chemicals during their service.

In addition, the House will consider other bills under suspension of the rules, the complete list of suspension bills will be announced by the close of business tomorrow. Additional legislative items are possible.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I would simply observe, as I observed the other day, that we all want to make sure that our Justices are safe.

Let me say, Madam Speaker, there is a very important reason for that. We want to keep all our people safe. But nine Justices of our Supreme Court represent that we are a nation of laws. They are one of the three branches of our government. Just as I was extraordinarily and remain extraordinarily concerned about the attack on this institution, the Congress of the United States, as we were preparing to elect a President of the United States, an attack on the Supreme Court and the lives of the Supreme Court Justices are an attack on our democracy, on a separate branch of government that is charged with continuing to make us a nation of laws.

So, very frankly, the Supreme Court Justices, under existing law, were protected. There were security people there. Luckily, there were security people there. But the gentleman is absolutely right. We want to make sure whether we agree or disagree with the individuals, whether we agree or disagree with the opinions or the judgements that Congress makes, we are a nation of laws, and the way to resolve our differences is not through violence but through the democratic process.

I thank the gentleman for his observation.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

We continue to talk about this as if this were the President's fault. First of all, in a much wider range, this is a result of the pandemic.

Why is it the result of the pandemic?

Not solely the pandemic but let me take the pandemic first. Everybody stayed home--this body and businesses across America.

What did that mean that they stayed home?

They stopped buying gas.

What did the oil companies do?

They shut down some of their production, a very substantial reduction in production. But then as the prices went up, they were making as much money or much more money. So in making much more money, they didn't increase production, as the gentleman says will be an answer to the question, in a country that does, in fact, have regulations and does have rules, and because of those regulations and rules the production of our energy is, in fact, as the gentleman asserts, more efficient and more environmentally considerate.

The oil companies--acting from what they thought was good business practice, demand was down, but prices were going up--were making profits. They bought back stock, which, of course, increased the value of the stock that remained. They increased dividends, which, of course, encouraged people to invest in them. It made people happy about their investments.

But they didn't increase production. They didn't have to increase production. They were making good profits and making, from their standpoint, good business decisions.

As I indicated in the last colloquy that we dealt with this problem, there were millions of leases put on the market by this administration, as I recall, some 80 million acres. Approximately 2 percent of the leases were bid on, and then the Court said that this was not a legal process.

But it is interesting how small was the interest in additional production at that time irrespective of what happened subsequently.

The gentleman mentions a bill, as he has done in the past, H.R. 6858, the American Energy Independence from Russia Act.

But before I say that, let me say, I hope the President is going to Saudi Arabia to talk privately, not publicly trying to embarrass or harangue, and certainly not to beg. The United States of America doesn't need to beg any nation in the world, and this President is not begging anybody.

This President should say, however, Madam Speaker: Saudis, stop controlling the supply unreasonably and driving the prices up of your product.

Yes, they are making more money, and they have a cartel. That is called a monopoly. That cartel has made sure that the lack of supply drove up the international market price. And then Russia went to war.

Now, Russia going to war has affected to some degree the supply of oil, but, very frankly, buying Russian oil supports their criminal war effort, their vicious and murderous war effort. We are all against that. So we agreed that we would not take any oil, and we urged our European allies not to rely on it either.

Now, what did that create?

It created a lack of confidence in the stability of the market.

What happens when you have lack of confidence in the stability of a market?

Prices go up because it is a bet on what is going to happen with the price of that product in the future that the market really reflects.

Now, the reason I say it that way is because these are not Biden prices. Even if tomorrow we snapped a finger and said: ``Okay, go ahead,'' nothing would happen tomorrow, nothing would

happen next week, and nothing would happen next month. It would take a substantial period of time because the oil companies, based upon the lack of demand, shut down, nor did they pursue further production.

Now, let me say something about the price of oil. The national price of oil now does not reflect the increase as part of the market response to what is called the West Texas Intermediary, which I am sure the gentleman from Louisiana, an oil-producing State, knows much more about than I do.

But let me say this: In 2008, that benchmark for crude oil peaked at $147.02 in July of 2008. Adjusted for inflation, that is $199.57 today.

In that time, 2008, the average U.S. gasoline peaked at $4.14 per gallon. Adjusted for inflation, that would be $5.62 today.

So, in other words, in 2008, otherwise known as the last year of the Bush administration, gasoline prices were higher than they are today notwithstanding the fact that the world price was $31 less.

Excuse me, yesterday, June 15, that West Texas Intermediary oil--the benchmark for crude oil prices--was $116 a barrel, $31 less, without accounting for inflation, which would make it greater than it was in 2008. That wasn't George Bush's fault. It was the international market's fault and also this cartel that controls a large part of the supply of the oil in our country.

