Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 260 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), my good friend and the ranking member on the Rules Committee, 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

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

Mr. Speaker, last night, the Rules Committee met and reported out a rule, House Resolution 260, providing for consideration of H.R. 1, the Lower Energy Costs Act.

The rule provides for consideration of H.R. 1 under a structured rule. It provides 7 hours of general debate, with 3 hours equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce or their designees. Additionally, the rule provides for 3 hours equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Natural Resources or their designees, and 1 hour equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure or their designees.

Further, this rule makes in order 37 amendments and provides 1 motion to recommit.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this rule and in support of the underlying legislation. H.R. 1 unleashes American energy, and it immediately will lower costs for families by resuming lease sales on Federal lands and waters. It will repeal fee increases on energy production, and it will end the moratorium on coal leasing.

Additionally, H.R. 1 strengthens America's critical mineral supply, prohibits a moratorium on hydraulic fracking, and streamlines the permitting process.

Let's remember, on day number one of his Presidency, President Biden launched a war on American energy. He canceled the Keystone XL pipeline, also, by the way, killing tens of thousands of union jobs, and he paused new and oil gas leases on Federal lands. That was day number one.

Under President Trump, we had independence with U.S. energy, but, now, President Biden has drained our Strategic Petroleum Reserve to the lowest level since 1983. That is the lowest level since I have been alive.

Meanwhile, the administration is increasing regulations on domestic energy production by easing regulations and incentivizing energy production in foreign, communist, and authoritarian states like Venezuela.

In the words of President Biden, climate change is the existential threat to humanity. Apparently, that only applies when the U.S. is the one producing the oil and gas, not when nations like Venezuela produce the natural gas.

President Trump, by contrast, opened 100 million acres of public land and water to exploration. But Biden has leased fewer acres of Federal land for oil and gas drilling than any President since the end of World War II. The results have directly impacted all Americans.

On the day Joe Biden took office, the average price for a gallon of gasoline was $2.39. Today, the national average is $3.47. That is a 44 percent increase. And let's not forget June's highest rate of $5 a gallon.

Due to inflation, the average American family is now paying $10,000 more in household costs under President Biden.

By leaving our resources in the ground and turning to places like Russia, Iran, and Venezuela for help, Democrats are choosing to increase energy costs and risk the national security of American families.

Why? All to appease far-left, radical activists, since they, the Democrats, lack the moral clarity to do what is right for our citizens.

However, instead of focusing on lower energy costs, this administration thinks the most pressing energy issue is--wait for it-- banning our gas stoves. That is their priority. Don't take my word for it. While the administration is now gaslighting the American people,

saying they don't stand for this, in places like New York, they have already taken the lead by announcing just yesterday they will ban gas stoves in new buildings.

Americans shouldn't have to choose between driving to work, paying their electric bills, or putting food on the table. We have to lower energy costs for Americans. We have to do it now.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this rule, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Just in rebuttal, my friend and Chairman Bruce Westerman put it best. He said when the Democrats talk about polluters over people, what they are actually referring to is not this bill. It is actually a reference to where we are now, thanks to Democratic reckless and radical policies.

Right now, China is actually the largest emitter of CO2. Russian gas is much dirtier than gas from other places around the world, especially the United States where we have cheap, reliable, and clean natural gas. But instead of taking advantage of our God-given resources, Democrats and their reckless, radical policies make us more dependent on these forms of energy that are much dirtier.

My good friend from Massachusetts said this bill will drag us back decades. Well, I do want this bill to take us back, not decades, but just to a few years ago when we had a Republican in the White House. Let us not forget that the United States, again, we currently lead the world in CO2 emission reduction, but between 2018 and 2019, the total reported greenhouse gas emissions from large facilities fell nearly 5 percent. Yeah, let's go back. Let's go back to that time.

I find the talk about costs somewhat interesting because only in Washington, D.C., only in a place that lacks logic and accountability like Washington, D.C., can future revenue be considered a cost. Think about that. It is considered a cost. The math does not make sense.

It is also quite fascinating that my friends across the aisle are now talking about deficits, which in the last 4 years they voted for over $4 trillion of increases to spending.

Before I yield to my good friend from Texas, Dr. Burgess, I will point out a real-life example of what happens when we follow far-left, Democratic environmental policies.

Often I wish that we had a real-life example that we could talk about in terms of policy, and here we do. It is called Sri Lanka. Sri Lanka, trying to search for a great ESG score to--I don't know, appease globalists, appease the ruling elite, appease woke Wall Street investors--they went for this ESG score and right now they are almost a failed state. Sri Lanka's green new deal, to be clear, was a human disaster. It is an ill-advised national experiment.

Let me explain it. They went to organic farming. Organic farming yielded nothing but starvation, poverty, and chaos. President Rajapaksa, with no warning, with no attempt to teach farmers how to cope with change, announced a ban on all synthetic fertilizers and pesticides. Again, he was after that ESG score.

Ninety percent of Sri Lankan farmers relied on synthetic fertilizers. After the ban, 85 percent of farmers experienced crop loss. The damage done by this organic order was so extensive that the former President had to reverse himself less than 7 months later.

Now, let's just bring this to political reality, the goals of the United States,

where only 20 percent of electricity is powered by renewable energy, 20 percent renewable, and less than 10 percent of American families own an electric vehicle. By the way, those that own electric vehicles are overwhelmingly people who make over six figures a year. It is not your average Americans who are driving around in Teslas. Yet, the left seeks to unilaterally ban all hydrocarbons and instill these pipe dreams that the U.S. will generate all of its energy through wind and solar.

All you have to do is look at California to see what comes next. Last August, Governor Newsom announced that they will ban the sale of gasoline cars by 2035. Just 1 week later, after that announcement, the electric grid was overwhelmed in California, and the State had to ask EV owners to limit when they plugged in their vehicles to charge.

So if you ask yourself: Where does the policy of the left lead us? Look no further than to the idiocy of the policy in California and look no further than to the almost failed state of Sri Lanka. That is where these reckless, radical policies will lead the U.S. economy.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Burgess), the good doctor, my good friend, and fellow Rules Committee member.

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

Mr. Speaker, if we want to help senior citizens and if we want to help the working class, we can make sure that the working class and seniors on a fixed income can actually pay their heating bills.

According to Ipsos polling, one in three Americans have reported trouble affording gas in Biden's energy crisis. Almost 35 percent of Americans, over 40 million, use a gas stove. The Democrats want to ban the gas stove.

Let's talk about the economic pain that is coming to all Americans. Electricity prices are expected to rise over 11 percent this winter. Natural gas prices are expected to rise as much as 25 percent since last winter. About 47 percent of households use natural gas to heat their homes, by the way.

Heating home oil prices are expected to rise as much as 45 percent since last winter. Over 80 percent of homes in the northeast use heating oil. Regions that heavily depend on home heating oil, such as, may I dare say, Massachusetts, they will pay an average bill of $2,354 extra due to the draconian measures on energy, the reckless and radical policies of the left on energy production.

If we want to actually help these individuals, like Republicans want to do, we can pass H.R. 1. I also want to focus on the comment: Who do we trust? We heard that refrain over and over from my good friend from Massachusetts. I can tell you who we shouldn't trust. We shouldn't trust the so-called experts that the Democrats are infatuated with.

Let's talk about some of the statements we have heard, some of the predictions from these so-called experts. Al Gore in 2006 said: ``If you look at the 10 hottest years ever measured . . . they have all occurred in the last 14 years. The hottest of all was in 2005.''

``Within the decade there will be no more snows of Kilimanjaro.''

He said that in 2006. Last time I checked, it was 2023 and we still had snow on Mt. Kilimanjaro.

Al Gore also said:

The North Pole will be ice-free in the summer by 2013

because of manmade global warming.

That was 2013. It is 2023. Another prediction that has not come true.

John Kerry, the climate czar, in 2009 said:

You have sea ice, which is melting at a rate that the

Arctic Ocean is now increasingly exposed to. In 5 years,

scientists predict we will have the first ice-free Arctic

summer. . . .

That was 2009. It is 2023. Last time I checked, there was still ice in the Arctic.

Let's talk about Barack Obama and his predictions. In 2015, he said:

No challenge poses a greater threat to the future

generations than climate change.

When he left office, let's not forget that this man bought beachfront property in Martha's Vineyard, while having the audacity to tell us that we are facing rising sea levels due to climate change. Again, he bought a beachside mansion in Martha's Vineyard, so spare me.

In talking about the greatest threat, notice there was no mention of the CCP, notice there was no mention of Russia, which in debate with Republicans--when Republicans were pointing to the threat posed by Russia, Barack Obama said the 1980s want their foreign policy back.

Let's talk about another so-called expert that the left loves to talk about, Greta Thunberg. In 2018, she tweeted: ``A top climate scientist is warning that climate change will wipe out all of humanity unless we stop using fossil fuels over the next 5 years.''

Conveniently, Greta Thunberg deleted that tweet this month. Why? Because that was said in 2018. It is now 2023, 5 years later, and humanity is still around.

It is easy to say that the experts have just been wrong in the last few years, since the early 2000s. The so-called experts have been wrong on this topic since the 1960s.

