Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I spent 10 years of my life in courtrooms, and there is one thing I learned pretty quick when you are doing a closing argument: everything before you has been said and has been said better than you could ever say. First of all, if I said any of those things it would really sound arrogant.

I love every single thing about this place, everything, all the bad stuff, all the good stuff, and everything about the wild and crazy can't get home on a Friday because of votes held open for 3\1/2\ hours.

I am going to miss every single thing, but what I am going to miss the most are the people whom I have gotten to know.

I always say I hang out with Ben Cline and Dusty Johnson because they never swear, so I get their quota of swearwords. Bryan, Stephanie, Laurel, and Erin, you can't do this job without having good counsel, good company, and good friends.

I am really, really excited about the next chapter. I am so humbled and proud that the citizens of North Dakota have sent me to Congress three different times, and I am very, very humbled and proud that they elected

me Governor. I just want everybody in here to know that this has been the greatest privilege of my life to be the lone voice of North Dakota in the United States House of Representatives.

Contrary to popular belief, I am still going to give you all sarcastic comments, and when you have a vote held open for 3\1/2\ hours and you can't make your flight home, you are going to get really funny memes from me, and I am going to miss you all very, very much.

This meant the absolute world to me.

Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Madam Chair, it is pretty hard to get farther away from the southern border than Grand Forks, North Dakota, but in Grand Forks, just like many communities across North Dakota, somebody is dying from fentanyl poisoning, and 100 percent of those pills are made by cartels in Mexico.

I rise today in support of my amendment No. 1 to the fiscal year 2025 Department of Homeland Security Appropriations.

If passed, this amendment will defund the implementation of COVID-19- era guidance that reduces the hours of operation for Customs and Border Protection at certain northern border points of entry. Bringing these ports of entry hours back to their pre-pandemic schedule will help our Border Patrol agents respond to a massive increase in border encounters and non-marijuana-related drug seizures in places like North Dakota, Idaho, Minnesota, and western New York.

According to CBP data, both land encounters and drug smuggling have skyrocketed in the past few years.

Specifically, in January of 2021, there were only 997 northern land border encounters. Contrast that with January of 2024 when there were 15,800 encounters. That is a 1,484 percent increase.

Excluding marijuana, drug smuggling has also increased by 1,153 percent along the borders between fiscal year 2021 and 2023.

Due to the Biden administration's failure to secure our southwest border, our Border Patrol agents at the northern border have had to revert resources and personnel to the southwest border. Because of that, the northern border is now suffering.

While we wholly support CBP and its efforts, we must ensure that full staffing and scheduling are enforced so we can be fully prepared to secure our northern border.

Since the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, CBP reduced the hours of many of the ports of entry to mitigate the spread of the virus.

Though the pandemic has long been over, those shortened hours have stayed in place.

This amendment would return those ports of entry to schedules they operated under before the pandemic. While CBP has extended hours for some of the ports, others have been forgotten.

Along with several Northern Border Security Caucus members here in Congress, I have had lots of back and forth with the CBP regarding these hours. Expanding these hours will not only allow more staffing to apprehend and seize any illegal activity attempting to cross the border, but it will also greatly help the needs of Americans at the northern border.

These ports of entry serve a vital role in connecting our States' economies with our neighbor, Canada. Our constituents heavily rely on them for tourism, church, trade, travel, healthcare, Tribal connections, and more.

Since these hours remain shortened, we have heard from countless constituents about how they no longer can do many of the activities that I just mentioned, activities that they could do before with expanded hours.

The ports of entry listed in this amendment used to serve as robust and active points of movement where our constituents could freely travel back and forth from the U.S. and Canada, and that needs to happen again.

While we understand the CBP believes these ports of entry should solely be based on vehicular and pedestrian traffic, we know, because we have heard from our constituents, that the travelers are much less likely to use the ports given the shortened hours.

In my State specifically, the Antler and Carbury stations were both open from 9 a.m. until 10 p.m. However, since the pandemic, their hours have remained from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. That is a 40 percent reduction.

Requiring these ports to close early forces travelers to reroute to other ports of entry with longer hours. Take Ms. Rebecca Davis from Walhalla, North Dakota. During our northern border hearing that the House Judiciary Committee hosted in Grand Forks, she mentioned that what should be a quick trip takes several hours. She highlighted that our small towns--and when I say small towns, I mean really small towns--often get wrapped in the red tape of legal commerce on the border at the same time when we allow the open flow of illegal commerce on the southern border.

This truly affects everyone in the ag community, the small towns, and every small sheriff's department on the northern border that has to divert resources to do a job that the Federal Government is supposed to do. Detours are particularly costly to commercial vehicles and ag vehicle operators due to rising inflation and high fuel costs.

It is long past time that we change those hours back to pre-pandemic levels for good. We need all the hours and resources we can to ensure our borders are fully secure. This will also bring back our high traveler activity along the northern border that results in more travel, tourism, and more. I strongly support this amendment.

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

Mr. Speaker, a pretty cool thing happened in my hometown of Dickinson, North Dakota, last week: Pete Dobitz won his 500th career game as our high school baseball coach.