Now, my point--I still have to deal with H.R. 6858. One of its tenets is to approve the Keystone pipeline. The problem with that is, for whatever reason--and I understand my friend will have a response, Madam Speaker, as to well, because you disapproved it, meaning the Obama administration. They want to open the Keystone pipeline. The problem is the company that had the Keystone pipeline has abandoned it. Even if it were approved, they would have to get back in business and we would be well over a year--well over a year.

Now, I happen to have agreed that we should have approved that pipeline. I have said that publicly. I said that to the press. That didn't happen. But it would not solve the problem. And particularly, when you look at the figures that I just gave with respect to the world market price, we are paying a lot more now than we did in 2008 when it was higher.

So I would say to my friend, he also had a provision that expedites the LNG facility approval process. One of the problems we had is 20 percent of the LNG export capacity is now shut down.

It was shut down because the regulations that the gentleman speaks of, correctly, were not followed, and the LNG plant had an explosion. It shut down because it violated regulations that were imposed upon it.

What I would say to my friend--I have talked to the committee about his bill. The LNG process is working. As I told him, I have an LNG export plant in my district, which has changed from substantial exports to the Pacific region, and now, 80 percent is going to Europe to try to bridge that gap as the Europeans retreat from being dependent upon Russian oil.

I tell my friend, with all due respect--and I am not going to plead with him, but I am going to suggest to him--we are going to Saudi Arabia, I hope, to tell them in private: Look, this is not a game you want to be playing. You are making our consumers pay far more.

We have acted. We acted, and we passed, some time ago, a bill that said you cannot have gas prices that are set at unreasonable levels, which we know as gouging. It is like you have a flood in your city and 80 percent of the grocery stores are wiped out, and the grocery stores that remain triple their prices. That is called gouging. We passed that bill.

We also passed a bill today which, unfortunately, most Republicans voted against--``most,'' I say, not all--which will, again, seek to bring the price down at the pump. How? By utilizing American products to supplement and expand the supply of gas and, we believe, bring the price of a gallon down some 40 cents--that is what the experts say--if we continue to use a mix of fuel.

But let me say in closing, on these remarks, which I know have been relatively lengthy, we are in this together, Republicans and Democrats.

FOX News criticized me for saying we are at war. We just sent a billion dollars for a war we are not in because we believe in freedom. We believe in international law.

We believe that we have a dictator, a dangerous dictator, who is committing war crimes through his men and women in eastern Ukraine in particular and did it in western Ukraine as they came into Kyiv.

We are in this together, one Nation, one America, on behalf of freedom. We have taken tough action. As part of that, we are paying the price at the pump because of that invasion.

The pandemic shut down production and shut down the purchase of gasoline by people because they didn't go to work. They didn't need to get in their cars. They didn't need to commute.

I would simply say to my friend that we are on the same team. Our President is leading our effort to defeat this despot, to stop this war, to ensure the freedom not only of the Ukrainian people but of all people, and to ensure that we respect international law.

I looked at the gentleman's bill. I would be glad to talk about other ways, including maybe some of the things that are in his bill. But I will tell the gentleman, the first couple that I looked at, the Keystone pipeline is not going to be reopened. The gentleman and I may lament that as a policy because I was publicly, during the Obama administration, for the approval of that pipeline. So, I am prepared to work with the gentleman to see what we can do.

But we have done today's bill. It may not be perfect. It may not work. But it is certainly worth a try, to try to bring these awful prices down at the pump because I know all of our constituents, whether they live in Louisiana or Maryland, are struggling because they have to use their cars. They have to use that gasoline. They don't have an alternative. And they don't have an alternative to buying food.

Both of those are tough, and we need to act together to try to see if we can solve that problem in the context of an extraordinary pandemic, a historic pandemic that shut down the world, and we are just trying to get back.

We are trying to get supply chains going, including gasoline pipelines, which is why the President is going to Saudi Arabia, not to beg, but to assert the economic fact of the ramifications of the cartels stifling supply.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for all of that information.

It continues to befuddle me why our Republican friends would much prefer to blame President Biden and so avoid placing blame on Mr. Trump's friend, Mr. Putin. I don't understand that, Madam Speaker. It is not a nation indivisible.

Now, Madam Speaker, I used a statistic some weeks ago that I have heard not at all disputed. The Biden administration has approved more drilling permits on public land in 2021, in 1 year, than the Trump administration did each year during its first 3 years in office.

Not compared to the combined 3 years, just compared to each individual year. Number one.

Number two: Domestic oil production is greater today than it was under Trump. Not a whole big difference, 10,968 versus 11,185, but nevertheless, it speaks to the fact that the representation that somehow Biden has shut down the industry, and therefore, he is to blame.

We don't want to talk about the pandemic that shut down oil production. In Trump's last year--in Trump's last year--refineries in the U.S. reduced their capacity by more than 800,000 barrels. So, under the Trump administration, production was decreased.

