Floor Statements

Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. Chair, the Environmental Protection Agency, the EPA, spends as much as $50 million a year to employ nearly 200 armed agents at an average cost of $216,000 per year, per agent. The American people would likely be disturbed to hear that.

According to the nonprofit Open the Books, the EPA has spent millions of dollars over the years on antitank ammunition, amphibious assault craft, night vision equipment, unmanned aircraft, and other military equipment. It is difficult for me to imagine that the EPA has a legitimate use for antitank ammunition. To me, that sounds like we are arming a SEAL team. The difference is a SEAL team can explain why they need these things; the EPA cannot.

These agents have been involved in raids in Alaska, Idaho, Wyoming, Montana, Massachusetts, North Carolina, and in my own State of Alabama. In Alaska, EPA agents wearing flak jackets and carrying long guns showed up to review paperwork at a family-owned mining operation.

In my home State of Alabama, armed EPA agents took over two waste treatment facilities in Dothan, Alabama. These agents were posted at each entrance to the plant and recorded identification information on all of those going in and going out.

The EPA is just one of more than 70 Federal agencies that employ armed personnel, many of which most Americans would never associate with law enforcement.

I think we need to take a step back and reevaluate whether arming the bureaucracy is the best way to ensure that our laws are enforced. Federal agencies should be able to demonstrate their need for armed personnel and, absent such a demonstration, should rely on and partner with local, State, or Federal law enforcement when there is a need for armed protection.

Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Higgins).

Mr. Chairman, I am stunned to hear the response to this coming from the side that supports defunding the police. What we want to do is have proper law enforcement enforcing our laws and not weaponizing the entire Federal bureaucracy against the citizens of the United States.

I can't imagine why the EPA would need anti-tank ammunition to enforce the laws of the EPA. We have seen what this leads to in multiple examples, which I will not go into at this point. The critics' claims, though, that my amendment would put EPA personnel at risk of harm, that would be wrong.

My amendment does not prohibit the EPA from using funds to provide security for its personnel or property. It does not prohibit training of EPA security or law enforcement personnel, either.

My amendment would prohibit funding for the EPA's armed and militarized agents who have a history of intimidating Americans by conducting aggressive raids and begin to address the troubling trend of militarization of our Federal agencies.

Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to support the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of my amendment.

Federal bureaucrats at the Department of Energy are once again attacking Americans' freedom to choose the appliances that they want in their homes. They tried to take 50 percent of the gas stoves off the market. Now, they are coming for your room air-conditioners. My straightforward amendment would block DOE's overzealous regulation on room air-conditioner units from taking effect.

Summers in Alabama, as you know, Mr. Chairman, are hot. My constituents, like millions of Americans, use air-conditioners to fight this heat. For people who are so concerned about global warming, you would think they would want to make air-conditioners less expensive, not more.

I grew up dirt poor, and we couldn't afford an air-conditioner. That was the case for most of the people we knew where I grew up.

What I am afraid of is that the Biden administration wants us to go back to those times. This rule fits a pattern of Democratic energy policies that make life more difficult and more expensive, especially for low-income and middle-income Americans who will struggle to afford the up-front costs of more expensive air-conditioning units.

Mr. Chairman, this amendment shows the clear difference in the vision between House Republicans and the Biden administration and House Democrats. House Republicans believe in American energy abundance, and the administration believes in energy restrictions. We believe in consumer choice, and the administration believes in heavyhanded government mandates. We believe consumers back home can make their own decisions, while the administration believes Federal Biden bureaucrats should decide what Americans can and can't do on a daily basis.

If a consumer wants a more energy-efficient room air-conditioning unit, they have the freedom to choose one based on what they think is best, not what the Biden bureaucrats think is best. This rule is another example of vast government overreach and should be stopped.

Mr. Chairman, I therefore urge my colleagues to support my amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, this is another example of bureaucratic overreach. Congress is pretty clear in its lawmaking, and as we are finding out, as the Supreme Court takes up these issues, we are trying to restore legislative authority to this House.

In regard to this amendment, again, as I said, it shows the clear difference between the vision of the House Republicans and the Biden administration and the House Democrats.

I think what the American public needs is the opportunity to choose what they need for their homes, and I believe if we continue down this path with Republican initiatives on energy, we are going to bring down energy costs, but we will also respect the right of American citizens to buy whatever they think they need.