Since 2000, Dickinson High School has won five State championships and has been runners-up three times. If that is not enough, Coach Dobitz spends his summers coaching and running the Babe Ruth baseball team. To be honest, he would have gotten here a little earlier, but he refuses to count the 2004 State championship season because he was deployed, honorably serving the State of North Dakota and our country in the National Guard.

I can't think of anybody more worthy of being able to be addressed on the floor of the House today. I have had the privilege of coaching with him. I have had the privilege of running a baseball program where he ran my Babe Ruth program, and I have the privilege and honor of calling him my friend.

He has touched numerous high school students' lives, both in the classroom and in the ballpark. Here is to another 24 years and 500 wins because he is a fixture in the third-base dugout.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the life and service of Commander Delbert Austin Olson.

Commander Olson was born on January 4, 1926, in Arthur, North Dakota. In 1943, while still in high school, Commander Olson enlisted in the Navy Reserves, listing Casselton, North Dakota, as his home.

Commander Olson was designated as a naval aviator in 1947. He served honorably in World War II, the Korean war, and then Vietnam.

Commander Olson's service was one of distinction. He was a member of the secret Observation Squadron 67, with his final mission declassified in 1998.

In existence for just 500 days, the Observation Squadron consisted of 12 9-man crews that flew along the Ho Chi Minh Trail in Laos and Cambodia. The purpose of the mission was to place sensors along the trail to monitor hostile movements and to listen in on conversations. This strategy was named ``McNamara's Line'' after Defense Secretary Robert McNamara. These missions were dangerous as they were required to fly close to the ground, making them prime targets.

On January 11, 1968, Commander Olson's plane went down. Commander Olson lost his life, along with his other crewmen and their mascot, a dog named ``Skippy.''

In 1968, Commander Olson was first listed as missing in action and later changed to killed in action.

While ground conditions made recovery extremely dangerous, we are grateful that the U.S. military sent out multiple teams and that the remains of all the crew were recovered.

Commander Olson was laid to rest at the Arlington National Cemetery in 2003.

Commander Olson earned multiple awards for his service, including the Navy Commendation Medal with Valor, Purple Heart, National Defense Service Medal, Vietnam Service Medal, and Republic of Vietnam Campaign ribbon bar.

His name is inscribed on the Vietnam Veterans Memorial wall on The National Mall here in Washington, D.C.

Mr. Speaker, I know I speak for all North Dakotans when I say that we are proud of Commander Olson's dedicated service to our Nation. By honoring him today, we ensure that Commander Olson has a permanent place in our country's history and that his memory will live on forever.

Mr. Speaker, here is what we know.

We know that President Biden's transition team ran interference for Hunter Biden and obstructed law enforcement's attempts to interview the President's son.

We know that somebody in the FBI decided not to investigate bribery allegations against Hunter Biden and Joe Biden provided by a confidential informant. That source is so important and the FBI has deemed him so credible that they oppose the release of the report and only agreed to a review in a classified setting.

We know that IRS investigators were not allowed to follow leads that had the potential to implicate President Biden in Hunter Biden's alleged financial crimes.

We know that recommendations for prosecution of Hunter Biden were denied or delayed until the statute of limitations had run.

We know that a plea deal was offered to Hunter Biden by the DOJ that offered him global immunity for crimes outside the scope of the charged conduct and that that plea deal only fell apart after whistleblowers came forward to Congress.

Set aside for a minute the $24 million, the 20-plus shell companies, the payments to President Biden, and the changing narrative from this White House every time a new bad fact comes to light. Set that aside.

These instances alone should concern all Americans because it appears that people in the highest echelons of our government were running interference for the President's son.

My colleagues on the other side of the aisle have an innocent explanation for every single incident. The problem is, it is very difficult to see an innocent explanation for all of the incidents.

The FBI, the DOJ, the IRS, and the President's political operation have all frustrated attempts to investigate the Bidens.

Obstruction is a crime, and it is no less of a crime if it is being used within the highest powers of government to perpetrate that coercion.

Take all of the politics out of this, there is no investigator in any jurisdiction in the world that would not continue this investigation with these facts.

The purpose of the impeachment inquiry is for the House to authorize impeachment and strengthen its ability to compel testimony and document production in response to Congressional subpoenas. This will allow the House to continue its investigation into whether President Biden changed U.S. policy due to payments received by the Biden family members from hostile foreign powers; or whether he knowingly allowed foreign powers to believe that the payments were being made and to employ the Biden family members would result in access and the ability to alter U.S. policy; or whether the President and the President's administration were using government agencies to obstruct investigations into Hunter and Joe Biden.

This inquiry is warranted. It would put the House of Representatives in the best legal position possible to uncover the facts, and the American people deserve nothing less.

Mr. Speaker, let's be clear why we are here: Because the incentive structure in this town is completely broken.

We no longer value loyalty, integrity, confidence, or collaboration. Instead, we have descended to a place where clicks, TV hits, and the never-ending quest for the most mediocre taste of celebrity drives decisions and encourages juvenile behavior that is so far beneath this esteemed body.

Kevin McCarthy has done more in 9 months to restore the people's House than any Speaker in decades. We have done regular order. We have had open amendments. Every single Member of this Chamber has the right, the ability, and the opportunity to be heard on the floor.