Maybe they will look at the records and see whether or not that representation is accurate, and if it is not, I stand to be corrected. But those are the figures I have.

I notice that my friend did not respond to my representation that prices were higher under George Bush in 2008 than they are today. Now, because of inflation, the number is different, and compared to the world price, prices are higher.

So, I will say to my friend, we had at least 80 million acres, 2.5 million taken. As the gentleman pointed out before, the court said, No, that wasn't legal, so it was never effected. But we have those 800,000 that are not back online.

Don't blame them, though. Don't blame Putin. Don't blame the pandemic. Politically, let's blame Biden.

Now, I'm not sure why Bush had the higher price. Maybe it was that he was shutting down the oil business, the President from Texas. Maybe.

But there is more today being produced. Not by enough. Still, there are 800,000 barrels shut down. That is per day, by the way; not just 800,000--per day.

So we can argue back and forth on this. We are passing legislation. Our Republican friends, for the most part, voted against it. It won't work. It won't do.

I don't know whether they are right or wrong, but it is worth trying. It is worth trying because our consumers are hurting.

People at the grocery store--I go to the grocery store every weekend, Madam Speaker. I live alone. I don't buy a lot of groceries because they will go bad, so I go every weekend.

I see the shelves that are empty. I see the price of bacon has gone up now over $10. I see the price of the eggs I get, the price of the half and half I buy, or the orange juice I buy. It is going up.

I am in the fortunate position where I can pay for it without it binding me someplace else. But I know that a whole lot of people that I see shopping, they have got that list out, and they are very worried about their costs.

I don't know whether this bill we just passed is going to solve that--certainly, not overnight. I don't know whether a month from now it will help somewhat, 5 cents or 10 cents on a pound of bacon or a dozen eggs.

I don't know that, but it was worth a try, and we passed this bill. We got some Republican support, including, I think, the ranking member of the committee that reported the bill out.

We are not technically at war, but we are spending a lot of money on behalf of freedom, and we ought to be together. We ought not to be carping about our President who is doing everything he can think of to try to get a handle on this, both on inflation, on the cost to consumers, and on the supply of a product that we all need.

So, I would simply make a request that let's work together to try to get this problem solved. Saudi Arabia is not the answer, but it is part of the answer. The cartel is part of the answer. The Russians are part of the answer.

Maybe none of them are the entire answer. But when you understand that this administration has given more leases on public land than the prior administration did in its first 3 years, it is hard to say that this administration is the reason for this. Other than politically, it is a very salient argument, but that is all it is.

Oh, okay. Sorry.

Would the gentleman yield?

What I said was, in Trump's last year, refineries in the U.S. reduced their capacity by more than 800,000 barrels. That didn't have anything to do about leases.

That had to do with an economic decision, which probably made sense because what happened is the economy was contracting.

Madam Speaker, 2.8 million net jobs were lost during the 4 years of Trump, and 8.7 million have been gained.

As they have been gaining, people are getting back in their cars. They are getting back and driving. They are spending on the economy. But what happened?

The pandemic had shut down supply lines. And the oil companies, rationally, when demand went down, they reduced capacity. They don't need a new lease to go back up to the 800,000. They were doing it under the present authorization that they have.

That was my point. It continues to be my point. The companies have made a decision and they are not moving ahead rapidly to try to get more production.

One of the reasons is--I get it--they are making a lot of money. Some oil companies have got 300 percent greater profits now than they had some years ago. 300 percent.

So, why do we need to do more product? We are making great money. Chevron says it had the most successful year in 2021 than it has ever had. It may be another oil company. I may be wrong on that.

Was it Chevron? I am asking somebody who probably knows the answer better than me. One of the oil companies reported that.

I am not criticizing them for that. What I am saying is, this is a multifaceted challenge that confronts us, and we ought to address it in a way that it deserves, and that is in a bipartisan way that will have effect.

I am going to work with the gentleman. As I said, I was for Keystone. I was not for shutting Keystone down. I was approving it to go ahead. I thought it made sense. Our friends in Canada have an extraordinary supply.

As the gentleman observes, though--interestingly, because I think many of your colleagues oppose those rules and regulations--it is cleaner. It is better for the environment to produce it here.

Why? Because we adopted regulations--either the administration adopted or we passed them in legislation, and very frankly, I think that many of those were opposed by--I don't know whether you, but many in your party, so it is better to do it here.

So I don't want to dispute that, but it is also necessary to have production, particularly among the cartel countries, and Russia has no interest--Russia has an interest in additional production.

Why? Because that is how they are funding this war. But we ought to spend time on criticizing Putin and his war and the crimes that are being committed in his name in Ukraine, and our determination to make sure the Ukrainian people who have displayed extraordinary courage, and Zelenskyy, who has displayed extraordinary leadership, make sure they know that we are focused on them. And we are focused against Putin, not our own President, any more than I did when, you know, George Bush was President.

