Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, I hereby remove myself as cosponsor of

Madam Speaker, I rise today to celebrate the career of Dave Kishler, a Senior Industry Relations Strategist at Netsmart. The company provides health information technology solutions to tens of thousands of public and private nonprofit mental health, human services and senior service organizations throughout the United States serving millions of Americans with mental illnesses, substance use disorders and other disabilities. Dave announced his retirement from Netsmart at the end of 2021 after a rich and extremely productive 30-year career with the company.

Among many other duties, Dave was responsible for Netsmart's relationships with patient advocacy organizations and trade associations representing Community Mental Health Centers, providers of rehabilitation services for persons with Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities (I/DD) and home care providers serving seniors. But I got to know Dave during our work together on legislative amendments to 42 CFR Part 2--a outdated federal privacy law that inhibited the sharing of clinical information for persons with major substance use disorders.

When one of the committees I serve on--the House Energy & Commerce Committee--held public hearings to examine the real-world impact of the law, Dave assisted my office and committee staff in truly understanding how ``Part 2'' obstructed the exchange of clinical data that made care coordination for people with Opioid Use Disorder (OUD) nearly impossible. Because of his diligent efforts and the patient stories he brought to our attention, the Congress ultimately passed legislative amendments in the CARES Act that facilitated the exchange of vital information among hospitals, residential treatment centers and community-based providers. Once implemented, I am convinced that these statutory changes will save lives.

By reflecting on Dave's career, we recognize both his enormous personal contributions as well as the tremendous value of public- private partnerships in improving the lives of our most vulnerable citizens. I thank Dave, and congratulate him on this significant milestone.

Mr. Speaker, what we are seeing here from the Democrats is just a distraction. They are just trying to distract the American people from what is really happening.

What is it the American people are upset about?

What is it that they are concerned about?

How about what they are paying. We can talk about the groceries, and we can talk about what they are paying at the gas pump, so let's talk about that real quick.

If we are really serious about doing something that is important to the American people, then let's start with H.R. 6235 to address the high energy prices our country is seeing right now. Gas prices are at a 7-year high. On November 23, the Biden administration announced the Department of Justice will sell 50 million barrels out of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve in an attempt to bring down gas prices.

What a joke. We consume roughly 20 billion barrels a day in the United States, and to say we are going to release 50 billion out of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve to bring down gas prices?

That is nothing but another game, like this bill that we are talking about today debating. It is nothing but smoke and mirrors just trying to distract the American people to say: Hey, look, we are fighting; we are trying to do something.

H.R. 6235 would require the Secretary of Energy to develop a plan to increase oil and gas production on Federal lands in conjunction with drawing down the oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve.

If any President attempts to tap into the SPR for political reasons, the Strategic Production Response Act would require a plan to increase U.S. energy production at the same time. The SPR was established by Congress to respond to an emergency, not to manipulate gasoline prices.

The administration's anti-fossil fuel agenda is contributing to the record-high energy prices which is driving up inflation and household bills. It is projected to cost some families up to 54 percent more to heat their homes this winter. If President Biden and the Democrats want to be serious about bringing down costs to the families, they would stop the attack on American petroleum.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to defeat the previous question and take up this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in full support of my bill, H.R. 1762, the Protecting Indian Tribes from Scams Act. The bill will help protect our Tribes and Tribal members from predatorial scams.

Tribal communities have long been targets of fraud. Scammers often target vulnerable communities who receive trust or settlement payments, like many Tribes do. FTC data says that Tribe members are more likely to be the victims of scams and are less likely to report scams than any other group.

H.R. 1762 will direct the FTC to study the types of scams that target Tribes and find the best ways to combat them.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Arizona for working with me on these issues, as well as many other issues important to Indian County. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Madam Chair, this amendment would prohibit funds for enforcing the Obama administration EPA methane rule. The rule is currently facing litigation and uncertainty, and Congress must act to block this job-killing regulation estimating that it will cost the economy roughly $530 million annually.

While oil and gas production has increased over 25 percent since 2005, related methane gas emissions have actually decreased over 40 percent during the same period, meaning the industry is doing a good job of regulating themselves.

It is counterproductive for the Federal Government to enact harmful regulations that cause inefficiencies and recklessly spending taxpayer dollars enforcing hardships on true job creators.

Madam Chair, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Gosar).

Madam Chair, in closing, during the conversation that was taking place just a second ago, a comment was made that said it actually saves the industry money. I got have got to step back and think, how is that possible? Because if it was saving the industry money they wouldn't oppose it.

