Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.

I rise in strong support of this and the other two bills that we will vote on, the Oversight and Reform Committee bills that we are considering this week. Not only will they make government more accountable to the people it serves, they are also a testament to the extraordinary work and dedication to service of the committee's chairwoman, my friend, Carolyn Maloney.

She leaves Congress at the end of this year after an accomplishment of three decades in office. During that time, she has been a champion, not only for New York, but for all those across the country who cherish good government and the causes of justice, opportunity, and equality for which she has worked so very, very hard.

Few in the history of the Congress have worked on behalf of the consumers in a more dedicated and effective fashion than Chairwoman Carolyn Maloney.

Today, she continues that service by offering, on behalf of her committee, these three bills. I make particular mention of the bill authored by Chairman Gerry Connolly of the Government Operations Subcommittee, which has been strongly supported by Chairwoman Maloney and their colleagues and the committee's majority.

I, too, strongly support this effort, which would protect the nonpartisan

nature of our civil service by ensuring that Presidents cannot simply fire Federal workers by reclassifying them as ``schedule F'' employees. That is what the previous President suggested. That is what his supporters are suggesting now.

And they are suggesting, not only that, but they are going to put people in place who want to follow their political edicts, legal or not. They made it quite clear they want to eliminate what they call the deep state.

The deep state is a cadre of professionals dedicated to honoring the Constitution, the laws of this country, and carrying out the policies of the Congress and the President.

By the way, it is the Congress that makes policy, under the Constitution, under Article I. It is the executive that carries out policies. Now, Presidents of both parties want to be policymakers also. I get that. It is a nonpartisan desire of Presidents.

But our Founders but, more importantly, those who adopted the Civil Service Reform Act and have made amendments subsequent to that, and a majority of the Congress of the United States, both parties, thought that it was in the interest of citizens to have a professional cadre of employees, not subject to political pressure, or whim, or edict, but subject to following the law and carrying out the policies of this country.

We must guard against a future President taking that dangerous step of making them employees at will. Frankly, we have had a very stark example of a President whose will was inconsistent with American principles.

We must not return to the kind of patronage system that fueled corruption and partisanship before the civil service reforms of the late 19th century.

The other two bills authored by Chairwoman Maloney are equally necessary and beneficial to the American people. The first would further protect whistleblowers against retaliation; and the second would protect the nonpartisan nature of the U.S. Census, prescribed by our Constitution, and so vital to equal representation.

When we passed whistleblower legislation and protections, we did so because we wanted people to be able to come forward and say the emperor has no clothes. The policies being pursued are being done inefficiently. The policies being pursued are wasting money. The policies being pursued are illegal.

That is why we protect whistleblowers, because it is in the interest of our citizens, of our country, and our laws and, by the way, in the interest of Congress, so that people can come forward to those of us who make policy, who appropriate money, to be told the policies that you passed are not being followed, or the money you dedicated is not being spent in the way you purposed it. So these bills are critically important.

And by the way, the Constitution says, count everybody. That is what the Constitution says. The Supreme Court said that is what it said. Not just my friends; not just the people who like me; count everybody.

And by the way, if you are going to change the rules, tell the Congress, and tell us before it is too late for us to do anything about it. That is all this bill says. This bill ought to be overwhelmingly supported by both sides of the aisle.

Very frankly, if you have a deep state, you would think you would want to make sure that the Congress is the one that sets the policies of who is counted and not counted and how it is counted.

President Lincoln famously described ours as a ``government of the people, by the people, and for the people.''

These bills, like the work of Chairwoman Maloney, throughout her career in public service, will help us keep it that way.

I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support these bills.

And in closing, once again, I congratulate Carolyn Maloney of New York for her dedicated, extraordinarily effective service to the people of New York, people of her city, the people of this country. She has been an extraordinary Member of this institution and has made us better.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Louisiana for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, on Monday, the House will meet at 12 p.m. for morning hour and 2 p.m. for legislative business, and votes will be postponed until 6:30 p.m.

On Tuesday and Wednesday, the House will meet at 10 a.m. for morning hour and 12 p.m. for legislative business.

On Thursday, the House will meet at 9 a.m. for legislative business.

Next week, Mr. Speaker, the House will consider S. 1098, the Joint Consolidation Loan Separation Act, bipartisan legislation sponsored by Representative David Price and Senator Mark Warner to provide relief to borrowers who need to separate their joint consolidation student loans. This legislation would greatly benefit the individual borrowers who are most in need of relief, including victims of abuse.

The House may also consider a continuing resolution. As all of us know, on September 30, at midnight, the government's ability to fund and operate goes out of authorization; therefore, it is necessary for us to take action before September 30, and we may do that next week.

The House may also consider legislation to reform the Electoral Count Act from Representatives Zoe Lofgren and Liz Cheney.

The House will consider bills under suspension of the rules. The complete list of suspension bills will be announced by the close of business tomorrow.

As is usual, as we come very close to ending and then have a substantial period of time, October and the first and second week in November for the election, it is common that we may have other pieces of legislation, Mr. Speaker, available and necessary to pass. We will notify Members as soon as we have that information.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Obviously, that is a good question and a good thing to have.

The appropriators are working through the administration's list of anomalies, which I know there are three or four items dealing with health and also dealing with Ukraine and a couple of other matters. I don't have that list in front of me, but the answer to my friend's question is that they are trying to get that together.

I think they are pretty close. I will talk to Chair DeLauro. I presume she is in conversation with and discussions with the ranking member, as well, but I am sure that that is the case.

There is also, I believe, money also being asked for for disaster relief that may well be in the CR.

The gentleman referred to the discussions that occurred in the Senate between Senator Manchin and Majority Leader Schumer. Obviously, we are going to see what the Senate does. I don't know what the Senate is going to do. It is one of the reasons there has been a discussion about the Senate moving first on that and discussions with the Senator about when they were going to move. I think that is under discussion.

If I might add, I want to make the gentleman aware--and I know he is--but I want to make the Members aware that we will need to be here for such time as it takes us to pass the continuing resolution so that government will continue to operate. It is essential for the economy, essential for our national security, and essential for the employees, but it is also essential for all those whom they serve on a daily basis.

I have told my Members in some discussions about what we are going to do the last week in September. I have told my Members, and we also would make clear to all of our Members, including the Members on my friend's side of the aisle, that they ought to be making sure that the last 3 weekdays of November and that Saturday they ought to keep clear so that if, in fact, we need to work during those periods of times--and my expectation is we are going to have to--that they not be canceling events that they scheduled. So, being on notice, I think, will be fair to them and fair to anybody that we are scheduling with.

I could not agree with the gentleman more. I think I am probably just as frustrated.

I know the members of the Appropriations Committee are as frustrated as anybody in this institution. As someone who served on the Appropriations Committee for 23 years, we ought to be passing bills in a timely fashion. We ought to be passing them one at a time. We ought not to have these gigantic omnibuses that nobody knows about.

Both sides have had to prepare two omnibuses at the end of the year to fund government because we haven't passed individual appropriation bills in a timely fashion either through the House or the Senate or through the House and the Senate to the President. So, I agree with the gentleman entirely.

I agree also that we ought to give everybody as much notice as we possibly can. I will tell the gentleman, frankly, I was hopeful that we would have passed the CR this week. For reasons that are, I think, obvious to everybody, we haven't done that. But I am hopeful that we can do it sooner rather than later and don't have some September 30 crisis that we seem to always create.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I, obviously, anticipated that question. I thought about it, and I want to say to the Members my thoughts that I, frankly, talk about all over the country.

We passed a number of bills. Inflation is hurting our people. Inflation was not caused by President Biden or this Congress. Inflation was caused by the pandemic.

Inflation hurt businesses severely and hurt employees severely. In a bipartisan way, we voted as that pandemic started. As we saw the broad impacts of that, we, in a bipartisan fashion, stepped in to help. It made a very big difference.

I start that way because the representation of some is that somehow we, by passing legislation, have caused this inflation. The OECD nations, the economically developed countries of the world, have all had inflation. As a matter of fact, the average OECD nation has a 10.2 percent inflation rate. As the gentleman knows, ours is 8.3 percent.

Mexico didn't have any of the bills that we passed and had an 8.7 inflation rate. The Netherlands that didn't have an American Rescue Plan has a 13.6 percent rate of inflation. Sweden, a small and very successful country, didn't have an American Rescue Plan and has an inflation rate of 9.8 percent; Austria, another strong economic country, 9.3 percent; Denmark, the country of my father's birth, 8.9 percent.

And you say: So what? The ``so what'' is that we have seen a global inflation. I haven't mentioned some of the other countries in Asia who have inflation rates, as well. I simply say that so both parties and all Members understand the consequences and pain of inflation at the pump.

The gentleman in some of the discussions we have had has pointed out that prices have gone up. I have not heard him say that the President has taken certain action, and it has come down about 35-plus percent over the last 6, 7 weeks from $5.02 as an average down to somewhere around $3.60.

Is that low enough? It is not. It has been much higher. It was higher in 2008 under George Bush. But it needs to come down further. We will continue to work on that.

We passed a number of pieces of legislation. I mentioned the American Rescue Plan took 48 percent of America's children out of poverty who were in poverty; not 48 percent of America's children, but 48 percent of America's children who were in poverty were taken out by the American Rescue Plan.

None of us are wearing masks on this floor or around the country when we gather together and get in rooms close to one another. Why? Because we got 250 million shots in arms.

We also have people struggling for a variety of economic reasons primarily brought upon them by the pandemic, so we put money in their pockets.

We have one of the fastest growing economies. We have one of the lowest unemployment rates in the world. We have a country that is doing well.

The gentleman mentions the stock market declining. It did. Why did it decline? Because we had the pandemic. Inflation resulted from that, and the Federal Reserve--as was true under Ronald Reagan when unemployment went to 10.5, 6, 7, 8 percent because Paul Volcker was slowing down the economy to defeat inflation.