Very frankly, I supported, as the gentleman probably knows, the trade bills. I thought it was good to do business. A lot of our people didn't support him on that. I supported him on that.

So I think we need to be not so critical of our President. We have one President at a time. We had a pandemic. It wasn't on his watch we got a pandemic. It was on his watch that we got a handle on the pandemic.

On his watch, he has been giving more access to public lands than his predecessor did. We can debate the nuances of differences, but we ought to focus on why we have this crisis.

The gentleman knows these prices in many ways reflect the confidence and the stability, or the lack of confidence and the lack of stability in the market, and the war directly relates to that issue.

Madam Speaker, I am happy to yield to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), my friend and the House majority leader.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for the confession about how many 60th birthdays he has shared. Here is to many more for you, but also for Bres.

As the gentleman points out, a fair and free press is vital to democracy. It is the First Amendment to our Constitution: freedom of speech and freedom of the press. While they might not report our press releases verbatim all the time--as we might like them to--they serve a vital purpose. Bres is one of those that we see in the halls, like the press that is around here making sure that the country knows what is happening here in the greatest democracy of the history of the world.

As a 60th birthday gift to him, I promise not to sing ``Happy Birthday'' to him. I wish Bres a happy birthday, and I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for that update. As we celebrate Juneteenth next week, also right here in this House Chamber over 150 years ago is where the 13th Amendment to the Constitution was debated and passed. So history is made here on a regular basis. And then we celebrate the freedoms that result and continue as our Founders talked about to aspire towards a more perfect Nation so we will do that next week.

I do want to thank the gentleman because last week during this colloquy I know I asked my friend if we could bring the Supreme Court protection bill, the bill to make sure that Supreme Court Justices and their families get proper protection, as we were watching and saw a man arrested for trying to murder a Supreme Court Justice. Leader McCarthy, I know, urged that as well. So I appreciate that we got to bring that bill up, debate it, and quickly pass it to President Biden's desk where we can get that in place.

I would hope that the Attorney General, Merrick Garland, would start enforcing 18 U.S. Code 1507 to give protection properly as Federal laws dictate, but it is not being enforced at the homes of those Justices. But, again, I appreciate that we got a very overwhelming bipartisan vote on that bill this week.

Does the gentleman have anything to add before we talk about the schedule for next week?

Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman.

I share those comments by the gentleman from Maryland.

As we look towards next week--we have had this conversation a number of times--one of the items I don't see on the agenda is an item to address the problem of high gas prices, and, of course, we have now crossed an average of more than $5 a gallon. It is a major burden for families, especially lower-income families who are being forced more and more to make those tough decisions of can they even afford to drive to work, and can they even afford to drive to see their doctor or to drive to the grocery store where they are paying maybe 20 percent more for some of the food items.

We have had a bill for over a month now, H.R. 6858, that would address these problems and allow us to actually have more control over our own energy production in America, to be able to drill in America for energy to lower the cost of gasoline, by confronting so many of the problems that this Biden administration has imposed that are making it hard for us to produce more energy in America to the point where you now have President Biden announcing that he is going to go to Saudi Arabia to beg them to produce more oil.

As we try to confront this challenge--and again, H.R. 6858 would allow us to do that--if you look at President Biden's proposed trip to Saudi Arabia, the President likes talking a lot about carbon footprints, carbon emissions, and global warming.

Why would the President get on Air Force One and fly 5,700 miles to Saudi Arabia to beg them to do something that we can do right here in America?

In fact, he could go less than 1,000 miles to Port Fourchon, Louisiana, in my district where they can produce hundreds of thousands of barrels a day in America which, by the way, because America has the best standards in the world, would emit less carbon than the oil produced in Saudi Arabia.

While the President will be flying over to Saudi Arabia, he won't know the answer he is going to get. They are an OPEC nation. They typically support a limited supply of oil because they want a higher price. So he doesn't know what the answer is going to be. He is going to fly 5,700 miles over and another 5,700 miles back to the United States. There are no solar panels on Air Force One, so that is going to be a lot of jet fuel and a lot of carbon emissions to do something that he could pick up the phone and call Port Fourchon. We would love to see him down there, but he can call them. I can tell you, Madam Speaker, the answer would be ``yes.''

They would say: Yes, we will produce more energy here in America.

But they are not allowed to right now because of limitations put in place by the Biden administration. So while we push to get this bill, H.R. 6858, brought forward, it really begs the question of first: What is the carbon footprint of President Biden's trip to Saudi Arabia?

But why even do this trip? Why go to Saudi Arabia and ask them to produce oil when we have it right here?

It is President Biden's policies that are stopping that oil from being produced, and, by the way, at a much lower carbon footprint than anything that Saudi Arabia, Russia, Venezuela, or any of those countries would produce if it were their countries meeting the demands of our Nation and so many others.

Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman, hopefully, to see if we can get the bill scheduled for next week.

Madam Speaker, if there is common ground we can find on the components of H.R. 6858, I would be happy to help facilitate that negotiation because there are a number of very specific items in that bill that address the shortfalls, the deficiencies, the inabilities to produce energy in America. The Keystone pipeline might be one of the more well known.

President Biden, on his first day in office, canceled the Keystone pipeline.

Of course, it is not moving forward because he canceled it. It would provide a vital supply of oil from our friends in Canada that we wouldn't need from other people.

But there are a number of other pipeline issues. No new pipelines have been approved in the country. You have to have an ability to move energy around the country if we are going to be able to produce our own.

If a conscious decision was made in the White House that they don't want any pipelines, because that impedes the ability to produce energy in America, it just means we have to import more of it from other countries. Whether it is Saudi Arabia, Russia, any of them that I would not want us to have to get it from, it is going to come in some form. It might be a tanker. It is going to get here, and it is going to have to be put on rail or an 18-wheeler if it can't be put in a pipeline.

Let's get more pipelines produced, LNG export facilities. There are multiple, at least four, LNG export facilities that are sitting on the desk over at the Department of Energy ready to go. These are multibillion-dollar, privately funded projects that can't move forward because they won't move, yes or no, on those requests that have been pending for over a year.

Obviously, you look at leases, not being able to develop your lease. If you are a farmer and you own land, you could talk about all the thousands of acres of land, but if you need a permit

from the Federal Government to plant food and the Federal Government won't give you a permit to plant the food, then you can't use the land. The land is worthless.

You own leases on Federal or State lands, but the Federal Government, through President Biden, said you can't get permits to go and exercise that lease. Then the lease is worthless.

There has been a lot of talk by the White House about who to blame. By the way, I have never heard of President Biden pointing the finger at himself or looking in the mirror and going, is there something I can do? We have a list for him that he can do, and he won't.

But Joe Biden, as a candidate for President, has said things like this multiple times since being President: ``No more drilling on Federal lands. No more drilling, including offshore. No ability for the oil industry to continue to drill, period.'' That was Joe Biden.

Then, Joe Biden continued to carry out policies that followed through on those promises to kill drilling in America, and each step of the way, the price kept going up.

Prior to Putin's invasion--I know the President loves trying to blame Putin. Well in advance of Putin's invasion, the price of oil was going up. In fact, the President was--whatever terminology you want to use-- pleading with, begging, asking Putin to produce more oil prior to the invasion of Ukraine. That was who Joe Biden was asking back then as he was carrying out his promise, ``No ability for the oil industry to continue to drill, period.''

He only applied that, by the way, to America. He was asking other countries to drill. He was just saying you can't do it here. Putin said no, by the way.

In the meantime, Putin was making $700 million a day selling his oil to America and Europe during that period when President Biden was carrying out all the steps to stop drilling in America.

Then you fast forward. The price keeps going up. President Biden, again, doesn't look in the mirror.

The gentleman mentioned they blamed the pandemic. That didn't fly because that wasn't the case because people started getting out again, started going again.

Energy companies asked to start producing again and filed permit after permit application and got denied and denied and denied, so then the President blamed the oil and gas companies. They had hearings up here, brought in all the oil and gas companies.

Do you know what the oil and gas companies said under oath? They want to drill more, and they can't drill because of President Biden's policies. It is President Biden's policies stopping them from drilling.

Again, if the oil and gas companies or Putin were the reason that there was this inability, and President Biden, as he has done multiple times, blamed them, if they were the reason that they had this shortfall, he would continue to be blaming them. But he knew the public wasn't buying it because it wasn't them, so he just blames more people.

Then, he goes to price gouging. As the gentleman pointed out, there was a bill here on the House floor a few weeks ago to try to shift the blame over to price gouging, and the answer was to allow you to sue your local gas station if you didn't like the price of gas.

Well, none of us like the price of gas. Suing your gas station is only going to make the price higher. Obviously, that had no impact because that wasn't the reason. But that was the answer and the attempt to try to blame somebody else.

Then we moved forward, and it is all of these other issues-- refineries. This week, the White House started blaming refineries.

While the White House keeps throwing spaghetti at the wall, trying to figure out if somebody else will take the blame, he is going to go to Saudi and ask them to help us lower the price. Saudi's ability to produce is irrelevant to the price if we produce in America because we have the ability to drive down that price because we are not an OPEC nation. We are not a monopoly. We are a free-market economy when the free market is allowed to operate.

But President Biden, through his promises--``No ability for the oil industry to continue to drill, period''--in essence, he took the free market ability for America to produce energy off the table, which means he gave that leverage to monopolies, to cartels. They are taking advantage of it because President Biden gave them that.