It has been messy. It has been raucous, and at times, it has been chaotic. God bless every minute of it, because democracy is supposed to be hard. The alternative is a closed-door process where 2,000-page bills come out of the Speaker's office at midnight and are forced to the floor the next morning.

Kevin McCarthy has broken that cycle. That alone is enough for him to remain our Speaker, but that doesn't deliver his opponents what they crave the most: attention.

We shouldn't stand for it. I won't stand for it. I will stand here with our Speaker, with our leader, that the overwhelming majority of our Conference supports. You need to look no further than where the opponents are sitting today in this Chamber.

They are not over here. They are over there.

Mr. Speaker, we are going to face these challenges together. I say bring whatever comes next because we believe in the job our Speaker has done. We believe in his vision, and, most importantly, we are proud to call Kevin McCarthy our friend and our Speaker of the House.

Mr. Chairman, H.R. 1615, the Gas Stove Protection and Freedom Act, would prohibit funding to the Consumer Product Safety Commission for only two purposes: first, to regulate gas stoves as a banned hazardous product; and second, to impose any consumer product safety standard on gas stoves that would result in a prohibition on the use or sale of the appliances, or otherwise substantially increase the average price.

Simply put, this bill prevents the Commission from banning the entire product category of gas stoves. This bill does not prevent the Commission from its statutory mission to address specific models of gas stoves or any other product that may pose an actual safety hazard.

We are debating this bill because Commissioner Richard Trumka has made repeated statements that the Commission would consider substantial regulatory actions on gas stoves categorically.

His comments include a December 2022 statement advocating for a ban on gas stoves. The chair of the Commission has walked back Commissioner Trumka's impulsive statements by declaring: `` . . . I am not looking to ban gas stoves. . . . ''

However, despite the chairman's cleanup statement, the Commission has since issued a March 1 request for information that included repeated mentions of toxic emissions and chronic hazards regarding gas stoves.

We all agree that consumer product safety is important. Yet, it is apparent that the underlying motivation behind this veiled consumer safety plan is a green climate agenda with the goal to further restrict natural gas.

Mr. Chairman, 20 congressional Democrats sent a letter to the Commission in December 2022 that first mentioned the equivalent climate impact of regulating gas stoves before addressing the merits of any health concerns.

Let's discuss the alleged health concerns. First, multiple studies claiming that gas stoves create harmful indoor emission levels have been criticized for inaccurate conclusions and testing that failed to simulate real-world conditions.

Some of those studies measured indoor emissions in an area enclosed in a plastic tarp without any ventilation.

There are no studies establishing a causal relationship between cooking with gas stoves and asthma. Studies of actual homes under real- life conditions found that nitrogen dioxide levels were below the standard the EPA considers harmful to health.

Further, other cooking-related and non-cooking-related emissions factors have a meaningful effect on indoor emissions.

These are factors such as the chemical makeup of food and oils, cooking temperature, cooking methods, food surface-to-mass index, the use of exhaust and ventilation, and burning of tobacco, candles, and incense.

Again, all of this is secondary because we know the motivation of the CPSC, and throughout the entire administration, is a green climate push.

The goal is to dictate how you live every aspect of your life; how you save and invest for the future by pushing ESG; how you drive by banning gas-powered cars. Now the goal is to control how you cook and, literally, breathe inside your home.

I am confident in stating that the vast majority of North Dakotans don't want the Federal Government telling them how to live their life, particularly in their own home.

To my Democratic colleagues: If you agree with the chair of the Commission and don't want to ban gas stoves for over 187 million Americans, vote for the bill.

If you agree with Commissioner Trumka that the Federal Government should take away every gas stove in the country, oppose the bill.

Yet, before you oppose the bill, make sure you have a good answer for why your constituents can't cook the way they want, and be prepared to defend it.

I urge everyone to vote in favor of H.R. 1615 so we at least can end the Commission's misguided foray into the kitchens of every American.

Mr. Chair, the minority's views and committee report state that this bill restricts the Commission from protecting consumers and performing its traditional functions, such as safety research, working with industry to develop standards, and recalling unsafe products. None of those claims are true.

The bill does not prevent the Commission from engaging in any of those functions. The bill simply prohibits the Commission from banning gas stoves as an entire product category by imposing a direct ban as a hazardous product or imposing safety standards in a manner that would substantially increase the price of gas stoves.

Nothing in the bill prohibits the Commission from conducting research on gas stoves. Nothing in the bill prohibits the Commission from developing voluntary safety standards with the industry. Nothing in the bill prohibits the Commission from seeking to have a product declared an imminently hazardous consumer product, which allows the Commission to seek a public notice, recall, repair, replacement, or refund for consumers.

This bill is about ensuring Americans have continued access to the entire product category of gas stoves. It does not in any way limit the Commission's ability to address a defective or dangerous model. Any attempt to suggest otherwise is inaccurate.

Mr. Chair, I think that is the important part of what we are talking about here. The Commission can still do its function, but it has to stay in its lane.

We have plenty of different agencies in the Biden administration that want to push their Green New Deal agenda on Americans--EPA, Department of Energy, Department of Defense, FTC, the list goes on and on.

