Floor Statements

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

Let me be clear: House Republicans condemn the violence in Buffalo, Uvalde, Tulsa, and Philadelphia. We stand ready to work with the majority to directly address school safety, mental health, and the root causes of gun violence.

Unfortunately, the bills we are considering today under the rule are nothing more than an attempt by Democrats to try to push their antigun agenda.

H.R. 7910 is a grab bag full of far-left proposals that will not effectively address gun violence but will severely limit America's Second Amendment rights.

There are a few provisions I would like to point out.

The bill raises the legal age of gun ownership to 21. This provision is very likely unconstitutional. Even a liberal district court in California has already determined that with regard to similar restrictions.

This bill broadens the definition of ``frame or receiver'' that could define multiple parts of the same gun as separate firearms. Each of these parts would need its own distinct serial number or risk becoming a classified ghost gun. This could turn millions of legal guns into contraband, and law-abiding gun owners into felons.

H.R. 2377 is another reminder the Democrats fundamentally have no respect for Second Amendment rights. It shows their lack of respect for Fourth Amendment rights also. This bill destroys the presumption of innocence that is the bedrock of our justice system.

It does away with the notion that an individual is innocent until proven guilty, and instead makes anyone subject to an extreme risk protection order guilty until proven innocent with what amounts to another version of a red flag law.

They also want to mandate a system for gun storage in private homes, which is unconstitutional, and almost impossible to enforce without stripping even more rights from law-abiding citizens. Democrats are picking and choosing legal standards to deprive citizens of their constitutional rights based on how closely those rights are aligned with their political agenda.

Furthermore, the universe of individuals who can petition a court for an extreme risk protection order under this bill is far too broad, and it creates a process that is ripe for abuse. This bill would create an opportunity for a disgruntled ex-roommate or predatory domestic partner to use the judicial system to harass and burden an individual by requiring law enforcement to seize that individual's firearms and ammunition.

Federal law already prohibits dangerous and unfit individuals from purchasing or possessing firearms. An individual with a misdemeanor domestic

violence conviction, an individual involuntarily committed to a mental institution or adjudicated mentally defective, or an individual who is an unlawful user of controlled substances are all prohibited from possessing or purchasing a firearm under current law.

Democrats rejected an amendment that will allow for transfers of a firearm to a victim of domestic violence for self-defense. Under this bill, a friend or neighbor trying to help a victim would be charged with gun trafficking.

These bills are not about public safety, they are about the left's antigun agenda.

During the Judiciary Committee's consideration of this bill, the chairman of the committee conceded that the strict gun laws in liberal jurisdictions don't work because criminals are able to obtain guns elsewhere illegally. A Member from Tennessee on that committee admitted that the Democrats' bills will make it harder for law-abiding Americans to exercise their Second Amendment rights. Another Member, one from New York, threatened to abolish the filibuster and pack the Supreme Court if any of our Nation's checks and balances stood in the way of the Democrats' agenda to trample the Second Amendment.

The majority will argue that these are commonsense proposals, but they fail to explain the details and the real effects of these provisions.

And what are law-abiding gun owners concerned about? They are concerned about the attack on their constitutional rights provided in the Second Amendment.

All of us recognize the recent tragedies, and our heart goes out to the parents, the families, and communities, but the root causes must be addressed. Simply attacking law-abiding gun owners will not solve the problem. Addressing the causes will.

House Republicans stand ready to address the root causes of these senseless acts of violence, but not at the cost of America's constitutional rights.

Madam Speaker, I oppose the rule, and I ask Members to do the same. I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Madam Speaker, I just want to make a couple of comments. The gentleman from Massachusetts, with all due respect, mentioned other countries. I will just point out that other countries don't have the freedoms and don't live the way we do in our great democracy or Republic, whichever, and they don't have the constitutional rights that we have under the Second Amendment.

Our citizens ask to have that Constitution respected, and I don't believe I used the word ``inconvenient'' at all. What I used are the words, ``trampling our constitutional rights,'' and that is what I think is important here, that we do not talk about the gentleman from Massachusetts mentioning these inconvenient things. I am talking about our citizens' constitutional rights under the Second Amendment.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Foxx).

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

Madam Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to immediately consider the Prosecutors Need to Prosecute Act, legislation authored by Representatives Malliotakis and Tiffany that ensures accountability for those charged with keeping our streets, our schools, and our communities safe.

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

Madam Speaker, while my colleagues in the majority believe that the best approach to addressing violence is to strip away American's constitutional rights, Republicans stand with parents and communities in ensuring those who commit crimes are prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. And those who don't, will be held accountable. Just last night, families in San Francisco ousted their district attorney for failing to keep their streets free from criminals.

Americans are fed up with liberal prosecutors letting criminals run rampant for the sake of woke idealism. This legislation will ensure the Department of Justice and the American public have the data and information necessary to hold those responsible for keeping our streets safe accountable.

Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Malliotakis) to further explain this amendment.

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

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Tiffany).

Madam Speaker, I yield an additional 10 seconds to the gentleman.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Burgess).

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

My colleague from Massachusetts continues to use his talking points and mentions the gun lobby, and I want to point out that I hear from many of my constituents who are law-abiding gun owners and who are extremely concerned and oppose this bill.

As a matter of fact, I met with a group of students from my district this morning who oppose this legislation. Even students know that this bill will do nothing to stop gun violence, but they do understand it will trample Second Amendment rights.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Smith).

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

Madam Speaker, we already have gun laws in this country and yet those laws continue to be broken. If Democrats want to talk about common sense, how about we talk about enforcing the laws that already exist.

Communities across the country are making it clear that they want people who commit crimes to be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law; yet, liberal prosecutors are letting criminals go free with minimal punishment. This is not woke. This is dangerous.

