Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 2544) to improve the Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network, and for other purposes.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of my bill, H.R. 2544, the Securing the U.S. Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network Act, introduced in partnership with Representative Kelly of Illinois.

This critical legislation would improve the Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network by allowing the Health Resources and Services Administration to make the OPTN contracting process competitive.

The same entity has operated the OPTN contract since it was established nearly 40 years ago. Recent reports and bipartisan congressional investigations have shed light on logistical and technological flaws within the OPTN that may have jeopardized patient safety and may have led to lifesaving organs not being transplanted.

We must pass H.R. 2544 to increase competition and make sure the best organization is selected to operate the OPTN. This will hopefully lead to more organs being transplanted and saving lives.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 2544 allows HRSA to improve the OPTN program. It clarifies that HRSA does not have to implement a single contract for all aspects of the program and encourages a competitive process to choose the best contractors for each OPTN function. Nothing in this legislation precludes HRSA from awarding UNOS a contract for each function.

As a physician in Congress, my focus with this legislation is on ensuring that HRSA has the authority that it needs to act on behalf of patients and that the best innovators are able to compete and play their part in saving lives.

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

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 752) to require SelectUSA to coordinate with State-level economic development organizations to increase foreign direct investment in semiconductor-related manufacturing and production, as amended.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material in the Record on the bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 752, the Securing Semiconductor Supply Chains Act of 2023, sponsored by Ms. Eshoo of California and Mr. Pence of Indiana.

I am pleased that we can look at ways to attract investment into our country as opposed to shifting more demands onto our taxpayers.

This legislation requires SelectUSA to find ways that we can bolster foreign direct investment in U.S. semiconductor supply chains.

Semiconductor technology powers much of our modern economy, including payment cards, automobiles, cell phones, and the list goes on.

While we have led in chip design over the years, we have seen chip manufacturing and its surrounding supply chains shift overseas.

Among the many lessons we learned from COVID-19 and the pandemic is that the United States must lead in both the design and production of semiconductor chips to ensure we do not fall behind China.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Pence), one of the primary sponsors of the bill.

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

Madam Speaker, I also urge support for H.R. 752, the Securing Semiconductor Supply Chains Act of 2023, as amended, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I support Mr. Miller's amendment, which would require the Attorney General to issue interim final rules to implement this act 6 months after the date of enactment.

Fentanyl-related substances will still be permanently placed in schedule I immediately. They should be placed there.

This amendment would accelerate the timeline for which the Attorney General would be required to issue the interim final rule and, therefore, speed up the implementation process.

I believe this amendment improves the bill and is necessary, especially at a time when fentanyl has become the leading cause of death for 18- to 45-year-olds.

I urge a ``yes'' vote on this amendment.

Mr. Chair, this amendment will provide clarity that research conducted by the Department of Defense is included in the research registration process outlined in the bill.

It also requires the Office of the Inspector General at the Department of Justice to study and report on its findings.

The research provisions in the HALT Fentanyl Act align the research registration process for schedule I drugs with those of schedule II.

This is imperative for the research community to better understand how certain schedule I drugs affect people's health.

This amendment strengthens the bill, and I urge a ``yes'' vote on this amendment.

Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

First of all, I thank the gentlewoman for sharing her story. These are stories from across America. I empathize with her story, and I am thankful that her mother is in recovery.

Mr. Chair, this amendment would prevent the underlying bill from taking effect until the Secretary of Health and Human Services and the Attorney General each certify that this bill will lead to a reduction in overdose deaths.

In 2021, nearly 108,000 people died of drug overdoses, 71,000 of which were from synthetic opioids, including fentanyl or fentanyl- related substances. That equates to nearly 200 fentanyl-related deaths per day.

This amendment is a poison pill that would allow the Biden administration to indefinitely delay the permanent scheduling of fentanyl-related substances, which means after the temporary scheduling order expires at the end of 2024, if HHS or the AG has chosen not to act, these fentanyl-related substances could become street legal.