Can we at least let the Consumer Product Safety Commission stay within their lane, do their mission, deal with faulty products, deal with recalls, make sure that the product is safe, not push for an agenda that would take something away that millions and millions of Americans use every day for breakfast, lunch, and dinner?

Mr. Speaker, you would think after years of supply chain disruptions and skyrocketing consumer prices, this administration would make every effort to lower costs and streamline our transportation networks.

The heavy-duty engine and vehicle standard does exactly the opposite. This rule would force owner/operators to leave the market or keep older trucks on the road.

This rule is unrealistic, given the heavy-duty vehicle technology space, and this rule would add at least $8,000 to the cost of each new semitruck. The cost doesn't go to producers, the people who grow the grain or produce the oil or get the natural gas out of the ground. It goes to the consumers.

Instead of expanding the equipment market and recognizing the significant

reduction of nitrous oxide, this rule is another assault on liquid fuels that will further complicate the supply chain.

North Dakota is a producer State, but we have to get our products to market. We need heavy-duty vehicles to get our goods there. The rule jeopardizes our ability to feed and fuel the country.

The CRA has bipartisan support and for good reason. The underlying rule is unworkable, and I urge my colleagues to support the CRA.

Mr. Chair, saying that gasoline prices are down is a little bit like giving an arsonist a medal for putting out a fire that he helped start.

They are still 50 percent higher than when President Biden took office. That is not counting inputs for ag products like fertilizer, which the natural feed stock is natural gas, all of those different issues.

That is not really the point in all of this. Two things can be true at once: The world's going to need more oil and natural gas and drive more electric cars in the next decade, and this bill has a little bit of something for everyone.

The last time we brought a refinery online in the United States with any true downstream capacity was the year I was born, 1976--46 years ago.

If we want to continue to build more electrification, have more batteries for more American-made electric vehicles, well, we need the rare earths to do it. This bill does those things.

When you live in a small community like I do in the geographic center of North America, we have recognized, very clearly, how hard it is to get the products that North Dakota makes that the rest of the world needs to market. Doesn't matter if it is corn. Doesn't matter if it is fertilizer. Doesn't matter if it is oil. Doesn't matter if it is natural gas.

We used to be the shining example in the whole world on how to put infrastructure in the ground. That is no longer the case, and it is not because Americans don't know how to do it. It is not because North Dakotans don't know how to produce it. It is because alphabet soup agencies in Washington, D.C., make it harder and harder and harder.

When we can't get those projects in the ground, we starve off capital. We are the only country in the world that is both energy and food secure. That is an incredible strategic advantage on the world stage.

In any normal place, we would maximize that. We would do everything we could to increase that, but we don't live in a normal place, Mr. Chairman. We live in Washington, D.C.

This bill will help us get infrastructure in the ground, help us produce those things that the world is starved for, and allow us energy independence, energy dominance, and also help communities in States like mine continue to thrive.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment. The amendment is necessary because it addresses the Biden administration's mismanagement of our Nation's Strategic Petroleum Reserve.

President Biden has drained the SPR to the lowest levels since 1983. More than 40 percent has been liquidated in less than 2 years.

The Department of Energy has no meaningful plan to refill our strategic stockpile. Instead, the Department created new rules to allow it to use fixed-price bidding.

As we expected, the Biden administration's price-fixing scheme is failing. When DOE put out its bid, there were no takers.

The SPR is at its lowest level since 1983. We must replenish it as soon as possible to protect our economy from a true supply interruption.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Kansas for offering this amendment, and I urge my colleagues to join me in support.

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

This amendment expresses disapproval of the proposed tax hikes on the oil and gas industry in President Biden's 2024 budget. It is estimated that the President's budget request would result in a $31 billion tax hike on the industry.

This is another move by this administration to harm the domestic oil and gas industry and undercut their global competitiveness despite asking them to produce more.

The independent oil and gas producers develop 91 percent of the wells in the United States, producing 83 percent of America's oil and 90 percent of its natural gas.

I think it is important to note that integrated companies don't get 100 percent of the tax break, only nonintegrated companies. The small oil and gas producers that exist in western North Dakota, eastern Montana, Kansas, and Oklahoma that produce the majority of America's oil are the producers that the Biden administration wants to raise taxes on.

The Biden budget proposal also calls out these producers for failing to invest in production. Meanwhile, this administration is doing everything to tax and regulate the industry out of existence.

Mr. Chairman, I urge a ``yes'' vote on this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment. This amendment requires the EPA Administrator and the Secretary of Energy to issue a report on harmful regulations that degrade our energy independence and raise costs for consumers. It requires the Biden administration take a hard look at how their own policies are hurting American consumers with high prices and less energy reliability.

The Biden administration has imposed harmful energy policies on American consumers since day one, such as canceling the Keystone XL pipeline and imposing a moratorium on oil and gas extraction on Federal lands.

We need to expand our American energy and our production, and I support this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment. This section of H.R. 1 provides that the Department of Energy import new functions to identify the criteria of the energy resources, the minerals, and materials needed for our great American energy systems. It requires DOE to identify supply chain vulnerabilities, the vulnerabilities to supply disruptions by our adversaries like Russia and China, and it requires DOE to act to address risks to facilitate action across agencies, industry states, and to do something about them.