Criminals need to be held accountable for their actions, and that is why we offered the PQ we did.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Madam Speaker, why are we here debating legislation we know will never become law, and when there are--completely separate from this proposal--bipartisan efforts going on in the Senate? We know this is not a genuine effort by the Democrats as they went right to extremes of what they know will divide this country, and would not work with Republicans or accept any of the reasonable amendments that were put forward in committee.

This is a political ploy being put on by the Democrats for them to use as talking points, and it is at the expense of a tragedy and the heartache of so many across this country.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Madam Speaker, these bills are not about keeping kids and communities safe from violent criminals, they are about furthering a blanket anti- gun agenda. This is one-size-fits-all gun restriction legislation that would punish law-abiding gun owners and fail to improve public safety. My colleagues on the left know it.

This was not a bipartisan effort and these bills will never make it through the Senate. With very real problems to solve, why are Democrats wasting precious time on something that will never make it into law? If Democrats were serious about addressing gun violence, they would engage in meaningful conversation about public safety instead of this agenda- driven political theater.

The sad fact is that the Democrats' approach demonstrates that these bills and the issue of gun violence on the whole are nothing more than political talking points in an election year. This is designed to advance the radical Democrat base that believes no private citizen should ever be able to own a gun.

They should be ashamed of themselves for putting us through this political show rather than working with Republicans on a bipartisan solution to gun violence.

Madam Speaker, I oppose the rule and I ask Members to do the same. I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank the Representative, Mr. Raskin, for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Today, we are here to discuss a rule providing for consideration of H.R. 903, the Rights for the TSA Workforce Act; H.R. 5129, the Community Services Block Grant Modernization Act of 2022; and H.R. 2499, the Federal Firefighters Fairness Act, which would provide needed benefits to firefighters and other Federal workers suffering from occupation-related diseases and simplifies the process of providing care and benefits for these workers to ensure they will not be caught up in bureaucratic red tape. Finally, the rule provides for consideration of a supplemental appropriation to Ukraine to ensure that they have the necessary funds to counter Russian aggression.

The community services block grant, or CSBG, aims to reduce poverty by improving economic security for low-income individuals and creating economic opportunities in their communities. This program has not been updated since 1998 and is in dire need of reform, but H.R. 5129 fails to accomplish that goal.

It continues to let States set the benchmarks for progress and allows ineffective programs to continue receiving taxpayer dollars.

It increases the income thresholds to 200 percent above the Federal poverty line, stretching Federal resources thinner and effectively robbing those most in need of help.

It allows grantees to use their facilities for voter registration, completely distracting from the program's goal to fight poverty and risking the introduction of partisan activity into nonpartisan efforts.

Worst of all, this bill cuts existing protections for faith-based charities. Without these protections, organizations that have fought poverty for years could be forced to remove their faithful beliefs from their work if they

want to continue providing important poverty relief. Why would we want to limit the number of organizations participating in this cause?

H.R. 903, the Rights for the TSA Workforce Act, has so many flaws, I don't have time to mention them all. This bill goes against Congress' intent when it enacted the Aviation and Transportation Security Act to create the Transportation Security Administration, or the TSA, in November 2001 following the 9/11 terror attacks.

At the time, Congress recognized the importance of providing unique authorities to ensure that TSA could carry out its national security mission. Converting all 60,000 TSA employees into title 5 would limit that flexibility.

Under ATSA, the agency may exercise one-step removal for serious offenses such as intentional security breaches, theft, failure of drug and alcohol tests while on duty, or arrests for certain criminal offenses. Under H.R. 903, an employee who knowingly allows guns or explosives through a security checkpoint may no longer be immediately fired.

Furthermore, under this bill, matters of national security could be negotiable under collective bargaining negotiations. The flexibility that Congress intended for TSA would allow for the imposition of, for example, enhanced screening procedures based on credible threats. Under this bill, the implementation of new security requirements could be subject to negotiation with the union.

If the national security implications are not enough, how about the fact that TSA employees could actually lose benefits under this bill? If H.R. 903 becomes law, employees could lose the ability to trade shifts with one another, donate leave to their colleagues, and receive certain incentive pay. Some overtime pay would be prohibited, and current career milestone bonuses could no longer be offered.

Finally, this bill forces employees to unionize under AFGE specifically so employees wouldn't even get to choose their labor representation. This bill does not allow for an intervening union election and would require the DHS Secretary to consult with AFGE on leave benefits, additional pay, and incentives and bonuses for all TSA employees, now a 60,000-person workforce.

Everyone here, I am sure, is thankful for TSA and wants their employees to be satisfied with their working conditions. But that is a question of Congress prioritizing for that purpose, not an inflexible, forced unionization to appease the majority's base.

I urge my colleagues to heed the recommendations of the Blue Ribbon Panel, a bipartisan group of former officials that strongly recommended against moving TSA personnel under title 5.

Madam Speaker, I oppose the rule and ask Members to do the same. I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the Representative from Texas (Mr. Burgess).

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

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

If we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to immediately consider a bill that would block the Biden administration's effort to establish a so-called Disinformation Governance Board.

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

Madam Speaker, policing of the First Amendment protected speech has no place in this country. Yet, the Biden administration, unsatisfied with their big tech and their mainstream media allies' efforts to control criticism of their disastrous agenda, have decided to propose a government-sanctioned, taxpayer-funded ministry of truth. This not only runs contrary to the values of our Nation but is likely unconstitutional and Congress should play no part in its creation. In fact, Congress should come together to uphold the constitutional principles that the best weapon against speech we don't like is not censure; it is more speech.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Katko) to further speak on the amendment.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Johnson).

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

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Colorado (Mrs. Boebert).

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Pfluger).

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Roy).

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to comment a little bit. There have been some complaints that our speakers on our side of the aisle here are not addressing the issues in Ukraine and the bill that has been presented to us this afternoon. But right now we are talking about the rule, and we are dealing with procedures for what will happen the rest of this week.