Mr. Chair, I don't want to take that chance. Permanently placing fentanyl-related substances into schedule I is the Drug Enforcement Administration's top legislative priority.

The numbers are heartbreaking. We need to act now to pass the HALT Fentanyl Act to keep fentanyl-related substances off our streets and out of our communities.

In terms of further steps to address overdose deaths, I am glad the Energy and Commerce Committee has led the way and will continue to do so.

Last Congress, the House passed legislation with broad bipartisan support to reauthorize many key use disorder and treatment programs. This summer Energy and Commerce plans to examine the impact of the SUPPORT for Patients and Communities Act, passed with broad bipartisan support 5 years ago, to address the opioid crisis.

However, we don't need to wait. Let's pass the HALT Fentanyl Act now, which adds fentanyl-related substances to schedule I upon passage rather than ceding authority to the Biden administration on when this should be effective.

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

Mr. Chair, again, we need to implement the HALT Fentanyl Act now. Any further delay, including the Biden administration slow- walking its implementation, is unacceptable. I again urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Madam Chair, I point out that this is fentanyl poisoning, and just because people use illicit drugs, they certainly don't deserve to die from it.

Madam Chair, I rise in strong support of the HALT Fentanyl Act. In 2022, roughly 75,000 Americans died from poisoning by synthetic opioids, largely illicit fentanyl and fentanyl-related substances.

Illicit fentanyl poisonings are now the number one cause of death among adults ages 18 to 49, as has been pointed out many times.

People who have died from illicit fentanyl poisoning are not just statistics. They are someone's child, sibling, parent, family member, or close friend. It is happening in every community across America. It doesn't discriminate against socioeconomic class, race, or religion.

Just last week, a Federal grand jury indicted a man in Evansville, Indiana, my hometown, for selling counterfeit prescription pills laced with fentanyl over social media that caused at least three poisonings and the death of a 19-year-old woman in 2022.

Last fall, a Federal grand jury indicted another man in Evansville who sold fentanyl pills in 2021 that ended up killing a 3-year-old toddler and resulted in nonfatal poisonings of two other children in a home after they found illicit fentanyl pills in a nightstand and took them.

These are heartbreaking stories, and we in this body have the power to do something to help prevent more of them from occurring.

Let's pass the HALT Fentanyl Act and give hope to Americans whose family, friends, and loved ones, who have been impacted by illicit fentanyl poisonings, that their loved one's death was not in vain. Support this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained due to travel delays.

Had I been present, I would have voted YEA on Roll Call No. 213 and YEA on Roll Call No. 214.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to recognize the passing of my good friend and mayor of Rockport, Indiana, Donnie Winkler.

Donnie tirelessly led the Rockport community with a smile and a good sense of humor. For years, his work ethic and sense of duty helped raise the bar for all those living in Spencer County, Indiana.

His motto: ``Do what you do; do it well and thoroughly,'' is something he took with him in all aspects of his life.

From his time spent as a farmer, industrial worker, National Guardsman, husband, father of four sons, entrepreneur, small business owner, general contractor, riverboat cook, building inspector, jailor, visionary, and finally as mayor, you saw this motto in all he did.

I am proud to have had the opportunity to know Donnie Winkler. My heart goes out to his family, friends, and the entire Rockport community during this trying time.

Godspeed, Donnie.

Madam Chair, I rise today in support of H.R. 1, the Lower Energy Costs Act.

Only a few years ago, our country was comfortably meeting our energy needs with our own production. Under President Biden's reckless energy agenda, however, we have dramatically increased our dependence on foreign oil, sent gas prices sky-high last year, and increased the cost of energy bills for Americans and the people in Indiana who I represent.

House Republicans made a commitment to America that we would end the war on American energy, and we are demonstrating that commitment today by passing H.R. 1.

