Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, I rise to recognize the life of Pennsylvania State Representative Peter J. Daley II, who sadly passed away last month.

Representative Daley dedicated his life to the people of the Keystone State. He began his career as a schoolteacher before becoming mayor of California Borough at the age of twenty-two, the youngest mayor in the history of the Commonwealth. Representative Daley taught and led the borough for seven years before being elected to the Pennsylvania House of Representatives in 1982.

During his 34 years in the Pennsylvania House, Representative Daley served as Chairman of both the Agriculture and Rural Committee and the Commerce Committee. Representative Daley's legislative achievements included enabling farms to co-exist with residential areas and reforming mortgages during the 2008 financial crash. His leadership also led to the creation of thousands of jobs in Pennsylvania.

Beyond his civil service, Representative Daley worked as an attorney after earning a degree from the Widener School of Law. He was widely known as a friendly and knowledgeable lawyer, affectionately earning the nickname ``Uncle Pete'' from many he mentored.

Representative Daley was an active member of his community. Every Easter and Thanksgiving, he helped organize and sponsor food distribution events. He will be greatly missed for this generous spirit. Peter is survived by Sally, his wife of 47 years, 3 children, and 5 great-grandchildren.

Madam Speaker, please join me in recognizing the life of Representative Peter J. Daley II. May we be inspired by his dedicated service to the Commonwealth.

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

Madam Speaker, I just want to, for the record, say there is nothing before us in the rule that has anything to do with any kind of assault weapons ban or policing. This is simply a rule that would waive the 24- hour requirement.

Look, to be candid, the Democrats have now opened the door for Republicans to use this in the future to push

forward our agenda, which is going to protect the rights and liberties of individual people.

I would like to take this time to point out the hypocrisy and the irony I see coming from across the aisle. Let me just talk about that.

Madam Speaker, 9 days is all it took before the Speaker reinstated her authoritarian COVID lockdown, proving once again that House Democrats are unable to govern unless they stack the deck. I would also remind my good friend that he consistently referred to these tactics as ``martial law'' during his time in the minority.

If I can just quote the chair on same-day authority during the 109th Congress: ``My problem is with significant pieces of legislation, some legislation which may not have even been heard by committees of jurisdiction, which may not have been reported out of committees of jurisdiction, bills that will come before us that the House has never even considered, things that we will not have an opportunity to be able to read before we vote on them.''

That was in the 109th Congress. Where is the outrage now?

Madam Speaker, for over 790 days, the Speaker used COVID-19 as a weapon to deny the Republicans the ability to advocate on behalf of millions of Americans that they represent. Just last week, it looked like we were finally returning to regular order. Now, it is more of the same tricks and tactics.

The blanket same-day rule before us this morning allows House Democrats to ram through their radical agenda, an agenda that does nothing to address the serious problems the American people are facing.

What are those problems? Under the Biden administration, our Nation has careened from one crisis to the next. It has been absolute chaos.

Right now, families across the country are facing 40-year high inflation that is expected to cost the average American household an extra $6,000 a year. Yesterday, we were told that we are officially in a recession when the GDP fell for a second quarter in a row. Although the Biden administration is attempting to deflect blame by referring to this latest economic disaster as a ``transition period,'' the American people know that we are in a recession and facing hard times to come because of the radical policies of the left.

It is only going to get worse with the recently announced build back broke deal, which will raise taxes on Americans. It will try to socialize American healthcare, and it will try to implement the radical Green New Deal policies that have led to this energy crisis in the first place.

Madam Speaker, this is no way to run the people's House, but I want it noted that the door is now open. I find it absolutely hypocritical that there was outrage against us when Republicans used the same tactic but now it is okay when the Democrats want to do it. I am looking forward to the day when power returns to the Republicans, and we will see if there is outrage at that point.

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

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

Madam Speaker, I am glad the gentleman also quoted himself. You can tell how I am handling this debate because I don't want to be quoted in the future when the shoe is on the other foot. But I will point out the hypocrisy from my friends on the other side of the aisle that their outrage is obviously selective of who is waiving the rule and who is not.

Look, we can talk about procedure all day here. That is not going to fix the real problems that are facing the American people. According to the National Federation of Independent Business, inflation is the top problem reported by businesses. This is the highest inflation we have had since 1980, literally the highest inflation in my lifetime.

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.''

Setting climate policy is the responsibility of Congress, not unelected career bureaucrats who are absolutely unaccountable to the American people.

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

Madam 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.

Madam Speaker, here to explain my amendment is my good friend, a senior member of the House Committee on Financial Services and the sponsor of this bill, Congressman French Hill of Arkansas.

Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Hill).

Madam Speaker, I yield an additional 2 minutes to the gentleman from Arkansas.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Huizenga), who is a member of the Financial Services Committee.

Madam Speaker, I yield an additional 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan.

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

I just want the Record to reflect that I am not outraged about this rule. I just was simply, at the beginning of my remarks, my opening statement, pointing out the hypocrisy from my friends across the other side of the aisle who had this selective outrage when we waived the 24- hour requirement. But it is okay when they do it.

And again, I am almost gleefully looking forward to the opportunity when we are in the majority for myself to help the then Chairman Cole of the Rules Committee do the same thing; and we will see what kind of hypocrisy comes from the other side of the aisle and how they will then have outrage when we do it.

But I am not outraged about this. I think that if we are going to move forward today, we should defeat the previous question. That is what I am passionate about, and that is what my friends that have spoken here today are passionate about, because they want to run a bill, authored by my good friend from Arkansas, that would actually help the economic crisis; that would actually help fight inflation.

So, please don't confuse passion for helping the American people out of this financial problem with outrage. There is no outrage on this side of the aisle.

But to explain more, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Steil), my good friend, and a rising star of the Financial Services Committee.

Madam Speaker, I yield an additional 3 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin.

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

Madam Speaker, it is quite remarkable that the gentleman is now telling us that this is about gun-related bills, because 14 hours ago we had questions in the Rules Committee. Those questions went unasked because the minority is unsure.

You know who was unsure when they were in the minority? My good friend. Let me quote him again. When the Republicans tried to waive the 24-hour requirement, my good friend said: ``Once again, we are here on the floor debating a martial law rule that also makes the suspension day. Here we are, once again, unsure of what we will be considering today, tonight, or tomorrow.''

So last night, at 7 P.M., my good friend, ranking member of the Rules Committee, Mr. Cole, asked a series of questions because we wanted to get some light shed on it. He asked, what would this rule specifically be used for? The majority said they didn't know. They were unsure.

He asked if this were to be related to gun-related bills, and if those bills would be changed. The majority said they didn't know. We are unsure here.

He asked if this authority would be used for other bills. The majority said they didn't know.

He asked if the House would be in session this weekend, and also the response was, the majority didn't know.

So it's amazing how the majority is, today, so confident on what is being run today through this rule when, just 14 hours ago, when we asked those questions, those answers were not provided to the minority.

But here to talk more about the resolution that I will personally offer if we defeat the previous question is my good friend. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Hill).

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

I want to again say we asked a litany of questions to try to give the minority guidance on what bills would be considered today, the context of those bills, the timing of those bills, whether we would be here this weekend. The response constantly was either: I hope not; I am unsure; I don't know. So, here we are, in the dark.

But for the purpose of a rebuttal, I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Hill), my good friend.

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

Madam Speaker, I want to quote my good friend, the chairman, again, this time from 2017, when he stated that martial law allows the majority to ``rush their bill with its brand-new backroom deals to the floor today without any proper deliberation.''

I think that pretty much sums up perfectly what we are doing here today.

Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question and ``no'' on the rule.

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

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

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

Madam Speaker, I thank the distinguished chairman for yielding me the customary 30 minutes. I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, the rule before us today makes in order H.R. 1808, an unconstitutional bill to ban hundreds of the most popular firearms in the United States, including the sporting rifle, the AR-15.

Law-abiding Americans in places like southwestern Pennsylvania and across the country use firearms every single day for things like sport shooting, hunting, and self-defense. So despite what the House Democrats claim, this bill would do little to prevent the mass shootings or the crime they are saying that it would, and this bill would not prevent criminals from obtaining firearms.

I know the chairman just referenced a 1994 study. That was a congressionally mandated study to look at the 1994 assault weapons ban. That study found that ban was ineffective in reducing violent crime. ``The banned guns were never used in more than a modest fraction of all gun murders.''

A follow-up study to that 1994 ban came out in 2004, and that study found that ``the ban's effects on gun violence are likely to be small at best and perhaps too small for reliable measurement.''

Even UCLA law professor Adam Winkler, the resident anti-gun, so- called subject matter expert, a left-leaning professor, stated: ``There's no way to make assault rifle bans effective.''

To that point, we saw that during the tragic shootings in San Bernardino, Newtown, and Buffalo, those all occurred in States that already had assault weapons bans on the books.

So the question is this: Why are my far-left Democratic colleagues bringing this bill to the floor today?

Well, in the words of Committee on the Judiciary Chairman Jerry Nadler, `` . . . banning these `common use' firearms is the `point of the bill.' ''

In other words, let's call this what it is. It is a gun grab, pure and simple.

This bill is not about public safety. Rather, this is the most severe restriction on the Second Amendment since the passage of the assault weapons ban of 1994. It would turn an American lending a firearm to a friend to go hunting into a criminal.

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

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

This false equivalence between an AR-15 and a so-called weapon of war just shows the ignorance of my friends on the other side of the aisle.

An AR-15 is not an M16. An M16 has numerous functions: safety, three- round bursts, semi-automatic, and fully automatic. An AR-15 has no such setting as a three-round burst and the fully automatic. So this false comparison between a so-called weapon of war and what we would describe as sporting rifle, again, shows the lack of understanding about these platforms.

Additionally, the AR-15 is by far the most popular sporting rifle in the United States. There are over 20 million that are in the possession of Americans right now.

But while we are talking about statistics, a 2020 FBI study shows that there are more murders committed with knives, clubs, and fists than with firearms.

Also, when you are looking at firearm deaths, just in the year 2020, both the CDC and the FBI reported that over half of these firearm- related deaths were suicides. So let's just be clear when we are talking about statistics.

If you are breaking down those studies, you can look at 2020, where 59 percent of murders were committed by handguns. Only 3 percent were committed with what is being described as assault rifles, what I would describe as sporting rifles.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Minnesota (Mrs. Fischbach), my good friend from the Committee on Rules, who is here to talk more about this issue.

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

I just want it noted that the gentleman from Massachusetts said that no one on his side is describing these weapons as ``weapons of war,'' and then the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett), the first thing he said was that AR-15s are ``weapons are war.''