Inflation is harmful, particularly to people who are elderly and on fixed incomes. So, I want the gentleman to know that we empathize with that, and, therefore, we are distressed.

When we passed a bill, the Inflation Reduction Act, not a single Republican voted for it.

And there is absolutely no denial on the reality that is going to bring Americans' costs down. Not only that, it kept 13 million people who were going to fall off insurance on the Affordable Care Act--which I know the gentleman's party does not support--but 13 million Americans who had healthcare insurance as a result of the American Rescue Plan, it was going to stop on December 31, and we continued that.

We put on legislation that would bring down prescription drug costs and allow companies to sell drugs to Medicare in a negotiated way. We negotiate, as the gentleman knows, and I don't know whether the gentleman thinks that policy ought to be stopped, but we negotiated for prices with veterans' healthcare. Now we are going to do it with Medicare. We wanted to do it for everybody, but the Senate Republicans would not agree to that.

We believe that the infrastructure bill is going to really help bring down inflation, create jobs, and expand our economy. We believe the CHIPS and Science bill is going to do the same. Only 13 on the Republican side voted for the infrastructure bill, which was, I think, a bill that would have helped inflation by making supplies better. The energy portion of the Inflation Reduction Act is going to bring down the cost of energy. It is going to create competition on energy, and fight climate change. I lament the fact that not a single Republican voted for the Inflation Reduction Act.

Even if you reject the fact that it is going to reduce inflation--as I think you probably do, I don't want to anticipate what you do, but that is my guess. There are literally scores of economists who believe it is going to bring down inflation.

As importantly, the committee who looks closely at this--scores of economists say it is going to bring it down. The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget say they believe it is going to bring down inflation. I don't want to project that it is going to bring it down a half a point, a point, 2 points, 3 points, 4 points--I hope it does. I think it was certainly worth a try.

None of your colleagues either in this House or in the Senate--down the aisle--gave it a chance. We passed it anyway under a process, obviously, that allows just Democrats in the Senate to pass something under a process called reconciliation.

I want to tell the gentleman that I have apprised the committee chairmen of the bills that you have talked to me about. I have asked them to look at them. Frankly, I cannot tell you I have gotten a response from each one of them, but we are giving them attention.

Obviously, we want to know what our committees think about not only your legislation, our legislation--our legislation, that is, bipartisan legislation. We lament the fact, I will tell you, very frankly, Mr. Speaker--we lament the fact that our Republican colleagues in all four of the bills I have just mentioned, which are designed to grow the economy--the CHIPS bill, the bipartisan infrastructure--19 Senators voted for the infrastructure bill and helped put it together with President Biden and Senate Democrats. Lamentably, only 13 of your colleagues chose to vote for it. I am glad they did, but it was over the advice and counsel of their leadership. That bill clearly was embraced by the American people and incorporated policies, essentially, that President Trump said in 2016 he was going to recommend and have the Congress adopt. It didn't happen in 2017. It didn't happen in 2018. It didn't happen in 2019, and it didn't happen in 2020.

I say to my friend, we think all four of those bills are going to have a very positive impact on our economy, on growing our economy, ensuring supplies of basic goods, and bringing down inflation.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I can't see the chart. Could you tell me what it says so I know what the gentleman is talking about?

Here?

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

First, let me say, the gentleman dismisses what other countries are doing or he says they are doing bad things and therefore they have inflation.

Every country has inflation. Why? Because the pandemic shut down the world. It shut down the markets. It shut down the production of supplies. That is why. People had to stay home and they weren't out producing and making things.

We kept a lot of people employed. We spent trillions of dollars doing it, which were bipartisan bills signed by Donald Trump. Trillions. As soon as Donald Trump left, all of a sudden the other party--his party, the Trump party, decided it is over. It wasn't over for the American people.

Kids were not in schools. People hadn't been given shots in arms yet. People were really hurting. Those 48 percent of the children in poverty were still in poverty, but it was over. No more bipartisanship. It is another President, so we are going to blame him.

That is politics over people. What we did is people over politics because we knew people were hurting. We passed legislation to give them help. Every Republican, Mr. Speaker, voted no.

We voted to help them gets shots in arms. Every Republican voted no.

We voted to get their kids back in school to make their schools safe and healthy. Every Republican voted no because they wanted to bleat about inflation.

The reason they don't like these figures is because these are the economically successful nations of the world, many of whom have inflation higher than we.

The gentleman is absolutely right. We need to get inflation down. There are 126 economists that say that the Inflation Reduction Act will reduce inflation, reduce healthcare costs, and reduce energy costs.

Now, the gentleman and I have had this discussion about his energy bills, which they think will be the salvation. They always think: Drill more, life will be better. I get it. Louisiana is a State that wants to drill. I get that. We use that product. It is an important product, and we are going to continue to use it. That is why I have no criticism of that.

In the last bill that we passed, which is really going to fight the climate challenge that we face--there were four 1,000-year floods in four different communities in America within 30 days of one another.

The West is on fire, literally and figuratively. Climate challenge is real. Every Republican voted ``no'' to invest in meeting that challenge head-on; every Republican, House and Senate, Mr. Speaker.

I can't read the chart, but 13 percent inflation is too high. I go to the grocery store almost every weekend. I live alone. I don't buy a lot of food at any one time because I am traveling a lot and here a lot; don't want it to go bad.

So I get it on the prices. I get it on gasoline prices. They are tough. That is why we passed a food and fuel bill. The gentleman from Louisiana voted ``no.'' The leader of the Republican Party, Mr. McCarthy, in the House, voted ``no'', and the overwhelming majority of Republicans voted ``no.''

They wanted to make sure that we had competition. That is the free market system. That is what brings prices down. If you have a monopoly, you can charge anything you want if people need the product.

Now, I won't go through the statistics because the statistics are we are producing more energy today than we produced 2 years ago. I read those statistics. I am not going to bore the gentleman, Mr. Speaker, with them again.

They don't bore me because it shows that--when the argument is the reason we have inflation is because we are not producing energy, the reason we don't have as much energy is because companies made a rational decision. What was that rational decision?

In March and April of 2020, people started staying in their homes. They stopped buying gas and other products, petroleum products, and, as a result, corporations made a reasonable judgment. We are not going to produce more capacity.

So, when we got out of the inflation, we are still not doing that. But we are doing more than we did some years ago, as those statistics that I read to the gentleman three or four times, so I won't read them again.

But the industry, as I have also told the gentleman, owns 9,000 unused permits to drill onshore; 37 million acres offshore; which can be permitted, ready to go.

So when you simply ignore and pretend that somehow Joe Biden, the President of the United States, is responsible for worldwide inflation, and dismiss the pandemic--I don't think I have heard one time, Mr. Speaker, the Republican whip mention the pandemic as a cause of the inflation. It is all about energy.

I beg to differ with the gentleman, Mr. Speaker. I think, honestly, the American people need to know that.

Yes, the stock market had a rough tumble. Why did it have a rough tumble? Because the Federal Reserve, the chairman of which was appointed by President Trump, responsibly, along with his board of governors, responded to try to get this inflation under control and bring it down.

I don't know whether the gentleman supports that action or not. Ronald Reagan supported that action; although he did not appoint the chairman of the Federal Reserve that did it.

So, Mr. Speaker, we are going to continue to fight for the people and put them above our politics, or even our own personal economic interests, by passing the American Rescue Plan; by passing the bipartisan infrastructure bill; by making sure that America can be seen as a country that makes it in America; chips, investing in science for the future, for the people and, yes, the Inflation Reduction Act, which the gentleman and his party has misrepresented over and over and over again with something they know is not the truth.

They project 80,000 new people going after average Americans. They know that is not true, Mr. Speaker.

After years of trying to defund the people who collect the revenues from our people so everybody pays their fair share, and those of us-- and I say of us--who are doing well, pay our fair share, and the people who make billions, who pay less of a percentage, in many respects, as Warren Buffett said, than those who work for them.

Yes, we want taxes fairly enforced, Mr. Speaker. We don't want anybody paying an unfair share because somebody is not paying at all.

The IRS will, after those 10 years of accretion of employees, have as many employees as it had back in the 1990s; trying to make sure it can, in fact, enforce a fair system that provides the revenues that the Federal Government needs to protect, preserve our people's welfare, economy, and national security.

I don't think I made that comment.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

First of all, to your last statement, the unions. What were the unions trying to do? They were trying to keep teachers healthy. They were trying to keep kids healthy. Because we were telling people, don't congregate. Don't get all together.

They were trying to keep kids out of school whose HVAC systems, heating, ventilating systems were not up to date and couldn't transfer the air in a clean, healthy way.

So we gave them billions of dollars. Yes, we spent a lot of money to make our people safe, to get people back to work, to get kids back in school, and it worked. They are back in school.

None of us are wearing a mask. We congregate now. We all get together. Hardly anybody, if anybody, some people who have particular vulnerabilities are wearing masks. God bless them. It worked, and the Republicans voted ``no.''

Now, I want to go to this energy issue because they are Johnny-one- note. Inflation is caused by administration policy on inflation, gas prices, and energy production. But the fact of the matter is he ignores that inflation is happening in a lot of places.

Mr. Speaker, in Denmark, they are pretty energy independent with renewable energies and not relying on supply chains per se. Their inflation is higher than ours because it was a global phenomenon. Their economies were assaulted. Ours came back faster and better.

Why? Because we invested in our people.

Now, let me go to a simple fact. According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, average production--that means over 4 years for Trump--for Donald Trump was 10,968,000 barrels per day; for Joe Biden it was 11,185,000 barrels a day. That is more, not less, than the average under Donald Trump. But it serves their political interest, Mr. Speaker, to somehow project to the American people that Biden has shut down the energy industry which is why you are paying more.

I explained that the energy companies did, in fact, cut production. It was a rational business judgment. People were driving less and buying less petroleum.

There is still concern. Most of them are seeing that there is going to be an alternative energy that is going to be required if we are going to make sure that this globe does not burn up with the people with it.