This bill will flip the switch on domestic energy production, reversing the administration's anti-energy policies and streamlining our energy infrastructure.

Included in this bill is my Securing America's Critical Minerals Supply Act, which would address the broad set of critical energy resources that we need to properly assess our Nation's energy supply, identify critical resources for our economy, and help locate vulnerabilities in our supply chains.

Under this legislation, the U.S. could produce energy that is cleaner and safer than other parts of the world--which we already are--where production is tied to dangerous working conditions, child labor exploitation, and extremely low pay.

It would also help us shift away from our reliance on energy resources from countries controlled by foreign dictators, better protecting our national security.

As a supporter of an all-of-the-above energy approach, I know how crucial it is that we take steps to safeguard and secure the energy resources necessary to keep the lights on, rates down, and emissions low.

Madam Chair, I urge my colleagues to pass H.R. 1 so that we can address America's energy crisis created by the administration and meet America's energy needs on our own.

Mr. Speaker, I regret that I was unable to be present for votes in the House last week. My son was getting married, and I was attending his wedding festivities.

Had I been present, I would have voted: Yea on rollcall No. 144; Yea on rollcall No. 145; Yea on rollcall No. 146; Yea on rollcall No. 147; Yea on rollcall No. 148; Yea on rollcall No. 149; No on rollcall No. 150; No on rollcall No. 151; No on rollcall No. 152; Yea on rollcall No. 153; Yea on rollcall No. 154; No on rollcall No. 155; No on rollcall No. 156; No on rollcall No. 157; No on rollcall No. 158; No on rollcall No. 159; No on rollcall No. 160; Yea on rollcall No. 161; and Yea on rollcall No. 162.

Mr. Chair, I rise today in support of H.R. 185.

As a physician, I do support the science, and the previous speaker is on the wrong side of it. He is ignoring the science.

It is unfortunate but not surprising that the Biden administration is failing to acknowledge the foolishness of requiring proof of COVID-19 vaccination for international travelers.

We know that while the current COVID-19 vaccines are highly effective at preventing severe disease and death, they don't provide sterilizing immunity and prevent vaccinated individuals from becoming infected or from transmitting COVID-19.

I want to say that I am vaccinated. I wish everyone would be.

Thus, continuing to impose this vaccine mandate causes unnecessary harm to our Nation's tourism industry, which has already suffered for more than 3 years. Beyond that, it damages our image as a nation whose laws and policies are guided by the principles of freedom and backed by science.

President Biden's continued insistence that international visitors be vaccinated appears to be virtue signaling,

in my view, because the scientific evidence does not support the claim that vaccination prevents the spread of the virus.

Our neighbors in Canada and Mexico, our allies across the Atlantic in the U.K. and France, and many more countries around the world are declining to require proof of vaccination for international travelers.

In addition to ignoring the needs of business and communities that rely on tourism, these requirements make us look ludicrous on the world stage.

For example, last year, we blocked the number one-ranked tennis player in the world, Novak Djokovic, from entering the country to compete in the U.S. Open. Do we really think that blocking one individual from the country is going to have any real impact on the spread of COVID-19?

I strongly believe COVID-19 vaccines are safe and very effective at reducing harmful effects of the virus. Again, I recommend vaccination, but it is nonsensical that we are driving away foreign nationals who want to compete, visit loved ones, conduct business, or simply take in the amazing sites our country has to offer. That is why I support this legislation and why I believe the U.S. needs to lift this requirement now.

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

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

This legislation is targeted to COVID-19, and has nothing to do with other diseases.

Further, CDC does not have clear authority to mandate vaccination requirements. The order referenced in legislation is implementing a Presidential proclamation and not a standing authority that CDC has.

Further, almost every single one of CDC's overreaches in authority have been challenged. CDC is still fighting for their ability to require masks in public transit stations in court. They are still fighting that.

Why would we adopt this amendment and signal that they have authority to mandate vaccinations in the future?

I urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment, and I yield to the primary sponsor of the underlying legislation, the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Massie).

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

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

Mr. Chair, it is clear that the Biden administration has pushed its authorities past reasonable interpretation during the COVID- 19 pandemic.

With everything from eviction moratoriums and student loan forgiveness to vaccine and mask mandates being challenged and defeated in court, it is clear that the Biden administration needs the oversight of Congress.

The prohibition on rulemaking makes sure the CDC cannot impose a future COVID-19 vaccine requirement on international travelers and that the Biden administration would need to come to Congress for CDC to take such action in the future.

H.R. 185 is a commonsense bill. As President Biden himself has stated: The ``pandemic is over.'' And, as he announced last week, the White House would end the current COVID-19 public health emergency effective May 11, 2023.

We are currently one of the only countries still requiring any such vaccine mandate. The CDC itself has also acknowledged the vaccine does not prevent transmission. Why then are we still requiring a vaccine to enter our borders for legal travelers? Again, reminding everyone that for illegal travelers entering across the southern border, we are not requiring it.

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, I want to reiterate, as a physician, I believe the vaccines are safe and effective, and I would hope that people can make the personal choice to get vaccinated. It should be just that, their personal choice, not the choice of the Federal Government.

The CDC itself has acknowledged the vaccine does not prevent transmission, so termination of this burdensome and unnecessary mandate should not play any role in the increase in hospitalizations.

Based on the current science and what we know regarding how COVID-19 spreads, any individual person should have the right to choose whether to get the vaccine or not.

Further, we have seen that President Biden and Secretary Becerra are unwilling to relinquish any power or authority from the COVID-19 pandemic, leaving in order ridiculous guidance long past the date indicated it is necessary or useful. I have no doubt Secretary Becerra would refuse to certify this, so a vote for this amendment would delay or even prevent totally the repeal of this ridiculous mandate.

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

Mr. Chair, I move that the committee now rise.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 382, the Pandemic is Over Act.

A public health emergency was first declared by Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar in January 2020. It was a different time. We knew little about the novel coronavirus that was overtaking the world. We didn't understand how it worked. We had no way to treat it or reduce the spread.

Now, over 3 years later, the landscape has completely changed. Reliable vaccines, tests, and treatments are widely available. Businesses are open, Americans are traveling freely, and folks are ready and willing to get back to work.

As I have said from the beginning, it is unlikely we will ever fully rid ourselves of the coronavirus, but it can, and indeed has, become something we have the ability to deal with. Society can and should be returning to normal.

Even President Biden acknowledged as much in an interview last September, more than 4 months ago, when he said the COVID-19 pandemic is over. Yet this administration has continued to extend the length of the public health emergency, using it to retain fear in the American people and to justify continued requests for Federal funding.

In absence of the administration's willingness to immediately rightfully end the public health emergency declaration, it is time for Congress to act.

I am grateful to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Guthrie) for bringing this bill forward. I urge all my colleagues to support a formal end to the public health emergency declaration.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 75, I call up the bill (H.R. 497) to eliminate the COVID-19 vaccine mandate on health care providers furnishing items and services under certain Federal health care programs, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks on the legislation and to insert extraneous material on H.R. 497.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 497, the Freedom for Health Care Workers Act, introduced by my Energy and Commerce Committee colleague Representative Duncan.

I want to start by making one thing clear: I believe in the safety and effectiveness of vaccines. I am a physician. I am pro-vaccine. At the same time, I am conservative, and I believe in individual choice. It is my firm conviction that, whenever possible, the Federal Government should leave decisionmaking to State or local authorities.

Additionally, my background in medicine has informed my belief that medical decisions are extremely personal and should be made by individuals in consultation with their doctors.

So, at the end of 2021, when the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services announced a decision to mandate that healthcare workers receive a COVID-19 vaccine to remain employed, I opposed the decision. I believed this move by the Biden administration to be unnecessary, inappropriate, and a net harm to our healthcare system as a whole.