So, we need to understand that when the left and when radical Democrats are describing AR-15s as ``weapons of war,'' and as the gentleman from Texas just said, ``machine guns,'' they are doing two things simultaneously. Number one, they are showing their absolute ignorance for how these platforms operate; and two, they are deliberately trying to mislead the American people on what these platforms do.

No one on my side of the aisle is trying to say that machine guns should be legal. An AR-15 is a sporting rifle; it is a semiautomatic. It is not the kind of platform that is used by the military. It is not an M16, it is not an M4; but, again, the other side tries to use this to muddy the waters and confuse the American people and to put all firearms in the same category.

Let's talk about some more statistics. In 2021, a Georgetown study found that 1.67 million instances were found where firearms were used in self-defense. In 2019 alone, there were 386 self-defense killings that were determined to be justified. So, these are just some of the ways in which someone can legally use a sporting rifle.

Let's talk about the chaos at the southern border. Since Joe Biden took office, over 3.1 million illegal immigrants have been apprehended at the southern border, and that includes 56 illegal immigrants who were on the terror watch list.

President Biden and House Democrats have this open-door policy that has created a humanitarian crisis and a security crisis, as well, and they want to make things worse by lifting title 42.

Republicans know border security is national security. That is why if we defeat the previous question, I will personally offer an amendment to the rule to immediately consider H.R. 471, the PAUSE Act of 2021, to enforce title 42.

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 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Roy), my good friend, to explain the amendment.

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

Madam Speaker, I have a lot of respect for my colleague from Texas, but when the question is asked why servicemembers can't bring their M16s and their M4s home, it is because those are fully automatic weapons. They are not AR-15s.

The gentlewoman actually answers her own question. The M16 and the M4 platform are automatic. The AR-15 is not automatic. They are two different platforms.

The gentlewoman and the gentleman from Texas said words to the effect of, ``What are we doing? Why are Republicans not doing enough?'' or words to that effect.

Well, let me remind my colleagues across the aisle that it was Republicans, not Democrats, it was Republicans in 2017 that had the Fix NICS Act. It is Republicans that are trying to get legislation passed to keep guns

out of the hands of criminals, not out of the hands of law-abiding citizens. It was the last administration under President Trump that banned bump stocks when the Obama administration let that ban expire.

Those are just a few things that Republicans are doing in this arena.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Diaz-Balart), my good friend.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Hice), my good friend.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Georgia (Mrs. Greene), my good friend.

Whether it is Pennsylvania or Massachusetts, they are still two great Commonwealths, right?

Madam Speaker, I have no further speakers at this time, and I yield myself the balance of my time for closing.

Madam Speaker, I am incredibly disappointed but, unfortunately, not at all surprised that, once again, we are considering legislation that will do nothing more than penalize law-abiding citizens while doing absolutely nothing about the root cause of gun violence.

We know from history, and we know from numerous studies that I have talked about today, that assault weapons bans do not work.

So, why is this bill coming before us today? It is just the latest in the House Democrats' never-ending attack on America's Second Amendment rights.

Madam Speaker, I, therefore, urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question and vote ``no'' on the rule.

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

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

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

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

Madam Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Morelle), my good friend, 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 the CHIPS and Science Act of 2022. After conference negotiations failed on a package to counter the malign actions of China, the Senate drafted this legislation to send billions of taxpayer dollars in the form of subsidies and tax credits to a single industry.

Democrats' reckless spending policies led to this record-high inflation that is crushing American families and small business. The government should not be spending hundreds of billions of dollars to provide subsidies benefiting one industry.

This legislation comes to the House just 1 day after Senate Democrats announced a deal to tax American manufacturers and energy producers, which will increase the cost to American families and worsen our supply chain crisis.

They also want to hire 87,000 new IRS agents, and let's be honest about this. Those agents will do nothing more than target American families and small businesses.

They also want to spend $369 billion on their radical, far-left, Green New Deal agenda. There can be no doubt that this latest iteration of Biden's build back broke agenda will cause inflation to skyrocket even further.

The Biden administration is deflecting on our Nation's recession. They are classifying Biden's economic crisis as a ``transition'' to slower growth. While they are doubling down on their disastrous policies, they are devastating everyday Americans.

It is time my colleagues across the aisle abandon their socialist pipe dream and actually work with Republicans to get our economy back on track.

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

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

Madam Speaker, I don't disagree that these chips are important to the U.S. economy and many manufacturers. What I take issue with is the fact that we are putting even more money, billions of dollars, into an economy that is already suffering from record-high inflation.

It is unsettled whether this will even make a difference. It can be argued that chips were already going to come back anyhow, and it is not just me saying it. I have an article right here from

The Economist, not exactly a rightwing publication. It was published on 10 July of this year. ``When the chips are way down: After a turbocharged boom, are chipmakers in for a supersize bust?'' That is the headline.

It goes on, saying: ``Surging supply and softening demand are bringing the pandemic's superstar industry back to Earth.''

My question is: If this industry is already coming back, if it is already as important as we think it is, why do we need to inject billions of dollars into the economy that is just going to further the economic crisis we are already in?

I know my colleague from North Carolina was talking about how to spur research and development. I can tell you how to do it: You cut taxes. You cut regulations.

If you look at the TCJA, this was a huge win for U.S. research and investment: 25 percent higher than in the years prior, reaching an all- time high in 2019 of $584 billion and 3 percent of GDP.

If you want to stimulate the economy, you can do it by reducing taxes and reducing regulation, not by picking winners and losers.

To talk more about this point, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from the great State of Texas (Mr. Burgess), my good friend and fellow Rules Committee member.

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

Madam Speaker, just a point of clarification. This is just an authorization. We will still wait a year anyhow to appropriate these funds, so trying to act like we have a gun to our head right now and this is a do-or-die moment is completely illusory. Again, this is just an authorization.

Additionally, I agree with my friend from New York on two points. Number one, we have got to be competitive with China.

Number two, the semiconductor chips are important for the economy.

But the way to compete with China is not to emulate the policies of a Communist police state. The way to compete with China is to unleash the American economy, to get back to our Western roots of free-market capitalism. If we want to bring more businesses onshore, if we want to fix our supply chain crisis, we can start by reducing the burdensome regulations that are crippling American businesses. We can reduce our income tax and our corporate income tax to make us more competitive globally, and we can do something to make sure we have cheap, reliable, abundant energy resources, such as exploiting our natural gas reserves and perhaps investing in nuclear power.

But to sit here and say that we are going to compete with China by doing what the Chinese do and having some bureaucratic monster in D.C. pick winners and losers for a particular industry is not a winning proposition.

What will beat China and keep us competitive with China is getting back to what made this country great in the first place, and again that is free-market capitalism.

Let's talk about inflation because, again, this is going to put billions of dollars into the economy, which will make this situation worse. Americans are facing the highest inflation in over 40 years. This is literally the worst inflation in my lifetime. This morning we learned that GDP has decreased for a second quarter in a row.

Yet, the Treasury Secretary wants to downplay Biden's economic crisis by redefining recession, which for decades recession has been defined as two quarters of negative economic growth. Instead, Secretary Yellen and the leftists across the aisle want to play Orwellian and change the definition to ``a period of transition.'' Even the extreme liberal think tank, The Brookings Institution, acknowledged we are in a recession, but it seems, again, my colleagues across the aisle have forgotten basic economics.

House Republicans want to set the record straight. That is why if we defeat the previous question, I will personally offer an amendment to the rule to immediately consider House Resolution 1290, a resolution affirming the longstanding definition of a recession.

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

Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Schweikert), my good friend and the sponsor of this resolution, to explain the amendment.

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

Just to clarify, this is not an either/or choice here. If we defeat the previous question, we can consider the resolution of my good friend from Arizona to actually define recession, and then we can take up the underlying bill. Again, this is a false choice saying it is one or the other. We can do both.

People may ask, Why is it necessary to define recession? It is necessary because the party across the aisle are trying to redefine recession. But I shouldn't be surprised. Because remember, this is the same party that tried to tell us that women are now known as birthing people. It is the party that all during the summer of 2020 told us that violent rioting and looting was mostly peaceful protesting. Now they are trying to tell us that a recession, which has been defined for decades as two consecutive quarters of negative GDP growth, that that is now called a transitionary period.

So it is an absolute necessity that we define recession so that we have clarity in language.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Rodney Davis), my good friend and the ranking member on the Committee on House Administration.

Madam Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentleman from Illinois.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Rodney Davis) for the purpose of a rebuttal.

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

Madam Speaker, my good friend from New York was talking about jobs and the promise of more jobs with this act. We have heard this before. The American Rescue Plan. We sat here and debated that, and we were told by the

leftists across the aisle that this was going to create 4 million new jobs. You know what didn't happen? We didn't create 4 million new jobs. And that is not me saying that. That is a study from the American Enterprise Institute, which found that the American Rescue Plan failed to create any of the 4 million new jobs that Big Government Democrats had promised.

While we are talking about stats and figures, let's put a real cost to the inflation and the pain that is being inflicted on the American people by injecting billions of dollars into the economy. So let's put real numbers on it. Inflation will cost the average American household more than $6,000 a year. That is so high that if you have had a constant salary for the last year, you have essentially worked for more than a month without pay.

So, let me ask this: If you are sitting here watching at home, could you take one paycheck from this year, one paycheck, and just throw it out the window? Probably not.

Now, if you are part of the coastal elite and the woke, yuppie, Zoom class that is the base of the Democratic Party, you might be able to afford that. You might just go to two Pilates classes a week instead of four. You may not take that second trip to Europe. You may scale back at Whole Foods. You have that luxury if you are part of the woke Democratic base. But if you are somebody in Pittsburgh who is a retired steel worker that is on a fixed income, this hurts you. You don't have that disposable income. If you are a natural gas driller in Oklahoma that has to drive to a drill site every day to actually produce something, you have to fill your tank with gas. You don't have the option to sit at home and pretend you are working on Zoom. If you are a woman that has to drive, for example, to a diner to work a shift, you don't have the luxury of not doing that. You have to bear the burden of the inflation; again, the inflation that is being caused by the radical left policies of the Democratic Party.

Yet, despite this real economic pain, Democrats continue to want to put billions of dollars in the economy, billions in corporate handouts. They want to undo Republican tax cuts and policies that actually led to the lowest unemployment rates we have had in 50 years.

So, rather than forcing Americans to pay for their radical socialist agenda, my colleagues across the aisle should use the time to work with Republicans on policies that American families will benefit from and allow American companies to actually compete in a global economy. And we can do that all simply by reducing regulation and reducing taxation. And how about we unleash our domestic energy supply?

So I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question and ``no'' on the rule.

Madam Speaker, 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.

Madam Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentlewoman from my home State of Pennsylvania for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, the rule before us today makes in order three pieces of legislation, including H.R. 8294, a bill to fund 6 of the 12 appropriations bills.