In 1969, The New York Times published a piece from Paul Ehrlich, and he said--the so-called expert, by the way: ``We must realize that unless we are extremely lucky, everybody will disappear in a cloud of blue steam in 20 years.'' Again, that was 1969. That didn't happen. Yet, in 2023, Paul Ehrlich--I think he is 90 years old--this man is still being published and still being held up as an expert on climate change, and appearing on 60 Minutes telling us that we are all going to die. Spare me.

I have got more quotes. I could go on, but it is very clear who you should trust. The Republicans are the party of science. The Democrats are the party of political science. The Republicans are the party of chemistry. The Democrats are the party of alchemy. We are the party of astronomy. They are the party of astrology. The science is with us.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Roy), my good friend and fellow Rules Committee member.

Mr. Speaker, spare me the gaslighting on gas stoves. We know that, just yesterday, New York banned all gas stoves in new buildings. We are talking about New York.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Langworthy), who is my good friend on the Rules Committee.

Mr. Speaker, spare me the pearl-clutching about this amendment process. Let me remind my friends across the aisle that last Congress, their H.R. 1 was a closed rule. Zero amendments from either side were allowed.

We have Democrat and Republican amendments on this bill, so, again, spare me. Also, spare me that we don't want to debate this. Spare me that we don't want to have this debated and other viewpoints heard.

White House climate adviser Gina McCarthy recently called for Big Tech censorship of Americans who dared to speak out against the Biden administration's radical, far-left Green New Deal agenda. I think it is very clear who wants censorship. I think it is very clear who is afraid of ideas that don't fit their narrative. It is the Democratic Party.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Alford), who is my good friend.

Mr. Speaker, I admit I misspoke, it wasn't H.R. 1 in the 117th. It was--wait for it--H.R. 5, the Equality Act; H.R. 6, the American Dream and Promise Act; and H.R. 4, the John R. Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act. Three of the low-numbered bills that my friends across the aisle ran last Congress, their so-called priority bills, were run with closed rules. Just to be clear on that, it wasn't H.R. 1, but it was the three other ones that they ran as a priority.

Mr. Speaker, I have no further speakers, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, my friend across the aisle wants to say follow the money so we can see where people's priorities are.

Let's just follow the Strategic Petroleum Reserve release. President Biden shipped 5 million barrels of this emergency fuel overseas to countries, including China. If you want to see where the priorities lie, don't follow the money, follow where the Strategic Petroleum Reserve is going, and that is going to China.

Also, quotes on climate change, I will provide my friend across the aisle with all my quotes regarding climate change. I have got pages and pages of them. What you might find very interesting are all the ones from the 1980s where the so-called experts were calling for the next ice age, so I would direct you to that just for the fun of it.

It is interesting to see how wrong these so-called experts are and somewhat ironic that we are still being told that the experts are right after literally decades of getting almost everything wrong.

The U.S. produces more oil and natural gas than any other country in the world. As a global energy power, we can provide lower energy prices, we can create steady jobs, and we can secure America and our allies with cheaper gas that is cleaner.

Just imagine if the U.S. were supplying LNG from the great Commonwealth of Pennsylvania to our allies in Europe. Think about that instead of our allies in Europe being dependent on Russian gas, which is 41 percent dirtier.

However, the left's goal is to eliminate fossil fuels. They want to make the United States dependent, unstable, poorer, needier, and weaker because they refuse to allow us to exploit our natural resources.

If you want to think about what lies ahead in the future if we allow the Democrats to get their energy plan in place, just look at Sri Lanka. I have already talked about it. Sri Lanka has a great ESG score. They also have an almost-failed state.

Don't think that this is just some misguided plan or misguided misinformation from the Democrats. This is their plan. They want to make hydrocarbons more expensive because their base, the liberal elites that sit at home on Zoom all day, they don't have to put gas in their tank, they work from home. It is the guys who are working, who shower after work that have to put gas in their trucks and cars. That is why it is necessary to pass H.R. 1.

I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the previous question and ``yes'' on the rule.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise to commemorate the 250th Anniversary of Westmoreland County, the history of its people and their service to Western Pennsylvania.

Westmoreland County was founded on February 26, 1773 through an Act of Assembly signed by Governor John Penn. While the British already maintained a presence in the region, Westmoreland was the first county to be founded west of the Allegheny Mountains and represented a new frontier for Pennsylvania. Westmoreland's people endured hardships when the county was sought by Virginia during Dunmore's War. The county seal at Hannastown was attacked and burned by American Indians in 1782. Three years later, the county seat was moved to Greensburg where it stands today.

This new frontier also played a role in testing the strength of our country's leadership during the Whiskey Rebellions, when farmers from Western Pennsylvania fought back against the first federal tax on spirits. What could have been a far bloodier conflict was handled fairly but firmly by President George Washington and Pennsylvania's leaders, proving to the world that America could handle its own disputes without resorting to tyranny.

Although neighboring Allegheny County was first formed from parts of Westmoreland, their economic lives have remained inseparable. Westmoreland's plentiful coal resources fueled Pittsburgh's revolutionary steel industry, leading to the formation of Carnegie Steel by Westmoreland County native Henry Clay Frick. Wages from those same steel plants helped to draw workers and feed families across the Allegheny River. Farmlands of Westmoreland helped provide eggs, oats, and alfalfa to the rest of the Nation for years, cementing the county as an essential arm of American industry.

Mr. Speaker, the story of Westmoreland County is uniquely American and important to Pennsylvania. You cannot tell the story of our country without speaking of the people who worked hard to turn a frontier county into an engine of American industry. On behalf of the people of Pennsylvania's 14th Congressional District, I congratulate the citizens of Westmoreland County on this remarkable milestone and look forward to building on this storied history over the next 250 years.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to recognize the life and accomplishments of Manuel Pihakis of Canonsburg, Pennsylvania.

Mr. Pihakis was a man devoted to his faith and community, where he served as a teacher, athletic director, wrestling coach, mayor, and school board member for many years. In and around Canonsburg, he was renowned for his caring nature and generosity.

Born the son of Michael and Sophie Pantely Pihakis in 1933, Manuel graduated from Canonsburg High School in 1952. He starred as a three- time PIAA wrestling champion, finishing high school with an impressive record of 99-1. Upon graduation, he attended Indiana University, earning a degree in 1956. His wrestling success led him to participate in the final Olympic tryouts in 1952 and 1956. Manuel's prowess as a competitor and a coach has cemented his place in the Pittsburgh Sports Hall of Fame, Pennsylvania Wrestling Coaches Hall of Fame, Washington- Greene Chapter of Pennsylvania's Hall of Fame, and the Canon-McMillan Hall of Honor.

The years Manuel devoted to his fellow Pennsylvanians have immortalized him among the Canonsburg community. He served on many committees, including the School Board, the Zoning Board, and the Frank Sarris Public Library, among others. Ultimately, he was elected to serve his community as Mayor of Canonsburg. Many looked up to him as an academic, athletic, and spiritual mentor.

In 2013, Manuel retired from coaching to spend more time with his wife, Evelyn Mahramas Pihakis, and his sons, Michael and George. He was strongly devoted to his faith as an active member of the All-Saints Greek Orthodox Church in Canonsburg and was awarded the highest honor a layman of the church may receive--the Archon of the Order of St. Andrew.

Mr. Speaker, Manuel Pihakis is a hometown hero to Canonsburg, Pennsylvania, whose legacy of service to family, faith, and community should inspire all Americans. On behalf of the people of Pennsylvania's 14th Congressional District, I extend my condolences to Mr. Pihakis's family and wish them healing during this difficult time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to celebrate the life and legacy of Mr. Joseph Hardy, a pioneer in the building materials industry from Fayette County, Pennsylvania, who passed away on his 100th birthday on January 7, 2023.

During his final year attending Lehigh University, Mr. Hardy answered the call of duty, enlisting in the United States Army at the outbreak of World War II. After serving his nation as a radioman for the Army Air Corps in the Pacific, he returned home to pursue an industrial engineering degree at the University of Pittsburgh.

After working part-time for his family's farm and jewelry store, Mr. Hardy founded Green Hills Lumber. After several successful years, he purchased land in Eighty-Four, Pennsylvania, and opened a ``cash and carry'' lumber yard, the 84 Lumber Company, which would

become the nation's largest privately-held building materials supplier.

In 1987, Mr. Hardy began purchasing 400 acres of land in Fayette County. This mountainous landscape became home to what is now the Nemacolin Woodlands Resort. Today, Nemacolin is one of North America's premier resort destinations and a shining example of Mr. Hardy's vision in the Keystone State.

In addition to the job creation in southwestern Pennsylvania, he generously invested in the redevelopment of the resort's surrounding area. Mr. Hardy was famously quoted as saying, ``I want to die broke. For the remainder of my life, I want to enjoy and participate in the giving of money to help improve people's lives.'' This selfless spirit nourished in his roles as Vice Chair of the Board of Commissioners of Fayette County and the Board of Trustees at the University of Pittsburgh and Washington & Jefferson College.