That is why my colleague Vern Buchanan and I led a letter with 113 other Members outlining our opposition to the mandate and our concerns.

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record that letter in opposition to the mandate.

Congres of the United States,

House of Representatives,

Washington, DC, December 6, 2021.

Hon. Chiquita Brooks-LaSure,

Administrator, Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services,

Baltimore, MD.

Dear Administrator Brooks-LaSure: The COVID-19 pandemic has

taken a significant toll on the American public both

physically and emotionally for almost two years. In that

time, though, multiple vaccines have become widely available

for those wishing to

be vaccinated. According to the Mayo Clinic, nearly 60

percent of the United States population over the age of 12 is

fully vaccinated, including over 83 percent of the Medicare-

aged population.

Thankfully, the United States has seen an overall decrease

in new COVID-19 infections, hospitalizations and deaths since

vaccines became readily available, and while we are not yet

out of the woods, many are saying the end of the pandemic is

in sight. Former Food and Drug Administration Commissioner

Scott Gottlieb, M.D. recently stated the pandemic ``may well

be over'' by January 4, which is the deadline the Centers for

Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) set for complying with

either its vaccination mandate or enforcing the continued use

of masks and weekly testing.

At a time when we are facing a growing health care

workforce shortage--including a projected physician shortage

of more than 100,000 by 2034--implementing a federal vaccine

mandate will only serve to exacerbate the problem. By your

own admission, ``[t]hese requirements will apply to

approximately 76,000 providers and cover over 17 million

health care workers across the country.'' It is difficult, if

not impossible, to reconcile the rationale for implementing a

mandate like this at the tail end of the pandemic while we,

as a nation, are struggling to staff hospitals, physician

offices and other ancillary providers.

We fully support your agency's goal of ``[e]nsuring patient

safety and protection,'' but if seniors are unable to access

care because their provider no longer participates in the

Medicare program, this rule will undermine its stated goal.

By subjecting providers to egregious federal overreach, our

nation's most vulnerable populations will be at risk and

America's seniors will bear the brunt of any provider loss

due to non-compliance with this heavy-handed and

constitutionally dubious vaccine mandate. Americans are

quitting their jobs at a record pace, and this new federal

mandate will only make matters worse and keep more Americans

out of the workforce.

There are over 54 million Medicare-aged Americans, and it

is our duty as Members of Congress representing those seniors

to ensure they maintain access to their preferred health care

provider. This is especially true when that means opposing an

administrative agency's actions that will lead to fewer

options for our constituents; longer wait times; and the

inevitability of adverse health outcomes due to fewer

available providers.

We strongly urge you to abandon implementing this onerous

new rule and instead heed current statistics that show

seniors are vaccinated at a higher rate than the rest of the

population of vaccinated Americans while also uniquely

vulnerable to disruptions in the health care system and

consider the potentially negative consequences this mandate

will have on the size and strength of our health care

workforce. To truly ensure patient safety and protection, we

must preserve Americans' access to their preferred providers

rather than impose a new one-size-fits-all federal mandate on

our nation's health care providers at a time when they can

least afford it.

Sincerely,

Vern Buchanan, Elise Stefanik, Jeff Duncan, Jodey V.

Arrington, Mike Kelly, Larry Bucshon, M.D., Jim Banks, Brett

Guthrie, Jackie Walorski, David B. McKinley, P.E., Gus M.

Bilirakis, Bill Johnson, Debbie Lesko, Dan Crenshaw, Bill

Posey, Bob Gibbs, Ralph Norman, John Joyce, M.D., Markwayne

Mullin, Earl L. ``Buddy'' Carter, Michael Waltz, Doug

Lamborn, Randy Feenstra, Neal P. Dunn, M.D., Brian Mast,

Robert E. Latta.