As a member of the Appropriations Committee, I want to just say I am extremely grateful to Ranking Member Granger and Chairwoman DeLauro for all the hard work that they put in, and also the committee staff. I know a lot of effort went into this legislation.

Unfortunately, the product before us was flawed from the very start. House Democrats drastically underfunded our national defense while providing major increases to the same social programs that have already received trillions of dollars in funding under the Biden administration.

It is clear that the Democrats' out-of-control spending has been the key driver to inflation. Don't take my word for it. Larry Summers, former economic adviser to President Biden, went so far as to call the American Rescue Plan ``the least responsible macroeconomic policy we've had in the last 40 years.'' Again, that was Larry Summers, Democrat adviser to the President.

You know what? He was right. Last month, inflation hit 9.1 percent. That is the highest inflation rate in my lifetime. It is the highest inflation rate since 1981.

President Biden's inflation crisis has cost the American worker over $3,000 in annual income, and the skyrocketing cost of goods and services will cost the average American family over $6,000. That is what is so nefarious about inflation, it hits the working class and those on a fixed income the hardest.

Yet, the Big Government Democrats with their reckless spending policies have these six bills before us today included in the package. The six bills included in today's package received a total increase of 11 percent over the previous fiscal year with some accounts, like the Federal Trade Commission and the Office of Personnel Management, receiving double-digit and triple-digit percentage increases, which will, of course, fuel additional inflation.

Keep in mind, the Defense appropriations bill approved by the Appropriations Committee had just a 4.4 percent increase. Additionally, instead of addressing record-high gas prices, Democrats are pushing this partisan Green New Deal initiative that will only worsen Biden's energy crisis.

Under this measure, offshore oil and gas activities are restricted and oil and gas inspection fees are increased. This is just going to drive up the cost of energy for working families.

H.R. 8294 also includes numerous far-left, radical, liberal policies like allowing taxpayer dollars to fund abortions, and keeping our critical and strategic minerals in the ground. Alarmingly, it includes provisions that threaten our national security, including allowing for the closure of Guantanamo Bay, which houses some of the world's most dangerous terrorists. It also fails to modernize the nuclear weapons stockpile and complex, and provides incentives for illegal immigration.

Further, the rule before us today provides for consideration of H.R. 8373, which goes far beyond supporting access to contraception. Let me just be clear about this point. Not a single State in the Union, not a single general assembly in any State is debating considering making contraception illegal.

This poorly drafted bill has extreme provisions that could harm the health of women, send taxpayer dollars to Planned Parenthood and other abortion providers, and force people to violate their religious and sincerely held beliefs.

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

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

Madam Speaker, my friend and colleague from Pennsylvania asked me which programs I would cut funding from as if this were some kind of checkmate in floor debate. It is not because the answer is very obvious. I have an extensive list of where I would cut.

Just for starters, let's look at some of the increases in the appropriations package and, of course, where I would cut.

We have a 20 percent increase for the Environmental Protection Agency. That could be cut.

We have a $1 billion increase for the Internal Revenue Service. That could be cut right there.

There is a 30 percent increase for the Federal Trade Commission. That could be cut. Don't take my word for it. Not one but two of the Commissioners of the FTC said that they don't even need this increase. There is money that you could cut right there, Madam Speaker.

There is a 12 percent increase to maintain and improve Federal buildings. I don't know if anybody across the aisle has been paying attention, but most of the people in these Federal buildings have been working remotely from home for the last 2 years. Yet, we need to increase funding to Federal buildings that are literally sitting empty as people work from home?

Then, we have a lot of bad ideas regarding climate. $100 million is provided for the President's proposal to use the Defense Production Act authorities to accelerate domestic manufacturing of select clean energy technologies. That can be cut.

While we are talking about the shift to clean energy technologies, let's just be honest about who benefits from this. It is China because they are the ones who are selling the rare earth elements that are going into things like solar panels. By the way, they are bringing more nuclear power plants online and more coal-fired plants online while we hamstring our economy and our energy sector with these absurd climate change proposals.

I have more, actually, but for the sake of time and brevity, I will save them for later if the issue comes up.

Additionally, this notion that inflation is a worldwide issue, I am not sure when they stopped teaching economics in school, but we are the world's largest GDP. If we have inflation, then the world has inflation because we literally export it. That is just how economics works.

To blame Ukraine, Ukraine might play a part in this, but who is to blame for Ukraine? It is President Biden. It was the weakness and vacillation--his surrender in Afghanistan--that emboldened Putin. It was the vacillation. It was the ``minor incursion'' comment that he had that gave Vladimir Putin the green light to invade. Had he just been more resolute in our national security, then we could have deterred this invasion. So, he owns Ukraine, as well.

The gentlewoman from North Carolina brought up Dobbs. I want to quote the actual decision because I think a lot of the points in Dobbs were taken out of context. The Court made it clear in that decision that the decision on abortion should ``not be misunderstood or mischaracterized . . . to cast doubt on precedents that do not concern abortion.''

The Court went out of its way to state that they are not concerned about contraception, despite the gentlewoman from North Carolina saying otherwise.

But let's go back to Dobbs. Since the point of the leak of the Dobbs draft Supreme Court decision, there have been 70 violent attacks and threats on churches, pregnancy centers, and pro-life organizations.

These attacks consist of vandalism. They consist of destruction of property, arson, and even included protesters breaching the Arizona State Capitol, forcing legislators to evacuate.

Radical pro-abortion groups have proudly declared ``open season'' on pro-life pregnancy centers while these organizations are providing critical resources to pregnant women, infants, and families.

Republicans want to protect public safety. We want to ensure pro-life organizations can continue helping women and babies in need. That is why if we defeat the previous question, I will personally offer an amendment to the rule to immediately consider H. Res. 1233, a resolution affirming the importance of pro-life crisis pregnancy centers, condemning the violent attacks by far-left extremist groups, and calling upon the Biden administration to use all law enforcement authorities to uphold public safety and protect the rights of pro-life facilities, groups, and churches.

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

Madam Speaker, I yield 7 minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Johnson). The vice chairman of the Republican Conference and sponsor of the resolution is here to explain the amendment.

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

There was an--I don't know if you want to call it an allegation--an insinuation that the only time I speak to condemn violence is when it is violence that I don't agree with.

I want to be clear about something. I condemn all acts of political violence. I have been very consistent on that; so have my colleagues across the aisle.

Great example: The first time I ever spoke here on the House floor was in support of a resolution rejecting white supremacy, and I talked at length at that time of the Tree of Life synagogue shooting that occurred in Squirrel Hill, Pennsylvania.

As you know, I am from the South Hills of Pittsburgh. I have a lot of friends that actually attend that synagogue. And again, the first time I spoke on the House floor was to condemn violence.

So I just want the Record to reflect my consistency on this issue and the consistency of my colleagues.

I wish my friends on the left would condemn violence that the left has done. It seems that they cherry-pick their own outrage.

But let's just get back to economics. Again, there was this notion floated that inflation is not as bad here as it is internationally, and this is a global problem. Again, it is a global problem because we are the world's largest GDP. We are exporting inflation.

But even with that said, inflation is far worse here than it is in the developed world. Our inflation, by reference, is 9.1 percent. Japan is at 2.4 percent. The U.K. is at 9.1 percent; they are the same as we are. Italy is at 8 percent; Canada, 7.7 percent; France, 5.8 percent.

Again, all those countries I listed, those nations in the developed world have inflation that is lower than where we are, with the exception of the U.K., which is the same. In Brazil--I should say this about Brazil. It is at 11.9 percent in Brazil.

So this idea that everybody is experiencing inflation, and that we have it easier, is just not accurate when you look at the numbers.

Now, I gave a list of what I would cut from the budget. It wasn't an exhaustive list, and neither is this, but I just want to give a few more examples.

$75 million is allocated for public housing, energy efficiency and climate resilience upgrades. That could be cut. There is 75 million right there.

Funding for the FDA--and let's not forget, the FDA was the agency that failed to prevent the infant formula crisis. The Democrats are rewarding the FDA with a 10 percent increase. That can be cut.

And what is so insulting about a 10 percent increase to the FDA is, at the same time Democrats want to increase the funding to the FDA-- again, the agency that led to the baby formula shortage--you have farmers and ranchers that are struggling to make ends meet and to actually harvest food because of the rising food costs and fertilizer costs, and there is no increase to them.

And I think one of the most outrageous items that can be cut is the $90 million that is going to The Presidio park, a park that is in an incredibly affluent area of San Francisco, arguably, one of the wealthiest areas in the entire United States. Yet, that park is getting $90 million, when those around that park can fund it.

And again, what is so insulting about this is we are not even giving allocations to places like Yellowstone and Yosemite that are actually national parks. So those are just some of the areas I would cut.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I have no further speakers at this time, and I yield myself the balance of my time.

Since Democrats jammed through their $1.9 trillion stimulus bill last year, inflation is at an over 40-year high; the value of American paychecks has also fallen; and families are paying more for just about everything.

Yet, the rule before us makes in order a funding package that provides double-digit and triple-digit increases for nondefense programs that will further fuel Biden's inflation crisis.

And by the way, while this bill is providing double-digit and triple- digit increases for nondefense programs, the defense budget has only increased 4.4 percent. That is appalling.

H.R. 8294 also is packed with far-left liberal wish list items like taxpayer-funded abortion, rather than policies that will address Biden's economic crisis and fix our supply chains, secure our border, and invest in national security, and bring down gas and electricity costs through domestic energy production.

Clearly, the Democrats' spending and policy priorities are out of touch with everyday Americans. And that is just not me saying that. According to a poll, a shocking 75 percent of Americans are experiencing hardship because of Joe Biden and House Democrats' inflation crisis. And the majority of Americans expect the economy to get worse this year.

This bill, like the Democratic Party, is tone-deaf and out of touch.

I, therefore, 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.

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

Madam Speaker, I rise in support of Amendment No. 431 in en bloc No. 4, offered by my good friend from Rhode Island, Mr. Cicilline. I am proud to cosponsor this amendment and urge my colleagues to support it.

This amendment would safeguard important protections for servicemembers and their families by preventing the enforcement of forced arbitration clauses in any dispute covered under the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act (SCRA). The SCRA was passed to ease financial burdens on servicemembers when they are required to relocate for active duty assignments and protects them from eviction, foreclosure, and other financial penalties. Unfortunately, forced arbitration clauses deny our troops the ability to exercise their SCRA rights and protections in court. This is not right. Our servicemembers deserve peace of mind while they are out fighting for our freedoms, which is why Rep. Cicilline and I are offering this amendment.