This is a rules debate, and we will get to the substance of the issue and the debate on each of the bills that we are talking about right now. I am sure, I know that our Members will be talking about the Ukraine bill and some of the concerns and some of the positives about that bill with all of the time that is allotted for those debates later today. I am sure that there will be great discussion about each of the bills at great length.

In the meantime, there is great concern regarding the Disinformation Governance Board, and I think that this body needs to discuss that. That is why we bring it up.

Mr. Speaker, I oppose the rule and the previous question, I ask Members to do the same, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and, Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Today, we are here to consider a rule providing for consideration of H.R. 3807, the Relief for Restaurants and other Hard Hit Small Businesses Act.

This legislation gives a check to the Small Business Administration without accountability or oversight mechanisms or even taking into account SBA's feedback.

Mr. Speaker, this bill appropriates an additional $55 billion to restaurants and small businesses, none of which is paid for. According to the Congressional Budget Office, as much as $340 billion in unobligated funds from various COVID relief legislation is available for expenditure, but we are not reallocating those. Instead, we would be relying on more deficit spending to provide these sums. Structurally, this bill is not going to work. This is a lot of money, and it seems that Democrats just want to throw it to the wind, because when you look at how the funds are being distributed, this bill will not fix the problem. This is something that could have been addressed had the bill gone through the committee process.

Because this bill is not immediately or responsibly paid for, it would further fuel the inflation crisis, which currently sits at a 40- year high of 7.9 percent. Inflation is the number one problem facing small businesses, according to them. That is what they are saying. Instead of pushing through drastic increases of inflation-inducing deficit spending, we must work together to advance progrowth policies that empower small businesses to operate independently without burdensome restrictions.

I need to point out the political game Democrats are playing this session. They are proposing bills that have titles that make them seem like commonsense bills, but really, they are disingenuous attempts to fix real problems.

This was true of last week's insulin bill, and it is true of this bill. What is worse is they know that they are not coming up with real solutions. That is why we are now looking at yet another bill that has not been through the committee process, there has been no transparency, no opportunity to discuss, no public or minority input, and has real flaws as a result that will only exacerbate the problems my colleagues have created. My Democratic colleagues do not want to negotiate with Republicans or allow any input from anyone to come up with a bill that would actually help people.

It is also why my colleagues did not take up the ENTREE Act, which was introduced last summer, at a time when restaurants really needed it. That bill was also aimed at helping restaurants and small businesses recover from the damage done by the pandemic with proper oversight and constraints and didn't include discriminatory language that prioritized certain groups based on criteria other than need. That eventually, the Supreme Court had to put a stop to.

Now, we need to be focusing on the crises that are going on that are going to become problems for restaurants this year: workforce and inflation. We are still seeing ``help wanted'' signs all over the country. Businesses are desperate for a workforce. Congress needs to stop paying people to stay at home and encourage them to work. And inflation is hitting every single corner of the economy. Between increasing prices on all goods, and the effects we are already starting to feel in the food industry from the Russian invasion of Ukraine, consumers are going to start feeling the pain. And, unfortunately, when you are trying to save money, going out to eat is not one of the first things a family typically does. We need to be getting ahead of these issues, not coming up with insincere attempts under the guise of COVID relief.

Mr. Speaker, I oppose the rule and the underlying bill, and I ask Members to do the same.

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

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

I would just like to mention, we continue to talk about whether or not this is paid for. I respectfully ask: Where is the CBO score? That would answer the question if we actually had done any--put this legislation through any kind of process, through committee, getting the CBO score.

So I would question as to whether or not it was actually all paid for, as my colleague mentions. But I do think that if we had the CBO score, we could decide, finally, if it was paid for or not.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Roy).

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

If we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to provide for consideration of Congresswoman McMorris Rodgers and Congressman Westerman's American Energy Independence from Russia Act.

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

Mr. Speaker, for the fifth time, Republicans ask their colleagues to consider this bill. The average price at the pump two days before President Biden took office was $2.38 per gallon. They have been steadily climbing ever since.

On February 14, 6 days before the Russian invasion of Ukraine, the average price for per gallon was $3.49. These prices are affecting every single American.

When adjusted for the increasing prices on all goods, thanks to failed Democrat policies, wages and salaries are below pre-pandemic levels. My constituents are pleading with Congress to focus on this issue and are being ignored by the out-of-touch majority.

Now, for the fifth time, House Republicans are urging the majority to immediately bring relief at the pump now. While my colleagues continue to bring flawed, misguided, and unvetted legislation to the floor, House Republicans stand ready to work on issues that directly affect American's pocketbooks.

To further explain the amendment, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Cammack).

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that my colleague from New York would love to have the conversation, would love to have the conversation in the appropriate venue, and I think we would also love to have that conversation, particularly in a committee if we could hear the bill. But the majority has chosen to shut out almost every single Republican bill and not hold hearings where that would be the appropriate venue.

For now, I suggest to my colleague from New York that he talk to his leadership about actually hearing this bill in committee, having the conversation, and having the transparency and the input that we could from the public. Until that time, Mr. Speaker, this is our venue.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Carl).

Mr. Speaker, with all due respect, restaurants and small businesses are facing difficulties, and one of those challenges is high energy costs. Delivery costs go up. It costs more for their employees to get to work. It costs more for all of those things because of high energy costs. So this does affect restaurants and small businesses. I think this affects restaurants, small businesses, and every American.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Obernolte).

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

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

Mr. Speaker, in closing, I appreciate that my colleague from New York talks about an extraneous issue. But gas prices and the cost of energy in America is a serious issue, and it is facing every American. Every American is paying more at the pump, and they are facing the decision in their family budget of how they are going to use that.

In 2020, the last administration added 30 million barrels of oil to the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. Now the Biden administration is weighing a plan to release roughly 1 million barrels of oil a day from this reserve for months on end, and this is after he released 30 million barrels in early March

and 50 million barrels of oil back in November which did nothing to prevent a spike in energy prices.