The amendment here by Representative Mace requires that DOE keep Congress informed in a timely manner of the risks to supply chains and the actions taken or that Congress may want to take to those risks. This is an important amendment to assist Congress and to keep the public informed of the energy security risks we face.

Mr. Chair, I urge adoption of this amendment.

Mr. Chair, I rise in support of this amendment. The Biden administration will stop at nothing in its war on American energy.

Democrats' next target is Americans' home appliances, including stoves, your furnace, and your hot water heater.

In the last 2 years, we have seen far-reaching regulatory proposals and executive orders to restrict the use of natural gas.

As we speak, DOE is proposing to ban more than half of the gas stoves currently on the market. Some States, like California and New York, are going even further to ban natural gas pipelines and the sale of gas- powered appliances and equipment.

The American people are paying for these gas bans in the form of higher prices and surging utility bills. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this amendment so that the GAO can study the true cost of gas bans.

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

The amendment would stop the Department of Energy from implementing punitive regulations to ban natural gas stoves.

Earlier this year, we learned that the Biden administration was considering a nationwide ban on gas stoves when Consumer Product Safety Commissioner Trumka said gas stoves were a hidden hazard, and all options are on the table to restrict their use.

Weeks later, the DOE issued a proposed efficiency rule that would ban up to 96 percent of existing stoves on the market.

DOE's punitive regulations to ban gas stoves is a massive expansion of their statutory authority. DOE should be focused on expanding energy options rather than banning them.

DOE's regulatory assault will force the American people to change out their reliable gas stoves for more expensive and less reliable electric appliances.

This amendment would stop DOE from banning those gas stoves, and I urge my colleagues to join me in support.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment. Mr. Perry's amendment makes very clear that the States have primacy for the regulation of hydraulic fracturing for oil and natural gas production on State and private lands.

We cannot allow unelected bureaucrats or independent commissions to prohibit oil and gas production activities that are safe and permitted under State law.

The Biden administration and radical environmentalists are waging a war on American energy, and they want to ban hydraulic fracturing.

The United States has become the world's number one energy producer thanks in part to technological innovations like hydraulic fracturing and horizontal drilling.

According to a recent study placing a moratorium on fracking would mean a $900 billion increase in U.S. household energy costs, $7.1 trillion in potential losses to the U.S. economy through 2030, and over 7 million fewer U.S. jobs.

I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this amendment and standing up for American energy and American energy workers.

Mr. Chairman, before I start, I will point out that it sounds like we want to cooperate with our foreign neighbors when it comes to environmental control, but we don't want to import energy from them or we don't want to export energy to them. I find that a little bit ironic.

That being said, I regretfully stand in opposition to this amendment.

After Congress reviewed and preserved the Clean Air Act in 1977, it did play an important role in cross-border pollution issues of the late 1970s with Canada. Before we strike an entire section of the Clean Air Act involving air pollutants, the committee of jurisdiction should examine the issues, particularly to make sure we avoid any unintended consequences.

For example, we should make sure that striking this section does not undermine the ability to reduce international air emissions that harm the United States.

I commit to working with my friend from Pennsylvania to take this through regular order, but I am a big fan of the committee process. Let's see that it works.

Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, I agree with the previous speaker. I think this draft amendment was designed to have certainty. I think it was designed to have certainty, in that no new pipelines would get put into the ground.

By mitigating both upstream and downstream carbon, if anybody who understands the way economics of a pipeline work, not only are you delaying this process even further, which is what H.R. 1 is trying to constrict, but you will make it nearly impossible and not economically viable to get pipe in the ground.

The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission is an energy economic regulator, not a climate regulator.

This is a good amendment. It will take draft language that had no business being introduced to begin with and remove it.

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 1059, the SECURE Notarization Act is a bipartisan bill that would authorize the nationwide use of remote online notarizations performed in interstate commerce. This is simply an electronic notarization where the party and the notary are in different locations.

Society has widely adopted remote meetings, events, and even social activities. Requirements for a signer to be physically present before a notary are often impractical and sometimes impossible, such as with military deployment or travel limitations.

Remote online notarization increases the use of notarization and allows individuals to conduct crucial business, particularly if both parties are unable to be physically present with a notary.

This bill would provide businesses and individuals with the ability to execute documents using two-way audiovisual communications while protecting consumers with a multifactor authentication and the use of tamper-evident technology.

The bill would not replace the State laws governing the authorization and regulation of notaries public, nor would the bill alter State control over the practice of law or commonly notarized legal papers, like estate documents.

This bill is limited only to remote online notaries performed in interstate commerce. It does not alter the regulation of notaries, nor does it require the use of remote online notaries.

It would simply provide for the recognition of remote notarization performed in interstate commerce. It would also ensure that the Federal and State courts recognize such remote notarizations.

This is similar to the Full Faith and Credit Clause implementing statutes that ensure the recognition of official activities or judicial proceedings conducted in another State.

In the 117th Congress, this bill passed the House by voice vote after earning 123 cosponsors and passing the Committee on Energy and Commerce with a 56-0 vote. It also has the support of 20 organizations, like the American Land Title Association, the National Association of Federally Insured Credit Unions, and Mortgage Action Alliance. All of these groups supporting the bill utilize notaries public on a daily basis.