Instead of asking them to produce more when they are fine with the high price of oil, whether it is Brent, West Texas, it doesn't matter what it is. He has taken it off in America so that they can limit the supply.

Let's not limit the supply. Again, if it is about saving the planet, if it is about carbon emissions, why not produce more here? There is no country in the world that produces oil that does it cleaner or better than us.

If you take America off the table, as President Biden has done--``No more drilling on Federal lands. No more drilling, including offshore.'' That was Joe Biden. He took it off the table here. That means you are going to need oil from countries that emit more carbon to produce the same oil, so you get higher carbon emissions.

Again, that doesn't even count the carbon emissions that will occur when President Biden gets on Air Force One and flies over 5,700 miles to go have this conversation that he doesn't need to have because he can have that conversation right here in America at a place like Port Fourchon, where the answer would be yes, and it would be cleaner. And by the way, it would bring billions more dollars into America's Treasury. It would lower the price of gasoline. It would create more jobs in America.

Every answer says yes, except President Biden keeps saying no. We want to address it through this legislation, which would counter some of those many things that President Biden has done to turn off the spigots in America.

If we can work on ways to confront this, I would be more than happy to have that negotiation, and we could go through, offline, how to do that. That is why I continue to bring up this bill.

Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.

Just for clarification, the ranking member voted ``no'' on the bill.

The 800,000 leases--and I know we talked about this before. You can have 800,000 leases, but when you need, then, permits to actually utilize the lease--so you have a lease to go and develop oil, but you need to drill. You need to do seismic. You need to build pipelines, infrastructure to move it. If you don't get those permits to actually utilize the leases, the leases are worthless. That is what H.R. 6858 addresses. We have been raising that issue for a long time. The lease is no good if you can't, then, use the lease.

Obviously, we will continue to debate this. Hopefully, we will debate it over H.R. 6858 where we can actually be talking about how we work together to solve the problem.

Of course, as the gentleman knows, Congress did come together, Republicans and Democrats, to give our friends in Ukraine the tools to go and push Putin out of much of Ukraine and, hopefully, all of Ukraine.

We will continue to stand with the incredibly strong, resilient people of Ukraine in standing up to Vladimir Putin.

We will, hopefully, have this debate further as we are talking about the legislation that we would like to bring.

Unless the gentleman has anything else--Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from North Carolina for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, today's rule provides for consideration of three bills: H.R. 7666, the Restoring Hope for Mental Health and Well-Being Act; H.R. 5585, the Advanced Research Projects Agency-Health Act; and H.R. 4176, the LGBTQI+ Data Inclusion Act.

Two of these bills represent the progress that can be achieved when we work together on legislation that is important to the American people. It underscores what can happen when we work together, regardless of party ideology. I do recognize the hard work that the members of the Committee on Energy and Commerce put into the Restoring Hope for Mental Health and Well-Being Act of 2022.

This package is the first major effort put forth to address our Nation's mental health crisis since the lockdowns began for coronavirus. Following COVID-19 and the pandemic, we have seen a tremendous increase in the youth mental health conditions, suicides, and overdose deaths exacerbating the mental health crisis we already faced prior to the pandemic.

This bill maintains the flexibility for States to make funding decisions that best addresses the needs of their communities. The spending in this bill--and this is important--the spending in this bill is fully offset and targets funding toward the treatment of serious mental health conditions instead of generalized wellness programs that may not have an impact.

Included in this package is the Into the Light for Maternal Mental Health and Substance Use Disorders Act of 2022. That is actually a bill that I introduced with Representatives Yvette Clarke, Jaime Herrera Beutler, Young Kim, and Doris Matsui. Our bill authorizes and funds existing programs to help those impacted by maternal mental health conditions. Substance use disorders and mental health conditions are among the top leading causes of death for women who are pregnant and recently pregnant.

When I was a resident at Parkland Hospital in the 1970s, the top three causes of maternal mortality: hemorrhage, preeclampsia, or hypertension. Now, the preeminent causes are suicide and drug overdose--entirely preventable causes of maternal mortality. This bill will help us address that. So I am very encouraged to see that move across the finish line.

I also supported an amendment by Representative Drew Ferguson to include the Behavioral Health Interventions Guidelines Act--he likes to call it the BIG Act. Representative Ferguson and I actually introduced that as a standalone bill, but this amendment was made in order during the Committee on Rules yesterday.

The BIG Act passed the House last year with broad support. It requires the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration to develop best practices for schools to establish behavioral health intervention teams.

I heard from one of my colleges in Texas, Texas Tech University out in Lubbock. Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center brought to me their successful program to provide training for behavioral health intervention and schools in West Texas.

You know, sometimes in school, it is no secret who the kid is that is getting into trouble, the kid who is actually self-identified. And this is a way to provide the guidelines for that behavioral intervention that can be life-changing and lifesaving.