If it is saving money, who would oppose it?

I haven't met a regulation ever from a small business owner--which is the only reason why I am here, because of the job-killing regulations that come out of this place constantly--that has ever saved me any money.

What we are talking about are real jobs that affect real people's lives.

This Congress always talks about job creation and creating job packages. We want to brag about how many jobs we have created. This body doesn't create jobs. We are supposed to create an environment in which job creators can create a job, and we are saying this one will kill jobs.

So why would we support this?

It doesn't make any sense to me.

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

Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Madam Chair, my amendment would prohibit funds from implementing the social cost of carbon rule.

The Obama administration continuously used social cost of carbon models which can be easily manipulated in order to attempt to justify, once again, new job-killing regulations.

I offered this same amendment yesterday, and, unfortunately, it failed. Until then, the House had a clear, strong record of opposition to the social cost of carbon, voting at least 12 times to block, defund, or oppose the proposal.

We want clean air; we want clean water; and we take care of the land we live on. Using subjective standards to create job-killing regulations is not the way to accomplish this goal.

The social cost of carbon rule is nothing more than more burdensome red tape for the American people.

Madam Chair, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Gosar).

Mr. Chair, while I respect the gentlewoman's opinion--and this is one of those things where we agree to disagree--I do have to say one thing.

She said the science in measuring the social cost of carbon has proven true. Actually, that is not true. The science isn't there. We actually don't have a good method to measure the social cost of carbon.

That is why the whole issue is that it can easily be manipulated to fit whatever model they choose, which means that they can pick and choose what type of energy we are able to produce and how we produce it, meaning that they can choose, not the consumer, to say: We no longer want to have fossil fuels as a choice; we only want renewables.

If we are going to be an all-of-the-above country and we are going to embrace industry and entrepreneurs, then we have got to embrace all of the above. If consumers don't want that, if certain States don't want to buy fossil fuel energy, then they can choose not to do so.

In Oklahoma, we are all of the above. Not only are we a leader in producing fossil fuels, but we are also the third largest in producing renewables. We believe all of the above.

Our neighbor in Texas, while they are a leader in producing oil, they are the number one in renewables.

Isn't it ironic that both are red States?

All we are saying here is let's not manipulate and allow the government

to pick and choose. Let the consumer choose.

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

Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Madam Chair, my amendment would prohibit funds for implementing the social cost of carbon rule.

Congress and the American people have repeatedly rejected cap-and- trade proposals. The Obama administration continuously used social cost of carbon models, which can easily be manipulated in order to attempt to justify new job-killing regulations.

I believe in efficiently using the Nation's vast energy resources while protecting the air we breathe, the water we drink, and the land we live on.

The House has a clear, strong record of opposition to the social cost of carbon, voting at least 12 times to block, defund, or oppose the proposal. A carbon tax would inevitably be passed along to consumers, undermining the success of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act we passed last Congress.

Madam Chair, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, there is a lot to unpack there, and we can debate that all day, especially when you start bringing the farmers into it, because you are looking at one. I don't have to be with them because I am one of them, and I am from the Midwest.

But when you start saying that everything is the fault and everything is to blame because of climate change, it has been changing for quite some time, and we could go ahead and talk about that, too. However, I am not going to change her mind, so we are going to agree to disagree.

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

Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor the life of Haydon Michelle Payne Ishmael, a loving wife and mother who was taken from her family too soon after losing her battle with breast cancer. She was a vivacious and loving spirit with a heart for service, and she gave everything one hundred percent. Whether she was racing cars, scoring goals in a soccer game, volunteering, or cheering on her kids, her energy and enthusiasm shined through.

She leaves behind her husband and childhood sweetheart Todd, her children Madysen, Jewele, and William, her mother Gail (Curtis) Payne and her mother-in-law Penny (Cornel) Ishmael. Her siblings Anne (Payne) and Scott McGarry, Kelly (Payne) and Brad Spears and Will and Brandi Payne, Todd's siblings Tripp and Kelly Ishmael and Thomas and Michelle Ishmael, eleven nieces and nephews, aunt and uncles, cousins and great nieces and nephews. She has gone to be with her Lord and Savior Jesus Christ and will be greatly missed.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize the retirement of Susan McVey, State Librarian of Oklahoma. Susan McVey will be retiring at the end of January after 32 dedicated years of service to Oklahoma. For the past 18 years, she has served as the first female State Librarian. Prior to that, Susan served the Oklahoma Department of Libraries in a number of different capacities. As President of the Oklahoma Library Association, Susan received the Distinguished Service Award, the highest honor given by the Association, for exemplary service to the state's library community. She was honored as an Oklahoma Library Legend. She has served as President of the Chief Officers of State Library Agencies and has received the designation of Honored One from the National Association of Tribal Archives, Libraries, and Museums.