Mr. Chairman, I urge a ``yea'' vote on my amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I thank Chairman Johnson for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of S.J. Res. 11, a resolution nullifying the EPA's overreaching rule on American trucks.

Mr. Speaker, the American people cannot afford yet another misguided Biden policy. From the gas pump to the grocery store, costs have skyrocketed because of this administration. Now, in their infinite wisdom, they have concluded American trucks need to be regulated with the most stringent standards in our Nation's history, all in the name of the radical, climate-alarmism agenda.

Almost every item found in the grocery store, pharmacy, restaurant, or business is transported on a heavy-duty truck. If this regulation takes effect, Americans will see essential items such as food, clothing, and school supplies cost even more.

It is sad the Biden administration and regulators at the EPA decided their devotion to radical climate goals justify increased suffering for the American people. However, it is a price they are willing to make you pay to achieve their goals. Regulations like this will diminish the quality of life for constituents like mine.

Supporters of this regulation might argue the costs of compliance would be minimal. They would be wrong. The EPA's own analysis found that it would cost over $8,000 per truck. Furthermore, the bureaucrats at the EPA have a history of underestimating the costs of their heavy- handed regulations.

In 2001, they estimated the cost of their nitrogen oxide regulation to be $5,000 per truck, but the market analysis found it to exceed $21,000. The American Truck Dealers Association agrees the EPA estimate is far too low and estimated the true costs to be around a $42,000 increase per truck, which would mean more inflation.

Mr. Speaker, the American people should not suffer higher costs because of demands made by climate activists. We must nullify this regulation. I support this resolution for the benefit of the American people.

Mr. Chair, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye'' on rollcall No. 179.

Amendment No. 36 Offered by Mr. Van Drew

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment I introduced in concurrence with Representative Lesko to defend America's ability to purchase and use natural gas stoves, a common household appliance found in over one-third of American households.

Federal bureaucrats at the Department of Energy are threatening access to natural gas stoves for millions of Americans through the rulemaking process. This amendment would stop the DOE from denying Americans the freedom to cook on the range of their choosing.

According to the Department of Energy's own analysis, in 2020, 38 percent of Americans used natural gas to cook in their homes. The Energy Information Administration says cooking with gas is three times cheaper than cooking with electricity.

Americans should have access to the cooking appliances that they deem fit. They do not want or need the Federal Government to dictate what is in their kitchens. The Department of Energy's own research estimates that 50 percent of gas stoves on the market today don't meet the proposed standards, which means these households would have to remove them.

This is a direct attack on natural gas consumption in this country and an example of the Biden administration's

desire to control every decision we make. Americans should have the freedom to choose their appliances, and Federal Government intrusion is unwarranted and unwanted.

Furthermore, this rule is essentially a tax on consumers, who are already being squeezed by inflation. My Democratic colleagues may argue that these rules were crafted with the purpose of saving consumers money. The DOE estimates the regulation would reduce energy use by 3.4 percent, resulting in a whopping $21.89 saved over a gas range's lifetime. This would save consumers $1.45 per year of the 15-year lifespan of a gas range.

This minuscule savings indicates this regulation isn't actually about consumers' pocketbooks. It is about Federal control at the behest of the radical green policy groups.

People should be free to choose their cooking appliances based on what they need rather than on what the government requires. If a consumer wants a gas stove that cooks faster, then they should be free to choose it, and if a consumer wants a gas stove that cooks slowly but more efficiently, then they should be free to choose that.

Mr. Chairman, no one should have their choices limited by Federal bureaucrats. In fact, these bureaucrats should not have the ability to implement rules like this at all without congressional approval.

This amendment shows the clear difference in vision between House Republicans and the Biden administration.

Mr. Chairman, I urge all of my colleagues to support consumers and their freedom to choose what they prefer in their kitchens by supporting this amendment.

Madam Chair, I rise in support of H.R. 1, the Lower Energy Costs Act. I am proud of the work that we are doing here to reduce the burden of high energy costs facing Americans and to strengthen our national security. I am also pleased that my bill to repeal the EPA's $27 billion slush fund is included in H.R. 1. It is an important step to right the numerous wrongs in the misnamed Inflation Reduction Act.