I say a special thank you to my friend, Representative Madeleine Dean, for working on this important legislation over the last two Congresses.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order.

Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of a point of order.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, the legislation we are considering today is a national solution for a national challenge. We cannot arbitrarily remove places from consideration if the best science, technology, and practices can safely and responsibly obtain the energy we need to power our economy.

H.R. 21 will strengthen our energy security and stop the Biden administration from raiding our strategic stockpile.

I urge a ``no'' on this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chair, I insist on my point of order against the amendment.

Mr. Chair, clause 7 of rule XVI prohibits the House and its committees from considering nongermane amendments. The amendment violates clause 7 of rule XVI of the House rule because it is not germane to the underlying bill.

Specifically, the bill limits the drawdown of petroleum in the Strategic Petroleum Reserve until the Department of Energy develops a plan to increase the percentage of Federal lands leased for oil and gas production, but the amendment addresses the Russian invasion of Ukraine.

This is outside the scope of H.R. 21. Conditioning enactment of this bill upon an entirely unrelated foreign military event is not germane.

Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chair, H.R. 21 is about strengthening the Strategic Petroleum Reserve by requiring any nonemergency use to be accompanied by a plan to produce American oil resources. It is about conditioning nonemergency uses with the requirement to focus on energy production.

Notably, this amendment does not seek public comment on nonemergency political uses of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. It doesn't require comment on the value of preserving our strategic assets for true energy emergencies. This amendment needlessly delays the plan, and I urge a ``no'' vote.

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

Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chair, H.R. 21 is about strengthening the Strategic Petroleum Reserve by requiring nonemergency use to be accompanied by a plan to produce American resources. This amendment raises a misleading issue.

Consider a couple of facts. The majority of leases on Federal land are currently producing oil and gas. Two-thirds of active leases are producing. The rest are going through a burdensome regulatory process or being tied up by litigation. This is an unnecessary amendment that seeks to impede the important goals of H.R. 21.

Mr. Chair, I urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I reserve a point of order.

Mr. Chair, I do insist on the point of order.

Mr. Chair, the amendment violates clause 7 of rule XVI of the rules of the House because it is not germane to the underlying bill.

Specifically, the bill limits the drawdown of petroleum in the Strategic Petroleum Reserve until the Department of Energy develops a plan to increase

the percentage of Federal lands leased for oil and gas production, but the amendment would establish an effective date based on the certification that the Federal lands considered for the plan will not impact deployment of renewable energy projects on Federal lands.

Since this bill is about strategic petroleum supply, the deployment of renewable energy projects is outside the scope of H.R. 21, and the amendment is not germane.

Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chair, H.R. 21 is about strengthening the SPR by requiring any nonemergency use to be accompanied by a plan to produce American oil resources.

This amendment undermines the purpose of the bill. It seeks to erect limits for the sake of expanding renewable energy projects on Federal lands. Yet, these very same renewable projects--such as weather- dependent wind and solar--must have natural gas backup and other firm energy to assure reliability.

This amendment not only undermines the energy security purpose of this bill, it would help intensify the reliability crisis that is growing worse and worse all across the United States.

It is time to get serious about energy security and affordable, reliable energy.

Mr. Chair, I urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chair, the purpose of the bill is to prevent further abuse of the SPR and require the Secretary to establish a plan to increase and unleash American energy production on Federal lands and offshore waters.

This amendment is nothing more than another attempt to limit oil and gas production in the United States. American energy workers are eager to get back to work--we can produce millions more barrels of oil per day instead of relying on OPEC and Russia for our energy needs.

President Biden's Department of the Interior only leased 126,228 acres for drilling during his first 19 months in office.

To put that in perspective, no other President since Richard Nixon leased out fewer than 4.4 million acres at that stage in their first term.

The Biden administration has made it more difficult than any other administration in history to produce energy, and this amendment would add to that.

Mr. Chair, I urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chair, this amendment prohibits oil and gas production within 3,200 feet of a residence, school, or a hospital. The limits established by this amendment are arbitrary and would further restrict our ability to lease land to produce energy.

A 3,200-foot boundary would be among the most aggressive prohibitions in the country. This is an issue best handled by State and local governments, not the Federal Government.

Mr. Chair, I urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, this amendment is just aimed at delaying the implementation of the bill.

We all know the Biden administration has used the SPR for political gain to artificially decrease the price of gas at politically convenient times for his administration. They have deflected the blame for high energy prices everywhere but their own policy.

They have attempted to blame these record-high prices on Russia, on Putin,

on gas station owners, and on oil companies.

The reality is prices were already up over $1 a gallon well before Russia invaded Ukraine. Maybe it has something to do with President Biden's stating on the campaign trail: no more subsidies for the fossil fuel industry. No more drilling on Federal lands. No more drilling, including offshore. No ability for the oil industry to continue to drill, period.

He also pledged to stop the Keystone XL. On his very first day in office, he placed a moratorium on drilling and revoked the permit for the Keystone XL pipeline.

Earlier this week, Secretary Granholm said at the White House press briefing that there is nothing standing in the way of oil and gas production in the United States.