He also says--I don't have the report in front of me, so I am going to wing it--that no one earning under $400,000 per year got a tax increase as a result of the bill the gentleman alludes to.

If CBO says--and I will read the report--that $20 billion is going to be received from that category, it will be because somebody, whether they are making $100,000, $200,000, $300,000, or $400,000, is not paying their fair share pursuant to laws that we adopt--not because we put new taxes on them but because they are not paying the taxes that are due.

I don't have the CBO report in front of me, so I am opining because it certainly wasn't because we have new enforcement officers, unless those enforcement officers find that the people to which the gentleman refers are not paying their fair share.

By the way, it will also apply to the people who are making billions and not paying any taxes, much less their fair share.

Let me repeat that energy figure again because I think he will probably go back to energy because that is what we do almost every colloquy. More energy is being produced under Joe Biden than was produced under Donald Trump.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I think we are probably pretty close to closing.

I would say this, Mr. Speaker. I think the American people are in the process of making a judgment. On our side, we see things as pretty positive in terms of the response to the policies that we have been adopting without any significant help from our Republican colleagues, but they will have a chance to vote and decide.

We have passed legislation, as we said we would do, for the people-- not for the sake of politics but for the sake of children, families, the young and old, and, yes, even the rich and poor.

I want to comment because I urge my Republican friends to be precise in their conversations with the American public. There are not 80,000 revenue auditors or agents included in this bill that we talked about on bringing inflation down and which economists say will bring inflation down.

Our Republican friends say they want to do that, but they vote against bills that will bring down demonstrably, and without possibility of denial, costs for people, health costs for people, prescription drug costs for people, insulin, which costs about--it is single figures, and we capped it at $35. That is about 400 percent profit, but they are now paying $300 or $400 or $500.

Now, luckily, because we could pass it with Democrats, seniors won't be paying that. They will be capped at $35. But millions of other Americans, because the Republicans would not support it in the United States Senate--we passed it here--will not get the benefit of that cap. They will be paying far above justifiable prices for insulin.

We are producing energy. The argument is specious that somehow this inflation is caused by our cutting back on energy supply when I just read a figure, subject to dispute. Maybe next week I will hear, no, that figure is wrong. Maybe. We are producing more energy than Trump did--not Trump himself, but the country--during Trump's Presidency.

I urge, Mr. Speaker, my Republican friends to tell the American people the truth. Yes, there are some more agents because there are people not paying their fair share. If you have an audit, and they say you are not paying your fair share, and you pay more, isn't that what we expect when we pass tax bills, that people will pay pursuant to what the law says, whether they make $100,000 or $100 million or $100 billion? I don't guess anybody makes $100 billion in a year.

We ought to be honest with the American people. Give them the facts, and then they will make a decision, but tell them the truth.

Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Speaker, there are 80,000-plus additional, which will get back to the 20 years ago level of employment in the IRS. The IRS has been reduced in personnel in all categories, not just enforcement agents, but in all categories, which will undermine their ability to serve the public and collect taxes so that we all pay our fair share and so people who don't have accountants and who don't have ways and means to avoid taxes are treated fairly themselves.

Everybody ought to be treated fairly. If we don't think they are being treated fairly because of the law then we ought to change the law, but we ought to tell the American people the truth.

There are not that many enforcement agents. They are in so many different categories in the IRS to make sure that the IRS can successfully do its job and answer people's questions about what, when, where, and why they have to do things pursuant to law. That is what I meant, not that the 80,000 people are enforcement agents. They are not. They are not. It is a far lower number than that.

But we know that there is over $100 billion--I think it is a much larger figure than that--in taxes that are owed under the law that are not being paid, which means that the tax rates need to be higher on others than they ought to be.

That is what this bill gets at. In other words, this bill, the inflation reduction bill, is more than reducing inflation. I am sorry that my Republican friends made a determination it was not a bill they could support to help bring down inflation, but that was the judgment they made.

I think they want to bring down inflation. We want to bring down inflation, but when we present a bill to the floor which does it, we would hope we would get support on a bipartisan basis.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to section 11 of House Resolution 1339, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bills: H.R. 1468, S. 4205, H.R. 7939, H.R. 7846, H.R. 7735, H.R. 5916, H.R. 8260, and H.R. 5865.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, I had the honor of introducing Alaska's newly elected Representative after she took her oath of office.

Representative Peltola makes history in joining the House, and we are very glad to have her. The seat to which she was elected, however, became vacant because of an event for which we are all very, very saddened. The passing of our friend, a great friend of this institution, Representative Don Young, marked the end of an era for this House.

Don was a repository of institutional knowledge and a keeper of the House's traditions. He was our dean, the most senior Member of either party.

Today, as we reflect upon that loss for the House, for Alaska, and for all of us who were his friends, we recognize a new dean to succeed Don in that role. I join the Republican leader in congratulating Representative Hal Rogers.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Rogers of Kentucky has achieved that distinction to become our new dean of the House. It is humbling to think that our dean is from the same freshman class as I am. He was here just shy of 5 months before me, as does the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith). When we arrived here, we met the dean of the House, Jamie Whitten of Mississippi, who served in the House 122 years. I don't want to offend anyone from Mississippi. I know it was short of that time, but it was a long time.

Mr. Whitten had been elected first in 1941. He, himself, came to the office when the dean of the House had been elected in 1907, and the person who had been dean at that time was elected in 1879, which is to say there aren't a lot of deans of the House. And the day that Member ended as freshman, Abraham Lincoln was first sworn in as President of the United States. Fewer deans, by far, than Presidents of the United States.

So we are connected to the 37th Congress of the United States and the Lincoln Presidency by just four individual Members' span of service.

Hal Rogers now inherits the title once held by former President John Quincy Adams, Speaker Sam Rayburn, and my dear friend, Debbie Dingell's husband, John Dingell.

Those of us who know Hal can testify to the respect and love he has for this institution and for the role of dean. He will surely uphold its traditions and continue to carry forward this chain of history for the House and for our democracy.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to congratulate the dean of the House, Hal Rogers of Kentucky.

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

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

Madam Speaker, it is a rare privilege to be able to introduce as a new Member the dean of a delegation, but that is my particular pleasure today.

There are few honors greater, Madam Speaker, in this country than being elected by your neighbors and fellow Americans to represent them in the House of Representatives. I welcome Senator Murkowski and Senator Sullivan to our Chamber and remind them you cannot be appointed to the House of Representatives. Only by election can one serve in the people's House.

It is an extraordinary honor to have your friends and neighbors choose you to represent them in this body. When our friend and colleague Don Young passed away earlier this year, this House lost a giant. The people of Alaska lost a Representative who had served them with great ability, energy, courage, and commitment for half a century.

Earlier this month, Alaskans cast their votes to send a new Representative to carry their voice and views in Washington. The woman they chose just made history with the oath that she took. She made history by becoming the first Alaska Native to be elected to the Congress of the United States.

Madam Speaker, she also made history as the first woman not to represent Alaska but to represent Alaskans in the House of Representatives. Obviously, Senator Murkowski represents them in the Senate.

In Representative Mary Peltola, Alaskans chose someone who was not only a friend of former Representative Don Young but also someone cut from the same cloth, someone who believes fundamentally in pragmatism, independence, and putting Alaska's unique needs first. The Senators applaud that, apparently.

Representative Peltola is widely known across Alaska not only for her strong record as a State legislator but as a champion for rural and Native communities who are too often overlooked by policymakers. Don Young did not let that happen. She won't, either.

She has built solid relationships across both parties in Alaska because of what many have called her extreme kindness and her determination to befriend all that she meets.

Her record reflects Alaskans' independent approach to the most divisive issues, and in her election, she appealed to Democrats, Republicans, and Independents. Her campaign slogan reflected what she and many others consider the three fundamentals of Alaska: fish, family, and freedom.

Indeed, she has already begun to assemble a bipartisan staff to serve her constituents. Representative Peltola has a long record of working well with Alaska Republicans and even campaigning for Republican Senator Lisa Murkowski, who is with us here today, when she faced a primary challenge from an extreme candidate.

What Alaskans have known and shown by them electing Mary Peltola is that, like so many other Americans, they want to be represented by someone who is focused on bipartisanship and not on confrontation. They want someone who will put people over politics and get things done.

That has been Representative Peltola's record back home in Alaska, and I know it will be her philosophy here in Washington. In so many ways, she is a perfect successor to Representative Young, who worked hard to make sure his fellow Republicans understood Alaskans' unique challenges and preferences on major issues.

In similar fashion, Representative Peltola will be an important addition to the House, helping us better understand the perspectives of rural and Native communities and the special concerns of Alaskans as our majority works to deliver results and expand opportunities for all Americans.

I know, Madam Speaker, Mary will be warmly welcomed to the House by all of her colleagues on both sides of the aisle.

Because Alaska has only one at-large Representative in the House, the honor falls to me today, as the senior-most Member of our party, to introduce her. It is an honor I wholeheartedly accept, and I now ask my colleagues to join me in welcoming Alaska's new Representative and someone we will all very shortly be calling our good friend, Mary Peltola.

Madam Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from Alaska (Mrs. Peltola).

Madam Speaker, I rise to honor the House's lead upholsterer, Mike Dean--a master craftsman from Maryland's Fifth Congressional District whose work has touched the lives of every person who serves the House of Representatives. After nearly four decades of hard work on Capitol Hill, Mike recently announced his well-deserved retirement.

If you have ever sat on a bench, chair, or sofa in the Capitol, you have benefited from Mike's steadfast commitment to his craft. To Mike, upholstery is an art as much as it is a trade. He and his colleagues do not cut corners. From the ``eight-way tie'' to the ``fox edge,'' Mike and his team have mastered traditional techniques that most people in their field have sacrificed to save time and money. He operates perhaps the most interesting contraption in the Capitol complex: a vintage horsehair picker from the 1930's. Most of the House's furniture contains horsehair that Mike has recycled and fluffed using the picker, and experts at the Smithsonian believe it is the only machine of its kind still in active use today.