It is worth noting this language was included in the Fiscal Year 2022 National Defense Authorization Act that passed the House with bipartisan support, but unfortunately was stripped during negotiations with the Senate. I urge my colleagues to vote yes on amendment No. 431 so we can ensure our military men and women can focus on their missions rather than worry about financial burdens at home.

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

Madam Speaker, the rule before us provides for consideration of three pieces of legislation that are, once again, missed opportunities to provide real relief to the American people.

Rather than working with Republicans to address the serious issues facing our Nation, Democrats again prioritize the interests of far-left special interest groups and their radical progressive base over the needs of American workers and American families.

Look no further than H.R. 2543, a compilation of 13 Committee on Financial Services' bills that prioritize woke policies and unnecessary reporting over actually fixing Biden's economic crisis.

As my friends across the aisle will remember, under President Trump, U.S. employment reached a 50-year low of 3.5 percent. Additionally, under President Trump, minority unemployment dropped to the lowest levels on record.

Compare that with the economy under the Democrats' one-party rule. Inflation is now at a 40-year high. Gas prices are now over $5 a gallon. Americans can expect to pay an extra $5,200 this year compared to last year for the same goods and services.

Once again, rather than just working with Republicans to provide real economic relief, the Democrats continue to double down on reckless spending, far-left policies, and have prioritized their Big Government socialism over free market principles. What has this led to?

It has led to economic instability. It threatens the stability of our Federal Reserve. It piles regulatory costs on small businesses. It emboldens unelected and unaccountable career bureaucrats.

Ultimately, H.R. 2543 will make it more difficult for low-income and minority borrowers to start a business, to buy a home, and to build credit. It actually does the opposite of the intended effect.

This will also provide for consideration of H.R. 7606, a bill that claims to lower food costs by appointing a ``special investigator,'' and this special investigator will investigate American meat packers and live poultry dealers.

Let's be clear, this legislation is a weak attempt to lay the blame for President Biden's economic crisis on American job creators. In reality, this is just another unfunded mandate that empowers Washington bureaucrats and places new burdens on American food producers.

Alarmingly, these compliance costs may actually raise the price of food even higher, making life in Joe Biden's America even harder on average American families.

Finally, this bill provides for consideration of H.R. 2773, the Recovering America's Wildlife Act of 2022. While I support conservation efforts, I am incredibly disappointed once again by the majority walking away from talks with Republicans to find offsets and to try to resolve spending concerns for the $1.34 billion in new annual mandatory spending authorized by this bill.

In fact, according to the CBO, this legislation spends $12.7 billion just in the first 10 years alone.

Madam Speaker, 80 percent of Americans say inflation is the most important issue facing this country. You wouldn't know it by looking at the bills Democrats are prioritizing for floor action this week.

Perhaps it is time that my Big Government, Democratic colleagues actually listen to the American people and work with Republicans on real economic solutions rather than doubling down on the out-of-control spending and reckless far-left policies that created Biden's economic crisis in the first place.

Madam Speaker, I strongly urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' to oppose this rule, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I hear about this being a global issue. It is a global issue, but the reason it is a global issue--quick economics lesson--we are still the reserve currency. We also are the largest GDP. We are exporting the inflation to other countries.

Let's be clear. The inflation is caused by Joe Biden's reckless, Big Government, socialist agenda and, unfortunately, the American people as well as the world have to deal with this recklessness.

Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from Minnesota (Mrs. Fischbach), who is my good friend on the Rules Committee.

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

Madam Speaker, Americans are now paying an average of over $5 for a gallon of gas. This is the first time in history this has happened. Let me repeat that: over $5 for a gallon of gas.

The pain at the pump is a direct result of President Biden's and congressional Democrats' radical Green New Deal agenda and a war on American energy producers.

Let's just be blunt about something: the base of the Democratic Party--the bunch of woke yuppies sitting at home on Zooms all day-- don't care about gas prices. But if you are someone who has to swing a hammer for a living and drive to a jobsite, if you are a waitress at a diner and you have to drive to your shift, that affects you.

Republicans care about working families and working men and women. That is why we believe Americans deserve affordable, American-made energy. That is why if we defeat the previous question, I will personally offer an amendment to the rule to immediately consider H.R. 6858, the American Energy Independence from Russia Act.

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

Madam Speaker, here to explain this amendment is my good friend and a member of the Energy and Commerce Committee, Congressman Jeff Duncan from South Carolina.

Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Duncan).

Madam Speaker, I yield the gentleman from South Carolina an additional 30 seconds.

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

Madam Speaker, Democrats and their allies on the left can blame Putin all they want, and it is partially true that Putin's war in Ukraine is partially to blame. But gas prices have risen every month of this administration. Every month they were up a dollar a gallon before Putin even invaded Ukraine.

The real issue here is supply.

Why do we have the supply issue?

It is because Joe Biden on day number one canceled the Keystone XL pipeline. That dried up all capital investment into hydrocarbon infrastructure. Maybe it is a problem because we cannot get the oil and gas to refineries to make sure that we have a supply.

So what does Joe Biden do instead?

He blames everybody else. He goes to Venezuela and elsewhere, and begs them to produce more oil when just one administration before under President Trump, we were actually a net exporter of energy. Biden and House Democrats have created this mess, and the American people know that.

Are you ready for this fact, Madam Speaker?

The American people will also spend $5,000 this year on gas--$5,000 for the average American. That is a 78 percent increase from a year ago. In other words, Americans are spending over $2,000 extra a year on gas under Joe Biden.

Blame who you want, Madam Speaker, but every time an American looks up and sees $100-plus on that gas tank that he or she just filled up, they know who to blame--Joe Biden and Democrats.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from the great State of Texas (Ms. Van Duyne).

Madam Speaker, just some quick facts. As Mr. Duncan stated, House Democrats have blocked consideration of legislation to unleash America's energy independence six times. Six times we have been down this road, and House Democrats have blocked it.

Gas prices have gone up 49 cents since the last time Republicans asked Democrats to bring this bill to the floor. Here we are again.

To talk more about this issue, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Arizona (Mrs. Lesko).

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Stauber), my friend and a former police officer.

Madam Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to my good friend to close.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I still find it somewhat amusing that my friends across the aisle continue to blame all this on foreign nations and their actions.

Let me give a quick history lesson on how President Joe Biden and Democrats actually caused this crisis.

Number one, day number one, Joe Biden canceled the Keystone XL pipeline.

Number two, he emboldened Putin with Nord Stream 2. I would actually argue he emboldened Putin to invade Ukraine when he recklessly pulled us out of Afghanistan, which served zero military purpose. But I digress.

Additionally, Joe Biden suspended oil and gas leasing on Federal lands. He delayed permits for energy and infrastructure pipelines. He drained the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. He revoked permits for critical mineral projects. He canceled oil leases in Alaska and the Gulf of Mexico.

What has this done to gas prices? Well, in California, gas prices are now $9 a gallon.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. LaMalfa).

Madam Speaker, I have no further speakers at this time, and I am prepared to close.

I yield myself the balance of my time and remind everybody that, in Joe Biden's America, gas prices are averaging more than $5 a gallon; inflation is at a 40-year high; and real wages have decreased 10 out of the last 12 months.

Yet, with today's rule, House Democrats are doubling down on far- left, radical policies, really failed policies, that created Joe Biden's economic crisis in the first place.

It is well past time that the Biden administration and congressional Democrats admit that they are to blame for the economic pain families are facing and workers are facing, and work with Republicans on solutions to immediately help the American people.

Madam Speaker, 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 from New York 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 of three pieces of legislation, including H.R. 350, which my colleagues claim will prevent incidents of domestic terrorism. But let's make no mistake, Republicans are committed to fighting hatred and violence in all forms.

Unfortunately, H.R. 350 does absolutely nothing to actually make our communities safer. Rather, this legislation expands the Federal bureaucracy. It ignores new and evolving domestic terrorist threats, and it makes it more difficult for law enforcement to recruit and retain qualified candidates.

Alarmingly, it empowers Biden's DOJ to continue labeling American parents and other political opponents as threats to stifle their First Amendment rights.

The rule before us today also provides for consideration of H.R. 7688, the Democrats' attempt to distract and shift blame for President Biden's self-inflicted energy crisis. Since his first day in office, President Biden has waged an unrelenting war on American energy producers. From canceling the Keystone XL pipeline to suspending oil and gas leasing on Federal lands, President Biden's radical Green New Deal policies have discouraged and denied development of American energy resources and the American energy sector.

Yet, at the same time that Joe Biden has done all this, he absolutely refuses to take any accountability for the soaring gas prices and the economic pain he continues to inflict on hardworking American families.

First, the President tried to blame Putin, despite the fact that gas prices had risen more than 50 percent during his first year in office. A quick history lesson: That is 1 year before Russia ever invaded Ukraine. In fact, gas prices have increased every single month of this Presidency.

Now, the President is blaming hardworking oil and gas producers in places like Pennsylvania and across the country, accusing them of price gouging, even though multiple FTC investigations have repeatedly concluded supply and demand is the ultimate driver of these rising prices and, by the way, an artificial decrease in supply thanks to these radical policies.

H.R. 7688 will impose a socialist price-fixing scheme on oil and gas, leading to even less production, which will hit small businesses and American families the hardest.

Now, I wasn't alive in the 1970s, but I know there are a lot of Members in this Chamber who were, and I am sure they can remember waiting in line to fuel up their cars. If H.R. 7688 is signed into law, that travesty will once again be a reality.

Finally, the rule before us makes in order H.R. 7790, the Infant Formula Supplemental Appropriations Act. Under President Biden's leadership, our Nation is facing an infant formula supply crisis, with reports that more than 40 percent of formula is out of stock. Instead of working with Republicans to redirect excess stocks of formula at Federal agencies and force the FDA to develop a plan to address this shortage, House Democrats simply want to throw money at the problem with absolutely no plan, no guardrails to ensure that funding is spent to actually put baby formula back on grocery store shelves.

Let me be clear. We are giving $28 million to the very same unelected career bureaucrats who failed to address this crisis when it came to their attention a year ago. It is absolute madness.

H.R. 7790 will do nothing, absolutely nothing, to alleviate Biden's baby formula crisis, and it is American babies and American families who will be forced to suffer the consequences.

Mr. Speaker, I would be remiss if I failed to mention that today's rule also does not make in order a single Republican amendment, but I guess I shouldn't be surprised. Republicans have attempted to work with our Democratic colleagues to make our communities safer, to address inflation and lower gas prices, and to help parents feed their babies. But it is absolutely clear from today's rule and from their actions over the last 3 years that House Democrats would rather continue their partisan political theater than put forth real solutions to help real Americans.

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

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Oklahoma (Mrs. Bice), my good friend.