I have said many times that the war in Ukraine didn't create the energy crisis; it exposed it. If we learn nothing else from the energy crisis in Europe, it is that we should never make our Nation or our allies dependent on an adversarial nation to meet our energy needs. Sadly, the Biden administration's attacks on American hydrocarbon energy make us more dependent on China, who is an adversary, making this not only an economic security issue but a national security issue, as well. Thankfully, the Lower Energy Costs Act puts us on a path to energy security, improves our economy, and strengthens our national security.

Additionally, Americans have been facing record levels of inflation due to the policies of the Biden administration. Energy costs are one of the biggest drivers of inflation. Everything we use or consume has an energy cost. On day one, President Biden set the course for higher energy costs and higher inflation. When he came into office, inflation was 1.87 percent. Today, it is over 6.5 percent because of reckless spending, increases in massive regulatory costs, and higher energy costs.

The misnamed Inflation Reduction Act contributed to these problems by establishing the so-called Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund, which is nothing more than a $27 billion slush fund for green advocacy groups.

The reality is energy prices have risen so much during Joe Biden's Presidency that nearly 20 million households are now behind on their household utility bills. If my colleagues really wanted to help the American people, they would do everything they could to help reduce energy costs.

This might be interesting to my colleagues. Polling indicates that a majority of voters support the Lower Energy Costs Act, including 56 percent of self-identified liberals and 69 percent of moderates.

For these reasons, I encourage all of my colleagues to support unleashing our domestic energy production to reduce the cost of living for all Americans, strengthens our national security, and makes energy independent again. I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 1.

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. Chairman, Federal bureaucrats at the Department of Energy are threatening access to gas stoves for millions of Americans through the rulemaking process.

In fact, the DOE admits that up to 50 percent of all gas stoves currently on the market or in use in American households will not meet the proposed standards.

This amendment would stop the DOE from imposing this regulation. According to the DOE's own analysis, in 2020, 38 percent of Americans used natural gas to cook in their homes.

The Energy Information Administration says cooking with gas is three times cheaper than cooking with electricity.

The American people see this for what it is; a direct attack on all natural gas use in the country and another example of the Biden administration's desire to control every decision we make. Moreover, this rule is essentially a tax on consumers who are already being squeezed by inflation.

My Democratic colleagues would argue that these rules were crafted for the purpose of saving consumers money.

The DOE estimates the regulation would reduce energy use by 3.4 percent, resulting in a savings of only $21.89 over a gas range's life span. That is $1.45 per year over an average life span of 15 years for a gas range.

These miniscule savings indicate this regulation is really not about the consumers' pocketbooks; it is about Federal control at the behest of radical green energy groups who want the complete elimination of the use of natural gas.

I will point out were this to happen, there would be far less food to cook because natural gas is essential to fertilizer for food crops. Its elimination would cut food production in half worldwide.

Mr. Chairman, I encourage all my colleagues to support this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I appreciate the fact that my Democratic colleague admitted that half the stoves do not meet the standard.

When he says that half already meet it, you know, by my math, the other half doesn't.

Mr. Chairman, this amendment shows the clear difference in the vision between House Republicans and the Biden administration and my Democratic colleagues' views on these things.

Their claim that this regulation will save American households money is another painful example of how bad they are on math.

House Republicans believe in American energy abundance, and the administration believes in energy restrictions.

We believe in consumer choice, and the administration believes in heavy-handed government mandates.

We believe that consumers back home should make their own decisions, while the administration believes Federal bureaucrats should decide what Americans can and can't do on a daily basis, including what they can use to cook their families' meals.

I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from North Dakota (Mr. Armstrong).

Mr. Chairman, I encourage all my colleagues to support this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 300, the Settlement Agreement Information Database Act.

The principle of open government is a hallmark of our system of governing, dating as far back as the Enlightenment.

The open government doctrine maintains that citizens have a right to access the Federal Government's records and operations to facilitate oversight of the public business.

Open government principles are key to fulfilling the promise of a nation ruled by the consent of the governed.

Open government requires transparency and public participation, which are vital to ensure the public's continued trust in our government.

Increasingly, however, Federal agencies have entered into legally binding settlement agreements to resolve litigation without going through lengthy public trials that often provide the transparency.