To reupholster just one of the beautiful, century-old Turkish chairs you see around the Capitol, it can take Mike and his team eighty hours of labor and forty pounds of horsehair. Unsurprisingly, the chairs remain just as comfortable today as I imagine they did in Speaker Joseph Cannon's time. Although modern techniques and materials would be easier to use, Mike knows that there is no substitute for quality and durability.

As Members of Congress, we strive to uphold longstanding political and procedural norms and traditions to treat this institution with the reverence it deserves. Mike's work is not so different. He is committed to historical preservation and authenticity because he knows it is the only way to produce and maintain furniture worthy of adorning the People's House. For as long as the Capitol has stood, artisans like Mike have served as its custodians. For that, they will always be a part of its history.

I ask all my colleagues to join me in thanking Mike Dean for his decades of diligent service and in wishing him a happy retirement.''

Madam Speaker, I want to honor a remarkable constituent of Maryland's Fifth Congressional District who is beloved by me and many others on Capitol Hill: House of Representatives Barber Giuseppe Quattrone, more commonly known as `Joe Q.' After a rich career of 52 years, he recently announced his retirement.

Joe has cut hair on the Hill for more than a fifth of American history. Indeed, he has worked in the Capitol five years longer than the most senior senator and more than ten years longer than the most senior House Member. From Presidents Gerald Ford and George H.W. Bush to Congressional leaders like Speaker Tip O'Neal and Senator Ted Kennedy, those at the forefront of American politics have frequented Joe's barbershop in the Rayburn Building.

Joe's story is an American story--and not just because of his impressive clientele. He grew up in Archi, Reggio Calabria, in Southern Italy under Mussolini's rule but dreamed of making it to America, just as his older brother had done. As fate would have it, America came to him. During the Second World War, Joe and his family would hide in local caves to escape the aerial bombing. When they emerged from the cave one morning in 1943, they found a U.S. Navy armada that stretched all the way to the horizon. Joe went down to the beach and waved an American flag to welcome the liberators. In time, Joe would be able to call that flag his own.

A few years after the war, Joe joined his brother in America where he quickly became a naturalized citizen. I first met him in 1966 when Joe helped me campaign for State Senate in Maryland, and I was grateful for his assistance and his support. Later, in 1970, he began his work as a barber for the House of Representatives. His barbershop has served as an oasis for Democrats and Republicans alike ever since--one of the few places free of partisanship left on the Hill. Joe's clients didn't come to talk politics; they came to enjoy his wit and geniality.

Joe's story is not just a paragon of the American dream but also a testament to the dedicated support staff who serve behind the scenes to help Congress function. Although they do not draft legislation or vote on amendments, their work is no less important. Whether cleaning the Capitol, serving food, or cutting hair, they do their jobs so we can do ours representing our constituents.

I ask all my colleagues to join me in congratulating Joe on his well- deserved retirement and in thanking him and the many other support workers who enrich our lives here on Capitol Hill. Although Members of Congress often have trouble reaching consensus, we can all agree that we will miss seeing Joe roam the halls.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Today will be the culmination of the meeting of promises that President Biden made to the American people resulting in some 7 to 8 million more people voting for President Biden than the incumbent President.

My colleagues, we have just heard from the leader of the party of: You are on your own.

The leader who just spoke voted against the American Rescue Plan that put money in the pockets of American families, put American children back to school, and resulted in our not wearing masks today by--with some exceptions--putting vaccine in arms.

The leader who just spoke voted ``no,'' as did every one of his colleagues. They said ``no'' to money to help families not fall through the cracks, to help them afford their groceries, to help them afford to pay their mortgage, and to send their kids to school.

They voted ``no'' to make sure those vaccines were in arms.

They voted ``no'' to help small businesses, restaurants, and others be lifted up. The party of: You are on your own, America.

And yes, when they came to office, what did they try to do in 2017?

Repeal healthcare support for the American people.

We are doing the opposite. We plead guilty.

The leader of the Republican Party who just spoke voted ``no'' on the infrastructure bill to respond to building roads and bridges and to making sure they are maintained and safe; to respond to broadband to make sure that rural areas are connected, and with airports to make sure we had a grid that made us competitive.

The gentleman who just spoke voted ``no.''

As far as the CHIPS bill, the gentleman talked about China. China was lobbying against the CHIPS bill. The minority leader voted ``no'' on the CHIPS bill, which was a bill to make America competitive and create hundreds of thousands of jobs. That was bipartisan in the House by a small degree and in the Senate, as well. But the minority leader voted ``no.''

So I must say that I am not shocked that he is voting ``no'' on this bill, which is aimed at helping Americans with their healthcare, which is one of the greatest reasons for inflation.

I am not surprised that he mischaracterized the reaction on this side of the aisle when he said gas prices were high and haven't come down. In fact, in the last 40 days, they have come down 20 percent.

The gentleman is shaking his head, no, no, they haven't. I don't know where he is buying gas, but they have come down from $5 to $4, and in some cases less than $4.

Is that too high?

Yes, it is.

Should we be concerned about that?

Yes, we should be.

We passed two bills. One was a bill to make sure that we didn't have price gouging. No American wants to see price gouging.

The minority leader voted ``no'' on that bill.

We offered another bill that dealt with food and fuel prices and to try to make sure that we have delivery systems and supply chains that worked.

The minority leader and his colleagues voted ``no''--not everyone.

We had a bill on this floor that tried to help and is going to help millions of veterans who had been exposed to toxic burn pits--cancer, heart disease, and lung disease. The minority leader, it will not shock you, voted ``no'' to help veterans.

We had another bill on the floor to make sure that we could preclude and try to help women who had violent acts committed against them. It may not surprise you that the leader of the party of: You are on your own voted ``no'' on the Violence Against Women Act.

It is time to say ``yes,'' yes to the people, to focus on people and not on the politics of 87 days from now.

That is what this is about: politics pure--well, impure--and simple.

It is time for us to say ``yes'' to bringing prices down.

Now, I want to add just a couple of things, and I want to talk about the four pieces of legislation that are changing America for the better.

He wrings his hands about the awful situation that America is in.

In January of 2021, before Joe Biden became President of the United States, unemployment was 6.4 percent. During the course of the Trump administration, we had lost 2.8 million jobs; a net loss after 4 years--net loss.

Over the last 18 months, we have created 9.5 million jobs. That is almost a 12 million-job turnaround, to the best, to the good, to the appreciation of ability of Americans to get jobs.

And he mentioned something about gas prices.

Are they high?

They are.

Let me tell you when they were higher. In July of 2008 they were higher.

Hear me. Go check the records. $4.14, which in real dollars today would be $5.62 under George Bush.

Are prices too high?

They are.

Do we want to bring them down?

Yes, we do. That is why we fought price gouging on food and fuel, both of which the minority leader voted against.

As I said, unemployment in January was 6.4 percent. It is now 3.5 percent; halved.

Is inflation too high?

It is.

We passed a bill. Some people said, Well, that is going to cause inflation.

What it caused was people didn't fall through the cracks. They were able to pay their bills. They were able to send their kids back to school. That is what it did. That is what the American people are going to remember, that the Democratic Party was there for them and the Republican Party was not.

Then we talk about this money that we are going to give to IRS, which has been reduced 20 percent under the Republican leadership when they were in charge.

What did they reduce?

Enforcement.

Why?

Because they didn't want their big, fat cat people to be caught not paying their fair share.

Yes, Mr. and Mrs. America, you are paying a higher price because some people pay nothing. You don't think that is fair, and we don't think it is fair. And, yes, we want to make sure the rules are followed.

In order to have the rules followed, you need referees. And when you have 100-some-odd million taxpayers, you need a number of people to find that out and make sure that you obey the law.

Yes, we support that. We believe in facts, and we believe in truth.

There is a Republican leader--no longer a leader--who believed in facts and truth, and Liz Cheney was fired from her position because she told the truth and confronted a former President who promotes lying.

Madam Speaker, when President Biden took office with a Democratic Congress, we promised the American people results. We are delivering. We promised we would make progress on the issues where progress has been stalled for far too long. We promised, in short, responsible government that gets things done ``for the people.'' People, not politics. We promised responsible government that puts the needs of our people over politics.

Over the past 18 months, many have questioned whether that would even be possible. Our country is too divided, they said, to achieve big goals and enact really consequential legislation that benefits the American people and our economy.

Madam Speaker, 9.5 million new jobs in 18 months.

Over these same 18 months, however, our Democratic majorities and the Biden-Harris administration have proven those doubters wrong.

The legislation we will pass today and send to the President's desk is the fourth leg of a table of support and opportunity Democrats have built for the American people.

The first leg was the American Rescue Plan. That law put more than 200 million shots in arms and made it safe again for workers to go back to their jobs, for students and teachers to go back to school, and for entrepreneurs

to take risks and invest in their businesses. It worked.

Since then, we have seen record job growth. As I have said, 9.5 million jobs have been created since last January. That is the largest number of jobs created in 18 months in the history of our country and the lowest rate of employment in half a century. Only Republicans could call that failure, because it wasn't their success.

More Americans are working today than at any point in our history. We also cut child poverty in half. Perhaps that is not seen as a success by the other side of the aisle.

Next, we brought Democrats and Republicans together in a historic effort to enact the bipartisan infrastructure plan, which is already rebuilding roads, bridges, transit systems, seaports, and airports in every corner of our country, after President Trump said in 2016 that he was going to do a trillion dollars.

In 2017 it didn't happen. In 2018 it didn't happen. In 2019 it didn't happen.

The Republicans were in charge of the House, Senate, and the Presidency of the United States.

Inattention and disrepair. For years, we heard people talking about ``infrastructure weeks.''

Do you remember that?

The minority leader and others: We are going to have an infrastructure week.

It never happened.