Congresswoman McMorris Rodgers and Congressman Westerman have introduced the American Energy Independence Act to reverse President Biden's disastrous anti-American energy policies. This bill is a real solution, and it needs to be heard. We need to talk about this to the American people.

This bill, H.R. 3807, that we have before us is not going to help restaurants and small businesses. But, of course, that is not the Democrats' intention anyway. If it were, they would have brought this bill through committee and worked with Republicans to build an effective piece of legislation.

Instead, their intention is to push this legislation through that sounds good so that they can use it as a talking point to distract from their failed policies. This bill is just another example of the Democrats' reckless spending habits. Their solution to the effects of inflation is to throw even more money at it.

When will my colleagues learn that spending is what causes the inflation?

It is time for more pro-growth policies, not government handouts.

Mr. Speaker, I oppose the rule and the underlying bill, I ask Members to do the same, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the Representative from Colorado for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Today, we are here to consider House Resolution 1017, a rule providing for consideration of H.R. 6833 and H.R. 3617. This rule makes in order no Republican amendments, completely ignoring the flaws of each underlying bill and the thoughtful concerns raised by my colleagues. Not only do my colleagues not want to debate these issues, but they also don't appear to even want to acknowledge them.

First, I want to address H.R. 6833, the Affordable Insulin Now Act, which would require health insurers to cover selected insulin products without applying any deductible or imposing any cost-sharing in excess of $35.

This bill is just a partisan exercise that will only reshuffle the decks for how patients pay for insulin. It is not a serious attempt to address rising prices. The price controls in this legislation would be an expansive intervention into the free market and will most likely lead to an increase in premiums for everyone.

Let's not forget, one of the reasons drug prices are rising is because of Washington and the majority's runaway spending leading to the greatest deficits in American history. Instead of admitting that their wildly expensive spending bills have caused inflation, my colleagues claim that companies have suddenly decided now is the time to raise prices arbitrarily.

Congress cannot keep dumping money into the economy and then blaming American companies for the problems it creates. We need to be focusing on getting our debt under control and stop the war on American industry so that we can reduce prices not just on drugs but on everything.

Furthermore, addressing only insulin establishes a problematic precedent and fails to take into account the high prices associated with countless other necessary drugs, like those for cancer, heart disease, and a slew of other conditions.

A sincere attempt by Congress to solve this problem would be to focus on ways to reduce pricing through market-based forces. For example, Republicans on the Energy and Commerce Committee have offered several proposals which would improve price transparency so that Americans could see the real cost of their drugs and make choices accordingly.

Instead of working with Republicans to advance these solutions, the majority has yet again elected a go-it-alone approach that has yet to achieve any results for the American people.

Next is H.R. 3617, the Marijuana Opportunity Reinvestment and Expungement Act, a broad bill that would remove pot from the list of scheduled substances under the Controlled Substances Act and eliminate criminal penalties for individuals who manufacture, distribute, or possess marijuana. This rule makes no Republican amendments in order, which is proof that the Democrats just want to push this bill as a messaging bill.

That said, there are several concerns with this bill. First, it fails to set any standards to prevent marijuana use by those most vulnerable to abuse: minors. In fact, back in September, when Mr. Fitzgerald offered an amendment to alter the definition of the term ``minor'' to align with other provisions of U.S. Code, the majority voted against it.

Without this amendment, crucial protections for our youth are left out of this bill. In committee, I even offered a motion to consider an amendment that would maintain existing penalties for selling pot to minors. It was defeated along party lines, a stunning position for Democrats to take.

But not only does this bill legalize pot; it creates a new government program to assist people in opening pot stores. Let me repeat that: This bill creates a government program to help people open pot stores.

This bill also ignores the issue of driving under the influence, even though driving under the influence of marijuana can have deadly consequences, something law enforcement officers across America have warned about.

Additionally, what happens if an illegal immigrant is arrested for driving under the influence of marijuana? This is not addressed.

Republicans on the committee sought to ensure that this bill would not impede the deportation of illegal immigrants who have been arrested for driving under the influence. That was also rejected along party lines.

There are so many issues our constituents are facing today. Yet, we are here, spending time considering legislation to legalize pot that is not only flawed, but it is also dangerous.

We could be working on lowering gas prices, tackling the snowballing Federal debt, or addressing the inflation affecting every American today. But instead, I guess the majority wants us to get as high as today's gas prices and spend tax dollars on pot stores.

Mr. Speaker, I oppose the rule and the underlying bill. I ask Members to do the same, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to provide for consideration of Congresswoman McMorris Rodgers and Congressman Westerman's American Energy Independence from Russia Act.

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

Mr. Speaker, while the majority is continuing to prioritize things like legalizing marijuana, constituents in my district continue to send me photos of their energy bills and the prices they are paying at the gas pumps.

Since President Biden took office, gasoline prices are up by more than 50 percent, natural gas is up more than 25 percent, and diesel fuel is up more than 47 percent. These price increases are on top of crippling, record-high inflation that is a tax on the American people of every stripe, class, and creed.

When adjusted for these factors, wages and salaries are below prepandemic levels. My constituents are pleading with Congress to focus on this issue and are being ignored by the out-of-touch majority.

Mr. Speaker, to speak further on the previous question, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Hern).

Mr. Speaker, I join the gentleman from Massachusetts and the entire body in congratulating Ms. Fields on her retirement and thank her for her service.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Colorado (Mrs. Boebert).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Bucshon).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Moore).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Arrington).

Mr. Speaker, the American people should be asking-- no, they should be demanding--that this body address energy independence. But the majority refuses to hear or even discuss the Republican solution that we have been talking about. Instead, we do have before us today a bill to legalize pot.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Tiffany).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Stauber).

No, I do not, and I am prepared to close.