The simple fact is the Biden administration has taken a whole-of- government approach to regulate the industry and try and force it out of existence.

Mr. Chairman, I urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chair, H.R. 21 is about strengthening the Strategic Petroleum Reserve by requiring a nonemergency use to be accompanied by a plan to produce American oil resources.

Increasing energy security means increasing energy supply, reducing prices as we witnessed during the tremendous advancement of American energy production up until just a few years ago.

This amendment aims to limit any expansion of energy in these areas, regardless of the environmental practices. It will harm local economies, ensure higher prices for fishermen, and undermine the purpose of this bill.

Mr. Chair, I urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chair, H.R. 21 is about strengthening the SPR by requiring any nonemergency use to be accompanied by a plan to produce American oil resources. This increases energy security, increases the supply and affordability of oil, and creates stable prices.

This amendment seeks to condition a plan based on entities that may or may not even participate in available lease tract auctions. This amendment undermines the purpose of the bill, and I urge a ``no'' vote on the amendment.

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

Mr. Chair, I reserve a point of order.

Mr. Chair, I do insist on my point of order.

Mr. Chair, the amendment violates clause 7 of rule XVI of the rules of the House because it is not germane to the underlying bill.

Specifically, the bill limits the drawdown of the petroleum in the Strategic Petroleum Reserve until the Department of Energy develops a plan to increase the percentage of Federal lands leased for oil and gas production.

This amendment requires the Chair of the Federal Election Commission to submit to Congress a report of certain campaign donations. Campaign donations are outside the scope of H.R. 21.

I would also suggest that the disclosure of campaign donations falls within the jurisdiction of the Committee on House Administration, but that committee does not have any jurisdiction over the subject matter of H.R. 21.

This amendment is not germane.

Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chair, H.R. 21 is about strengthening the SPR by requiring any nonemergency use to be accompanied by a plan to produce American resources. By lowering the number from 10 percent to 0.1 percent, you essentially defeat the whole purpose of introducing the bill.

To be quite frank, it wouldn't be worth the paper we are using to put it in front of Congress at this point in time.

We should have a conversation about this because at any point in time we are going to blame, whether it is an invasion in the Ukraine or Big Oil or small oil or gas stations or American consumers or the climate crisis or all of those different things. The reality of this conversation is the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, which is at the lowest rate it has been since 1983, is putting us at dangerous risk if any kind of weather event happens in the Chair's home State of Texas or Florida or the Gulf, where we really have these types of issues.

The reality to this entire conversation is that prior to the election of President Biden as President, the oil and gas production onshore and offshore in the United States had made us less vulnerable to foreign interference than at any other time in our current history.

Since this administration has been in place, we have relied more and more on outside oil and become subject to the same crises and problems that we witnessed in the 1980s and the 1990s and until we discovered shale in places like North Dakota.

This amendment guts the entire purpose of the bill. And while that is the intent of the amendment, I would strongly urge a ``no'' vote, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I move that the Committee do now rise.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 8542, the Mental Health Justice Act of 2022.

``In lieu of law enforcement officers in emergencies.'' I am going to say it again, because that is the exact language used repeatedly in the bill. ``In lieu of law enforcement officers in emergencies.''

Mr. Speaker, this bill is dangerous. This legislation gives Federal grants to States, Tribes, and localities to hire mental health providers to respond to certain emergencies involving an individual with an intellectual disability or developmental disability; an individual experiencing a mental health crisis; or an individual under the influence.

There is nothing wrong with mental health professionals assisting law enforcement in appropriate circumstances. Communities around the country are adopting these models with law enforcement, mental health providers, and prosecutors.

I would be open to supporting legislation limited to training mental health providers to assist law enforcement in appropriate situations, but that is not what this bill does.

A sentence in the bill begins by stating that ``mental health providers may coordinate with law enforcement.'' Sounds acceptable, but it continues to read, ``which may include operating independently'' from law enforcement.

Let's be clear. The purpose of this legislation is to provide financial incentives to deploy mental health providers to inherently dangerous situations in lieu of law enforcement and operating independently of law enforcement. That is a policy that will endanger the mental health professional, the suspect, the person experiencing the mental health crisis, and the person who called 911.

A crime scene or a home experiencing a domestic violence dispute is not the setting to provide mental health care.

In the first half of 2022, the leading circumstance of law enforcement officers killed with firearms was in response to domestic violence calls.

Nobody can confidently tell us they know in advance which domestic violence call should get a mental health response instead of a law enforcement response.

Mental health professionals are not trained for the inevitable physical confrontations that occur in these situations. The priority in an emergency situation is to secure the scene and all individuals involved, which is a law enforcement function. Once the scene is secure, I will be the first person calling for mental health services, whether it is addiction-related, trauma, or mental illness.

There is a time and a place for mental health care, but it is not rolling up to a scene without the training and tools to defend yourself and at-risk civilians. A first responder typically does not have the time and information to know when it is appropriate to provide mental health services.

Who are we expecting to make the distinction on mental health? The 911 dispatcher? An elected official inserted into the emergency dispatch process?

Every additional second layer of bureaucracy will cost lives. The risks are even greater in rural parts of the country, like my home State of North Dakota, where backup is often measured in hours, not minutes.