Susan McVey has demonstrated her commitment and dedication to the education of Oklahomans time and time again. Under her leadership, Oklahoma's public libraries were included in the Oklahoma Universal Service Fund, providing rural Oklahomans access to free high speed broadband in their local libraries. She successfully secured the first statewide access to online reference resources for Oklahoma's nearly 1,300 private, public, and school libraries. She is responsible for obtaining $4 million from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation to provide public access computers in every public library in Oklahoma.

I am honored to recognize Susan McVey today before the United States House of Representatives. Well done on a lifetime of service to Oklahoma and congratulations on your well-deserved retirement.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in favor of my bill, the State Offices of Rural Health Reauthorization Act of 2018.

There is a healthcare crisis right now going on in rural America. Rural hospitals are closing their doors at an alarming rate. Eighty- five rural hospitals have closed since 2010, and 673 are vulnerable to close at any time. More closures are coming, and Congress needs to start making changes to ensure that rural Americans have the healthcare they need.

My bill, the State Offices of Rural Health Reauthorization Act, will help Oklahoma's rural hospitals keep their doors open by reauthorizing the Oklahoma Office of Rural Health. This office provides a valuable resource to the hospitals of Oklahoma by helping hospitals explore innovative and collaborative ideas that can lead to improvements and savings.

Mr. Speaker, I would be remiss not to mention that awesome sweater- vest that you are wearing. So in the spirit of Christmas, I believe you just pull that off.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 2606, the Stigler Act Amendments of 2018.

This legislation would end a discriminatory blood quantum requirement for members of the Five Civilized Tribes: the Cherokee, Chickasaw, Choctaw, Muskogee (Creek), and Seminole Nations.

The Stigler Act of 1947 mandated that restricted land owned by a member of the Five Tribes must have \1/2\ blood quantum in order for it to remain restricted. If the land is handed down to a relative with less than \1/2\ blood quantum, the land is no longer restricted.

No other Native American tribe in the United States is subject to the Stigler Act, and in no other tribe in the United States do the lands of tribal citizens lose their restricted status due to the blood quantum of an individual Native American.

H.R. 2606 would do away with the blood quantum requirement so restricted fee land owned by citizens of the Five Tribes could remain restricted, regardless of blood quantum. By removing the blood quantum requirements in the Stigler Act, native land could remain within families and heirs despite individual Native American landowners falling below \1/2\ blood quantum.

Tribes are sovereign nations and H.R. 2606 would treat them as such. This bill would create parity in federal law so that the government would not be able to unfairly dictate a minimum blood quantum requirement for certain tribes.

It would also bring equality to members of the Five Tribes. For decades, their members have lived under a law so that applied to only their lands.

As Native Americans, we take great pride in our heritage and the land that our ancestors maintained before us. The Stigler Act Amendments of 2018 would allow Natives to pass on their restricted land to future generations who may not meet the \1/2\ blood degree requirement.

Members of the Five Tribes who seek to carry on their ancestors' heritage should be able to and this legislation ensures that members of the Five Tribes can continue to preserve restricted status of their land and reap all of the benefits that come along with it.

The Five Tribes held more than 15 million acres of restricted land a century ago. Today, they hold just 380,000 acres.

While H.R. 2606 will not reverse 70 years of land loss, it will certainly help prevent additional tribal land from falling out of restricted status.

I am proud to be an original cosponsor of the Stigler Act Amendments of 2018 and am honored to speak in support of the legislation before the United States House of Representatives today. I urge its passage.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak in support of my colleague's resolution, H. Con. Res. 119, which expresses the sense of Congress that a carbon tax would be detrimental to the United States.

A carbon tax is a tax on the American consumer and our economy. A carbon tax would significantly--I want to repeat that--significantly drive up the cost of the fuels that drive our way of life, and result in millions and millions of jobs lost.

This burden would be unfairly shouldered by the lower and middle class incomes. The nonpartisan--I want to say that--the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, CBO, in 2013 stated: ``A carbon tax would increase the price of fossil fuels in direct proportion to their carbon content. Higher fuel prices, in turn, would raise production costs and ultimately drive up prices for goods and services throughout the economy.''