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

Madam Speaker, I would be more than happy to answer the question that my friend from Illinois posed.

The difference from 2 years ago and now is that the DOJ has started going after concerned parents that are showing up at school board meetings labeling them domestic terrorists.

The difference is that the Department of Homeland Security thinks it is fitting to have a truth and disinformation board, like something from an Orwellian novel. This is a different time.

Also, in the last 2 years, we had $2 billion of damage that was caused by antifa. Yet, my colleagues across the aisle refuse to label antifa a domestic terrorist organization.

Those are just a few of the things that have changed between now and the last time we had this bill.

Now, my good friend from New York was talking about the oil and gas industry. Let me just remind everybody that in 2020, the oil and gas industry lost $76 billion.

There was talk about buybacks. Maybe we should consider why these buybacks are occurring. Maybe it is because of investor shareholder activism and this notion of ESGs that has something to do with it. And by the way, that activism also dries up investment and capital into the oil and gas industry.

But don't take my word for it, Dr. Jason Furman of Harvard University--clearly no bastion of conservative thought--he actually was an adviser to President Obama. Listen to what he said: ``When more people want to buy things than companies are capable of making, prices go up. That's just the law of supply and demand. Companies always want to maximize their profits. I don't think they're doing it any more this year than any other year.''

Again, that was Jason Furman, not exactly a conservative.

But while we are talking about all these issues, we are also failing to talk about police week. It is National Police Week. Across our Nation, police departments are struggling to recruit new officers, to fill open positions. Some cities are facing shortages as high as 17 percent. At the same time, our Nation is in the midst of a crime crisis with homicide rates up 48 percent compared with just 2 years ago.

The crime crisis is a direct result of President Biden and the Democrats' efforts to demonize the police, to defund the police, and also pushing for soft-on-crime policies.

House Republicans will always stand with our police. We will always invest in our Nation's law enforcement, and we will always fight to make our communities safer.

That is why, if we defeat this previous question, I will personally offer an amendment to the rule to immediately consider the Communities Deserve Cops Act.

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

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Rutherford), a former sheriff, good friend, and the author of this legislation, here to explain the amendment.

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

Madam Speaker, I just have to push back a little bit on my good friend from New York because the facts just don't line up with his argument, respectfully.

I will give you a great example. During the committee markup, Representative Steube of Florida offered an amendment to strike references to white supremacists and neo-Nazis, and insert neo-Nazis, white supremacists, antifa, Black Lives Matter, and radicalized social justice organizations.

So when the Democrats had the chance to actually include a whole slew of domestic terror organizations, when they had the chance, that amendment that Representative Steube offered, it failed on a party-line vote with only one Republican joining the Democrats in voting ``no.''

While Democrats refused to put antifa, Black Lives Matter, and radicalized social justice organizations into the definition of ``domestic terrorism,'' they simultaneously believed that concerned parents at school board meetings are the domestic terrorists. That is the problem, and that is what has changed between 2 years and now.

I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Rice) to talk more about the police. Again, it is Police Week, and we are doing very little talking about the police.

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

I have a lot of respect for my good friend from New York, but, again, facts don't care about friendships. If you look at the facts, and just a quick history lesson, on September 29, 2021, the National School Boards Association sent a letter to the Biden White House asking the administration to treat parents as terrorists. Madam Speaker, 5 days after that letter, which, again, asks Biden's DOJ to treat parents as domestic terrorists, 5 days later, Attorney General Garland sent a memo to the Director of the FBI, directing the FBI to work with each U.S. attorney to convene meetings with Federal, local, and territorial leaders within 30 days of the issuance of the memo and to open dedicated lines of communication for threats reported at school board meetings. Just a few weeks after that, they created a threat tag to be used on parents.

Fast forward, during a markup in the Judiciary Committee, Judiciary Republicans expressed concerns that H.R. 350 will codify what took place last fall, treating parents as domestic terrorists.

To date, that memo has not been rescinded.

Madam Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Morelle) to see if he supports the actions of the Attorney General, if he supports the letter, and if he has anything to say in response.

Madam Speaker, reclaiming my time, the question was simple. It is on the issue of the memoranda, whether or not my colleague agreed that the FBI should treat parents as domestic terrorists.

The letter has not been rescinded. It is still in place, and the actions of the Attorney General and the DOJ are irrefutable. Again, I point to the fact that that letter has still not been rescinded.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Guest) to elaborate more on this matter.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Malliotakis), my good friend.

Madam Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentlewoman.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. Herrera Beutler), my good friend and fellow appropriator.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Roy), my good friend.

Madam Speaker, I have no further speakers at this time, and I yield myself the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, for over 3 years, House Democrats have pushed for a radical, far left agenda that does absolutely nothing to address the serious issues facing American families. The legislation made in order under today's rule is no exception to that.

H.R. 350 adds bureaucracy and adds red tape to existing law enforcement resources, while completely ignoring new and evolving terrorist threats.

H.R. 7688, this is the Democrats' socialist energy price-fixing scheme that will actually lead to less energy production and further exacerbate American families' pain at the pump.

Finally, H.R. 7790, does nothing--I repeat, nothing--to put more formula on store shelves or hold Biden's FDA accountable for ignoring this crisis despite knowing about it for the last year.

Madam Speaker, the American people deserve more than empty promises and meaningless legislation, they deserve action.

Madam Speaker, 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, my good friend from Maryland, (Mr. Raskin), 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 of S. 3522, the Ukraine Democracy Defense Lend-Lease Act of 2022.

Mr. Speaker, let me start by saying that I strongly support this bill, which streamlines existing defense authorities to enable the President to enter into a lend-lease agreement directly with Ukraine and Eastern European countries.

I know I speak for my Republican colleagues in expressing my wholehearted support for the people of Ukraine as they defend themselves and their democracy against Vladimir Putin's atrocities. That is why I look forward--and so do so many of my colleagues--to voting for this bill later today.

However, I have to urge my colleagues to oppose this rule as it continues Speaker Pelosi's authoritarian lockdown of the House of Representatives.

For over 2 years the Speaker has used COVID-19 as an excuse to deny Members the ability to advocate on behalf of the people they represent. This rule keeps those oppressive procedures in place, despite the fact that even the bluest of States are easing their COVID restrictions. This is just further proof that my colleagues across the aisle care only about political science, not about real science.

Further, Mr. Speaker, this rule fails to provide for consideration of legislation to address the serious issues facing the American people. Under the Biden administration, our Nation has careened from one crisis to the next.

Right now, families across the country are facing a 41-year high in inflation and skyrocketing gas and food prices. These are expected to cost the average American family $5,000 a year.

This morning we learned the U.S. GDP fell by 1.4 percent during the first quarter of 2022. This is getting worse by the day. Forty percent of small businesses are planning to raise prices by 10 percent just to keep up with inflation. This economic crisis is not the result of the war in Ukraine as President Biden and the leftists on the other side of the aisle like to claim. This crisis is a direct result of the Democrats' out-of-control spending and their far-left, dangerous, radical policies.

Just look at the fact that inflation has increased every month since Joe Biden has been President. Putin didn't invade Ukraine until February of this year, yet during President Biden's first year in office--again, well before the invasion of Ukraine--gas prices jumped nearly 53 percent, from $2.25 a gallon to $3.44 a gallon. Again, that was before Russian soldiers ever crossed the border in Ukraine.

But talking about borders, let's talk about our southern border. The border crisis is a direct result of Joe Biden's incompetence, and the radical policies of the left are leading to disaster. Thanks to the open border policy of the left, last month over 200,000 illegal immigrants were encountered at our southern border. That is a new Biden-era high. Again, that is over 200,000 illegal immigrants. To put this in perspective for my colleagues, that is roughly three congressional districts.

Since Biden took office, over 2.4 million illegal immigrants have been apprehended at our southern border, including more than 40 individuals who are on the terrorist watch list. This is only going to get worse if President Biden gets away with lifting title 42.

So, again, Mr. Speaker, while I support S. 3522 and, of course, the people of Ukraine, I believe this is a missed opportunity to help the American people, the people in southwestern Pennsylvania, and the people throughout this Nation.

Mr. Speaker, I, therefore, urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question and ``no'' on the rule, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Maryland said that we just can't help but to disagree. Nothing could be further from the truth. This bill could be passed on the suspension calendar. This is going to pass by well over two-thirds vote. It passed, I believe, unanimously in the Senate. The fact that we are here debating a rule on this instead of just passing this on suspension is a waste of time. This bill will pass.

But we have got a real crisis at the southern border. We have got inflation. Even the Biden administration said we are expected to have food shortages. We also are failing to project American power abroad, which is leading to chaos all over the world.

We agree on the issue with Ukraine, yet we are still here wasting valuable time that we could be using to address real problems.

But let's just go back to the southern border. As I mentioned earlier in my remarks, just in March, encounters at the southern border hit a new Biden-era high of over 200,000 individuals encountered at the southern border. In addition to apprehending individuals from the terrorist watch list, Border Patrol agents are seeing an increase in illicit drugs, including deadly fentanyl. Alarmingly, fentanyl border seizures increased by 134 percent in fiscal year 2021. President Biden and House Democrats had this open border policy that is creating a humanitarian and a security crisis both at the border and in our communities where people are literally dying from fentanyl overdoses.

With all that in consideration, the Democrats and the left still want to do away with title 42 and lift it. That is why, Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will personally offer an amendment to the rule to immediately consider H.R. 471, the PAUSE Act of to 2021.

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 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Stefanik), who is the Republican Conference chair. She will explain the amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentlewoman from New York.

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

Just two quick points in rebuttal for my friend from Pennsylvania.

First off, if there is concern about the humanitarian crisis on the southern border, the best thing you can do is try to bring order to that southern border. The trek that these individuals have to take is incredibly dangerous. Women and children are often exploited. Coyotes are making literally millions of dollars. Oftentimes, when the illegal immigrants come to the United States, they are put in sort of indentured servant status to the drug cartels and the coyotes.

The perverse thing about arguing that you care about people is that if you really did care about the humanitarian crisis, you would share the Republican viewpoint of law and order.

Secondly, to the fact that we need to act quickly on the bill regarding Ukraine, my colleagues across the aisle could have passed this bill on Tuesday. The fact that we are here wasting time on a bill that could have passed by suspension just shows the lack of seriousness on the other issues facing the American people. To act quickly, my colleagues should have been advocating this bill be run on Tuesday on suspension.

Here to talk more about these issues is the Republican leader of the Oversight and Reform Committee, Mr. James Comer of Kentucky, who recently led a delegation to the southern border.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Comer).

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman from Kentucky.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Georgia (Mrs. Greene).

Mr. Speaker, I would request to have words taken down.

Mr. Speaker, no objection.