Ask a mental health provider if they want to be deployed without law enforcement at 1 a.m. on the side of Highway 85 between Dickinson and Watford City.

As if the public safety concerns aren't enough, the bill provides additional financial incentives for the actions that may not be in the best interest of the individual, the community, or comply with established laws of the jurisdiction.

The bill provides additional awards for referrals to community-based, voluntary support services without consideration of the specific needs and circumstances.

Community-based care could be the appropriate setting, but there are circumstances where inpatient care or incarceration are simply more appropriate.

The bill also provides incentives for decarceration rates of certain groups of individuals. Again, decarceration may make sense at times. I have advocated for it in lots of circumstances, but it is

case specific. I have seen it before. Police arrest on a domestic violence charge, release, and respond to a murder 2 hours later.

These decisions should be made at the local level based on specific circumstances with State and local input.

This bill attempts to treat the subject of the 911 call with fairness and dignity. That is something we should all strive toward. The flip side is that this bill does not account for the person who made the 911 call.

These policies will not work in the real world. It will only make dangerous situations more dangerous. The unintended consequences of this bill are extensive, and emergency situations will become more dangerous than they already are.

This is why we need committee process to work through these challenging issues. Criminal justice reform is hard. There are lots and lots of unintended consequences. I have legitimately worked on it my entire adult life. But my Democratic colleagues skipped that process because their focus is on frontline elections in the House, not frontline communities battling rising crime rates.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Guthrie).

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record this letter from the National District Attorneys Association in opposition to this legislation.

National District

Attorneys Association,

Washington, DC, September 21, 2022.

Hon. Nancy Pelosi,

Speaker of the House, House of Representatives, Washington,

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time to close. The only time you know a traffic stop is routine is when it is over. The only time you know it is only a mental health service call is after the scene is secure.

Far too often, and more complicated, are addiction-related issues and mental health-related issues, but none of those preclude the fact that a weapon is there or domestic violence has occurred.

When you continue to coordinate this stuff for cash-strapped departments across the country with decarceration, you will have real consequences.

For well over 25 years, victims' rights groups have fought all across this country to get domestic violence offenders held for the weekend on misdemeanor charges, and there are reasons for that. You need them to sober up; you need everybody to cool off; and victims need the opportunity to get out of the house.

These bills do nothing to do any of those things. These bills will make communities more dangerous from one end of the country to the other.

This bill sounds really good. Cooperation, coordination, all of those words sound fantastic. I will be the first one championing mental health and addiction services to anybody in lieu of custody, in lieu of prison, in lieu of jail time, but I want to do it after the scene is secure and we know there is no weapon onsite and nobody is in danger, when we know the victim is not in danger, the community is not in danger, and the person who is experiencing addiction, mental health, whatever crisis it is, is not in danger.

This bill doesn't do that. This bill does the opposite of that. We should reject it and get back to work on the hard work of passing reasonable, real, strong criminal justice reform.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose this bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Madam Speaker, it is actually pretty nice in North Dakota right now, but we are on our way to winter.

Saying gas prices have lowered 91 days in a row is a whole lot like giving a medal to an arsonist for helping put out a fire he started. Gas prices are not lower than when President Biden took office, and other energy prices are continuing to rise.

And I want to see the report that says inflation has gone down because I have seen it has gone up in the most recent numbers to 8.3 percent. I think there was very great dueling chryons going on as we are celebrating an Inflation Reduction Act that does nothing to reduce inflation while the stock market is tanking, and we get a new report that inflation is actually going up.

But I would urge my colleagues to defeat the previous question so we can consider commonsense policy that would reverse the decision by 220 Democrats in this Chamber to tax American energy producers and raise prices on consumers.

Democrats frame their price-increasing $1,500 methane tax as a way to reduce emissions, but the small and medium oil and gas companies in States like mine were already taking steps to reduce pollution in an economically viable way. These small and medium companies are the ones that drive energy production, particularly in North Dakota, and are going to be double-regulated from the wellhead to the market.

The structure of the methane program is unwieldy; it is burdensome, and it will only serve to increase prices for consumers. And we have seen just that.

In New York, a typical customer's electric bill is expected to increase by 29 percent from last year--29 percent.

Ratepayers in New Hampshire saw the price of electricity double over the summer.

With one in six families falling behind on their utility bills, and winter right around the corner, the last thing we need are policies that make it more expensive to produce energy in the United States. We need to take the handcuffs off domestic producers and deliver affordable, clean, and reliable energy.

In any rational place in the world, California's energy policies, where they are demanding electric vehicles by 2035 and, 2 days later, ask people to not charge their electric vehicles, and the energy policies of our allies in Germany and other countries in Europe that are seeing the highest utility rates of any civilized country in the world should be a big, red blinking stop sign.

But we are not in a rational world. We are in Washington, D.C., and instead of taking the time to reflect and take reasonable steps to ensure that our country doesn't go down the same path as these other places, we double down on policies that will not work, and they have the added benefit of not actually doing anything to clean up the environment.

Madam Speaker, I urge everyone to defeat the previous question so we can go back and deal with an energy policy that is based on reality and not ideology.