Mr. Speaker, Joseph A. Hardy III's entrepreneurial spirit, commitment, and generosity to southwestern Pennsylvania, in addition to his service to our Nation, exemplify a well-lived life. On behalf of the people of Pennsylvania's 14th Congressional District, I extend my condolences to Mr. Hardy's family and wish them healing during this difficult time.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Republican Conference, I send to the desk a privileged resolution and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that, notwithstanding section 1(a)(2)(A) of H. Res. 12, as amended by section 1(c) of House Resolution 78, the Select Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government be composed of the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on the Judiciary, together with not more than 19 other Members, Delegates, or the Resident Commissioner appointed by the Speaker, of whom not more than 8 shall be appointed in consultation with the minority leader.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 83 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), who is my good friend, 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

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

Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 83 provides for consideration of two resolutions under a closed rule. They are H. Con. Res. 9 and H. Res. 76.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this rule and in support of the underlying resolutions.

H. Con. Res. 9 is a simple resolution denouncing the horrors of socialism in all forms and opposes the implementation of socialist policy here in the United States.

This resolution should not be controversial. Socialism is a harmful ideology that is opposed to everything the United States stands for. Karl Marx and Vladimir Lenin both described and demonstrated how socialism is a transition period between capitalism and communism.

We have seen this time and time again. Socialist ideology creates a concentration of power that leads to communist regimes, totalitarian rule, and brutal dictatorships that deprive their citizens of basic freedoms and human rights.

We have seen the horrors of communism through the tens of millions killed by regimes in China, the Soviet Union, North Korea, Cambodia, and elsewhere, horrors that some of my colleagues across the aisle refused to even condemn yesterday during the Rules Committee hearing on this.

Even today, hundreds of thousands of Russians, Chinese, Cambodians, Koreans, Cubans, and Venezuelans have fled from murderous communist dictatorships and have legally resettled here in the United States. They are a living testament to the barbarity of these socialist regimes and the promise of the American Dream.

It is essential for Congress to condemn the atrocities committed in the name of socialism and prevent any socialist policies from being implemented in the United States.

Additionally, the rule before us provides for consideration H. Res. 76, a resolution that would remove Representative Ilhan Omar from her seat on the Committee on Foreign Affairs.

Representative Omar has a repeated history of making deplorable and despicable anti-Semitic remarks and does not deserve to sit on the committee directly overseeing U.S. international policy, partnerships, and national security.

In fact, the former chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee, a Democrat, Representative Eliot Engel, claimed that such comments made by Representative Omar have ``no place in the Foreign Affairs Committee or the House of Representatives.''

Compared to the actions taken by my Democratic colleagues last Congress, I think that we Republicans are being incredibly generous in only removing Representative Ilhan Omar from the Foreign Affairs Committee instead of from all her committee assignments, which we are clearly in our right to do.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues support this rule, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

I remind my good friend from Massachusetts that I don't think you will find anybody on this side of the aisle or in this Chamber that is more of a hawk on Russia than me, and I would gladly condemn Vladimir Putin. Let's not forget, Putin is a Communist. This is a man who started his career as a KGB agent, so this resolution clearly covers Vladimir Putin. We all condemn him.

Additionally, I remind the gentleman that the first time I ever spoke on the House floor--I waited weeks to speak as a freshman. The first time I spoke, though, was on anti-Semitism. I spoke to condemn the shooting at the Tree of Life Synagogue in Squirrel Hill, Pennsylvania. I remind my friends across the aisle that we have been mischaracterized by some of the comments that were just said.

But let's talk about who won't condemn socialists. We had a ranking member, Democratic ranking member in the Rules Committee hearing yesterday who was given the chance to condemn. She would not do it. She was given a chance to condemn Putin, would not do it; a chance to condemn Pol Pot, wouldn't do it; and a litany of other socialists and Communists. I just remind my friend from across the aisle that Members on his side refuse to condemn socialists and Communist dictators.

I find it rich that there is a question over the definition of socialism. Remember, for the last 2 years, my friends across the aisle couldn't even define the term ``woman.'' We had that rigmarole where they couldn't define ``woman'' and refused to acknowledge

science, that there were different sexes. Now they split hairs between the difference between socialism and communism? It is absolutely laughable.

Let's just define ``socialism,'' since we are here having this debate. Socialism is a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned by the community as a whole, and it is not me saying that socialism leads to communism. That is Marx saying that. That is Lenin saying that. Part of their entire theory was you had a transition period between capitalism and communism. That transition period they called, again, Lenin and Marx, they called that socialism. Let's be very clear what we are talking about. Let's not play games with language, especially when you can't even define incredibly basic terms that even kindergarten students could define.

Let's talk about what Representative Omar has said, talking about that because I think it is important to put this in context.

In February of 2019 Representative Omar tweeted, ``It's all about the Benjamins baby'' in reference to American support for Israel. She said that AIPAC was buying U.S. Representatives. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and the entire Democratic leadership actually condemned Representative Omar for these anti-Semitic comments.

Then, again, just to show this is a pattern, this isn't some one-off incident: February 27, 2019, she doubled down on her stance at a forum in Washington, D.C., when she said, ``I want to talk about the political influence in this country that says it is okay for people to push for allegiance to a foreign country.''

Clearly, she is going back to the trope that Jewish Americans have a dual loyalty between the United States and Israel. That offended Chairman Eliot Engel, who at the time was the Democratic chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee, and he said, ``It is unacceptable and deeply offensive to call into question the loyalty of fellow American citizens because of their political views, including support for the U.S.-Israel relationship. We all take the same oath. Worse, Representative Omar's comments leveled that charge by invoking a vile anti-Semitic slur.'' Again, that is not me saying that. That is a former Democratic chair of the House Foreign Affairs Committee.

Further, in March 2019, Representative Omar trivialized the terrorist attacks of September 11 that killed just about 3,000 U.S. citizens by describing it as, ``Some people did something.'' Her words.

In 2021, a few months before the death of 13 servicemembers during the botched withdrawal from Afghanistan, Representative Omar compared servicemembers of the United States and the Israel Defense Forces to terrorist groups like Hamas and the Taliban. She tweeted, ``We have seen unthinkable atrocities committed by the U.S., Hamas, Israel, Afghanistan, and the Taliban.''

To think that a Representative here in this body would equate the Israel Defense Forces and American servicemembers to Hamas and the Taliban speaks volumes. It is unacceptable. That person should not be on the Foreign Affairs Committee.

Representative Omar's Democratic colleagues sent a statement asking her to clarify those remarks because it was offensive and misguided. Again, the words of my colleagues across the aisle about Representative Ilhan Omar's words, and she refused to apologize.

In May of 2021, Representative Omar accused Israel of committing war crimes following days of conflict between Israel and Hamas, where Hamas was launching rockets into Israel that saw thousands of missiles fired indiscriminately at Jerusalem and Tel Aviv, killing civilians. She described Israel's defensive posture as war crimes, saying nothing about the terrorist attacks of Hamas.

So spare me the false outrage over her comments. She has proven time and time again that she should not be on the Foreign Affairs Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Salazar).

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

We all know why we are here today. We are here to condemn socialism. Let's not play games. We know what socialism is.

Despite knowing what socialism and communism is, you are going to see Democrat after Democrat come down here on the floor and refuse to vote to condemn socialism and communism.

Let's talk about what that means. Mao Zedong, in the socialist revolution in China, you had 55 million people starve to death in the wake of famine and devastation caused by the so-called Great Leap Forward in China.

You are going to have Democrats come to the floor and refuse to condemn that.

Let's talk about Joseph Stalin. By the way, a history lesson: FDR, a Democrat, would refer to Joseph Stalin as ``Uncle Joe'' when he was trying to make this ruthless thug more palatable to the American people.

Again, a Democrat praising Joseph Stalin; but I digress.

Under Stalin, tens of millions died in the Bolshevik revolution.

At least 10 million people were sent to the Gulags in the USSR; and millions starved to death in Ukraine due to forced famine. Pol Pot eliminated one-fourth of the population in Cambodia.

Again, you are going to have Democrats come to the floor and refuse to condemn that.

Due to socialist and totalitarian policies, over 75 percent of Venezuelans currently live in poverty. Only 3 percent of Venezuelans consider themselves food secure. This was the largest GDP in South America before Chavez took over, and now they are literally eating their pet dogs to stop starvation.

Marxist socialist policies and communism regimes are responsible for hundreds of millions of deaths worldwide. Again, my Democratic colleagues

will come to this floor later today and refuse to condemn it. It is truly astounding.

Mr. Speaker, 3.5 million have starved to death in North Korea just since the 1990s alone. In the current Communist regime in Cuba, the government continues to repress and punish virtually all forms of dissent and public criticism as Cubans endure the worst economic crisis seen in decades.

Again, Democrats will come to the floor and refuse to condemn that.

During Castro's rule, thousands of Cubans have been incarcerated in abysmal prisons; thousands more were harassed and intimidated; and entire generations were denied basic freedoms.

Again, my Democratic colleagues, some of them will refuse to condemn that.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Alford), my good friend.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is nice to hear that people in Massachusetts are not talking about communism. Do you know where they are talking about communism? Places like south Florida. Places like Miami.

It is because, unlike those in Massachusetts, they have experienced communism. They have experienced socialism. Ask any Cuban refugee.

That is why you have individuals here like Mario Diaz-Balart, like Maria Salazar, like Carlos Gimenez who represent those districts.