Last November, we put people over politics and got it done. That decision was so successful that even many of the Republicans who voted against it are cutting ribbons that will facilitate commerce and improve the lives of their constituents, even though they didn't support the bill.

One side effect of the pandemic was to magnify the cracks in our economic system and our reliance on the unreliable in our supply chains.

Any family trying to buy a new car or trying to budget for a new appliance in the last year or two understands what that means.

And by the way, on inflation, Europe didn't have the rescue plan. Asia didn't have the rescue plan. Other nations didn't have the rescue plan.

Guess what, Madam Speaker?

All of them are experiencing inflation, half of them greater inflation than is present in the United States of America.

Does that mean we have to stop our efforts to reduce it?

Of course not.

Is it hurting our people?

It is.

Are empty shelves on grocery stores troubling?

They are.

Rather than blame one another, perhaps we ought to look at the real villain, and that was the pandemic.

Earlier this week, President Biden signed the CHIPS and Science Act, the third leg of our table of support and opportunity, into law.

That bipartisan legislation will ease inflation by bringing manufacturing and sources of critical components and products back to the United States so that we make them in America, and our workers make it in America.

It means that we won't cede the next century of innovation to China or anybody else. China--let me repeat--lobbied against that bill, and almost every Republican voted against that bill, just like China wanted.

Instead, American labor and American innovation will continue to lead the world in research, innovation, and advanced manufacturing and continue to draw the brightest minds from around the world. That also will mean lower costs for American families.

The CHIPS and Science Act was another significant piece of legislation under the Make It In America agenda. It is hard to think that somebody would vote against all four of these bills--a promise made to America and a promise that they relied on and they voted for in an election--not a poll, not a survey, and not a focus group--in an election.

That is because it gets to the heart of what government is supposed to do: help provide our workers, businesses, and people with the tools and confidence to make it in America.

Today, we are going to send to President Biden the legislation that represents the fourth leg of our table of support and opportunity: the Inflation Reduction Act. As its name suggests, it will further help lower costs for Americans.

First, it will lower healthcare costs by extending the cost-saving premium tax credits under the Affordable Care Act that we included in the American Rescue Plan, which has gotten us to 92 percent coverage in America. And, very frankly, it would be higher if there weren't States who had refused to provide the Medicaid opportunity for citizens who fell in the middle of the income spectrum.

We included that, of course, but our Republican friends in the United States Senate would not agree to it. This bill will provide for quality, affordable healthcare to almost every person in the United States, irrespective of their income.

The national uninsured rate has fallen, as I said, to an all-time low of 8 percent, with 5.2 million Americans gaining coverage since the start of the Biden-Harris administration--in large part due to having made those cost-saving premium tax credits more widely available.

My understanding is our Republican friends are going to vote against this bill. Millions of people will be unable to afford their insurance. That is extended by 3 years.

Next, it brings down the cost of prescription drugs by allowing Medicare for the first time ever--but not uniquely because the Veterans Affairs does that, and it makes sense--to negotiate lower prices from manufacturers.

Democrats have been working for decades to achieve this goal. As I mentioned at the outset of my remarks, our majority is delivering on that promise.

The bill also caps the cost of insulin at $35 a month. It would have been extended to everybody, but our Republican friends refuse to support that alternative, so it is only going to apply to Medicare at the beginning. We are not going to stop. We also capped the cost at $2,000 a year for seniors on Medicare. We want to extend that to the private market as well, and we will work on that.

Madam Speaker, this is a historic achievement that will save lives and allow more seniors to access life-saving and life-sustaining medications.

Additionally, the Inflation Reduction Act is the largest single investment addressing the climate crisis that any nation has ever made. I don't know how it was at your place, but with temperatures of 95, 96, 97, and 98 degrees and high humidity, we have a climate crisis. The deniers have undermined our ability to respond. This bill responds. It responds consistent with the desires of the American people.

It will bring down the cost of energy for Americans by investing in developing and deploying cleaner, more sustainable energy technologies like electric vehicles and solar panels.

At the same time, we are doing it without raising the deficit. In fact, the legislation reduces the deficit by closing loopholes so the largest corporations with profits over a billion dollars will pay a minimum tax rate of just 15 percent. The rate is 21 percent on corporations, but if they get over a billion dollars, they are going to pay at least 15 percent. Why? Because we protect their shipping lanes with our Navy. We protect their roads that they transport goods across. They get a lot from their taxes, just as we all do. Maybe that is why the Republicans don't like this bill.

That is well below the regular 21 percent tax, as I said. We do it all while ensuring that individuals and families earning less than $400,000 a year won't see a single tax increase. Let me repeat that. Nobody making less than $400,000 a year will see a tax increase.

Those four legs: the rescue plan, the infrastructure bill, the CHIPS bill, and now this reduction in inflation act will provide for growth, opportunity, and competitiveness for our economy and for our people.

There is, however, another critical piece of legislation that helps keep that table sturdy. Let us recap this list of major enactments:

Getting Americans back to work from the pandemic. That is what we did.

Securing long-overdue infrastructure investments. That is what we did.

Easing the inflation by helping American companies build more chips, semiconductors, and other critical components here instead of importing

them from unreliable countries. Over 100,000 new jobs. That is what we did.

Reducing inflation by lowering healthcare prescription drug and energy costs while combating the climate crisis. That is what we did. We will keep on doing it for the American people in the next Congress.

In addition to all these, the Democrat-led House has passed many, many more important bills that have yet to be considered in the Senate--blocked by Republicans.

Today, with the Inflation Reduction Act, we will answer any who still doubt whether we can deliver on our promises.

Today, Democrats and this administration are showing that we can and will continue to put people over politics and ensure that our people can make it in America. Vote for America. Vote for the American people. Vote for this bill.

Madam Chair, in September of 2020, as the El Dorado fire raged through California, Big Bear hotshot firefighter Charlie Morton said to his loved ones what he always said when there was a fire in the area: ``I've got to go protect my mountains.''

Hotshots like Morton serve in the Vanguard. They are tasked with making the area safe for other firefighters to operate. As one hotshot explained: ``We do not get to turn around and walk away.''

I am hopeful that the Congress today does not turn around and walk away. This bill is a step to deal with the extraordinary consequences of climate change that is afflicting our country. Yes, it is the West of our country, but it is afflicting us all, in particularly, the West.

Firefighter Morton knew his work was extremely dangerous, but he did it anyway because he believed in the importance of protecting our Nation's forests and the communities they sustain.

On September 17, 2020, backed into a corner by the encroaching flames, Morton laid down his life in defense of that conviction. It was a noble sacrifice but one that no one should have to make.

Much like Morton and his fellow hotshots, America cannot afford to turn around and walk away from the issue of wildfires.

We must do everything we can to ensure that other brave firefighters do not have to give the full measure of their devotion as Morton did. That is why I am proud to serve as co-chair of the Congressional Fire Service Caucus and to bring this Wildfire Response and Drought Resiliency Act to the floor today.

Exacerbated, as we know, by the climate crisis, parts of the American West are experiencing the worst drought in 1,200 years, and this is fueling deadly and damaging wildfires affecting millions of Americans.

These disasters, Madam Chair, tear through communities and inflict untold destruction and grief.

This issue doesn't just affect those living in the West, however. As I have said, the effects of drought and wildfires cost our country tens of billions of dollars each year. We all pay a price; not the price that Morton paid, but we pay a price.

To my friends on the other side of the aisle who constantly deride our attempts to address the climate crisis as too expensive, I would remind them that the cost of inaction in the form of more frequent, more severe fires, droughts, and other natural disasters is far greater.

From time to time, I quote a former Governor of our State, Ted Agnew, who, in his inaugural address in 1967, on the east front of the capitol in Annapolis, where I was just entering as a new State senator, said: ``The cost of failure far exceeds the price of progress.'' That is true here.

We must not fail, and we must respond. And we must respond effectively.

This legislation will help us prevent and fight future wildfires by making investments to support our firefighting response and to protect vulnerable communities from wildfire. This bill, for instance, would establish a minimum basic pay of roughly $20 an hour for wildland firefighters and ensure they have access to other benefits, such as at least 1 week of mental health leave.

Additionally, this legislation will authorize a 10-year national wildfire response plan, building on actions already taken by the Biden administration, and it will expand the role of Tribes and conservation corps programs in reducing wildfire risks.

This bill, Madam Chair, also includes $500 million in Federal funding to programs to preserve key Colorado River reservoirs, an absolutely critical objective for us all. Tens of millions of Americans rely on that water.

All of these provisions will help us build on the progress we made with the fire and drought protection measures, including the bipartisan infrastructure law, which included close to $17 billion for wildfire and drought prevention and response.

As an aside, Madam Chair, I am told some say this is an authorizing bill. It is an authorizing bill. That is regular order. It will be our responsibility to then appropriate the funds that are necessary to carry out the objectives of this bill, and I hope we can do so in a bipartisan way.

I thank House Natural Resources Committee Chairman Raul Grijalva for his leadership and Mr. Neguse, the ranking member, as well, for the work that they have done. Whether they agree or not, there has been joint work on this bill. I thank Chairs David Scott, Frank Pallone, Eddie Bernice Johnson, and Carolyn Maloney for their committees' contributions.

We can take meaningful action to address these wildfires and drought by voting ``yes'' on this bill.

Madam Chair, although Charlie Morton perished in the El Dorado fire, his courageous efforts and those of his fellow firefighters made it possible to extinguish, ultimately, the flames. They were able to protect Morton's mountains, including a pristine meadow now named in his memory.

They did their part to defend our forest and our communities. Today, Madam Chair, we must do our part.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time.

This is, of course, an emotional debate. Some have talked about fear, and they instill fear in the process. As Mr. Nadler has pointed out, no weapons are taken away.

A number of Members on the other side of the aisle have gotten up and said this is an unconstitutional bill. Yet, from 1994 to 2004, that bill was tested in the courts. None of those courts found that unconstitutional.

In the Heller case, which has been quoted over and over again, a very simple statement was made by that superliberal Antonin Scalia. He said, ``Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited.''