Guy Reschenthaler, Kelly Armstrong, William Timmons,

Gregory F. Murphy, M.D., Mike Johnson, Beth Van Duyne, Darin

LaHood, Warren Davidson, Brian Babin, D.D.S., Brad R.

Wenstrup, D.P.M., Glen Grothman, John H. Rutherford, Adrian

Smith, Fred Keller, Jack Bergman, Michelle Steel, Kevin Hern,

Dan Newhouse, Michael Cloud, Troy Balderson, A. Drew

Ferguson, IV, D.M.D., John Moolenaar, Tim Burchett, C. Scott

Franklin, Barry Moore, Tom McClintock, Eric A. ``Rick''

Crawford, Ronny L. Jackson, M.D., Jody Hice, Diana

Harshbarger, Parm.D., Jason Smith, Tom Rice.

Tom Reed, Carlos Gimenez, Pete Sessions, Greg Pence, Ben

Cline, Glenn ``GT'' Thompson, Mariannette J. Miller-Meeks,

M.D., Claudia Tenney, Mike Rogers, Ron Estes, Ted Budd, Andy

Harris, M.D., David Kustoff, Steve Chabot, Michael Guest, W.

Gregory Steube, Randy K. Weber, Majorie Taylor Green, Lance

Gooden, Pat Fallon, Michael C. Burgess, M.D., Kat Cammack,

Andy Biggs, Carol D. Miller, Andrew S. Clyde, Devin Nunes,

Stephanie Bice, Tracey Mann, Daniel Webster, Mary Miller,

Darrell Issa, Rodney Davis.

Lisa McClain, Richard Hudson, Ann Wagner, Mario Diaz-

Balart, Lloyd Smucker, Jeff Fortenberry, Dan Bishop, Jim

Baird, John Rose, Louie Gohmert, David Schweikert, Rick W.

Allen, Bill Huizenga, Bryon Donalds, Bruce Westerman, Andrew

R. Garbarino, Nancy Mace, Vicky Hartzler, Steven M. Palazzo,

Jake LaTurner, Chuck Fleischmann, Tom Emmer, Austin Scott,

Trey Hollingsworth, Mike Bost.

The move was unprecedented. CMS does not impose such a mandate for any other vaccine. Furthermore, the vaccine, while effective at preventing severe disease and death, is not shown to totally prevent transmission of the virus.

It was difficult, if not impossible, to reconcile the rationale for implementing a mandate like this at the tail end of the pandemic while we as a Nation are struggling to staff hospitals, physician offices, and other ancillary providers.

Our Nation's healthcare system was already facing a growing healthcare workforce shortage, including a projected physician shortage of more than 100,000 by 2034. I was worried--and, indeed, we saw it play out--that implementing a Federal vaccine mandate would only serve to exacerbate the problem.

For example, in my home State, Indiana University lost 125 employees as a direct result of the vaccine requirement, and that is just one small example. Thousands of individuals across the country either resigned or were let go due to this mandate.

Now, over a year later, despite several lawsuits rising through the courts questioning the validity of this exact rule, the Biden administration continues to enforce this mandate.

Today's bill does what the Biden administration will not. It ends the onerous mandate imposed by a Federal Government agency on the American people. It provides important autonomy to healthcare workers and critical relief to hospitals and other facilities that continue to face staff shortages.

My Democratic colleagues will say that this mandate was worth it, that repealing it will hurt healthcare workers or patients they serve. I haven't seen any data to suggest that.

What we do know is that 95 percent of Americans have either been vaccinated or had COVID-19. We know the vaccine no longer totally prevents transmission of COVID-19.

CMS' vaccine mandate won't end with the public health emergency on May 11 or sooner if the previous bill that we just debated goes into law. It will go on indefinitely unless the administration rescinds it or Congress takes action.

Given that the administration threatened to veto this legislation, it doesn't seem like they plan to reverse course, so Congress must step in.