This is an issue for a lot of Americans because they never want to see the horrors of socialism and communism here on our shores.

It is not just Cuba. Let's talk about China because my friends across the aisle always hesitate to criticize and condemn China. It is quite remarkable.

China has deprived 1.4 billion human beings of their fundamental human rights. Since March 2017, China has detained and persecuted 1.8 million Turkic Muslims, the Uyghurs.

They put them in so-called political reeducation camps. We all know what those are. Those are death camps. Those are gulags. The Chinese have them in their western province. The world is silent on it, and my colleagues from across the aisle refuse to condemn socialism.

Those Uyghurs are being held in the western province without due process. They are being forced to engage in labor and forced organ harvesting. They are suffering atrocities like torture, and yet again, my Democrat colleagues will refuse to condemn socialism today.

The CCP hasn't just violated the rights of the Uyghurs in western China. They have also subjugated Tibet.

It used to be a cause celebre for my friends across the aisle to talk about freeing Tibet. When I was growing up in the 1990s, you saw the bumper stickers everywhere. Where is that outrage now from my Democratic colleagues? Why won't they call out China?

In Tibet, the CCP has engaged in severe repression of the Tibetans' unique religious, cultural, and linguistic heritage and is engaged in gross human rights violations in Tibet, including but not limited to extrajudicial detentions, disappearances, and torture.

Elsewhere, the CCP is widely alleged to be a major harvester and trafficker of forcibly acquired organs. Organ harvesting targets minorities, including the Falun Gong, Uyghurs, Tibetan Muslims, and Christians in China.

Yet, where is the outrage from my friends across the aisle? Why won't they condemn socialism here today on the House floor?

The CCP attempts to eliminate minority peoples through forced abortion and sterilization. Where is the outrage from across the aisle?

There are 30 million more men in China than women due to forced abortions and the one-child policy, the result of Big Government socialism. Yet, again, my friends across the aisle will refuse to condemn socialism.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. McCormick), my good friend and a good doctor.

Mr. Speaker, I have no further speakers at this time. I am prepared to close, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Just in the spirit of rebuttal, I would like to address some of the comments made by my friend across the aisle.

The spending under President Trump; there was spending under President Trump.

But you know what? He also had a pandemic, a pandemic that we haven't seen in the last 100 years.

So where is the excuse for the $1.7 trillion that was just rammed through?

You want to talk about closed rules, things not going through regular order?

That $1.7 trillion was rammed through. It was architected--didn't even go through the Senate Appropriations Committee. It was rammed through by two Senators that are no longer here who had zero accountability to the American public.

What about Build Back Better? Where is the excuse for that?

All Build Back Better did was increase inflation, hurt workers who have wages that aren't keeping pace with inflation.

What about the Inflation Reduction Act? Where is the excuse for that and why we had rampant spending there?

There is no excuse for it.

Let's talk about China. To paraphrase Marcus Aurelius, it is not about one's words; it is about their deeds.

Let's talk about the deeds of my friends across the aisle. Three years ago or so, my good friend, the Speaker of the House, put together--he wanted to put together a select committee on China, and he was strung along by my friends across the aisle.

Finally, the Speaker had to move forward on his own as the minority Republican leader to put together the China Task Force. I was privileged to be on the China Task Force. You know how many Democrats were on that task force? Exactly zero. Zero Democrats joined that task force.

So it is quite amazing how I hear that the Democrats want to condemn China; but when they had the chance to have a select committee to address the threat of China, they won't go along with. When they had the chance to join a task force explicitly put together to combat China and their malign influences on the world, zero of them joined that task force. So spare me the talk on China. We have seen how you treated China.

Let's talk about definitions; playing these silly games that we can't define ``socialism'' and ``communism.'' We are all educated. We all know what socialism is. We all know what communism is. So spare me the fact that ``socialism'' isn't defined in this bill.

This is especially rich from the party, my friends across the aisle who, for the last 2 years, couldn't even define basic terms like what is a woman. That is not just me saying that.

Let's talk about Justice Brown Jackson. She was asked during confirmation to define a woman; and you know what her response was? ``No, I can't.''

So the party that can't define a woman now wants to sit here and say that we can't define ``socialism'' and ``communism.'' We all know what this is.

Let's talk about, lastly, Representative Ilhan Omar and due process. I know there was a display put up regarding due process.

It is quite amazing how my friends across the aisle have now discovered the principle of due process after 4 years--I'm sorry--2 years of one-party rule here in Washington, D.C., 2 years where due process wasn't followed at all.

Where was the due process for my good friend from Georgia when she was removed from all her committees? Again, that is all her committees. We are only removing Representative Ilhan Omar from the Committee on Foreign Affairs.

Where was the due process for my good friend, Dr. Gosar, when he was removed, again, from all his committees?

There wasn't one Democrat who stood up and talked about due process. But miraculously, now we have found due process when the Republicans are removing somebody from a committee, one committee, for anti-Semitic remarks, and a pattern of anti-Semitic remarks for that.

But let's just go back and talk about socialism. Let me be clear. Socialism must never take root in America. President Trump himself said America will never be a socialist Nation. These are words we should all rally around. We should all support that.

But for too long, Democrats have fought this far-left authoritarian agenda, regardless of the regimes across the globe that commit acts of violence and oppression against their own people in its name.

Experiments with socialism have led to painful human tragedy. We are talking about starvation, imprisonment, imprisonment without due process, I might add, and mass murder.

Capitalism has lifted more people out of poverty than any other system. It is capitalism that is the way out of poverty, not socialism, not communism.

Two hundred years ago, at the birth of capitalism, there were only about 600 million people in the world who were not living in extreme poverty. Today, due to the advance of capitalism, there are more than 6.5 billion people who are not living in extreme poverty. It was free- market capitalism that led the way here, not government-controlled socialism.

Since 1970, the percentage of the world's population living on the equivalent of less than $1 a day has fallen by more than 80 percent. Instead of millions starving to death due to socialism and communism, capitalism has pulled hundreds of millions of people out of despair.

Socialism and anti-Semitism have absolutely no place in America.

For those reasons, I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the previous question and ``yes'' on the rule.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise with deep concerns regarding big technology companies' ongoing efforts to silence conservatives on media platforms. In the wake of the 2020 New York Post's Hunter Biden Laptop story censored by social media platforms and news stations, Americans saw firsthand the government and media collaborating to silence the truth to influence a presidential election. As a pillar of the U.S. Constitution, free speech is critical to our civil discourse, and denying viewers access to a wide array of news opinions and stories is a dangerous precedent.

Further, I am deeply troubled on February 22, 2021, some Democrat members of the House Energy and Commerce Committee used their power to push for censorship of television networks like Newsmax, Fox News, and One America News Network. This was a blatant attempt by Democrats to silence conservatives and push their thumb to influence free speech and the upcoming midterm election.

I believe all voices and political views should be fairly represented and accessible so my constituents can access a wide variety of content. That is why, on January 20, 2023, I wrote to DirecTV's Chief Executive Officer, Mr. William Morrow, regarding their contract negotiations with Newsmax to ensure both parties come to a solution. Sadly, last week, the contract between Newsmax and DirecTV expired. I urge both parties to return to the negotiating table, so Pennsylvanians do not lose access to this vital cable news channel.

Mr. Speaker, this dangerous trend and bias towards conservatives can no longer last in the public sphere. Television providers like DirecTV are uniquely positioned to ensure fair consideration in programming distributions regardless of political affiliations.

Madam Speaker, I thank the distinguished chairman and my good friend from Massachusetts for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, the rule before us today provides for consideration of H.R. 8393, the Puerto Rico Status Act. This is a bill that received an emergency Rules hearing yesterday with just 3 hours' notice, 3 hours for an issue that deserves to be heard through regular order.

H.R. 8393 would authorize a federally sponsored, taxpayer-funded election to be held in Puerto Rico on 5 November 2023. This election would require the voters of Puerto Rico to choose between three status options: independence, sovereignty and free association, or U.S. statehood.

You might notice something missing here. This bill doesn't even give Puerto Ricans the option to preserve their current status as a territory of the United States. So not only do House Democrats want to control how the States run their elections, they now want to control how Puerto Rico runs their elections.

H.R. 8393 even takes things a step further than that. If Puerto Ricans vote to become a sovereign or independent nation, this legislation tells them what they have to include in their new constitution, how they have to ratify their constitution, and how elections for government officers should take place.

My friends across the aisle want to talk about colonial power. What does that sound like?

Further, this bill would completely circumvent congressional authority by not allowing Congress to ratify the option that Puerto Rico ultimately chooses.

The question of Puerto Rico's statehood is a serious topic, one that I am not necessarily opposed to, but it is a topic that deserves a deliberative process with careful consideration and expert input.

There have been numerous hearings on this issue, but there were no hearings on this specific bill. There has been no vetting of legal implications of using this unprecedented, self-executing process to statehood.

This is not a question that should be run through a lameduck Congress on the last day of a scheduled session with less than 24 hours' notice. That is unacceptable.

Again, I am not debating the merits of Puerto Rican statehood, but I am pointing out the glaring problems in this ill-conceived, half-baked legislation that leaves too many questions unanswered.