A study from the National Association of Manufacturers found that a carbon tax could drive up gasoline costs between $6 and $14 per gallon, and lead to as many as 21 million jobs lost, a continually shrinking economy, and lowering our Federal revenue, all without doing anything to improve global greenhouse gas emissions.

Just yesterday, the House passed my amendment to prohibit funds from implementing the Obama administration's social costs of carbon rule.

The facts are clear. A carbon tax is not the way to protect our environment and economy. The social costs of a carbon tax far outweigh the potential benefits.

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

Mr. Chairman, this amendment would prohibit funds from enforcing the Obama administration EPA methane rule. This rule is currently facing litigation uncertainty, and Congress must act to block this job-killing regulation estimated to cost our economy $530 million annually.

While oil and gas production has increased more than 25 percent since 2005, related methane emissions have actually decreased almost 40 percent during the same time period.

It is counterproductive for the Federal Government to enact harmful regulations that cause inefficiencies, recklessly spend taxpayer dollars, and force hardship upon job-creating industries.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Perry).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Calvert).

Mr. Chairman, I am prepared to close.

Well, simply put, I urge our colleagues on both sides to come together and kill this job-killing regulation and support this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Chairman, my amendment would prohibit funds from implementing the Obama administration's social cost of carbon rule. Congress and the American people have repeatedly rejected cap and trade proposals.

The Obama administration continuously used social cost of carbon models, which could be easily manipulated in order to attempt to justify new job-killing regulations.

The House has a clear, strong record of opposition to the social cost of carbon, voting at least 11 times to block, defund, or oppose the proposal, including H. Con. Res. 119, which we will be considering later this week.

A carbon tax would be passed along to consumers, undermining the success of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act we passed last year.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Montana (Mr. Gianforte).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Perry).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gohmert).

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

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 5554) to amend the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to reauthorize user fee programs relating to new animal drugs and generic new animal drugs, 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 insert extraneous materials in the Record on the bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am proud of this legislation to reauthorize the Animal Drug User Fee Act, ADUFA, which will continue agreements between the FDA and the animal drug industry to pay user fees that will help speed the approval of new drugs.

Farmers, ranchers, families, and veterinarians need ADUFA so they can keep their animals and pets safe and healthy.

In the rural and agricultural communities across the country, including my home State of Oklahoma, ADUFA is critical to farmers, ranchers, and all American consumers. These animals are a major food source for our communities and our families, so it is vitally important that we move quickly today and reauthorize ADUFA.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleagues on both sides of the aisle for their bipartisan approach, and I urge a ``yes'' vote from all my colleagues.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak in support of my bill, H.R. 6082, the Overdose Prevention and Patient Safety Act.

My colleague Mr. Blumenauer and I introduced this bill to help physicians fight the opioid epidemic. The Overdose Prevention and Patient Safety Act allows the flow of information among healthcare providers and health planners for the purpose of treatment, payment, and healthcare operations.

Unfortunately, there is an outdated Federal Government mandate, 42 CFR part 2, which is creating a firewall between doctors and patients.

My bill, the Overdose Prevention and Patient Safety Act, will give doctors access to patients' addiction medical information that can integrate their care, prevent tragic overdoses, and improve patient safety.

SAMHSA has stated: ``The practice of requiring substance use disorder information to be any more private than information regarding other chronic illnesses, such as cancer or heart disease, may in itself be stigmatizing. Patients with substance use disorders seeking treatment for any condition have a right to healthcare providers who are fully equipped with the information needed to provide the highest quality care available.''

When a person violates part 2, it is referred to the Justice Department,

and there is only a $50 penalty. There have been zero cases--let me repeat that--there have been zero cases in which part 2 was enforced or any action taken by the Department of Justice or SAMHSA.

The penalties for noncompliance underneath HIPAA are based on the level of negligence and can range from $100 to $50,000 per violation, with a maximum of $1.5 million per year.

There have been 173,472 HIPAA violations since 2003, with 97 percent of those complaints resolved.

Patients, doctors, hospitals, and a broad spectrum of stakeholders agree we need to end this outdated Federal Government mandate helping prevent the private sector's innovation.

Mr. Speaker, I encourage my colleagues to support the Overdose Prevention and Patient Safety Act.

Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would

have voted YEA on Roll Call No. 181; YEA on Roll Call No. 182; and YEA on Roll Call No. 183.