From Blackstone through the 19th century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever for whatever purposes.

One indication of that, of course, is that we have a ban on machine guns in America. Now, one could answer, ``Well, they are not in common use.'' That is correct, because they are banned.

Mr. Speaker, 67 percent of Americans support an assault weapon ban. Fifty-three percent, over half, strongly support, and another 14 percent somewhat support, for a total of 67 percent. That is in a poll by Morning Consult on May 25, 2022.

There was another poll by Pew in September 2021 that said that 63 percent of Americans support it.

In both polls, over 60 percent of Americans, over two-thirds of Americans, think this action makes sense.

I am sure the Founders, as they were discussing the Second Amendment, debated whether we ought to have mass rapid-fire weapons covered by the Second Amendment.

They had no idea. Such weapons certainly didn't exist, and they acted within the framework of the times in which they lived.

Mr. Speaker, Congress must take action today to protect all Americans from dangerous and deadly assault weapons. If we do so, we will still be the country that has the most weapons per capita in the world, more weapons than people, which you would seem to think, therefore, we ought to be the least dangerous nation if the premise that the more people who are armed, the less crime we will have. That seems a little counterintuitive to me.

The weapons that we are talking about are able to kill large numbers rapidly, used to kill 6 adults and 20 children at Sandy Hook, used to kill 61 people in Las Vegas, used to kill 19 students and 2 teachers in Uvalde, Texas, just a few weeks ago. From Aurora to Orlando, San Bernardino, Buffalo, El Paso, and Highland Park, they have been mentioned today, and we ought to mention them on a regular basis to remind us.

We have watched assault weapons inflict mass destruction in our communities time and time again. Not only do these weapons claim the lives of innocent civilians, but they frequently kill members of law enforcement who have worked to keep their communities safe.

That is why law enforcement largely, not all of them, support this bill because they see that as one of the greatest dangers to their lives.

Indeed, one study by the Violence Policy Center found that nearly a quarter of all the police officers killed in the line of duty between 2016 and 2017 were killed by the same firearms that would be outlawed under this ban.

Of those police officers killed by assault weapons, almost a quarter of them were wearing body armor that was nevertheless penetrated by a bullet. These types of attacks and police killings are not inevitable.

We know there is a better way. We know that because these attacks became far less common when an overwhelmingly bipartisan coalition-- this was not some Democratic bill. It was a bipartisan bill. I will speak more to that in just a second.

They came together in 1994 to pass a ban, including 46 House Republicans. That measure had support from law enforcement and from both Democratic and Republican Presidents, including Ronald Reagan.

After Republicans were in control of Congress, they allowed that ban to expire in 2004. Mass shootings tripled.

Today, I am pleased to bring Mr. Cicilline's bill to the floor to reinstate--reinstate--a bill that has been taken to court already. This legislation would prohibit the possession, manufacture, sale, and transfer of semiautomatic assault weapons and high-capacity magazines. It does not take any of those away from any citizen.

To be clear, we are not undermining the Second Amendment. I am for a person having the right to have a weapon not only to hunt but in his home, in his business, to protect himself and his family, and, where authorized, to carry upon his person--where authorized.

This bill will not lead to confiscation of firearms, notwithstanding the fear that has been expressed, of weapons that were legally purchased before its enactment. However, it will set safety requirements.

Doesn't that make sense? We have safety requirements for our cars. Doesn't it make sense to have safety requirements for weapons that can kill?

Additionally, this legislation will provide funding for buyback programs for those who would prefer to be responsible neighbors and community members and relinquish their assault weapons voluntarily.

But, of course, our NRA friends have this slippery slope concept that anything we do, even banning cop killer bullets, goes too far because of the next step and the next step and the next step.

These commonsense reforms will save the lives of law enforcement officers and innocent Americans across the country. The Speaker said that we are going to bring additional community safety legislation to the floor to support our police because as much as the Republicans would like to say we Democrats are for defunding the police, it is absolutely incorrect and false, and they know it.

Why do they know it? Because we bring appropriation bills to this floor which fund the police, not only at the national level but at the State and local level as well, which gives lie to that assertion.

Are there some people who used that comment? Look in the mirror, folks. There are some people on your side of the aisle who say absurd things.

There are many people on both sides of the aisle who say, ``Let's support and protect police.'' This is a way to do it. Today, we have an opportunity to put votes behind our words and show who is ready to do exactly that.

Now, I hope my Republican friends and Democratic friends and my fellow Americans will listen to the quote that I am about to give from a President that used to be revered on the Republican side of the aisle but is now not looked at as such a reverential figure.

Ronald Reagan said this: ``Listen to the American public and to the law enforcement community and support a ban on the further manufacture of these weapons.''

A moment of silence is not enough. I should have counted how many moments of silence we have had on this floor this year and lamented the loss of children and the elderly and everybody in between because of a weapon that is designed to kill a lot of people quickly.

No more moments of silence. Let's act. Vote ``yes.'' Pass this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I regret that we find ourselves in this position of being divided on this bill. This, like every piece of legislation we pass, is not perfect. And very frankly, if we made a judgment on every piece of legislation that we considered that I don't like some other bill, we would be in real trouble. And maybe we are in real trouble.

There was a manifesto put out by Xi and Putin when they met some months ago. Essentially what that manifesto said is the dictatorships, the authoritarian regimes are going to win because democracies cannot make decisions, they are too divided, they are too slow. This is what they were thinking about.

This is a good piece of legislation. It is not the piece of legislation that I would have written, but it is a good piece of legislation that does good things for America, and more importantly, good things for our competitive status in the world.

Mr. Speaker, the pandemic has taught us many lessons. One of those lessons, reinforced by Vladimir Putin's criminal war against Ukraine, is that we cannot and must not rely on the unreliable. Let me repeat that. America must not rely on the unreliable. We saw from the pandemic how reliable we were for so many things we needed to meet the crisis of the pandemic.

The minority leader, who told us all that he was going to urge all of his colleagues to vote ``no'' on this bill, talked about inflation. One of the reasons we have inflation is because we have shortages. That is what drives prices up when demand is high and supply is low. You don't have to be an economist to get that lesson.

This bill seeks to address that issue because as we all know, chips are ubiquitous in almost everything that we have that has anything to do with electronics.

Every day, Americans see examples of why we must take steps to make our

supply chains more secure and more reliable. This deals with that. Yet my Republican friends urge a ``no'' vote, not because they think this bill is bad--they may--but because they don't like another bill. That is what Xi and Putin are counting on. That is what the autocrats and authoritarians around the world are counting on, that democracies come to a halt. Because as democracies they debate and they differ, and they can't make decisions even when a significant number of the minority party is for this bill. One-third of the United States Senate Republicans voted for this bill because they thought it was good for competition between us and China and between us and everybody else.

That is why it is so sad for me to come here seeing this division on a partisan basis because of another bill. And so America, if we don't prevail on this bill, will see our competitive edge squandered because as the Secretary of Commerce says, there are a lot of countries that are going to put money on the table and say come to me. I am ready. You build your factory here. You build your chips here. And if America needs chips, if our manufacturers need chips, well, they can come to us. Not good. Good for Putin. Good for Xi. Not for us.

We must not rely on hostile foreign competitors to supply critical components that sustain America's manufacturing base. Chips are at the heart of that. That is what this bill is about. That is why we bellied up to the bar. That is why we are putting a lot of money on the table.

This is not the reconciliation bill. This is about America. It is not about Republicans or Democrats. This is about America, American workers, American competitiveness, American manufacturers, American technology.

I thank the chair for the extraordinary investment she has led in making our research and development compete with China in a way that we will win. And if we win, our workers and our people will win.

Microchips. In 2022, microchips are in nearly every product, as I said, from phones to cars to children's toys. At the same time, advanced semiconductors are becoming more and more integral to high- tech, advanced manufacturing processes, making them critical to our economy.

Yes, we can wait, maybe until tomorrow, maybe until January when the minority party takes over--so they think. Maybe we will wait until then. Or maybe that won't happen, and we will wait 24 months and Xi and Putin will be saying, hey, yeah, you go to it. They are lobbying against this bill. They are lobbying, paying to defeat this bill. Do not be their handmaiden.

America needs a unified Congress if it is going to compete. Indivisible, one Nation.

One of the best ways for us to ease inflation and bring costs down for American workers and consumers is to remove these supply pressures by making more of these critical components here in our country instead of relying on importing them from abroad. That is what we heard over and over and over again from the United States Senate.

We are making materials here at home, creating jobs, and streamlining our supply chains with this bill. This bipartisan legislation--17 Republicans, one-third of the United States Senate Republicans voted for this bill.

This bipartisan legislation, the CHIPS and Science Act, which will always be for me the Make It in America Act, represents the most significant investment in easing inflation and promoting American manufacturing and innovation that we have seen in a generation. This is a Make It in America bill. Every time I say that to an audience, no matter how red or conservative or how blue or how liberal, they all shake their head, yes, we need to make it in America. That is what this bill is about.

While it is not as broad as I and others in the House had hoped for, the bill, nevertheless, achieves so many of our goals. Don't look a gift horse in the mouth and say no. It makes good on promises that our majority made to the American people to govern responsibly and build a post-pandemic economy that works better for more Americans. But this was a bill that was fashioned in a bipartisan way.

Nobody said at the time, well, it will be for this bill if we like every one of the bills you are supporting--what a negative way to perceive legislation to approach how you vote.

This legislation contains substantial new investment in science, research, and innovation--again, thank you, Eddie Bernice Johnson-- which will help us maintain our competitive edge, commercialize new discoveries, and train our workforce to succeed in the global economy.

The investments we are making in this legislation are not only a major victory for American businesses and workers; they achieve a big part of the Make It In America plan, which I have talked about since 2010. That is, making supply chains more resilient.

When we make microchips and semiconductors in America, more of our workers and entrepreneurs will surely ``make it'' in America.