Mr. Speaker, I would tell my colleague across the aisle that I still have several speakers, just so we are on the same page.

Mr. Speaker, there were comments made prior regarding why we, on our side of the aisle, are not talking about the underlying bill.

The answer to that is very simple. Let's put this into perspective.

We are here debating the rule.

We are not debating final passage. In fact, we don't need to debate final passage because the vast majority of my colleagues agree on this particular bill. We are not here debating final passage of the bill.

We are debating, in essence, the rest of the legislative calendar for the day. We simply are arguing that in this calendar and in the agenda for the rest of the day, we should be considering other important matters, such as the crisis at the southern border.

So I just felt like I needed to put that in perspective.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Guest), my good friend.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Green), my good friend, to rebut the gentleman from Maryland.

Mr. Speaker, let me just be clear. We are not going down several roads. We are going down one road with this argument and that is the southern border.

I am willing to bet that this vote will pass, the underlying bill will pass with over a two-thirds vote. We could have tried to run this on Tuesday. Even if it did fail, we could have been here running it today.

We have delayed this when we have serious business to discuss, particularly the southern border. And that is what we are debating; the fact that the legislative business for today should include the crisis at the southern border.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Carter), my good friend, and a good pharmacist, to talk more about the crisis at the southern border.

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

Mr. Speaker, let me just start by reiterating that I and the vast majority of my colleagues support S. 3522, and we look forward to voting on that bill later today. We need to bolster Ukraine's defense capability and protect vulnerable civilian populations in Ukraine.

However, we are debating the rule right now. The rule before us extends Speaker Pelosi's authoritarian COVID lockdown that has stripped rank-and-file Members of their ability to advocate for the people they represent.

Let's just look at the stats. Ninety percent of the country is in a low-risk community level. That is according to the CDC; over 90 percent of the country. So why is the Speaker so afraid to let the House get back to work?

If the Speaker followed the real science, not the political science the left has followed through this entire pandemic, the Speaker would allow the people's House to resume regular business.

Further, this rule is a missed opportunity to address the serious issues that are facing American families. American families are getting hammered by inflation. Gas prices are out of control. The border crisis is raging, and we are being told by President Biden that we are expected to face food shortages in future months.

On top of all that bad news, just this morning, we learned the GDP decreased at an annual rate of 1.4 percent in the first quarter of 2022. Our GDP is decreasing. This is the weakest showing since the pandemic recovery began and this falls well below the projections of economists.

So, instead of passing legislation to address the serious economic crisis we are facing and the serious security issue we are facing at the southern border, Democratic leadership is sending the House home a day early. We were supposed to be here tomorrow. Yet, we are getting sent home early, despite all these issues facing the American people.

We can do a lot more for this country and the American people. For that reason, 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.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman 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 of a resolution holding Peter Navarro and Daniel Scavino in contempt of Congress.

From the very beginning, the select committee has been nothing more than a partisan tool used by House Democrats to attack their political opponents. Time and time again, they have run roughshod over our Constitution and they have run roughshod over the very rules of this institution. And to what end? To advance their own political agenda.

We need look no further than the resolution establishing the committee to see their complete disregard for this Chamber. House Resolution 503 states the Speaker shall appoint 13 members, five of whom shall be appointed after consultation with minority leaders. Neither of those ``shall'' clauses have been met.

While this may seem insignificant to my colleagues across the aisle, it is certainly of consequence to the courts. Let's talk about some case law.

Yellin v. United States. There the Court reversed the conviction of contempt of Congress because a congressional committee failed to adhere to its own rules. The Court explained, ``The committee prepared the groundwork for prosecution in Yellin's case meticulously.'' Yet, ``It is not too exacting to require that the committee be equally meticulous in obeying its own rules.'' I suggest to my Democratic colleagues, heed those words.

As a former Navy JAG, I am deeply troubled by the committee's treatment of Mr. Scavino, including clear due process violations. The select committee repeatedly demanded almost immediate responses from Mr. Scavino, while waiting for weeks--weeks--to provide responses to his correspondence.

Further, the select committee has shown complete disregard for Mr. Scavino's legal duty, his legal duty to invoke the executive privilege, which he was instructed to do by President Trump. There is no legal authority that the incumbent President is the final arbiter as to whether executive privilege may be asserted for congressional testimony of close aides to a former President.

The Presidential Records Act applies only to Presidential records within control of the National Archives. That is it. It is a very narrow statute. That act does not control whether testimony can be given.

Let's talk about some more case law. United States v. Nixon. The Supreme Court held in that case, ``Communications between a President and his closest aides are entitled to a presumption of privilege of confidentiality which can be overcome only by a particularized showing of a need in a criminal case.'' I want to emphasize criminal case. This is not a criminal case.

Finally, the select committee initially provided Mr. Scavino with 15 topics which they wanted to discuss. That list later grew to 33. The select committee then went so far as to place the onus on Mr. Scavino, saying that it is his responsibility to ``identify the specific topics outside the scope of his asserted privilege.''

As I am sure my friend across the aisle knows, and any lawyer on the other side of the aisle knows, the burden is not on the subject of the deposition to identify the topics on which they can be questioned. The Supreme Court found--and here is some more case law--in Watkins v. United States, the Supreme Court found in that case, `` . . . a person compelled to testify is entitled to have knowledge of the subject to which the interrogation is deemed pertinent. . . . `'

If the select committee wanted to conduct a legitimate investigation, they would not be rushing to hold Mr. Scavino in contempt after imposing unreasonable and unattainable timelines, ignoring legitimate assertions of a privilege, and then refusing legitimate accommodations.

It is clear the resolution before us today is not about a witness' refusal to testify or refusing to comply with a congressional subpoena. This is all about Democrats' need to further their partisan agenda.

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

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

My good friend from Maryland was talking about some case law. I will talk case law all day. Here are three real fast:

Quinn v. United States. The Supreme Court said that Congress cannot issue a subpoena for law enforcement purpose.

Watkins v. United States. Congress has no authority to issue a subpoena to compel exposure for the sake of exposure.

McGrain v. Daugherty. Congress may not issue a subpoena in an attempt to try someone before a committee for any crime of wrongdoing.

I have ample case law up here that will show, at the very best, for my friends across the aisle that case law is unsettled, but it is very likely on the side of Mr. Scavino and Mr. Navarro.

Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from New Mexico (Ms. Herrell) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Bost) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Rutherford) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Joyce) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from

the great State of Texas (Mr. Jackson) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. LaTurner) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Cole), the Rules Committee ranking member, for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Idaho (Mr. Fulcher) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Baird) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Iowa (Mrs. Hinson) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Burgess), a Rules Committee member, for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Mrs. Miller) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Biggs) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. LaHood) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Walberg) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Pfluger) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Moore) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Wenstrup) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Mann) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Kustoff) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Norman) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Grothman) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Georgia (Mrs. Greene) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Keller) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Curtis) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Carl) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Aderholt) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Van Duyne) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Newhouse) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Balderson) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Allen) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Stauber) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Ferguson) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Carter) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Cammack) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Clyde) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Arizona (Mrs. Lesko) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from South Carolina (Ms. Mace) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Gimenez) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from

Alabama (Mr. Palmer) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Smith) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Cline) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Hice) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Gosar) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Good) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. Garcia) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Scalise), the Republican whip, for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Jacobs) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Steel) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Oklahoma (Mrs. Bice) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Missouri (Mrs. Hartzler) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Hill) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Weber) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Meuser) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Palazzo) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. LaMalfa) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Babin) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Nehls) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Garbarino) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Williams) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Malliotakis) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Salazar) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Posey) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Latta) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Bishop) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Burchett) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Roy) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Estes) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. McCarthy), the Republican leader, for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. McCarthy), the Republican leader.

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

To my colleague from Maryland, I will argue this case any day of the week, and I think that, ultimately, this will be resolved by the courts. I have got stacks, like I said, of case law to support my argument.

But to call what you just saw absurd, or a waste of time, I don't think the American people think it is absurd to care about the crisis at our southern border; the amount of illegal immigrants coming across the border; the amount of fentanyl that is coming across the border that is literally killing people in the interior.

Let's look at some numbers on this. Just last week, the CBP confirmed

more than 300,000 illegal immigrants evaded Border Patrol, just in the last 6 months alone.

Alarmingly, Border Patrol warned that the Biden border crisis is already worsening in anticipation of the administration's rollback of title 42.

You just heard 68 Republicans, plus the Republican leader, request to consider legislation that will provide for stringent enforcement of title 42, which allows illegal immigrants to be quickly expelled from the United States.

But clearly, House Democrats aren't concerned about the biggest migration crisis our Nation has ever faced. So let's try this another way.

If we defeat the previous question, I will personally offer an amendment to the rule to immediately consider H.R. 471, the PAUSE Act of 2021.

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 for the previous question.

Mr. Speaker, here to explain the amendment is the bill's author. I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from New Mexico (Ms. Herrell), my good friend.

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

Ben Shapiro says the ``facts don't care about your feelings,'' and they don't. And I will say this: The case law doesn't care about what your political position is.

So if you want to talk about more case law, how about Trump v. Thompson, 2022, Justice Kavanaugh ruled: ``A former President must be able to successfully invoke the Presidential communications privilege for communications that occurred during his Presidency, even if the current President does not support the privilege claim.''

I have got more and more case law that I could produce. But let's just go back to the fact that this select committee is a partisan political hit job. If this really had a legitimate legislative function, then let me ask you this: Where are the subpoenas for the former House Sergeant at Arms and the former head of the D.C. National Guard? We haven't seen those subpoenas.

What about questions and subpoenas that are designed to elicit information about why this Capitol was left unprepared and how to prevent it from happening again? That would be a legitimate legislative function.

What we are seeing is this committee masquerading as if it is some kind of grand jury, which is wholly inappropriate and a violation of the separation of powers.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from the great State of Texas (Mr. Roy), to talk more about this.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Cammack).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Katko), the ranking member of the Homeland Security Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman from New York.

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman from New York.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Bishop).

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman from North Carolina.

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

Mr. Speaker, I just want to check if there are any further speakers that my friend from across the aisle has.

Mr. Speaker, at this time I have no further speakers, and I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, in closing, I consider the gentleman across the aisle a friend, and it is certainly an honor and a privilege to debate law with him given the fact that he is a renowned constitutional law expert. I mean that sincerely. It is fun being up here with the gentleman. So knowing that he has the last word, I do just have to cite one more case for my good friend.

I just keep going back to the Trump v. Thompson where Justice Kavanaugh said that there are only two very narrow exceptions to this privilege. Number one, which can be found in United States v. Nixon, relates to a pending criminal trial. There is no pending criminal trial here. That exception is not applicable.