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

Mr. Speaker, I continue to be disappointed in the priorities of my colleagues. They have chosen to spend precious time that could be spent addressing the national debt, inflation, gas prices, or any number of serious issues facing Americans today. Instead, they chose to talk about legalizing marijuana and spending tax dollars on pot stores-- which does not take into consideration important elements like how to protect minors or how to address laws surrounding driving under the influence--and an insincere attempt to address the rising cost of insulin.

Mr. Speaker, I oppose the rule and the underlying bills, I ask Members to do the same, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

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

Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize Todd and Louise Malecha, the 2022 winners of Farm Journal's Top Producer of the Year award.

Located in the heart of Minnesota's Seventh Congressional District in Villard, Minnesota, Malecha Enterprises is a multi-generational, family-run dairy, pumping, and custom work operation.

Both Todd and Louise grew up on dairy farms, and now five of their seven children are in the family business. Louise loves being able to see the next generation getting involved and taking up the reins.

Their company values include integrity, trust, and a commitment to constant and never-ending improvement. With values like that, it is no wonder they received such a prestigious award.

Congratulations to the Malechas for this impressive achievement.

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

Today, we are here to discuss H.R. 2116, which would clarify that it is a Federal crime to discriminate based on an individual's hair. But we are also here to discuss H.R. 963, the FAIR Act, which bans arbitration clauses in private contracts.

H.R. 963 makes it clear: The intention is to remove arbitration as a legal tool for the American people while preserving arbitration with an exemption for labor unions. The belief is that the American people need Washington watching over their private contracts. I assure you, those in Minnesota's Seventh District do not need them.

The bill purports to ban forced arbitration. This is misleading rhetoric. Forced or involuntary agreements are already illegal. So, what would this bill really do?

It would insert the Federal Government into the private contracts of citizens and remove their ability to settle disputes outside of the courtroom through predispute arbitration agreements.

This bill pretends to empower plaintiffs, but by voiding arbitration clauses in the context outlined in the bill, it would effectively end most arbitration entirely, even when that arbitration would benefit those most impacted.

Because the bill fundamentally changes an arbitration clause from a mutual commitment to use an alternative dispute resolution method into a one-sided election for an injured party, contracts will be far less likely to include the option to arbitrate.

If parties cannot agree in advance to arbitrate, the plaintiff may never have access to arbitration. These unintended consequences will have real-life implications, especially for those who lack deep pockets and do not have the possibility of a high-dollar settlement that some of the more affluent individuals do.

Democrats are also ignoring how arbitration is generally a good way to resolve disputes. They seem to assume that all arbitration is secret, that arbitration automatically keeps individuals from going to the authorities or publicizing their experiences. But agreeing to resolve a case outside of court is different than agreeing to silence.

That distinction matters here because much of the push for this bill comes from concern about secrecy rather than whether justice can be served in the arbitration context. And despite that emphasis, the bill does not actually address confidentiality or nondisclosure agreements.

Additionally, arbitration is often less expensive and more efficient than litigation. It tends to be less adversarial, which allows parties to continue doing business together after the dispute is resolved. That is why so many Americans choose to enter into contracts with arbitration clauses in them.

Voting for this rule is a vote for a bill empowering Washington to micromanage the business life of Americans. Voting for this rule is to take away freedoms from Americans. Congress should stand ready to improve the legal system, and we must make sure that whatever we do will actually be an improvement for the American people.

I urge my colleagues to oppose the rule and the underlying bills.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. If we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to provide for consideration of Congresswoman McMorris Rodgers' and Congressman Westerman's American Energy Independence from Russia Act.

I ask unanimous consent to include the text of my amendment in the Record along with extraneous materials immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Madam Speaker, while the majority is continuing their agenda of misguided woke policies, constituents in my district continue to send me photos of their energy bills and prices they are paying at the pump.

Since President Biden took office, gasoline prices are up more than 50 percent, natural gas is up more than 25 percent, and diesel fuel is up more than 47 percent. These price increases are on top of crippling, unprecedented inflation. They are attacks on Americans of every stripe, class, and creed.

When adjusted for these factors, wages and salaries are actually below prepandemic levels. My constituents are pleading with the majority to focus on this issue rather than the idealism filled with Green New Deal pipe dreams.

To further explain the amendment, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Duncan).

Madam Speaker, under the Trump administration, the U.S. became a net exporter of petroleum for the first time since 1958.

Under President Biden's leadership, starting with the revocation of the Keystone XL pipeline, the U.S. is back to being a net importer of petroleum and is expected to continue through this year. This is unacceptable, and our constituents are paying dearly for it.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from South Dakota (Mr. Johnson).

Madam Speaker, every action the Biden administration has taken since Keystone's cancelation has increased our foreign dependency on oil. June 2021, 5 months after canceling Keystone, the Biden administration suspends leasing of ANWR. Three months later, the White House calls on OPEC to boost oil production. Two months after that, the Biden administration stopped efforts to modernize the NEPA permitting process for domestic extraction.

Every action this majority has taken is directly responsible for the prices

consumers are seeing today. Fortunately, the solution to this problem is very simple.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Johnson).

Madam Speaker, the prices American consumers are paying at the pump is directly affected by how much oil is produced domestically. Canceling American oil production jobs, while seeking it from dictators, is not only nonsensical, but it also is against our national interest.

I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gooden).

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

Madam Speaker, how long will the House continue to attack the basic freedoms of the American people? It is not for Congress in Washington or some bureaucrat to tell the American people what they can and cannot do when revolving disputes. That is, frankly, none of their business.

If they want to agree to an arbitration clause before a dispute arises, that is for the American people to decide and not Washington, who think they know better than the American people.

It is not our job to micromanage the lives of our constituents. It is our job to safeguard their freedom.

We need to consider the unintended consequences of this legislation. There are many policies in this well-intentioned bill, but if it becomes law, contracts will be far less likely to include the option to arbitrate. This may not be an issue for people with deeper pockets and the ability to hire attorneys, but it will be a concern for those who do not have the option of a high-dollar settlement.