Across America, we are now observing Made in America Week. Isn't that ironic? This is Made in America Week, yet we have a bill on the floor which invests in making it in America. The minority leader said on this floor: I am urging all of my Republican colleagues to vote ``no.'' Surely not because they are against making it in America but because they don't like some other bill, and they are going to stamp their feet and have a tantrum about the other bill.

This legislation now truly looks forward in ensuring that our workers and businesses will continue having opportunities to make it in America long into the future. This is not about today. It is not about tomorrow. It is about the next year, the next 10 years, the next generation. That is what this bill is about.

I plead with my colleagues, don't reject this bill based on a political perception of it.

Mr. Speaker, I again thank Chairwoman Eddie Bernice Johnson for her leadership on the House's similar legislation, as well as all the Members who had policies that were incorporated into this bill.

Today, we have a chance to deliver our promise to enact a major priority from President Biden's economic agenda, and I would suggest a major economic agenda of Republicans in the United States Senate, as articulated by the chairman of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. I hope some across the aisle will still vote for this bill as their Republican colleagues in the Senate did and as they had signaled they would do for a long time.

The politics changed, but the challenge we have has not, and the reality has not. Let us not lose this opportunity. It is disappointing that some in this House have decided to whip against this bill because of its leadership's opposition to the agreement announced yesterday in the Senate to move forward with the Inflation Reduction Act. Whether you like that bill or not, do not pay the price of this bill. Do not pay the price of setting our competition with others aside.

One would hope that all of us would be both for investment in American competitiveness and for reducing inflation and the deficit. Sadly, that seems not to be the case. Nevertheless, I hope we will have a bipartisan vote today on this bill.

Let's come together to make our supply chain stronger, protect our national security, invest in our innovation-driven economy, and advantage American workers so they can make it in America.

Mr. Speaker, I say to my colleagues: We talk about the loyal opposition. The loyal opposition need not be loyal to the other party. It does need to be loyal to the country.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I have three daughters. They are all adults. They are all amazed that we are here debating this issue. The ranking member said, me too; obviously, for different reasons.

In 1965, the Supreme Court--long before any of the present Justices had these theories about what due process is and is not--said that women had a constitutional right and, in addition, men, to seek services related to family planning.

Madam Speaker, women's rights are under assault in America. From the very beginning, of course, women were second-class citizens until we radically, in the beginning of the last century, decided, oh, well, women are part of America and we are going to let them vote. And successively, we have taken steps to treat women equally.

The Supreme Court's extremist Dobbs v. Jackson decision overturned 49 years of legal precedent and erased decades of progress toward women's equality. This bill deals with 57 years of constitutional law, since 1965, when Griswold was decided 7-2. It was not a controversial opinion with the American people nor, frankly, is this bill controversial, of whatever faith you may be.

Not only did Republican-appointed Justices strip women of their constitutional right to access safe, legal abortions, they also opened the door for lawmakers to restrict women's ability to make reproductive healthcare decisions.

Justice Thomas, of course, as all of us know, issued a radical concurring opinion that called for a reconsideration of landmark legal precedents, one of which we are dealing with today, Griswold v. Connecticut, as I said, decided in 1965, which established Americans' constitutional right to contraception.

Birth control allows women and their partners to make essential decisions about their health and their lives, including whether to have children and start a family. That is the consensus in America, overwhelmingly.

Nevertheless, the Supreme Court has put all forms of contraception in jeopardy with this decision. Now, some say, No, it doesn't. But Justice Thomas points out that the rationale of Dobbs is equally applicable from his perspective and, in my opinion, from his perspective, he is probably right, for himself and for radical members of the Court.

Restricting contraceptives means undermining women's health, personal privacy, and bodily autonomy. Now, there are many authoritarian regimes in the world that don't take any consideration into the rights we have over our own bodies.

Madam Speaker, we need to do everything we can here in Congress to ensure that all Americans have access to safe, reliable contraceptive care. That is why I am pleased to bring this bill to the floor.

And I thank Kathy Manning for her leadership on the Right to Contraception Act. I also want to thank Representatives Williams, Jacobs, and Craig, as well as Lizzie Fletcher, who just spoke, for their leadership on this bill. I am grateful to them for standing up on this issue, as well as to Chairman Pallone, for moving quickly to advance this bill through the Energy and Commerce Committee.

This legislation will enshrine the constitutional rights established by Griswold v. Connecticut and Eisenstadt v. Baird in Federal statute, ensuring that Americans can access contraceptive care legally wherever they live.

As I said at the beginning, my three daughters are amazed that this legislation is on the floor; amazed that there would be a premise that somehow the Constitution did not guarantee to my three daughters the right to make these decisions and not all of us.

This is about freedom. This is about individual integrity. And this vote will show the American people where Members stand on this question of whether it should continue to be legal for people in this country to pursue family planning as they perceive they want to do.

So let's vote ``yes'' to promote women's health. Let's vote ``yes'' to prevent further restrictions on women's basic rights to privacy and autonomy.

Let's vote ``yes'' for freedom. There is a lot of talk about freedom, right up until the time one decides to restrict that freedom, and then it is okay.

I urge all my colleagues to vote ``yes'' to protect the Constitution, the constitutional precedents, and freedom.

Mr. Speaker, I thank Mr. Scalise for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday, the House will meet at 12 p.m. for morning hour and 2 p.m. for legislative business with votes postponed, as usual, to 6:30 p.m.

On Wednesday and Thursday, the House will meet at 10 a.m. I reiterate that because that's 2 hours earlier than the usual meeting, but we have a lot of business to do. So the House on Wednesday and Thursday will meet at 10 a.m. for legislative business.

On Friday, the scheduled last day of the session before the August break, the House will meet at 9 a.m. for legislative business.

Next week, pending action of the Senate, hopefully, the House will consider the CHIPS Plus legislation to

combat inflation by easing supply chain bottlenecks and semiconductors that are critical components in everything from cars to dishwashers to small electronics.

Essentially, all of that, so many things that we use, rely on having chip presence. That will help lower costs for Americans and increase supplies.

This bill also will authorize a generational shift in research and innovation in America, helping ensure the next big ideas will start here, and, importantly, stay here.

The House will also consider H.R. 5118, the Wildfire Response and Drought Resiliency Act. All of us have seen the awful drought and wildfires that are occurring in the West and in other parts of the country, actually.

A package of bills aimed at helping those living in Western States meet the challenges of fire and drought exacerbated by the climate crisis will be in that legislation. It would save lives, property, farms, and businesses from damage and destruction from fire and extreme drought.

The House will also consider, Mr. Speaker, Representative Kildee's bill, the Susan Muffley Act, to restore retirement benefits for over 20,000 hardworking Delphi salaried employees. That is a bipartisan bill.

We will also consider Representative Quigley's H.R. 263, the Big Cat Public Safety Act, which would ban the private ownership of big cats and bring an end to the harmful cub petting industry in an effort to enhance the safety of our communities.

You may not think about this, but law enforcement has indicated this is a significant issue for them because they are the ones that are called in to handle it. This is an effort to enhance the safety of our communities and protect first responders and safeguard these wild animals.

The other reason it is on is because the Senate has asked, and I think there is a possibility that they will pass this through their unanimous consent process.

Representative Jayapal's bill, H.R. 3771, the South Asian Heart Health Awareness and Research Act, will also be on the floor to raise awareness regarding the alarming rate of heart disease in the South Asian community and invest in reversing this trend.

Lastly, I would say that we are going to have Representative Liz Cheney's H.R. 4040, the advancing telehealth beyond COVID-19 Act, which would further extend critical telehealth policies implemented during the pandemic, while also making it easier for seniors, especially those in rural areas, to access emergency healthcare technology.

Additionally, Mr. Speaker, the House may consider public safety legislation, including legislation marked up yesterday by the House Judiciary Committee with a focus, as well, on accountability in terms of enforcement.

The House will consider bills under suspension of the rules, of course. The complete list of suspension bills will be announced by the close of business today. As always, additional legislative items are possible, particularly in this last week for us of our planned session prior to the August break.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the Republican whip for yielding the time.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlemen for his question.

Of course, we are hearing rumors all the time and press reports all the time about what may happen. I think most of us don't know actually what will happen. But to speculate, we clearly on our side of the aisle, and, obviously, there is discussion that continues in the Senate about taking some parts of the reconciliation bill that can be agreed upon by sufficient numbers to pass it through reconciliation.

If something does happen, and it doesn't happen next week and it happens the following week when we will not be here, then we may well have to come back.

I tell the gentleman the reason for that is it may well deal with the Affordable Care Act and the premium subsidies that were included in the American Recovery Plan and then further extended in the Build Back Better Act.

The reason that is important is because the insurance companies will be setting prices in September and maybe as late as October. In order to price their product properly, they will need to know what we are going to do.

Now, with respect to the gentleman's--and everybody's interested in this, of course. The gentleman asked the question, I think, that everybody wants to know: Are we going to come back in August?

I don't know the answer to that, but I will tell you this--and you and I have discussed this before--one of the reasons we are leaving next week and the week thereafter is because we have a lot of people with young children. We see them on the floor all the time.

Of course, schools now are going back earlier than they used to. When I was in school in the 1800s, schools went back after Labor Day. Now, as you know, we have schools going back as early as the middle of August. Therefore, what we have tried to do is have 2 weeks that Members will have to be with their families on vacation.

So my expectation is if we have to come back that we will not come back during the first 2 weeks. That would be from my perspective, and I don't want to guarantee that, but I feel pretty strongly about that.

I am telling our Members that, and I want to respond publicly, but we may have to come back in August, again, because if the Senate passes language, if it has an impact on ACA, then we need to let the insurance companies know, not as a favor to them but as a favor to our constituents, so the pricing of their product will be more affordable.

I thank the gentleman for yielding. We are all very concerned about inflation, and one of the things that I talked about in the Affordable Care Act, a significant cost for Americans is their health insurance, and that bill is designed specifically to help them with the costs that they are incurring.