The second narrow exception is one found in Senate Select Committee v. Nixon. In there, it is whether the subpoenaed evidence is demonstrably critical to the responsible fulfillment of a committee's function. I am quoting the precedent here. That case law goes on to state that there are clear differences between Congress' legislative tasks and the responsibility of a grand jury.

He went on further to describe that Congress frequently legislates on the basis of conflicting information provided in its hearings all the time. So I would submit that that exception does not apply either. Reasonable minds can differ, but I am very confident that the case law here supports the case of Mr. Scavino.

With that said, the law notwithstanding, it seems that my friends across the aisle have proven time and time again that they don't care about the separation of powers, they don't care about the protection of our constitutional rights, and they don't even care about the rules of the House. They only do if those items fit a political narrative.

It is very clear to me that from the Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol's treatment of Mr. Scavino and from the resolution before us today that they would prefer to keep up their political theater rather than conduct a legitimate congressional investigation.

Mr. Speaker, 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.

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

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

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

I want to thank my good friend, the chairman of the Rules Committee, for yielding me the customary 30 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, before I begin, I would just like to take a moment to recognize someone who absolutely exemplifies the bipartisanship and camaraderie of the Rules Committee staff, and that is James Fitzella. He has worked on the Rules Committee for 7 years, and I am incredibly sad to say that he is leaving us for the private sector. His commitment to this institution and working across the aisle to get things done, that attitude will be truly missed.

He served the Rules Committee with integrity, dedication, and unwavering optimism. Congressional staff are often the unsung heroes of this body and of any legislative accomplishment, and this is absolutely the truth in James' case.

I know I speak for everybody on the Rules Committee when I extend my sincere gratitude to James for his public service and wish him our very best.

I would also be remiss if I didn't recognize Jeff Gohringer, who is leaving the majority staff after being on the Rules Committee for 6 years. I am sure Chairman McGovern would agree that we would be lost without the excellent work from our staff members.

I know Jeff was an absolutely critical part of the team, so I would like to also extend my best wishes to Jeff in his future endeavors as well.

Mr. Speaker, let's talk about the rule before us. The rule before us today makes in order H.R. 3967, the Honoring our PACT Act.

As an Iraq war veteran, I believe supporting toxic-exposed veterans should be of the highest priority.

Approximately 3.5 million veterans who served our Nation after the terrorist attacks of 9/11 were exposed to open-air burn pits and other toxins. Many of these troops now suffer from serious health issues, including rare and aggressive cancers, respiratory conditions, and other illnesses. Yet, they face significant barriers to obtaining help from the VA.

These men and women put their lives on the line to defend our freedoms. We must provide them with the care and benefits they have earned.

That is why I am disappointed that we are here considering H.R. 3967 rather than voting on the Health Care for Burn Pit Veterans Act, a bipartisan bill that has already passed the Senate by unanimous consent. If we took up that bill immediately, it could be signed into law by the end of the week, ensuring swift delivery of lifesaving care for toxic-exposed veterans.

Instead, here we are, prioritizing a bill that must still undergo a lengthy analysis process and many legislative considerations. We also have to look at the impact on the current VA and those that are getting benefits now from the VA, and the backlog that exists in our VA system.

Republicans want to quickly deliver help to veterans suffering from toxic exposure. The best way to do that is to bring the Senate-passed Health Care for Burn Pit Veterans Act to the House floor.

Prioritizing H.R. 3967 will only slow down the process and delay implementation of toxic exposure benefits. I, therefore, 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.

Just a quick point of rebuttal. I would just remind my good friend from Massachusetts that passage of H.R. 3967 is not guaranteed in the Senate.

We don't have that concern when we are talking about the Health Care for Burn Pit Veterans Act, which has already passed the Senate by unanimous consent. We could pass that today here on the floor this week. It could be signed into law this week. Doing anything other is simply to delay assistance to the veterans who need it most.

Now, to the topic of Ukraine. In the wake of Vladimir Putin's brutal, brutal invasion of Ukraine, the world is crying out for an alternative to Russian energy. Pennsylvania, and the rest of America's heartland, could provide that alternative.

But President Biden and Congressional Democrats refuse to let that happen. They would rather promote their radical Green New Deal agenda and continue buying oil from Putin's ruthless regime. They would rather do that than unleash domestic energy production, and that includes Pennsylvania coal, oil, and natural gas industries. They would rather do that than lower gas and heating prices for American families and strengthen our national security through becoming an energy exporter.

Republicans, on the other hand, actually want to make America energy independent once again, just like we were in the last administration.

That is why, Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will personally offer an amendment to the rule to immediately consider the American Energy Independence from Russia Act.

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.

Here to explain the amendment is one of the bill's authors, the Natural Resources Committee ranking member and my good friend. I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Westerman).

Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman an additional 15 seconds.

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

Mr. Speaker, one of the best ways that we can support the Ukrainian people, and President Zelensky by extension, is by ensuring that we have a steady supply of American energy and that we are supplying our allies in Eastern Europe. This will also deny Putin a major revenue stream.

Alarmingly, U.S. oil imports from Russia reached an 11-year high in 2021, accounting for more than 10 percent of the total U.S. crude oil and petroleum product imports.

Here to explain why that should concern all Americans is my good friend, my mentor, the ranking member of the Rules Committee, Tom Cole.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Cole).

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

Mr. Speaker, one in six American adults reported they cannot pay their full energy bill in the last 12 months. That is appalling. It is especially appalling given the fact that at our fingertips we have an abundance of energy. In Pennsylvania alone, we have oil, gas, and clean coal. We should be unleashing the American energy sector.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New Mexico (Ms. Herrell), who is here to talk more about this.

Mr. Speaker, just three quick points in rebuttal. First and foremost, I myself am a veteran of the Iraq war. I was there for 6 months, actually, in 2009.

If we would just pass the Health Care for Burn Pit Veterans Act that the Senate passed by unanimous consent, we could pass that and put it on the President's desk at the end of this week. There is nothing standing in our way except the Democratic Party on this.

Also, I would just remind my good friend from Massachusetts that my motion does not prevent the House from considering the Honoring our PACT Act. It doesn't. It simply amends the rule to also allow for consideration of the American Energy Independence from Russia Act.

I am sure everyone on the other side of the aisle would agree that lowering gas and heating prices for all American families and ending our dependence on Russian oil is of the utmost importance. In fact, I just got an alert that a gentleman from my colleague's State General Assembly just put forward a bill on the floor of the General Assembly of Massachusetts to stop the importation of Russian oil.

Sixty percent of the natural gas our country imports actually goes to Massachusetts. People don't realize that. But if New York would get out of the way and allow Pennsylvania to have a pipeline from Pennsylvania to New England, the New Englanders wouldn't need dirty Russian oil. They could use Pennsylvania natural gas. But I digress. We can and should find the time this week to add the American Energy Independence from Russia Act to our agenda.

Lastly, ad nauseam, I have heard bill after bill after bill from the leftists across the other side of the aisle on electric vehicles, and yet again I am reminded that the Republicans are the real party of science because if you look at the actual science, an electric car will generate just 23 percent fewer greenhouse gas emissions than a gasoline-powered car.

In fact, if you were to take every gas-powered car on the face of the planet and get rid of it, it would only mean a mere 1.8 percent decline in total emissions. This is fake science. We have alchemy and chemistry. We have astrology and we have astronomy. We have the Democrat Party and we have the Republican Party.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from North Dakota (Mr. Armstrong), my good friend, to talk more about this.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Scalise), my good friend and the Republican whip.

Mr. Speaker, just one point in rebuttal to my good friend from Massachusetts: Republicans do support toxic-exposed veterans. Yesterday, I personally offered an amendment in the Rules Committee to bring up the Health Care for Burn Pit Veterans Act. By the way, that passed unanimously in the Senate. We could again be doing that right now. That doesn't stop us from debating the current bill. We can walk and chew gum at the same time, but the only thing that is delaying getting the Senate version of this bill on to the President's desk at the end of this week is the Democratic Party. We could pass that bill this week.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Graves) to talk about oil and gas and energy issues.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have talked a lot today about the Health Care for Burn Pit Veterans Act, which is again, the Senate version. That legislation carries the support of leading veteran service organizations, VSOs, including Disabled American Veterans, Veterans of Foreign Wars, the Wounded Warrior Project, Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America, and the American Legion, as well as the Military Officers Association of America.

Again, that Senate version passed unanimously. We could be running that here today and get it on the President's desk at the end of the week. The only thing that stands between getting help to veterans right now in terms of the burn pit issues is the Democrat Party's refusal to just run the Senate version of the bill.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. McCarthy), the Republican leader.

Mr. Speaker, so just a quick history lesson. The Obama-Biden administration sent Ukraine blankets and well-wishes. The Trump administration sent Javelin missiles. That is the big difference.

You know, I have said numerous times standing up here that the Democratic Party is a party of political science. I could be even more generous. The Democratic Party is also a party of false choices and false narratives. The Democrats have presented us with a false choice when it comes to U.S. energy and also a false narrative.

Let me be clear: We can unleash domestic energy and be good stewards of the environment. Thanks to American energy innovation, thanks to the energy sector, the U.S., at least under President Trump, was actually reducing carbon emissions. In Pennsylvania, for example, thanks to natural gas, our energy sector has reduced emissions by 41 percent since 2005.

Again, it is an absolutely false choice. It is a false narrative that we cannot unleash the American energy sector and be good stewards of the environment. In fact, quite the opposite. We actually are good stewards of the environment when we are using clean natural gas, particularly from Pennsylvania.

But here to talk more about that issue is my good friend, the ranking member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce and one of the authors of the American Energy Independence from Russia Act, Cathy McMorris Rodgers.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Washington (Mrs. Rodgers).

Mr. Speaker, I have no further speakers at this time, and I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I am an Iraq war veteran. I was in Baghdad for 6 months in 2009. I can tell you that I am committed to ensuring the men and women who served our Nation receive the care and benefits they deserve. It is of utmost importance to me as a Member of this body and as an Iraq war veteran.

That is the reason why I am so disappointed in my friends across the aisle. I am disappointed that instead of considering the Senate-passed Health Care for Burn Pit Veterans Act--which, again, could immediately be sent to the President's desk--House Democrats are prioritizing legislation that is still a long way away from enactment and will delay benefits for toxic-exposed veterans.

Let me be clear. We can get help to veterans. We can get this bill to the desk of the President by the end of this week. The only thing standing in the way are my friends on the other side of the aisle.

It is for that reason I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question and 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.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman and my 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 makes in order H.R. 6617, a resolution to fund the Federal Government through March 11, 2022, and H.R. 3076, the Postal Service Reform Act of 2022.