By establishing these behavioral intervention teams, the BIG Act helps to encourage prevention measures and interventions before youth mental conditions worsen or become even more serious. Unfortunately, we continue to see the consequences of not addressing mental health issues.

This rule also contains H.R. 5585, the Advanced Research Project Agency-Health Act, or ARPA-H. ARPA-H is modeled after the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, DARPA, and the Advanced Research Projects Agency in Energy.

The goal is to bring a greater focus on the research and development of our greatest healthcare challenges in areas where the private biopharmaceutical companies are unlikely to explore for scientific or business reasons.

ARPA-H was initially authorized in fiscal year 2022 in the omnibus budget and placed within the National Institutes of Health. But placing ARPA-H within another department of the Department of Health and Human Services risks its independence, and its independence is its entire reason for being. Without its independence, I don't know that ARPA-H would have the ability to foster innovation. But this bill secures ARPA-H as an agency independent of the influence of the rest of the executive branch. And that is important.

With significant Republican input, we ensure that this legislation also is fiscally responsible. We also make certain that the goal and mission of this agency is focused on research and development and provides accountability for this new research agency when submitting feedback from projects supported by the agency, as well as prohibiting the Federal funding to China and to Russia.

The bipartisan manager's amendment also ensures that the number of offices is cut from 14 to 6--what I call bureaucratic streamlining--and at least two of those six offices are actually dedicated to research and development and the administrative costs of the agency--and this is extremely important--the administrative costs are capped at 15 percent.

ARPA-H will provide the ability to focus on high-risk transformative technologies to improve healthcare and healthcare outcomes for all Americans.

The final bill that we are considering today requires federally administered surveys to collect information on sexual orientation and gender identity. The list of surveys affected by this bill is over 130 and it does include the every-10-year Census.

The information requested by this bill is deeply personal and involves a person's internal state of being. I have to point out that the Federal Government does not have a good track record of protecting Americans' private information, as evidenced by data breaches over the last several years.

The final concern with this bill is it is asking about very personal information without a clear statutory or regulatory need, but still we are prohibited from asking a person's citizenship status. I don't think I need to say any more about that.

Madam Speaker, I urge opposition to the rule, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, Republicans will immediately amend the rule to consider H.R. 471, the PAUSE Act, introduced by Representative Yvette Herrell. This bill would prohibit President Biden from rescinding title 42 authority, the public health order that allows for undocumented migrants to be immediately expelled.

This bill would provide for the stringent enforcement of title 42 and prohibit the Departments of Homeland Security and Health and Human Services from weakening its implementation.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of this amendment into the Record along with extraneous material immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Madam Speaker, here to explain the amendment is our newest Member of the United States House of Representatives, newest member of the Republican Conference, newest member of the Texas delegation, Mayra Flores, sworn in last night on June 21, after winning the special election in the 34th District in the State of Texas. Our colleague Filemon Vega had vacated that seat.

Important to note here, she is the first Mexican-born woman elected to Congress--the first. Her husband is a Customs and Border Protection officer, giving her a firsthand understanding of the crisis on our southern border. She began her working life in the cotton fields near Memphis, Texas, and is now representing a Texas community in Congress.

Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas, (Mrs.

Flores), our newest Member, to explain her amendment.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, we have two bills included in this rule that enjoy bipartisan support. They have come through regular order in committee. They had legislative hearings. They had subcommittee markups. They had full committee markups. All Members were able to participate, and all Members were able to be heard. This is the way it should be done.

The Restoring Hope for Mental Health and Well-Being Act will help Americans struggling with mental health issues that have been exacerbated by the lockdowns of the coronavirus.

Establishing ARPA-H as an independent agency--so critical--will allow for innovative, transformative health technologies and treatments that will benefit all Americans.

Unfortunately, it doesn't stop there. There does not appear to be a statutory or regulatory justification for requiring Federal surveys to collect information on an individual's gender and sexual identity. If we are going to ask about gender identity, we should also be asking about citizenship.

Madam Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote on the previous question and a ``no'' vote on the rule. I yield back the balance of my time.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak in support of the Advanced Research Projects Agency-Health Act, or ARPA-H Act. I know this has been an important priority for researchers, industry, and, most importantly, patients who are waiting for life-changing medical technology to improve or even save their lives.

This legislation will authorize the establishment of ARPA-H within the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. The agency will specifically be charged with helping to foster high-risk, high-reward treatments and cures for diseases with clinically unmet needs.

Some of my colleagues may be concerned about a new agency, and that is where a number of Republicans on the Committee on Energy and Commerce were early in October when this legislation was introduced.

ARPA-H was funded at $1 billion in the previous appropriations bill in 2021. To ensure that funding was used for the best possible result, the Committee on Energy and Commerce for the past several months has worked hard to ensure that ARPA-H has a clear mission. As a result, it passed out of committee with a strong 55-to-3 vote.