We are not taking away anyone's ability to get vaccinated. Healthcare workers can and should protect themselves, including getting vaccinated if they choose. Nor are we taking away the ability of individual health systems to make decisions about what vaccinations they may require.

For instance, many healthcare systems have required employees to get a flu shot for many years. The Federal Government simply shouldn't demand they do so.

Federal bureaucrats in Washington, D.C., do not know the needs of Hoosiers in my district or many Americans across the country and must not be allowed to make medical decisions on their behalf.

Mr. Speaker, for all of these reasons, I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 497 here today, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to remind everyone that I am a physician, and I support vaccination. I just don't support the Federal Government mandating it. If local facilities want to mandate vaccination, that is up to them. I just don't believe the Federal Government at CMS should do it. Also, in recent history, the only ones who have cut Medicare are the administration and the Democrats, not Republicans.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Duncan), the primary sponsor of the bill.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to remind everyone that CMS doesn't mandate any other vaccine, and this also doesn't preclude local hospital systems, local governments, or State governments from mandating a vaccine.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Guthrie), the chairman of the Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Health.

Mr. Speaker, I support vaccination of healthcare workers. I just don't think that CMS should be mandating it nationally.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Carter), a pharmacist.

Mr. Speaker, no one is endangered by this legislation. As I have said before, it doesn't prevent healthcare facilities from requiring a COVID vaccine for their employees.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Pfluger).

Mr. Speaker, CMS mandates one vaccine, COVID-19. They don't mandate any other vaccines. That doesn't mean healthcare workers don't get the COVID-19 vaccine.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Washington (Mrs. Rodgers), the chairwoman of the Energy and Commerce Committee.

Mr. Speaker, viral diseases like measles have been around for centuries. COVID-19 likely will also be persistent.

So, when do my Democratic colleagues propose that this Federal mandate end? I propose that we pass this legislation and end it.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Iowa (Mrs. Miller-Meeks), who is a physician.

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 15 seconds to the gentlewoman from Iowa.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Georgia (Ms. Greene).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Alford).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Van Duyne).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Murphy), who is a physician.

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time remains on each side?

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, I say again that I am a physician. I was a practicing physician for 15 years before I came into Congress. I am pro-vaccine. I believe that the COVID-19 vaccine saves lives and prevents serious illness. I have been vaccinated myself and boosted. My family has taken the vaccines.

That is not what this is about, Mr. Speaker. What this is about is a Federal mandate to force medical decisions on individual American citizens.

Again, it also doesn't stop local hospitals, like my hospitals in Evansville, Indiana, from requiring the COVID-19 vaccine for their employees. I think we have a disconnect here about what this legislation is actually about. It is actually about Federal control at CMS. Again, CMS has only mandated one vaccine, and that is the COVID-19 vaccine.

Mr. Speaker, I agree with my colleagues on the other side of the aisle that vaccines save lives, but I also think it should be a personal choice, and that is what this is about. We need to get past this because, as I mentioned earlier, other viral diseases like the measles have been around literally for centuries--centuries--so when does a Federal vaccine mandate for COVID-19 end?

When do we come to an end point, say, okay, the risk is so low that we are not going to mandate from CMS that you get a medical treatment that you may not want or you lose your job?

Now, again, I reiterate, if your local hospital or medical facility says, look, this is part of our employment requirement, okay, that is up to them, but not the Federal Government.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Allen).

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

Mr. Speaker, I reiterate again that as a physician, I support vaccination for healthcare workers if they choose to do so or if their local medical facility says it is a requirement for them to be employed at that facility. I just don't support the Federal Government mandating it nationwide because they don't mandate any other vaccine, and they never have that I am aware of.

So there are all kinds of other things in medicine that I wish people would do:

I wish people would get screened for colon cancer.

I wish people would get their mammograms.

I wish people would get their pap smears.

I wish people would get their prostates checked.

The reality is it is a free country. We are not going to mandate all of those things, are we?

We could, I guess.