I know that Appropriations Chairwoman DeLauro and Ranking Member Granger continue to engage in bipartisan discussions to find a path forward on a fiscal year 2022 funding package, and I want to thank them sincerely for those efforts.

Mr. Speaker, I also want to commend Chairwoman Maloney and Ranking Member Comer for working together to put forth a truly bipartisan package to stabilize the financial health of the U.S. Postal Service and to improve efficiency and transparency for senior citizens and other Americans who rely every day on the Postal Service.

Mr. Speaker, for the past 3 years, Democratic leadership has written major legislation behind closed doors with little to zero input from House Republicans and, frankly, almost zero to little input from even the committees that, of course, the Democrats control. This has truly been a behind-closed-door process that I have seen for the last 3 years.

So, it is finally refreshing to see the House consider a bill that was the subject of a robust bipartisan negotiation and that actually went through the normal committee process for once. I want to say that I hope my colleagues across the aisle will make this the new normal, as it has previously been the norm.

Mr. Speaker, I also hope the majority will continue the bipartisanship that I have seen here today and continue to work with House Republicans to address the serious and pressing issues facing American families across this Nation.

For example, thanks to President Biden's open border policy, deadly fentanyl continues to just pour across our southern border, which is ravaging our communities, literally killing people in the heartland of this country.

For example, in 2021, drug overdose deaths in the U.S. topped 100,000 for the first time in a single year. In fact, fentanyl overdoses are reported to be the leading cause of death for Americans aged 18 to 45. It is past time that Congress acts to stem the tide of deadly fentanyl coming into our Nation

largely through our porous southern border. The fentanyl that comes-- let's just say it--is largely from China. It is time we address that issue.

At the same time, America is in the midst of a crime crisis like we haven't seen before, largely thanks to the Democrats' demonization of our police in what I view as one of the worst public policy positions I have ever seen, their push to actually defund police.

In 2021, at least 16 cities set new records in homicides. It is no wonder that 64 percent of Americans disapprove of how President Biden has handled crime. Congress should be working to address this crime surge and working to back the blue as well.

Finally, Americans continue to pay higher prices to do everything, from feed their families, heat their homes, and even fill up their gas tanks. Instead of doubling down on the failed far-left radical policies and out-of-control spending that actually caused this economic crisis, we should be reclaiming our energy independence. We should be eliminating burdensome regulations that hamstring our job creators. And we should be working to ensure American families keep more of their hard-earned paychecks.

I want to applaud the bipartisanship work that went into these bills. I want to applaud the Committee on Oversight and Reform and, of course, the Committee on Appropriations. But there are many other pressing issues that we can also be working on and should be working on for the benefit of American families.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Issa).

Mr. Speaker, while I respect my good friend and colleague, especially for what he has done in the private sector as well as the public sector, I do have some concerns.

I believe the Postal Service Reform Act is a strong bipartisan act, and I urge its passage. This measure will bring increased transparency. It will improve operations for senior citizens and Americans who use the Postal Service every day. It will help this institution that is critical, especially to rural America.

Again, I have deep respect and admiration for my friend from California. I just would urge passage of this, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from the great State of Texas (Mr. Burgess), who is my good friend and fellow Rules Committee member.

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

Across this country, Democratic Governors and local officials have forced children to wear masks in schools. They have done this without real concern for the social developmental and emotional consequences of their authoritarian actions. These are the actions of petty tyrants, people who do not care about real science.

In stark contrast, House Republicans have been consistent this whole time. We have been fighting for the rights of America's children, and the American parent.

That is why if we defeat the previous question, I will personally offer an amendment to the rule to immediately consider H.R. 6619, the Unmask Our Kids Act. This legislation would block education agencies from receiving Federal funding unless schools are open for in-person learning and school mask mandates allow parents to opt out on behalf of their children.

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, here to explain the amendment is the legislation's author, Representative Ashley Hinson of Iowa, my good friend.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Iowa (Mrs. Hinson).

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

Mr. Speaker, I find it interesting that my good friend from Maryland would say the former President was ``reckless'' during the pandemic. This is a man who put together Operation Warp Speed, one of the quickest vaccination programs and one of the most effective the world has ever seen.

If we are talking about numbers, let's just talk about the numbers. More people have died in this pandemic under Joe Biden than ever died under President Trump. The numbers don't lie. During President Trump's first year with the pandemic, there were just over 390,000 deaths and, again, every death is tragic. But to say that President Trump was reckless, look at the numbers of Joe Biden. Since Joe Biden has taken office, over half a million people, 500,000-plus people have died.

So if President Trump was reckless, what word would you use to describe President Biden? I am interested to hear that. But there are two kinds of science; there is real science and there is political science. The risk of severe disease from COVID-19 to healthy children is very low. This is real science. The CDC data shows that 863 total pediatric deaths related to COVID-19 have occurred since the beginning of this pandemic, which is less than--and, again, for the party of science, this is real science--that is less than 0.001 percent of all COVID deaths in the United States. Many of these children had underlying medical conditions making them more vulnerable to severe COVID-19 than the average child, meaning that many of these children died with COVID not of COVID.

But again, that is real science, not political science. Talking about real science versus political science, I have got a photo of Stacey Abrams. This is political science, and here is why. Because the kids in this photo trying to learn, all of them are masked up. Statistically, these children are at very low risk of contracting COVID and even lower risk of dying from COVID. Again, the stats don't lie; 0.001 percent.

The real person in this photo who bears most of the risk is a governor-in-exile Stacey Abrams who is not wearing a mask. This photo is political science. If the mask wearing was reversed, that would be actual science.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. LaTurner), my good friend.

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

My good friend from Maryland referenced Dr. Birx. Let's be honest: Dr. Birx is an unelected career bureaucrat who has been wrong repeatedly, just like Dr. Fauci has been wrong repeatedly.

Although my friend on the left might cite Dr. Birx, I can cite Johns Hopkins University, which just did a study. According to this massive study from Johns Hopkins University--not a bastion of conservative ideology, I might add--they found that lockdowns only reduced COVID mortality by 0.2 percent in the United States. In sum, lockdowns didn't work at all.

What is worse is that those on the left have failed to take into account that the lockdowns actually led to more deaths than they prevented, arguably, with drug overdose and suicide. But that is real science, not political science.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Iowa (Mrs. Miller-Meeks) to talk about more real science.

Madam Speaker, look, for the record, I would bet on Dr. Miller-Meeks any day of the week over Dr. Birx. She believes in the real science, not the political theater and political science that the CDC and Dr. Birx speak of. A great example: The CDC never even studied the effects of school mask mandates before mandating masks in school.

Say what you will, but that is not how science works.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Hudson), who is my good friend.

Madam Speaker, talking about more science, here is some more science: A North Carolina study, where my good friend resides, conducted before vaccines were available, found that not a single case of student-to-teacher transmission occurred when 90,000 students were in school. That is the real science.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Madam Speaker, thanks to President Biden and thanks to House Democrats and their far left, radical policies, Americans are currently facing a border crisis, a crime crisis, and an economic crisis.

Despite a lack of scientific evidence to support masks in schools, Democratic Governors, officials, unelected bureaucrats, petty tyrants, have mandated the use of masks in schools, damaging the educational and social development of our students. It is past time that Democrats stop prioritizing their woke agenda and work with Republicans to address these and other pressing issues facing American families today.

Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question; 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.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my good friend and fellow Rules Committee member, Mrs. Fischbach, for the generosity with the time.

Madam Speaker, the Chinese Communist Party is the single greatest threat to freedom and democracy in the United States and around the world. For too long, China has stolen American intellectual property, violated international trade laws, exported illicit fentanyl into our communities, and committed heinous human rights abuses.

Just in the last 2 years, China has dismantled Hong Kongers' civil liberties; they have increased their military buildup; and they have suppressed information about the origins of COVID-19.

Yet, House Democrats put forward a bill today that mentions coral reefs and climate change more than it mentions China. In Biden's own Statement of Administration Policy for this bill, the word ``China'' is nowhere to be found. This is laughable.

Clearly, calling this bill tough on China is a joke. In fact, under H.R. 4521, China itself is eligible to receive American taxpayer dollars through a ``green climate'' slush fund. The slush fund this bill creates actually gives money to China. It is laughable.

China has committed the worst climate change violations in the world. They are the world's greatest single polluter. China emits more greenhouse gases than all the developed nations combined. If you took the emissions from the United States, Japan, and all the European Union, Madam Speaker, that combined still doesn't reach the levels that China emits, yet China is eligible for the green climate slush fund this bill creates.

It is seriously a joke. You can't make it up, Madam Speaker.

Last Congress, Republicans on the China Task Force, which I was lucky enough to be a part of, put forward a blueprint to address the generational threat that is posed by the CCP.

I hope my colleagues across the aisle--the liberals across the aisle and

the leftists across the aisle--will work with Republicans. I hope they will look at what we produced on the China Task Force and actually get serious about holding China accountable.

It is time we advanced the ideas that we have in the China Task Force. The idea is to actually protect Americans and hold the CCP accountable for their malign behavior.

Madam Speaker, I rise to recognize the late James William Lincoln of Connellsville, Pennsylvania, for a life dedicated to public service.

Senator ``Bill'' Lincoln, as he was known by those close to him, ended his long and courageous battle with Parkinson's Disease on December 19, 2021. By all accounts, he approached life the same before and after his diagnosis: with action.

Born in 1940, Senator Lincoln worked as a shoe salesman and milk delivery man before being elected district judge. After serving two terms, Senator Lincoln was elected to the Pennsylvania House of Representatives, where he served from 1972 to 1978. In 1979, he was elected to the Pennsylvania State Senate, where he served the people of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania for 15 years.

During his tenure, Senator Lincoln was appointed to the Legislative Budget and Finance. Committee, Joint Legislative Air and Water Pollution Control and Conservation Committee, Legislative Audit Advisory Committee, and the Joint State Government Commission. He also served as the Chair of the Democratic State Committee from 1991 to 1995.

In 1998, Senator Lincoln was diagnosed with Parkinson's Disease at the age of 58, but his passion for public service never wavered. Following his time in the State Senate, he worked as a member of the State Transportation Advisory Board and was also appointed by the governor as Commissioner and Secretary-Treasurer to the Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission, where he served for 10 years until 2013.

Among the many titles Senator Lincoln held were husband, father, and friend. He is survived by his wife, Kathy Lincoln, and four sons, James William Jr., Eric, Jerry, and Greg Lincoln, and their families. He leaves his loved ones with not only fond memories, but also a legacy of service to his home state.

Madam Speaker, please join me in recognizing the life of Senator Bill Lincoln and the tremendous accomplishments and contributions he made to the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. May his leadership and service, particularly in the face of adversity, serve as an example to us all.