House Democrats are doing nothing more today than using Puerto Ricans as pawns to score cheap political points with a bill that has zero chance of becoming law.

Let's just be frank and honest about that. This bill has zero chance of becoming law this session of Congress. It is a joke that we are even considering it today.

We owe it to the voters of Puerto Rico to do better than this. They deserve more.

Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose this rule, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I would like to inquire as to whether my friend has any additional speakers.

Madam Speaker, I am prepared to close, I have no further speakers, and I yield myself the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I have already talked about the fact that this bill did not go through regular order. It is even questionable whether the committee that heard this hearing has jurisdiction to consider this bill.

I haven't even touched on the fact that the status options that are called for don't give Puerto Rico the chance to keep its current status. The status quo is totally off limits.

We have also talked about dictating to a sovereign nation what is in their constitution. It also, as I said before, abrogates constitutional authority. This has never been done before.

Also, there is no CBO score on this. We have zero idea how much this is going to cost. This also doesn't take into consideration PROMESA which is the financial oversight and management board that helps Puerto Rico.

A big glaring issue here is citizenship. We haven't had a single hearing on how this would affect citizenship.

So you are in Puerto Rico and born to two U.S. citizens, what happens to your status?

Are you a U.S. citizen or not?

That is not considered in this bill.

So, again, this bill is half-baked. It didn't go through regular order, and it didn't go through proper committees of jurisdiction, yet here we are considering it in a lameduck session.

I am incredibly disappointed by this. I am here just 1 day after this bill was

considered in a hearing that was held in the Rules Committee debating legislation scheduled on, again, the last day of the 117th Congress. Again, this bill has zero chance of becoming law. We are wasting the time of the American people.

I have said it repeatedly, but it requires saying again: we have real crises that this Nation is facing. Our southern border is one great example.

At no time has our southern border been more dangerous and more unstable than right now. This past fiscal year set the record for encounters of illegal immigrants, also a record for migrant deaths, a record for apprehension of suspected terrorists, and a record for seizure of fentanyl at the southern border.

The seizure of fentanyl might sound as if we are doing something good, but we only interdict less than 10 percent of the fentanyl. So if our fentanyl seizures are up, then the amount of fentanyl coming into the United States is, of course, up. Yet with all that, congressional Democrats won't even acknowledge that there is a problem at our southern border. Even the Biden administration won't admit the gravity of the situation.

Vice President Kamala Harris, the so-called border czar, has said: ``Our border is secure.''

That is gaslighting. That is gaslighting the American people. President Biden himself has said: ``There are more important things going on.''

He refuses to even visit the southern border. That is gaslighting, and that is also dereliction of duty.

Further, House Democrats failed to meet the fundamental duty of funding the government, despite spending most of last year passing trillions of dollars in wasteful spending that has done nothing but driven up inflation, driven up our national debt, and has seen real wages decrease for working Americans.

So now we are letting two Senators who won't even be in office next year ram through a massive omnibus spending bill that was written behind closed doors and without the input of House Republicans.

So with today's rule, House Democrats are, once again, refusing to put forward solid legislation that has an actual chance of moving forward and bringing relief to the American people.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentleman and my good friend from California for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, the rule before us provides for consideration of four pieces of legislation that are, once again, nothing but missed opportunities to address the multiple crises facing our country under the Biden Presidency.

Rather than working with Republicans to actually address the unmitigated crisis at our southern border, to address the cold war we have with China, the proxy war we have with Russia, or the historic levels of inflation, Democrats are rushing to the floor these half- baked legislative items that will create more problems than they aim to solve.

Look no further than S. 3905, the Preventing Organizational Conflicts of Interest in Federal Acquisition Act. Instead of making meaningful reforms to Federal acquisition policy, this legislation is duplicative, and it is contradictory to existing policies. It also tells the Federal Acquisition Regulatory Council to do something that it is already required to do.

Additionally, this rule provides for consideration of H.R. 1948, the VA Employee Fairness Act. This legislation would put veteran patients at risk by shifting questions of professional conduct to collective bargaining.

The Secretary of the VA has been and should continue to be directly accountable for the quality of care provided to our veterans at the VA.

While we are focusing on these unnecessary bills, China has recently signed a $50 billion trade deal with our ally Saudi Arabia; Putin, once again, threatened to launch a nuclear war on the West; and the wealth of the average American has dropped to the lowest level ever recorded.

The chief of the U.S. Border Patrol reported that over the weekend there were over 16,000 migrant encounters at the border--and wait for it--that was in a 48-hour period, 16,000 in less than 2 days, but President Biden hasn't stepped foot on the southern border since he took office.

Last week, when he was not visiting the border while in Arizona, President Joe Biden was asked about that, and his response was ``There are more important things going on.''

Yet, during the administration there have been nearly 5 million illegal immigrant crossings at our southern border, and that includes 1 million got-aways. These are individuals that we have no record of that we just know escaped into the interior of the country.

Yet, Biden has failed at protecting our southern border just as he failed in America's prisoner swap with President Putin. The administration effectively surrendered to Putin by swapping a woke celebrity basketball player for the ``Merchant of Death,'' an international arms smuggler with the blood of Americans on his hands.

This disastrous negotiation is just another failed foreign policy decision that was based on Russia's terms, not ours. This rash decision left two other Americans detained in Russia: Pittsburgh history teacher Marc Fogel, and U.S. Marine Paul Whelan. They have no clear chance of returning home now. We have lost all leverage unless--I am going to be surprised to discover that--we have two ``merchants of death'' in a Federal prison in the U.S. Something tells me that is not the case.

What we should be doing is we should be immediately acting to protect our national security. We should be ensuring the safe return of all Americans that are wrongfully detained abroad. We should be working to secure the southern border. We should not be passing ill-conceived and unnecessary legislation. To be frank, our time is too precious, and our challenges are too great.

Mr. Speaker, for those reasons, I urge my colleagues to oppose this rule, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, instead of addressing any of the crises that are actually facing this Nation, House Democrats are allowing the Senate to ram through a huge omnibus spending bill that was written without the input of House Republicans and was written behind closed doors.

In September, House Republicans were very clear in opposition to postponing a government funding fight to the Democrat-controlled lame- duck session. Once again, House Democrats failed to meet the fundamental duty of funding the government despite spending most of the year passing trillions of dollars in wasteful spending that has fueled inflation and driven up our debt.

That is why if we defeat the previous question, I will personally offer an amendment to the rule to immediately strike sections 8 and 9 from the rule, which would strike the omnibus vehicle from this rule.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my amendment in the Record, along with any extraneous material, immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Roy), to explain the amendment.

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

Mr. Speaker, I really can't stand the cliche that history repeats itself, but that is true. To prove that, let me just read some excerpts from a Joe Biden speech from 2006. Joe Biden said: ``The world is going to Hades in a handbasket. We are desperately concerned about the circumstance relating to the avian flu. We do not have enough vaccines. We do not have enough police officers. And we are going to debate, the next 3 weeks, I am told, gay marriage, a flag amendment, and God only knows what else. I can't believe the American people can't see through this. We already have a law, the Defense of Marriage Act. We all voted.''

That was Joe Biden in 2006. It sounds awfully familiar to what my colleagues across the aisle are doing now with these fluff bills, bills that are already on the books and nothing but a distraction from the real crises that are facing this Nation.

To talk more about that, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Roy), my good friend.

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

Once again, this rule provides for four pieces of legislation that, once again, are just missed opportunities to actually address the problems we are facing.

Let's talk about one of the biggest problems, and that is the southern border. To contextualize this, let me give you some stats. This year, 98 suspected terrorists have been apprehended attempting to cross the southern border. Think about that.

It took 19 hijackers on 9/11 to pull off the largest terrorist attack in this country. In this year alone, we have let 98 suspected terrorists walk across the southern border.

In October, there were over 230,000 illegal immigrant encounters at the southern border. That is just in October. To put that into context, that is a 334 percent increase from the average number of October encounters under President Trump.

In November, there were more than 70,000 known got-aways at the southern border. That is a historic record.

What is really worse is the fentanyl crisis, the fentanyl that is coming across the southern border. There were more than 14,000 pounds of illicit fentanyl seized in fiscal year 2022. That is a record.

As a reminder, a lethal dose of fentanyl is only 2 milligrams. Fentanyl was responsible for two-thirds of all drug overdoses last year.

There has been a 94 percent increase in fentanyl deaths since 2019. To put that into more context, that is one fentanyl overdose every 7 minutes in the United States.

Just 5 to 10 percent of the drugs coming across the southern border are seized by our Border Patrol agents.

What does the administration say on this? It is classic gaslighting. I will quote Joe Biden once again. He said, ``There are more important things going on.'' Kamala Harris, the so-called border czar, said the border is secure. DHS Secretary Mayorkas said, look, the border is secure.

They are either gaslighting, or they have no connection and no grounding in reality.

As far as the omnibus, let's just go back to September. In September, House Democrats were clear in their opposition to postponing a government funding fight to the Democrat-controlled lame-duck session. We didn't want it then; we don't want it now.

Unfortunately, on September 30, a continuing resolution was passed funding the government through December 16. So, here we are today.

This 1-week continuing resolution is an attempt to buy additional time for a massive lame-duck spending bill in which House Republicans had no seat at the negotiating table.