We most notably ensure this newly created agency remains separate from the NIH. We limit administration costs associated with setting up ARPA-H to maximize research investments, which would require a strategic plan and transparent reporting on projects; define the number of offices; and require that the majority of offices within the organization be exclusively devoted to biomedical research and development.

In order to ensure this agency is fostering the development of innovative, transformative health technologies that are not being met by Federal programs or private industry, the technologies the agency should pursue are very explicitly defined in the legislation before us today.

The legislation puts guardrails in place to ensure that priority access is granted to U.S. researchers over researchers abroad. There are additional requirements for international researchers to work in collaboration with a U.S. counterpart if they receive ARPA-H funding.

Importantly, the bill makes clear that funding is prohibited from going to nondomestic recipients of a malign foreign country, most notably Chinese research labs or Russian research labs. This is a significant step to ensure the United States' intellectual property isn't being stolen by our adversaries and to ensure we remain the world leader in biomedical research and innovation.

As the Republican leader on the Health Subcommittee, I am leading efforts to strengthen oversight of NIH-funded research. It is unacceptable that some Federal grants have been supporting foreign researchers with ties to governments of adversarial nations like China. We must prevent this from happening moving forward.

Mr. Speaker, I emphasize the need to pass this bill. The funding has already been appropriated in a previous year. If we don't pass this bill and don't authorize this agency to move forward, then this will erode our oversight role in Congress. Funding decisions made by ARPA-H must require diligence to ensure that resources are being spent as appropriately and as effectively as possible.

The Biden administration ARPA-H organizational chart, without this bill, has 14 offices, less than half of which are actually dedicated to research. This gives us insight into how the Biden administration would manage this new agency without congressional guidance. It is just appropriate that the legislative branch sets up the way this money is being spent.

That is what the bill before us today does. It puts ARPA-H on the right track, gives Congress the opportunity to set high standards, and promotes greater biomedical research and innovation for patients.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the majority for working together. I thank our staff for the excellent work they have done. I encourage the passage of this because if we don't pass it, the money is still going to be spent but without congressional guardrails.

Mr. Speaker, I support this bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from Washington (Mrs. Rodgers), who is the Republican leader of the full committee.

Mr. Speaker, as the chair of this committee, Mr. Upton made his signature issue the 21st Century Cures, and not just passing that which has changed people's lives already but being able to work with Ms. DeGette and all the others to say that this is something we all need to work on together in a bipartisan way and make a big difference.

Now as chair emeritus, this is, I think, his signature piece. He may have other pieces of legislation, too, but this is the one that I have worked on with him in the very beginning in the Oval Office with the President. We worked together to say: Can we do something big that is really going to change the lives of people in this country?

He has done it. He has done it his entire career. He is a mentor of mine, and, unfortunately, at the end of this year he is going to do something different than being here in Congress. He will be missed for his voice and being a champion of this issue.

Mr. Speaker, I am going to yield to him so that he can speak on this bill for himself. The gentleman certainly has left a legacy here with the previous legislation and this piece of legislation. So let's work together to move it forward.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Upton).

Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman from Michigan an additional 1 minute.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, it is important we are here today.

I thank the chair of the other subcommittee whom I have the privilege to work alongside as the Republican leader. She has been a champion of ARPA-H as it first came out and at the first meeting at the White House. We have discussed quite a bit about where it should be and what the guardrails should be.

I know the funding got out in front of it. We all really wanted Congress to have a say in how this agency operated and not the executive branch the way, unfortunately, getting in front of authorization does.

I appreciate the hard work. I appreciate the work of the colleagues who have spoken and everybody else who is working on this together on our staff.

Mr. Speaker, I think it is important that we pass this bill. I urge my colleagues to vote for the bill tonight, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I claim the time in opposition, even though I am not opposed to the bill.

Mr. Speaker, the Chair of the subcommittee kind of went through what the amendment says. Another thing that we need to make sure is reinforced is that the amendment would ensure that agency and precious U.S. taxpayer dollars can never go to nondomestic recipients organized under the laws of a covered foreign entity as defined by the National Security Act of 1947. This includes China, Russia, Iran, and North Korea. So I want to make sure we understand that.

I said this on the debate on the bill that the Chair and I were talking back and forth. And I understood the mission of what we wanted to accomplish with ARPA-H, but I was concerned about the application of it and how it would actually be put into place. We had a lot of discussions based on that.

This amendment really does define as best as we can define in legislation, without vague terms, what we want ARPA-H to do. This amendment ensures that 85 percent of the money goes to research and not to administration and growing an agency. We think that this really does narrow and, as we said earlier, put guardrails. This amendment is what accomplishes that with the bill. I am for this amendment, and I encourage its adoption.

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