Unfortunately, agencies generally release limited information about these settlements. When information is published, it is usually in the form of a press release focused more on self-promoting than informing.

Furthermore, Federal agencies can unilaterally deem the terms of a settlement agreement confidential with no explanation.

Such secret negotiations and agreements prevent the public from participating in important policy decisions made on their behalf.

As a result, it is impossible for Congress and the public to determine the comprehensive impact of these settlement agreements on State and local governments, private sector entities, and taxpayers.

These parties are often barred from providing input but must continue to follow the mandated requirements which often remain in effect for decades.

Today, I am pleased to join my colleagues on both sides of the aisle as we take this first step to correct this problem.

The Settlement Agreement Information Database Act, or the SAID Act, will increase the transparency of the Federal Government and shine a much-needed light on settlement agreements.

The bill requires Federal agencies to submit information regarding settlement agreements to a public, electronic database.

This public resource, to be overseen by the Office of Management and Budget, would include dates, payments, attorney's fees awards, and a list of States, municipalities, and other entities impacted by these settlements.

Under the requirements of the SAID Act, if the agency believes that the information regarding an agreement should remain confidential, the agency head must publish an explanation of why it is confidential.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleagues for supporting this bipartisan legislation. They include Chairman Comer, Ranking Member Raskin, Representatives Ami Bera, Scott Peters, Andy Barr, and French Hill.

I especially thank my colleague across the aisle, Representative Gerry Connolly, for his leadership in introducing this bill jointly with me.

In a time when Americans feel divided, it is important to come together to support commonsense, good government legislation.

I am happy we could, once again, expedite its consideration in the House, and I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this commonsense legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to recognize the life of Charles ``Red'' Farmer. Mr. Farmer was born on October 15, 1932, in Nashville, Tennessee. He began racing cars in the 1940s and is still competing today at the age of 90, having recently raced on the dirt track at Talladega Short Track in Alabama.

Following military service in Korea, and having obtained his NASCAR license, Red competed in his first Daytona Beach race in 1953 and went on to

compete in the Daytona 500 a total of eight times. In 1962, he moved to Hueytown, Alabama, and became a core member of the famous ``Alabama Gang''.

Red won a total of four NASCAR championships, winning the modified division championship in 1956 and proceeding to collect three consecutive championships in NASCAR's Late Model Sportsman division from 1969 to 1971, including the 1971 Permatex 300 at Daytona. He has won so many times on various tracks and across different divisions that the exact number of wins is unknown, but it is in excess of 750.

In addition to driving, Red served as crew chief for NASCAR Hall of Famer Davey Allison. Red is recognized as one of NASCAR's 50 greatest drivers. He is in the Alabama Sports Hall of Fame and the NASCAR Hall of Fame.

Red married his late wife, Joan, in 1950 and has three children: Bonnie, Cindy, and Mike.

Red's passion for racing and his determination to never retire, but to continue doing what he loves--even at the age of 90--is an inspiration to all of us.

Madam Speaker, I rise to recognize the 25th anniversary of the European Prayer Breakfast. In honor of this milestone, I offer this brief history of the breakfast and its initial beginnings.

In 1996, Prince Nikolaus von Liechtenstein co-hosted a prayer group in his home of senior political, diplomatic, and NATO leaders of Europe, along with Sir Paul Petrie. The group met weekly in his dining room in Brussels, Belgium, for over a year in rich fellowship and mutual sharing of scripture, focused on and around, the Person of Jesus. Deep relationships between the participants in this small group were formed as a result.

At the end of a year, one of the group suggested that there were others in Brussels who would enjoy and benefit from a similar experience. As a result, an invitation to others from the same spheres of responsibility was issued to attend a Saturday breakfast.

Nearly 100 attended this by-invitation-only event in 1997. They shared their unique stories with one another and were greatly encouraged. Following the gathering, the participants were asked if they would be interested in continuing to meet. With their approval, the participants sent out initiations to 157 people, and 155 accepted.

This 1st annual European Prayer Breakfast was held in 1997. Prince Nikolaus moderated in 4 languages in French, Dutch, German, and English. Prayers were offered and scriptures read in all 4 languages. The Honorable Georgina Dufoix, then the French Minister of the Interior under President Mitterrand, shared her testimony in French, simply and powerfully.