We will soon be in the majority. Republicans will soon be in the majority. We will be in the driver's seat to fight for our priorities. That is why every Republican should be a ``no'' on the Democrats' lame- duck omnibus spending bill.

To talk more about the omnibus, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Roy).

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

Lives are being lost while President Biden and Congressional Democrats continue to ignore the crisis at our southern border. Tragically, just last week, on December 7, United States Border Patrol Agent Raul Humberto Gonzalez, Jr., was killed while chasing a group of migrants across the border.

To go back to that quote from President Biden about the southern border and about why he hasn't visited, despite the fact that he was just in Arizona, ``There are more important things going on.'' That is what President Biden has to say; stinging words

given the deaths and casualties that we are seeing at the southern border and the fentanyl deaths and overdoses in the interior of this country.

It is absolutely maddening to see such a flagrant disregard not only for our hardworking Border Patrol agents but our Nation's immigration system as a whole. For that reason, we must bring the border crisis to an end.

But President Joe Biden and Congressional Democrats have manufactured this historic crisis on our southern border by halting the construction of the border wall, ending Trump's remain in Mexico policy, and refusing to visit the border.

U.S. Border Patrol facilities are becoming overrun with thousands of illegal immigrants in custody. This crisis is only getting worse. On December 21, title 42 ends, a powerful tool that allowed border officials to expel more than 2 million migrants during the pandemic. There now have been 20 straight months of over 150,000 illegal border crossings.

Yet, with today's rule, House Democrats continue to ignore this historic disaster at our border. This crisis could not be more devastating to the sovereignty and the security of our Nation.

Mr. Speaker, for those reasons, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the rule, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

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

Madam Speaker, I thank Ranking Member Cole for yielding me the time.

Under the Biden-Harris administration, we are seeing crises, manufactured crises. Let's just look at a few in turn.

We have a manufactured economic crisis. The inflation rate has increased by 550 percent since January of 2021. Total government spending during that time has increased over $9 trillion. This is out- of-control spending that is leading to this inflation. It is costing the average American family $6,000 a year.

Let me just put that in perspective. That would be like going up to a family and saying, can you give me 1 month's paycheck? Most cannot do that. The inflation has deprived the average American family of 1 month's pay, and this CR does absolutely nothing to address inflation. It does nothing to bring the economic crisis to an end.

It just doesn't stop there. Let's talk about the manufactured energy crisis. The day, literally, day 1 that Biden took office, he declared war on American energy. He shut down the Keystone Pipeline and, as a result, American families are paying higher and higher prices at the pump.

We are going to face record-level energy costs going into this winter, and yet, this CR does absolutely nothing to address the energy crisis.

Let's talk about crime. There is a crime wave going on all over country. Cities across the Nation are witnessing the results of the defund the police

movement. Homicide rates across this country have increased roughly 50 percent, compared to this time in 2019.

In my home State of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia has recorded over 400 murders so far this year. Philadelphia is on track to see the highest homicide rate in recorded history, and it is because of the defund the police movement. It is because of Democrat rule.

It is not just Philly. Los Angeles, in 2021, L.A. defunded the police by $150 million. What did they get? Homicide rates went up 23 percent, yet this CR does nothing to combat the crime wave that we are seeing. It does nothing to re-fund the police.

Let's talk about fentanyl. In my district, and across the country, communities are facing the opioid epidemic, and that is a direct result of fentanyl flooding across our porous southern border.

The devastation is because of Biden's failed policies, the open border policies that he has instituted. And just don't take my word for it. The DEA Commissioner said that the open border policies are killing Americans ``at rates never seen before.''

Yet, this CR does nothing to address the fentanyl issue. It does nothing. It is because the base of the Democratic Party, the woke yuppies who stay at home and are on Zoom classes all day view this issue as a Cracker Barrel problem, something that will never affect them because they don't shop at Walmart. They drive a hybrid, not a Chevy Silverado; so that is why we are not seeing urgency on the fentanyl crisis.

Let me just put it in perspective. Fentanyl overdose leads to about 300 deaths every single day in this country. That is the equivalent of an airliner going down every single day. If an airliner went down just once a week in this country, it would be declared an emergency within 2 to 3 weeks.

Yet, we are seeing the same death every single day, and because it is viewed as a fly-over problem, an issue that is facing people that don't live on the coast, no one cares about it, and this CR does nothing to address it.

It is just not fentanyl. Let's talk about the crisis of immigration. Since Biden took office, over 3.5 million illegal immigrants have been apprehended at the southern border. This CR does nothing to add additional border security; nothing for additional infrastructure; nothing for advanced technology.

For those reasons, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the rule and ``no'' on the continuing resolution.

Madam Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentleman and my good friend from Maryland for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, the rule before us today provides for consideration of H.R. 8873, which--let's just call it what it is--this is a partisan messaging bill from my friends across the aisle.

My colleagues want to ram this bill through Congress to change the way Presidential elections are conducted. H.R. 8873 is attempting to reform the Electoral Count Act for the first time since 1887. This is the first time in 135 years we are taking a look at this. Yet, despite that, no hearings were held on this bill, and the text was introduced just a mere 24 hours before it was presented in the Rules Committee yesterday.

During testimony before the Rules Committee, the sponsor of the bill, Chair Lofgren, mentioned repeatedly the lengthy process they undertook to draft this bill, including consulting the country's leading so- called experts. Yet, she did not bother to bring this legislation before her own committee for consideration.

Given the majority's constant claims of democracy itself being under attack, one would think that the Democratic Party and my colleagues across the aisle would bring bills through the appropriate channels and mechanisms. But my colleagues across the aisle will also try to tell you that this bill is a reform, it is a reaction to the objections to certifying the 2020 election. However, both sides of the aisle have long used their legal authority to object to Presidential elections.

Notable individuals that have exercised this authority include no other than Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, Kamala Harris, Nancy Pelosi--and that is just to name a few.

Again, they have all used this authority to object to Presidential elections. Even our distinguished chairman of the Committee on Rules, and someone I consider a good friend, objected to the 2016 elections. My other Rules Committee colleague and good friend from Maryland also objected.

In fact, following the 2016 election, Democrats objected to certifying the electoral votes of more States than Republicans did in 2021.

Following her loss to President Trump, Hillary Clinton continued to attack the integrity of our democratic process by insisting ad nauseam that President Trump was, ``an illegitimate President.''

Stacey Abrams--another great example--the current Georgia Democratic gubernatorial nominee, has built a national brand on denying election results and making baseless accusations of suppression and voter fraud. She claimed that she won the 2018 election for Governor and has yet to concede the 2018 race.

But we can go all the way back to 2005. Democrats objected in that year to certifying Ohio's electoral votes with Senator Barbara Boxer joining Representative Stephanie Tubbs Jones to require a vote.

Madam Speaker, 31 Members of the House voted against certifying these results; 12 of whom are still in Congress today, and I presume those 12 are now supporting this legislation, hypocritically. But this precedent goes back even further than 2005 and 2001.

We can take this back to 1961 with President John F. Kennedy. JFK-- this is a great history lesson--drafted his own secret slate of electors declaring himself the winner of Hawaii's electoral votes when the State was originally called for Richard Nixon.

Let's just talk about today. Despite the history, today, the actual purpose of this bill is nothing more than an attempt to federalize our elections. This is a way to backdoor H.R. 1 into legislation.

This is nothing more than an attack on President Trump and the 2020 election, an attack on a man who has not been in office for nearly 2 years. This is about giving Congress unprecedented authority on how to interpret State law, how to restrict State discretion, and how to impose control on State election officials.

Madam Speaker, for those reasons, I urge my colleagues to oppose this rule.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Madam Speaker, I would remind my colleague and good friend from Massachusetts that he objected to Alabama in 2017, just like my good friend from Maryland objected in 2017 to Florida.

Now, as far as this bill being rammed through, I would take a minute to rebut the accusation that it hasn't been rammed through. It absolutely was.

We were given almost exactly 24 hours to look at this bill before it came to the Committee on Rules. When we had the hearing in the Committee on Rules, to my knowledge, that was the only hearing that we have had in the House because Chair Lofgren didn't even have the foresight or the willingness to take this through her own committee process, her own committee that she chairs.

So I am just saying let's follow the process. And let's be frank about something. If this bill were just about increasing the number of necessary objectors to one-third in this Chamber and one-third in the other Chamber, it might have a chance of passing with bipartisan support. But that is not what this bill does. This bill is a backdoor for H.R. 1.

Let me just give you a few examples of extra material in this bill that makes it unpalatable.

This bill allows for Presidential candidates to sue to extend the voting period, even after polls have closed, due to a broadly defined catastrophic event. Then a panel of Federal judges, not State election officials, are then responsible for deciding whether States must allow for up to 5 additional days of voting. The real kicker here is that this suit must be filed no more than 1 day after the election. So you can see how a ``catastrophic event'' would probably be any Democrat that is losing on the night of the election.

Rather than working with Republicans in a bipartisan manner on a skinny form of an actual reform bill, House Democrats and the January 6 committee are desperately trying to score cheap political points on a bill that does nothing to improve the Electoral Count Act and does everything to take away constitutional and State sovereignty over elections.