This is just another medical treatment that people should have the freedom to choose. The Federal Government shouldn't be mandating it.

Again, I can't be more clear, and other doctors that have spoken today have said, ``we believe in vaccinations.'' In fact, we did public service announcements supporting it. We just don't believe that CMS should be mandating this for healthcare workers, and that this mandate should end.

Mr. Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to support H.R. 497, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak in favor of the Protecting America's Strategic Petroleum Reserve from China Act.

Under the Biden administration, we have seen a continuous assault on American energy that has killed jobs, increased our dependency on foreign energy sources, and caused energy costs to soar.

In an attempt to lower energy prices, the administration has sold millions of barrels of petroleum from our Strategic Petroleum Reserve, depleting our own supply and helping China to build the world's largest crude oil reserve.

This must stop. I call on all my colleagues to join me in voting for this legislation to stop the Secretary of Energy from selling any more petroleum products from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve to China.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 8373.

The bill isn't about access to traditional contraception. It is about preserving access to abortion drugs.

As a physician, I adamantly believe that treatment decisions should be made by a patient and their provider. In making that decision, they need to be fully informed, knowing what we are using, for what purpose, and whether the FDA has determined it is, number one, safe; and, number two, unless the drug falls under right-to-try laws, fully proven to be effective.

The legislation defines a contraceptive as any device or medication used to prevent pregnancy, whether specifically used to prevent pregnancy or for other health needs. There is no explanation of what the device or medication might be, and no definition for other health needs.

The bill is dangerously vague. It could be applied to chemical abortion drugs to end a pregnancy in addition to traditional contraceptives. It could be used to provide statutory access to drugs without the guidance and administration of a trained healthcare professional or without any FDA review.

Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose this ill-crafted bill.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 8296.

First, I would like to say, as a physician, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle need to focus on what their bill really does. Stop talking about ectopic pregnancies, which are a surgical emergency; fetal demise, where, for unknown reasons, the fetus has passed away; and miscarriages, which, clearly, in many cases, are surgical emergencies and are tragic. That is not what this bill is about.

I have heard claims the bill only codifies provisions of the now- overturned Roe v. Wade decision. That is simply not true. H.R. 8296 would create a national standard to allow abortions at any time up until birth.

As a practicing heart surgeon for 15 years prior to coming to Congress, I operated on children in the neonatal intensive care unit as young as 23 weeks gestation. Even at 650 grams, or 1.4 pounds, and about 6 inches long, I saw life in my tiny patients' little bodies.

This abortion on demand until birth act bill doesn't only allow abortions at any point in the pregnancy. It would also preempt and repeal State laws that require informed consent, ultrasounds, or other testing and counseling before undertaking an elective abortion.

The American people deserve to know the facts about what is really in this bill. I find it troubling the supporters of this bill, most of whom have never taken care of a patient, continue to mislead the American people about what constitutes healthcare.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commemorate the upcoming 150th anniversary of Ascension St. Vincent Hospital, formerly St. Mary's Hospital, in Evansville, Indiana.

Although the name has changed, its goal of providing quality care for citizens of the tri-State area has remained constant. I practiced cardiothoracic surgery there before being elected to Congress.

Since the Daughters of Charity accepted their first patient on July 18, 1872, Ascension St. Vincent, formerly St. Mary's, Evansville has remained true to its mission.

They say: ``We have a mission, a reason for being here, to keep healthcare human; human for our patients, human for our families, human for our doctors, and human for all our associates. The poor will come, and the rich will come, if they know they are going to be treated as people.''

For the last 150 years, this hospital has been a leader in medical innovation and care. In fact, it was one of the first in the region with operating room lighting, something that I acutely appreciate because I am a surgeon myself. It also hosted the first accredited cancer program and the first level 3 neonatal intensive care unit in the tri-State region.

I am grateful for Ascension St. Vincent Evansville's continued commitment to caring for all Hoosiers and wish them a happy 150th anniversary.