We must also keep in mind that sometimes arbitration is the best way to solve disputes. This is just one of the many aspects of this bill that needs to be reconsidered before we can move forward.

I oppose this bill, and encourage my colleagues to do the same. Everyone has the best intentions.

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

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

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

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I thank my colleague from New York for yielding me the customary 30 minutes.

We are here today to discuss H.R. 4445. Sexual harassment and sexual assault are despicable actions. Victims of sexual harassment and assault must have their claims heard, and they should not be silenced or intimidated into silence.

The Judiciary Committee heard important testimony from victims of sexual harassment and assault. It took real courage for those victims to tell their stories to us. What those women, and many more women around the country, have had to face is terrible, and sexual harassment should not be tolerated.

H.R. 4445 would not make victims better off. And no matter how well- intentioned the bill may be, it raises real policy concerns.

The committee received testimony from experts explaining the bill's

flaws. For example, this bill's supporters seem to assume that all arbitration is secret, that arbitration automatically keeps victims from going to the authorities or publicizing their experiences.

That is not accurate. Arbitration is not intrinsically secret or otherwise confidential. Put simply, agreeing to resolve a case outside of court is different than agreeing to silence.

That distinction matters today because much of the argument for this bill comes from concerns about secrecy rather than whether justice can be served in the arbitration context.

Despite that emphasis, H.R. 4445 does not actually address confidentiality or nondisclosure agreements. Even if this bill is enacted, it is still possible that separate contract provisions could be used to impose confidentiality or keep details about an employer under wraps.

But in all likelihood, this bill would effectively end most arbitration in these contexts, even when arbitration would benefit a victim, because the bill fundamentally changes an arbitration clause from a mutual commitment to use an alternative dispute resolution into a one-sided election for an injured party.

If H.R. 4445 becomes law, contracts will be far less likely to include the option to arbitrate. If parties cannot agree in advance to arbitrate, the plaintiffs may never have access to arbitration. These unintended consequences will have real-world implications, especially for victims who lack deep pockets or do not have the possibility for a high-dollar settlement that some high-profile cases can obtain.

Lawsuits are often long and expensive, and big corporations have more resources to litigate than most victims. Litigation can be harrowing for victims who, in traditional litigation, must submit to rigorous discovery, depositions, or perhaps even the challenges of a public trial. And it may even be harder for victims to tell their stories in litigation and get justice, given the rules of evidence that may apply.

Democrats cast aside these concerns, and they ignore how arbitration is generally a good way to resolve disputes.

Why are some in Congress so intent on taking this legislation forward today? For years, Democrats have tried to gut arbitration agreements for all kinds of different claims and plaintiffs. If Democrats had their way, everyone--from consumers to civil rights plaintiffs, to those with antitrust claims, to individuals using financial service products, and others--would not be able to contract in advance to resolve disputes through arbitration. Instead, they would be forced into the courts.

Congress should stand ready to improve the legal system, but we must make sure that whatever Congress does will actually be an improvement. What we have before us today is Congress changing existing and agreed- to contracts.

I have real concerns about government retroactively nullifying existing contractual agreements, no matter how well-intentioned it is.

I urge you all to carefully consider the ramifications of H.R. 4445.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Griffith).

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Gaetz).

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Buck).

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio.

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

Madam Speaker, we must consider the unintended consequences of H.R. 4445. This bill has good intentions. We all want to help victims of sexual harassment, but this bill is not going to accomplish that. There are many policy concerns in this piece of legislation.

I want to say again: What we have before us today is that Congress is changing existing and agreed-to contracts. I have real concerns about government retroactively nullifying existing contractual agreements.

If H.R. 4445 becomes law, contracts will be far less likely to include any option to arbitrate. This is a concern for victims who do not have the resources to pursue high-dollar settlements. We must also keep in mind that sometimes arbitration is the best way to solve disputes.

Arbitration does not void an individual's constitutional rights under the Seventh Amendment. This is just one of the many, many aspects of this bill that needs to be reconsidered before we can confidently move forward.

Madam Speaker, I oppose this bill, and I encourage my colleagues to do the same until we address the concerns surrounding this bill.

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

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

Madam Speaker, I thank the representative from North Carolina (Ms. Ross) for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, today we are being asked to discuss House Resolution 4445, a bill that will do nothing to bring justice to victims of sexual harassment, and it could be argued that it would make the process worse. We are also discussing H.R. 3485, a duplicative messaging bill on human rights. The most bizarre bill we are looking at today is the American concedes act.

This is yet another bill that was thrown together behind closed doors and with no bipartisan input, and now we are expected to hastily dig through this lengthy document on short notice. Luckily, it does not take long to see all that is wrong with this bill.

We are supposed to believe the intention of the bill is to counter China's economic aggression, but it does not even contain the word ``China'' in the title. This bill is actually just a long list of Progressive dream policies that have nothing to do with China at all. To illustrate, the words ``coral reef'' appears more times in this legislation than China does.

What is worse is that that bill contains certain policies that would help China because it will hurt American companies. The bill's $52 billion in subsidies for the semiconductor industry would allow for a chip company working with the Chinese Communist Party to be eligible for those funds. The bill that supposedly combats China's economic aggression could actually send taxpayer funds to subsidize CCP's semiconductor industry.

We could pass meaningful export and control policies. We could impose sanctions on the United Front Work Department, or even start with funding existing sanction enforcement at the Office of the Foreign Asset Control in the Treasury.

We could completely ban Federal funding for colleges and universities that host Confucius Institutes. Instead, we are here to consider a bill that may actually be more detrimental for America than it is for China. I have to highlight some of the contradictions in this bill that so perfectly sum up the hypocrisy of the House Democrats and the administration.