Let's be blunt about something else. The American people don't care about this, especially when they are dealing with catastrophe after catastrophe and failed policy after failed policy of this administration. So while House Democrats are focusing on a partisan messaging bill that has zero chance of actually becoming law, our southern border just hit a record 2 million border crossings this fiscal year. That is the highest amount ever recorded in a single year.

Meanwhile, for the past year-and-a-half, the Biden administration has been transporting illegal immigrants from the southern border to places all over the country, often in the dead of night, and with zero notification to elected officials.

That is why if we defeat the previous question, I will personally offer an amendment to the rule immediately to consider H.R. 6592, the Immigration Transparency and Transit Notification Act of 2022.

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

Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Meuser), my good friend, who is here to explain more on this amendment.

Madam Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.

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

Madam Speaker, I can tell you that in my area of Pennsylvania, nobody is talking about this. What they are talking about is failed economic policy, failure to support law enforcement, which is leading to both inflation, economic hardship, and some of the highest crime rates we have ever seen on record.

I would implore my colleagues across the aisle to actually talk to real Americans, not just the woke yuppies that comprise their voting base, to see what Americans care about. But something tells me that the American people will say loud and clear what they care about come November.

It is also rich hearing about all of these ``assaults on democracy.'' Let's just go back to 2019. In 2019, Hillary Clinton said: ``No, it doesn't kill me, because he knows''--meaning Trump--``that he is an illegitimate President.'' So you have the former Presidential candidate calling the former President an illegitimate President. That is clearly echoing some of the sentiments that my friends across the aisle are now accusing us of doing.

Adam Schiff, for example, my colleague from California, in his opening statement for the Senate's January 2020 impeachment trial said: ``The President's misconduct cannot be decided at the ballot box, for we cannot be assured that the vote will be fairly won.'' How about that for criticizing and questioning the democratic process?

Representative John Lewis, in 2017, said: ``I don't see this President-elect as a legitimate President. I think the Russians participated in helping this man get elected, and they helped destroy the candidacy of Hillary Clinton.'' That was a baseless claim based on the Steele dossier that was discredited.

Representative Jerry McNerney of California, in 2017: ``The election of Mr. Trump lacks legitimacy.''

Vicente Gonzalez of Texas, just this month--this isn't even the last Presidential election cycle. This was this month, regarding a special election. This month, when discussing Mayra Flores' upset victory in his upcoming election against her, said: ``They stole that last election.'' So it is quite rich hearing all of these accusations now coming from my friends across the aisle.

When we call into question election results, it is somehow a threat to democracy. When they do it, they are magically upholding democracy.

But it just doesn't stop with my friends across the aisle here in this Chamber. Let's talk about Kamala Harris. She agreed with the radio show host that she should be concerned over Trump's legitimacy. She said: ``We should believe exactly what the intelligence community has told us, which is Russia did interfere in the election of the President in 2017.'' That is the now Vice President saying that.

Also, it is absolutely rich that she cites the intelligence community, when they knew the Steele dossier was a product of the Hillary Clinton campaign; the same intelligence community that wasn't able to discern that the Russian interference story was a hoax; the same intelligence community that told us that the Hunter Biden laptop was Russian disinformation, despite knowing that the FBI had that laptop in their possession at the time they made that baseless accusation; the same intel community, by the way, that told us that Kabul would stand strong for months on end and Ukraine would fall within hours. So that is the intel community that my friends across the aisle are citing.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Garbarino), my good friend, to speak more on the issue of immigration and transparency.

Madam Speaker, I have a lot of respect and admiration for my good friend from California, and he knows that. But if you want to talk about sequels, let's just talk about all the times the Democrats objected to election results. We can go all the way back for decades.

Many Democrats, including Hillary Clinton, Barbara Lee, Maxine Waters, and Sheila Jackson Lee, have cast doubt on every single Republican Presidential victory in the last two decades. In fact, every single Democrat President since 1977 has cast doubt on the legitimacy of U.S. elections.

I will just go through some of that because my good friend from California said this looks like a sequel to a bad movie. Let's just look at the current administration. In both 2013 and 2016, Biden claimed that Gore won the 2000 Presidential election. In May 2019, Biden said that he ``absolutely'' agrees that Trump is an ``illegitimate President.'' That is the current Democratic President casting doubt on elections.

It doesn't stop with him, though. Let's again go to his Vice President, Kamala Harris. In 2019, the Vice President agreed that Trump was an illegitimate President.

It is just not those that were elected to office. Let's look at key senior staffers.

For nearly two decades, Biden Chief of Staff Ron Klain claimed that Al Gore won the 2000 election.

President Biden's press secretary, Karine Jean-Pierre, tweeted that the 2018 Georgia gubernatorial race was stolen. Jean-Pierre also cast doubt just not on that election but also on the 2016 election by tweeting: ``Stolen election, welcome to the world of #unpresidented Trump.''

Jamal Simmons, the communications director for Kamala Harris, for years tweeted that Bush had stolen the 2000 election.

Then-Representative Marcia Fudge of Ohio, now the HUD Secretary, said that Trump ``may not be a legitimate President.''

If you are talking about sequels to bad movies, this goes all the way back to the 1970s, when my friends across the aisle undermined faith in our elections by loose talk and baseless claims that elections were stolen.

I will end the list of quotes with this because it is my good friend from Maryland. In 2002, my friend from Maryland wrote that the Supreme Court had ``[frozen] the election results'' in an ``outrageous assault on democracy,'' saying that the Court had determined the outcome of a Presidential election.

In 2003, my good friend also called Bush America's first ``court- appointed President.''

I have a litany of other quotes from my friends across the aisle, not only current Members serving in this Chamber but also well-known Democrats from across the United States that have questioned results of elections.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Madam Speaker, inflation is at the highest rate in over 40 years, literally the highest rate since I have been alive. The majority of American workers confirmed their income has fallen behind the rising cost of things like buying groceries, paying utility bills, and just filling up their gas tanks.

We have set a record for the highest illegal border crossings in 1 year, including 78 individuals on the FBI's terrorist watch list.

So far in 2022, homicide rates have increased roughly 50 percent compared to this time in 2019.

The Federal Government is also set to run out of funding in 9 days, yet here we are, focused for the second week in a row on trying to attack President Trump, a President that hasn't been in office for nearly 2 years. That is how we are spending our time.

House Democrats have chosen once again to put on yet another partisan, political show while the American people are at home suffering the consequences of their failed agenda, suffering the consequences of inflation that is out of control, wages that are dropping, energy costs that are skyrocketing, and crime rates that are making them less safe in their communities.

H.R. 8873 tramples on States' rights and would do serious harm to the integrity of our elections.

Madam Speaker, for these reasons, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question and ``no'' on the rule, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentleman and my good friend from Maryland for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, the rule before us today provides for consideration for three pieces of legislation that are laser-focused on a President who has not been in office for almost 2 years now.

Meanwhile, yesterday's CPI reading came in higher than expected, registering an 8.3 percent year-over-year increase. That is another 40- year high, literally the highest in my lifetime.

It is abundantly clear that Democrats are focused on their efforts of political gamesmanship, hoping to distract the American people from the absolute failures of the Biden administration.

Let's just go through these bills. The first bill, H.R. 302, makes it even harder for the President to remove insubordinate Federal employees in policy-making roles. All this legislation accomplishes is further shielding unelected career bureaucrats from accountability to the American voter, who are footing the bill for their salary. The Federal Government should be responsive to the voters and their elected Representatives, not the whims and the ideological leanings of unelected bureaucrats.

Additionally, this rule provides for consideration of H.R. 2988, the Whistleblower Protection Improvement Act. Let me start by just saying that the need to protect whistleblowers is one of the most bipartisan points of agreement in Congress. However, this legislation does nothing to protect actual whistleblowers. There is a significant difference lost in this bill between retaliation against legitimate whistleblowers and the consequences in response to unacceptable actions taken by a government employee.

Finally, the rule provides for consideration of H.R. 8326, Ensuring a Fair and Accurate Census Act. Yet, this bill does everything but ensure a fair and accurate Census. Specifically, H.R. 8326 provides the director of the Census Bureau with unprecedented power and authority to make all operational, statistical, and technical decisions for the Census.

Further, this bill constrains the ability of future Censuses to include critical questions, including a citizenship question, ensuring that future Censuses will be unfair and inaccurate.

Instead of focusing on real-life issues facing everyday Americans, House

Democrats this week are focusing on three bills that are completely irrelevant to the multiple crises created by Joe Biden's policies.

In fact, two of these bills have already passed in the House this Congress in larger packages. The failed policies of the far left and the Biden administration have plunged our economy into a recession. And, yes, it is a recession. They have stolen wages from the American workforce, they have destroyed seniors' retirement savings, and they have left families with the highest food prices since 1979. Let me repeat that. Grocery prices surged 13 percent in August, the largest increase in over 40 years.

Mr. Speaker, 80 percent of Americans say that inflation is the most important issue facing the country, but you wouldn't know it by the bills the Democrats are prioritizing and running on the floor this week.