At its conclusion, people were so moved that there was weeping among many. After closing in unison with The Lord's Prayer in 28 different languages simultaneously, no one moved. There was such a powerful presence evident among them.

When the group was later asked . . . ``Would you like to do this again?'' There was a universal agreement . . . . Yes.

Thus began the European Prayer Breakfast of European diplomats, elected officials, military officials, and friends in Brussels, Belgium.

Sometime later Paul Petrie began to collaborate with Doug Coe, a coordinator of the U.S. National Prayer Breakfast in Washington, DC. Doug offered Paul the opportunity to invite European members of Parliament and others to the U.S. National Prayer Breakfast in Washington, DC, and so began the relationship of mutual encouragement.

As the European Prayer Breakfast continued, Paul, Prince Nikolaus and others received requests from multiple European National Parliamentarians to receive invitations to the Brussels event and they came by the dozens, then hundreds. This would bring many requests to help start similar events in National Parliaments across Europe.

In each case Paul would visit the respective country's capital and encourage the initial step to be a weekly prayer gathering for a year, in preparation for the larger event. The group would consist of like- minded followers of Jesus from political, diplomatic, and administrative roles, with an intentional effort to include opposing political parties. This smaller, weekly group who would pray, study scripture, and develop personal relationships, long before initiating a larger gathering. The inclusion of opposing political parties into a small weekly group would become a foundational principle of the prayer breakfast, in every location.

Today there are 40 smaller prayer groups across Europe who gather in the same spirit, to study and discuss the teachings of Jesus, and to pray.

It was in 2002 that, at the National Prayer Breakfast in Washington, DC, that Paul Petrie, along with friends Dennis Coll, Bill Hightower and others, would organize the European Suite & Dinner. Here, European political leaders would come together during the week of the U.S. National PrayerBreakfast to mutually share and encourage one another. Subsequently, Paul Petrie would host the European Prayer Breakfast Leader's dinner at the Stanhope Hotel in Brussels during the week of the European Prayer Breakfast.

In 2017, Paul Petrie was knighted into the Ancient Order of St. George, by His Royal and Imperial Highness The Archduke Karel Van Hapsburg of Austria, for his ``30 years of influence for the Kingdom of God upon European Royal Families, Governments, and Parliaments.''

Subsequently he was granted an Honorary Doctorate from Asbury Theological Seminary for his work to extend the message of Jesus to others.

The spirit of the European Prayer Breakfast has been extended to many countries since its inception. The Israeli Knesset was one of those places. The Israeli-Christian Caucus came to visit the European Prayer Breakfast in Brussels, and subsequently made the decision, with the support of Israeli President at the time, Ruven Rivlen, to initiate the Jerusalem Prayer Breakfast in 2016, of which Paul Petrie was a Founding Member. It continues today.

It is with deep appreciation that this proclamation is offered in honor of Prince Nikolaus von Leichtenstein and Sir Paul Petrie, for their profound positive effect upon this movement across Europe, and for their deep and abiding friendship for over a quarter of a century.

Madam Speaker, Wednesday was the 235th anniversary of the passage of the Northwest Ordinance.

The Northwest Ordinance, passed on July 13, 1787 under the Articles of Confederation, created the Northwest Territory which would eventually become the states of Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Michigan, and Wisconsin.

Two portions of the Ordinance capture important principles that are worth recovering 235 years later.

Section 13 of the Ordinance notes that the fundamental principles of civil and religious liberty form the basis upon which republics are erected and that they are the basis of all laws.

Article 3 affirms that religion, morality, and knowledge are necessary for good government and the happiness of mankind.

We've strayed far from these truths in the years since the Northwest Ordinance was passed.

However, it isn't too late to recover and encourage a robust respect for civil and religious liberty while acknowledging the fundamental truth that religion, morality, and knowledge are essential for America and her people to flourish.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor the life of Dr. Frank M. Barker, Jr., who passed away on December 27, 2021. Dr. Barker was a humble man of great faith who lived his life in faithful service to his savior, Jesus Christ: loving and serving others, giving to those in need, and sharing the good news that God sent His only Son to Earth to save those who could not save themselves.

A lifelong resident of Birmingham, Alabama, Dr. Barker was a graduate of Ramsey High School in 1949, a graduate of Auburn University with a degree in engineering, and a lifelong Auburn Tiger fan. He served his country as a jet fighter pilot in the U.S. Navy, including service during the Korean war.