This bill includes the Reclaiming the Solar Supply Chain Act of 2021. My colleagues claim this will decrease energy reliance on China and will be better for the environment by subsidizing solar panel manufacturing. However, the left is also attacking domestic production of the minerals required to make these panels.

We saw this just last week when the Biden administration canceled leases for a Minnesota company mining for critical minerals vital to domestic production of solar panels. The result is the U.S. is being forced to outsource these materials to China. China, who is the largest emitter of greenhouse gases in the world and uses inhumane labor practices. How can we reclaim the solar supply chain while outsourcing these very jobs to China?

This bill also requires U.S. implementation of the Paris Climate Agreement, but does not require the same of China. Another provision that makes it harder for American businesses to compete with unregulated Chinese competitors.

This bill reflects the patterns of this administration. They claim we need to address climate change now, but then delay compliance with the renewable fuel standard that provides lower-emission fuel for our vehicle fleet. They cancel our domestic pipeline construction while allowing our adversaries to keep theirs. They don't mind activities that hurt the environment as long as the U.S. is keeping it in someone else's backyard, all while forcing American businesses to follow their restrictions.

The majority of Americans agree, China is our biggest threat. We need good legislation to counter that threat. This bill proves the Democrats do not take this threat seriously.

It has taken any decent policy options on the subject and buried them in a poison bills trying to push policy to cater to their Progressive base. We need to put forward a real bill that has gone through the appropriate committee process to include Republican input. Only then will we have legislation that deals with these issues seriously.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Burgess).

Madam Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Reschenthaler), who is an esteemed member of the Rules Committee.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Kim), who is my fellow freshman.

Madam Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule allowing for the immediate consideration of H.R. 6184, the HALT Fentanyl Act.

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

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

Over 100,000 people died from fentanyl overdoses in a 1-year span, according to the CDC. That is a 30 percent increase from the year before. I think we can all agree that something must be done to put a stop to this heartbreaking epidemic.

Fentanyl has been temporarily classified as a schedule I substance. This classification strengthens law enforcement's ability to prosecute fentanyl traffickers, and the DEA reports that it has acted as an effective deterrent. The temporary classification is set to expire on February 18, 2022.

The HALT Fentanyl Act would make the schedule classification permanent and would also promote research by removing regulation to streamline the research process. We should do everything we possibly can to put an end to the devastation caused by fentanyl in this country. And the HALT Fentanyl Act is one piece of the puzzle that could make a real difference.

To further explain this amendment, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Griffith), the author of the bill.

Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Cammack).

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I am prepared to close unless the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Ross) has other speakers.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Madam Speaker, this bill is another attempt to force the far-left agenda. Only this time, the Democrats are using the very real threats we are facing from China in order to do it. Rather than focus attention on real action that can be taken against China, this bill has been pumped full of policies around climate change and other progressive dreams.

My colleagues on the other side of the aisle need to open their eyes to the reality of the threat that China poses and not use important pieces of legislation to push their agenda.

Madam Speaker, I oppose the rule and the underlying bills, and I ask Members to do the same. I yield back the balance of my time.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my great friend, Mr. Smith, and a great fighter for life for many years, and we appreciate all of his work on that.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to mark the 49th anniversary of the Roe v. Wade tragedy and to remember the more than 60 million unborn lives it has taken and the tragic, irreversible mark it has left on countless mothers, fathers, and families.

Every innocent life is precious, from conception until natural death, but for nearly five decades abortion has remained one of the greatest tragedies of our Nation.

The Supreme Court now has the opportunity to right some of the terrible wrongs committed in this country against the unborn since Roe v. Wade. I pray for our Justices, that they make the right decision, for many lives will depend on it.

We will continue to fight for the lives of unborn children.

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

Madam Speaker, today we were informed by the majority at the last minute that we would be brought in to discuss the NASA Enhanced Use Leasing Extension Act of 2021, which was amended by the Senate and will be amended yet again here in the House, if this rule passes.

I don't think anyone here is surprised by yet another last-minute meeting, but I am starting to feel the effects from all of the whiplash over the last year. This time, House Democrats seek to insert the Freedom to Vote Act and the Voting Rights Advancement Act as a last- ditch effort to cater to the Senate majority's sporadic attempts to get something passed for their radical base, even though we all know neither of these bills will pass through the Senate.

House Democrats and Senator Schumer still need bipartisan support for this partisan bill. And certain other Senators in their party have yet to cede to the fringe of their party and go nuclear on a longstanding Senate principle, the filibuster. Whatever the thought process behind this effort tonight, it is disappointing that it is yet another deeply partisan attempt to Federalize all elections.

Madam Speaker, the Constitution places the responsibility for elections at the State level and has a long history of letting each State run their own elections. But H.R. 4, a component of this bill, would grant the Federal Government unprecedented control over State and local elections. It would empower the Attorney General to bully States and force them to seek Federal approval before making changes to their own voting laws.

Madam Speaker, this is an assault on the rights of States and local governments to manage their own elections. The right to vote is one of our most fundamental rights as citizens. It is upsetting to see the majority take advantage of this important issue because they are so desperate to maintain their power. This can be seen almost explicitly in the Freedom to Vote Act, which includes a new campaign finance provision that would ensure certain candidates receive millions of dollars in public funding for running a campaign.

The majority does not discuss this provision very often, but do the American people really want public dollars to go to fund campaigns?

State oversight in elections is important. Like so many things, the majority fails to recognize what works best for one State is not necessarily going to work in another State or across the

country. States know what practices work best for their voters, as they have done throughout history. It was not hard to find many flaws in this bill, and I was able to do so with less than an hour's time. But I remained disappointed in the priorities and practices of this majority.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

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

Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Burgess).

Madam Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, Republicans will offer an amendment to the rule allowing for the immediate consideration of H. Res. 866.

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

Madam Speaker, this resolution states clearly that the right to vote is fundamental to democracy, and that legitimate elections are those which are safe from foreign interference, including illegal votes from foreigners.