I think it is time my Democratic colleagues listened to the people and work with Republicans on real economic solutions, rather than doubling down on these dangerous, reckless, out-of-control spending and far-left policy bills, the same policies that have created the crises that we are now facing.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose this rule, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I will double down on the comment that these bills are irrelevant. They are absolutely irrelevant in that two of them are superfluous. One has already passed. One passed in an amendment to the NDAA, and the other one is an unprecedented grant of authority to the Census, which is completely inappropriate. So, yes, these bills, I would argue, are irrelevant.

Do you know who would think they are irrelevant? Any person you talk to on the street. If you go up to somebody filling up their gas tank, and you ask them about these three bills, these are irrelevant to their lives. They are worried about the price of gas.

If you ask somebody at a grocery store who is trying to feed a family about these bills, these bills are irrelevant to their grocery bill.

If you are talking about real wages and fighting the loss of wages and inflation, these bills are irrelevant to that. A lot of blue-collar workers want wages to increase like they did under the last administration, not decrease like they are today.

So, yes, these bills are absolutely irrelevant to everyday Americans.

But let's just talk about the high cost of inflation. Inflation is the top concern reported by businesses and voters alike. However, instead of working to lower costs for businesses and workers, the SEC proposed burdensome new rules requiring businesses to disclose extensive climate-related data and additional climate risks.

That is why if we defeat the previous question, I will personally offer an amendment to the rule to immediately consider H.R. 8589, which would prohibit the SEC's woke climate rule from ever moving forward.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from the Commonwealth of Kentucky (Mr. Barr), my good friend, to explain the amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume for just a few points in rebuttal.

Mr. Speaker, we keep hearing that inflation is a global issue, like somehow it is not Biden's fault and the fault of far-left Democrats-- which it is.

The reason why this is a global issue--and remind my friends on the other side of the aisle--is because we are the world's largest GDP. We also just happen to be the world's reserve currency.

So, of course, when we have inflation, the world will have it. That is just economics. So it is amazing how the principles of economics are just cherry-picked to make points. But I would remind my colleagues of those two facts. In short, we are exporting the inflation.

Now, as far as what we are doing to cause the inflation, well, it is pretty simple. We have injected trillions of dollars into the economy. That causes inflation. And then to double down on the failed policy, Joe Biden unilaterally, and I would argue unconstitutionally, canceled the debt of a swath of college students so you now have even more liquidity in the market because of them.

And the sick irony here is that the guy that is driving the pickup truck, the guy that went to school to be a plumber, an HVAC repairman, that guy is now subsidizing the lawyer who is driving to his downtown job in a BMW. That is what is so perverse about what is happening.

Now let's just talk about gas prices.

My colleague and my friend from Maryland said gas prices are down. Yeah, they are down from like a week ago; they are not down from January 2021 when they were less than $2.50 a gallon. So let's continue to move that goalpost.

You can't argue that gas prices are up. Americans know gas prices are up. They are feeling the pain at the pump. They are also feeling it in the higher cost of all energy and food.

Finally, blaming Putin on gas prices and issues. Yeah, Putin is partially to blame, but who encouraged Putin to invade Ukraine? That would be Joe Biden by his surrender of Afghanistan.

Let me be clear that any weakness on the foreign stage is an indication of aggression. When Joe Biden showed weakness by abandoning the Bagram Air Base, by leaving our allies on the ground to predations of the Taliban, that was weakness, and Putin seized on that to invade Ukraine.

Instead of giving the Ukrainians the MiGs they needed, the proper military supplies they needed, we decided to go halfway. Joe Biden didn't fully commit. Now we have a protracted war in Ukraine, which is going to lead to a humanitarian crisis not only in Central

Europe but all across Africa, for example, and higher energy prices here.

Mr. Speaker, but that is all traced back to Biden being weak on foreign policy.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Barr).

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

Mr. Speaker, I let my good friend from Maryland know that I like him, too, and I would certainly clarify the remarks on Putin.

I will denounce Putin right now. Remember, I was the one calling in the beginning of this conflict for a no-fly zone to be established led by the United States. I don't think there is anybody more hawkish on Russia and the Ukraine issue than myself on this side of the aisle. So, to say that I was up here defending Putin is ludicrous.

We, of course, needed to beat Putin. We should have been much more engaged from the beginning of this conflict, not just to send a message to the Russians but to send a message to the Iranians and a message to the Chinese vis-a-vis Taiwan. But I could go on.

I would say it is a total mischaracterization of my position to say that I am up here saying good things about dictator Putin.

I remind my friend from Maryland about the history of this building. In 1814, it was literally burned to the ground. In the seventies, Puerto Rican separatists stormed in and detonated a bomb. So, let's just get the historical context in place.

As far as denouncing violence, everyone on this side of the aisle has denounced political violence consistently. The inconsistency is from my friends from across the other side of the aisle who cherry-pick when they denounce political violence.

I remember that during the entire summer of 2020, my friends across the aisle treated the destructive BLM and antifa protests that caused $2 billion worth of damage, they treated those protesters with kid gloves. You had the current Vice President paying the bail for the protesters. You had the gentlewoman from New York, Ms. Ocasio-Cortez, saying: ``The whole point of protesting is to make people uncomfortable. . . . To folks who complain protest demands make others uncomfortable, that is the point.'' Those are the words of the Democrats, not of us. We could go on.

Chris Cuomo, CNN host: ``Please, show me where it says protesters are supposed to be polite and peaceful.'' The last time I checked, that was a Democrat.

New York BLM cofounder Hawk Newsome said in response to Eric Adams trying to put plainclothes police officers on the street: ``There will be riots; there will be fire; and there will be bloodshed.''

It sounds to me that the political violence and the support for the rhetoric that is coming to support political violence and upheaval are coming from one side of the aisle, the Democrat side of the aisle.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Barr) for more rebuttal.

Mr. Speaker, I have no further speakers. I am prepared to close, and I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned earlier, the CPI just released yesterday shows that prices have increased 8.3 percent from August of last year. Real wages are down 2.8 percent. The cost of electricity has skyrocketed 15.8 percent. That is the most since 1981, the most since I was alive.

As of August, nearly one quarter of all Americans reported forgoing basic needs like food and medicine just to be able to afford their energy bill. This number will only get worse because we are going to face even higher costs to heat our homes this winter, with natural gas prices nearing a 14-year high.

Yet, Democrats want to focus their efforts on, again, I would call it, irrelevant legislation that has already passed the House. It will not provide any relief to American workers and American families.

For these reasons, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question and to vote ``no'' on the rule.

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

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

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

Madam Speaker, I rise to recognize the Laurel Hill Presbyterian Church and congratulate its congregation for 250 years of service to God and their community in southwestern Pennsylvania.

The Laurel Hill Presbyterian Church was built in 1772 by Scotch-Irish immigrants, and the original log structure was the first Presbyterian Church west of the Allegheny Mountains. The church was rebuilt in 1782, 1852, and 1898 as the congregation grew. Where the church once featured beeswax-coated windows, its sanctuary is now home to 110-year-old English stained-glass windows and an ornate chimney.

In 2012, Pittsburgh's Heinz History Center featured the Laurel Hill Presbyterian Church for its profound influence on southwestern Pennsylvania. During the 19th and 20th centuries, the church funded the Laurel Hill Academy. William A. Clark attended this private school and later became a United States Senator from Montana.

The church's cemetery serves as a testament to the history of the region and our Nation. The 7-acre burial ground is the final resting place for veterans of the French and Indian War, with several graves belonging to Native Americans. Other headstones mark the resting places of those who joined the fight for independence during the American Revolution. The Laurel Hill Cemetery is also home to Americans who fought to preserve our Union during the Civil War. The headstones of these veterans serve as a reminder of the struggles that strengthened our great Nation.

Madam Speaker, the story of the Laurel Hill Presbyterian Church is uniquely American. The church has stood as a testament to its faith for 250 years, and I look forward to what the next chapter has in store for its congregation and community.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend and fellow Rules Committee member for the time.

Mr. Speaker, 61 percent of Americans are living paycheck to paycheck, yet here we are today, considering another reckless tax-and-spend bill that doubles down on the same failed economic policies that brought us to the current situation in the first place.

Under Democrats' one-party rule, inflation has increased nearly 550 percent. Let me repeat that. Inflation has increased nearly 550 percent.

Americans are spending over $2,000 more a year on gas. Our economy, despite the new definition, is actually in a recession.

Despite what the majority claims, this bill will do nothing to reduce the record-high inflation that is forcing Americans to pay more for just about everything.

But just don't take my word for it. Analysis from the Wharton School found this bill will actually increase inflation through 2024. This bill will also increase taxes on individuals earning under $400,000 a year while funneling taxpayer dollars to the wealthiest Americans.

Under this bill, coastal elites, members from the ruling class, will receive $7,500 to buy electric vehicles while everyday Americans will have to pay more at the pump thanks to $12 billion in taxes on American energy producers.

Unsurprisingly, this legislation is stuffed full of socialist Big Government handouts, including more than $400 billion for the radical, dangerous Green New Deal policies.

It also provides the IRS with $80 billion for 87,000 new agents to apparently audit just 700 billionaires. The IRS doesn't need 87,000 agents to audit the rich; they need 87,000 agents to harass the working class and pay for their far-left handouts.

Ultimately, this bill will push our Nation deeper into recession and make life even more unaffordable for American families.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose this rule.