After attending seminary, Dr. Barker founded Briarwood Presbyterian Church in Birmingham, leading a congregation that was committed to reaching the world for Christ. Through his leadership, Dr. Barker played an important role in the formation of the Presbyterian Church in America, a denomination that remains committed to the inerrancy and authority of Holy Scripture.

I know that Dr. Barker's life and legacy will continue to be an inspiration to others and a model for living a life of generosity and faithfulness.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to call up H.R. 471, the PAUSE Act, to protect all Americans from Biden's border crisis.

Madam Speaker, I rise this evening with a heavy but grateful heart, heavy with the grief that comes from losing a friend but very grateful for having such a friend and colleague as Don Young.

Congressman Don Young was truly an iconic figure in the history of the United States House of Representatives. Serving the great State of Alaska for three-quarters of its existence as a State, Don was determined to do all that he could for the people he both served and loved.

One of my favorite memories of Don was at the beginning of my second term in our organizational meeting, and he was in disagreement with our Speaker. He said, ``You may be the Speaker, but I am Don Young.''

This House will not be the same. There may be Members who will sit in his chair, but there will never be another that can take his place. There was and is only one Don Young. My colleagues and I extend our deepest sympathy to his family and his wife, Anne. We will all miss him.

Madam Speaker, I have been asked many times this week about my thoughts on the address to Congress by the President of Ukraine, Volodymyr Zelenskyy.

I was moved and inspired by his commitment to the defense of his stricken nation and its besieged people. President Zelenskyy's remarks reminded me of another time when a courageous and determined leader sought the aid of America in defense of his nation as it was being threatened by the armed might of Hitler's Nazi forces.

On February 9, 1941, Winston Churchill addressed the British Parliament with a speech that was broadcast by the BBC. Churchill spoke to Parliament, but he was really speaking to the United States, and, in particular, to President Franklin Delano Roosevelt.

At the end of that speech, Churchill said this: ``Put your confidence in us. Give us your faith and your blessing, and, under Providence, all will be well.''

He concluded his message to Parliament and to America by saying: ``Give us the tools, and we will finish the job.''

That is what I heard President Zelenskyy saying to the Congress of the United States. Madam Speaker, it is time to listen to the people who are face-to-face with the enemy fighting for their country.

Madam Speaker, they know better what they need, far better than people in suits sitting behind desks who are thousands of miles from the battlefields of Ukraine.

We should heed their call and give them the tools to defend their country.

Madam Speaker, I was unable to vote on January 12-13, 2022, due to testing positive for COVID. Had I been present, I would have voted YEA on rollcall No. 4; YEA on rollcall No. 5; NAY on rollcall No. 6; NAY on rollcall No. 7; NAY on rollcall No. 8; and NAY on rollcall No. 9.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas for his leadership. A lot has been said about the Congressional Budget Office scoring the Build Back Better bill, that it increases the deficit by $3 trillion, putting truth to the lie that the bill is paid for. It is not.

What the American people need to know is that there is another CBO report that was released earlier this fall that should be front and center of this debate over raising the debt limit.

Here is what that report says about the direction America is heading. According to the CBO, by 2051, America's debt-to-GDP ratio will be over 200 percent. In other words, our debt will be twice the size of our entire economy.

That CBO report said a growing debt burden would increase the risk of a fiscal crisis and higher inflation, as well as undermine confidence in the U.S. dollar, making it more costly to finance public and private activity in international markets.

The CBO reported that, with growing debt and rising interest rates, net spending for interest more than triples relative to the size of the economy.

A New York Times article reported that the CBO warned that such high debt levels will lift borrowing costs, slow economic output, and raise the risk of a fiscal crisis.

The Committee for a Responsible Budget warned that the Nation's long- term output was an air raid siren that can be heard for miles. It said the mounting debt will make it harder to address income inequality and to make needed infrastructure improvements. Apparently, my Democratic colleagues are deaf to that siren.

Now my colleagues want to raise the debt limit by another $2.5 trillion so they can continue down the path of reckless spending with no regard for the consequences for our Nation's future. That is the wrong path. That is the dangerous path. And that is why every Member should heed the warnings and vote ``no.''