The resolution denounces the practice by some cities in America of giving the right to vote to noncitizens, including foreigners who have violated our laws by being here illegally in the U.S.

The resolution states firmly that the House of Representatives recognizes that allowing illegal immigrants the right to vote devalues the vote of every United States citizen.

Madam Speaker, I present this amendment, and I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Rodney Davis).

Madam Speaker, I would like to remind my colleague from Massachusetts that I believe in 2016 he also objected to certification of the election. It doesn't always sound like that when he speaks about the objections.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Johnson).

Madam Speaker, I just want to remind everyone that the issue here is the Federal takeover of elections. The statement that was made was about someone objecting to the certification and how that was somehow wrong. I just wanted to simply remind my colleague that he himself had voted that way and many of the Democrats have, over the years, voted to object to certification.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Tenney).

Madam Speaker, I yield the gentlewoman an additional 20 seconds.

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

I have not heard any compelling arguments for pushing either of these bills forward because the flaws are clear. We cannot create a one-size- fits-all election system imposed from Washington that requires States to provide automatic same-day voter registration, prevents States from removing dormant voters from rolls, and overrides State ID laws.

The Freedom to Vote Act would also guarantee public dollars would go into certain candidates' coffers. This is all nothing more than a partisan play for the Democrats to federalize all of America's elections. They are pushing it because they think it will help them stay in power. Historically, States have had oversight of their own elections.

While there is always room for improvement, let's keep the Federal Government out of it and leave the States to handle their own elections, as has been done in the past.

I oppose the rule and the underlying bill, and I urge my colleagues to do the same.

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Maryland and from the Rules Committee for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, once again, the select committee is acting to fulfill a predetermined narrative. It seems increasingly clear that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle want to prolong this political process to distract Americans from the very real issues concerning this country.

We have record-high inflation, a flood of immigrants at our southern border, a workforce and supply chain crisis, and instead of working toward real ways we can combat these crises, or, in fact, even admitting that these crises exist, we are back here, arguing if we should continue down a path of yet another partisan investigation of questionable motive and purpose.

That said, there are several questions that need to be resolved before we can continue with this vote. The courts have found that the power rests with Congress over subpoenas to private individuals if they serve a legitimate legislative purpose.

A legitimate legislative purpose would be issuing subpoenas to the leaders of the D.C. National Guard and the Sergeant at Arms so that we can find out what gaps in communications and authorities need to be filled and find solutions to ensure this doesn't happen again.

But have those been issued? Unfortunately not. Instead, House Democrats are continuing their witch hunt into President Trump and their political opponents who voted against the certification of the election, something that they themselves did just 4 years before.

What information is intended to be gathered that would be useful for a legitimate legislative purpose? It seems the majority keeps moving the goalposts for what qualifies them to hold someone in contempt.

This recipient has been cooperative, providing almost 9,000 pages of emails and other documents. But when the majority couldn't find what they wanted, the committee subpoenaed Verizon, looking for other information from his personal phone, invading his privacy.

There is no valid legislative purpose for this subpoena. Where does it stop? When will they be satisfied with the information they receive? They cannot continue punishing people just because they aren't getting the answers that they want.

Furthermore, criminal contempt is not subpoena enforcement. This decision will still not achieve the stated intent of obtaining the records.

The committee should seek a civil judgment and legally obligate a person to comply with the subpoena. Instead, my colleagues are going forward with this political ploy. Holding someone in criminal contempt is purely punitive. It leads me to wonder what the real mission of this committee is.

Unfortunately, Speaker Pelosi and the Democrats made it clear early on that this committee and its investigation were predestined to be a sham

when it tilted representation in favor of Democrats, rejecting two Republican Members selected to serve on the commission by the minority leader.

Mr. Speaker, I am deeply concerned about the precedent being set today because the majority is blinded by their own political agenda. I urge my colleagues to oppose this rule and the underlying resolution.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, Republicans will offer an amendment to the rule to provide for the additional consideration of H.R. 2729, the Finish the Wall Act, authored by Representative Higgins.

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

Mr. Speaker, while the majority is playing their political games in Washington, a real crisis situation at our southern border remains. Illegal immigration is at a record high, and there are real human costs associated with that.

Between the dangerous journey to get to our border and the dangerous people coming across and continuing to commit crimes, people are dying in huge numbers because of this crisis.

It is no secret that fentanyl is coming across the southern border. This year, Border Patrol has seized twice as much of this deadly drug as last year, and more than 100,000 Americans have died from overdoses.

Because we essentially have an open border, there is no way to effectively keep criminals from crossing into our country.

Immigrants need to know there is a process for becoming an American and doing it in the wrong way will have consequences.

Finishing the wall would be a huge deterrent for these bad actors. We must finish the wall to slow the massive numbers of illegal immigrants we are seeing before we can have a serious conversation about immigration reform.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Tony Gonzales).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New Mexico (Ms. Herrell).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Garbarino.)

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Mrs. Miller).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New Mexico (Ms. Herrell).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Bishop).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Georgia (Mrs. Greene).

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

Mr. Speaker, this select committee is clearly operating outside the realm of its intended purpose.

They do not like the information they are receiving, and they know they aren't getting anywhere. So, instead, they criminally punish those who they politically disagree with.

There isn't adequate minority representation, and because of that, the majority has been able to turn the committee into a vehicle to push their own narrative. It is clearly more interested in pursuing a partisan agenda to politicize the January 6 attack rather than conducting a legitimate, good-faith investigation into security failures leading up to that day.

Again, this is nothing more than an attempt by the Democrats to distract from the very real issues facing Americans every day. I look forward to getting back to the real work of solving the supply chain crisis, reclaiming American energy production, and empowering U.S. citizens to live their lives without government interference.

Mr. Speaker, I oppose the rule and the underlying legislation, and I urge my colleagues to do the same.

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