But I would point out to the gentleman: Gas prices, which are a significant part of inflation, have come down 36 days in a row, have come down over half a dollar in most areas of the country, and so we are making some progress, but not enough.

We passed a bill, of course, through this House which talked about price gouging. I don't know that anybody is for price gouging. Obviously, how to define price gouging is not simple, but having said that, I think certainly Americans want to make sure that they aren't gouged because they have to have a product.

We have also passed the act related to food and fuel to help with supply lines, to help with competition and help consumers bring their food prices down and gasoline prices by, for instance, helping out in the Midwest with E-15 being available, which is a cheaper price.

The gentleman is correct. We have and we are dealing with inflationary issues. In fact, hopefully, the CHIPS bill is going to pass the Senate. Hopefully, we are going to pass it here, and it will have other items involved in it, hopefully dealing with manufacturing.

I have an agenda that I think the gentleman has heard me talk about probably ad nauseam, Make It In America. I believe we ought to make things in America, and in doing so, help bring prices down because we will have supply availability here. I don't know if the gentleman has heard me use a phrase, we need to stop relying on the unreliable. I think the gentleman has made some of those comments himself.

I also want to say that there is a lot of, in my opinion, political assertion of the fact that this administration has caused inflation, which I think is completely without any factual support. In fact, although clearly inflation is unacceptably high at 9.1 percent in June, the OECD average of economically developed countries in the world is 9.6 percent, so this is not something unique to America.

It is a global inflation. It is not Biden policy inflation. It is global, largely caused by the pandemic, largely caused by the reduction in supply of goods and the reduction in demand for a period of time. And then with the American Rescue Plan we saw, not only in our country, but all over the world, there came a surge of demand, but because you had had the pandemic and you had sent workers home and they hadn't come in to produce goods, the supply was down, the demand went up, and unfortunately, inflation followed, which is very harmful to our people.

As I say, the average OECD, however, is higher than we are. We are not an outlier. The G20 average is 8.8 percent, just about exactly what we are, and our closest peers--Germany, Canada, and the U.K.--are all around 8 percent inflation, so we are all in that place where inflation is causing our people a lot of pain, and we need to deal with it.

The President has been trying to deal with it, and I think we have been trying to deal with it. As I said, we passed a lot of legislation. I think the CHIPS bill is going to have a really big impact.

The car industry and related industries are one-third of inflation.

Why is that? Because the chips shortage has caused literally millions of cars to be sitting on docks or sitting in parking lots somewhere unable to be sold because we can't get the chips. Used car prices have gone up because they are in greater demand. Again, when you have greater demand, prices go up.

So I would say to my friend, you and I agree 100 percent that inflation needs to be dealt with. The Fed, obviously, is trying to do that as well because one way you deal with inflation is to increase interest rates and try to slow down the economy. When you slow down the economy what you are trying to do is reduce demand to meet supply and stabilize prices.

So I say to my friend, we have been doing a lot of things to try to deal with inflation. I mentioned a number of those bills that we passed. A number of them are still in the Senate. But let us hope that gasoline prices keep coming down. There are some who expect they may go back up.

They are not set by us. They are set on the international market, and clearly there is no doubt that the war has had an impact on those prices, a significant impact on those prices. That is not the only reason because, as I said in our colloquy a couple weeks ago, the oil companies reduced production by 800,000 barrels per day.

Why? Because demand was down.

Why? Not for a bad reason. The pandemic kept people in their homes, and they weren't driving, so demand went down, so the normal reaction of the supplier was to reduce their supply.

This President believes that inflation is one of the top problems confronting the American people and the administration, and he is going to continue to work to try to bring that down.

I am hoping the CHIPS bill comes over soon, the Senate gets that done. In whatever form it comes, I hope it is more robust than less robust. I think it will have a positive impact on bringing down inflation.

And it would surprise him.

Mr. Speaker, we have had this discussion for over a month now about these bills, but also every time we have it, there is the plea that we produce, and if we would only produce. I bring this statistic up.

As the gentleman knows, as a result of our going back and forth, my staff has prepared a paper--and they have done an excellent job--as to what actually is the fact. Fact one, U.S. rig count--that is what drills for oil--is at current levels of 733. That is up 272 from 1 year ago. That is a 59 percent increase from a year ago, so that there is no doubt that we are producing more.

Now, as a practical matter, those of us who believe in the private sector and the capitalist system understand that the reason production goes up is because demand goes up and, therefore, companies want to sell more. But there are also companies that have not chosen to produce more for reasons of their own business judgment as to whether they think producing more will cause them to have better profits or lower profits or stay even.

This administration has presided over greater production in their first year than was true in the first 3 years individually--2017, 2018, and 2019, each one of those 3 years--under the Trump administration.

We are producing oil, and we are producing product. We are going to continue to do that. I can give you statistic after statistic of how many applications have been approved, are ready to go, and are not being used.

Rather than just rehash that, I will simply say, back to the issue of the gas prices, gas prices are lower today in real terms than they were at the end of the Bush administration in 2008. I pause for emphasis. In real dollars, the cost of gasoline at the pump at the end of 2008 was higher than it is today, and it is way too high today.

I was out in Virginia, in a rural area, and I saw gas for $4.36. At home, it had been almost $4.95, and that was an extraordinary decrease. I said: Boy, look at that. Then I caught myself because it is still a burden on our consumers, middle-class, working families, when, as the whip says, they confront a price of two or three times what they were used to when filling up their car. So, we need to continue to work on that.

I disagree with the whip in the sense, Mr. Speaker, that I think the President's visit overseas--there was some controversy to it. I get that. I think it was very positive vis-a-vis our close ally Israel, and Israel said it was a very productive visit. I am glad the President did that. I also think that it gave additional stability indicating that this President, although we are focused like a laser on Ukraine and focused like a laser on the Far East, we are still focused on the Middle East and trying to make that region of the world a stable region of the world.

Mr. Speaker, the Supreme Court's ruling in Dobbs v. Jackson demonstrated not only the extremist majority of justices' disregard for constitutional precedent; it also showed their disregard for the individual liberties of the American people. As if depriving women of their constitutional right to reproductive health care weren't enough, Justice Thomas' concurring opinion specifically opened the door to the overturning of United States v. Windsor and Obergefell v. Hodges--and implicitly we can read this to mean Loving v. Virginia as well. These cases established constitutional protections for same-sex and interracial marriage in America.

Today, 1.1 million Americans arc in same-sex marriages. Almost ten times as many are in interracial marriages. One of the very first votes I took as a young state senator in Maryland after my first election to public office was to repeal our state's vile and racist anti- miscegenation law. That was in 1967, five years after the Supreme Court's decision in Loving v. Virginia. Fifty-five years have now passed since that ruling. It has been nine and seven years, respectively, since the Windsor and Obergefell rulings. Americans have become used to knowing that they have a constitutional right to equal marriage. Indeed, American women had gotten used to the security of knowing that they had a constitutional right to reproductive choice for forty-nine years until last month.

Just as was the case with the immediate aftermath of the Dobbs ruling, at least thirty-five states already have laws or amendments in their state constitution that would outlaw same-sex marriage if Obergefell were overturned. We must do everything in our power to ensure that Republican-controlled state legislatures don't have the opportunity to restrict the rights of LGBTQ or interracial couples in America. Neither government officials nor Supreme Court justices should be able to decide that consenting American adults cannot marry. That's why I'm bringing the Respect for Marriage Act to the Floor today to codify the marriage equality precedents set by Loving, Windsor, and Obergefell into federal statute.

I want to thank Chairman Nadler, Rep. Cicilline, all the Co-Chairs of the LGBTQ+ Equality Caucus, Chairwoman Beatty, Chairman Ruiz, Chairwoman Chu, and Democratic Caucus Chairman Jeffries for taking the lead on this crucial legislation.

We cannot afford to underestimate the risk to marriage equality. We cannot afford to be complacent and take for granted the rights we have under the constitution as Americans. The millions of same-sex and interracial couples throughout the United States should not have to live with the fear that extremist Supreme Court justices--who act as though they are legislators--could end legal recognition for their families or prevent millions of others from being able to build families with equal legal status. They deserve the assurance that their marriages will always be recognized in every city, county, and state across the country. That is the overwhelming consensus of the American people, and it is the clear view of our constitution.

I urge my colleagues to join me in voting `yes' on this legislation to protect and respect marriages across our country.

Mr. Chair, this is a bill that has to pass if we are going to keep the government operating. The chair of this committee has worked very hard to get that done, and she has been successful, as chair, of moving most of our bills through this House.

The Senate has not yet moved any of its bills, as it did not last year. This is an important, critical part of our process to fund government and keep it operating and invest in the priorities of the American people. That is what we are doing today in these appropriation bills.

Mr. Chair, I thank Chairwoman Rosa DeLauro and members of the staff of the Appropriations Committee for their hard work on this package.

Once again, our majority is passing appropriation bills in a timely manner. Sadly, as I said, the Senate has yet to bring any appropriation bills to the Senate floor.

Today's package funds about a quarter of the total expected discretionary funding for next year. It reflects the budget request from the Biden administration, and in some cases funds programs at levels we have determined should be increased.

It also includes Community Project Funding for investments in our communities that will help improve public safety, encourage economic growth, and fight poverty.

Bringing back Community Project Funding was an essential tool in helping to restore Congress' power of the purse. I add that it was done in a bipartisan way, and it was done--thanks to the chair--in a very transparent way. We wanted to make sure that more funding decisions are being made by the Members who know their districts best.

There is much to celebrate in this package, which is why I rise in support of this package. Many important and worthwhile investments in the American people, in our communities, in economic opportunity, and in so many areas--I am not going to go into all of them, they will be discussed.

I do want to highlight just a few of the important victories in this bill, particularly for the constituents and communities I represent in Maryland's Fifth District.

First, Mr. Chairman, this bill moves us a major step closer to realizing a new, badly needed, consolidated FBI Headquarters, a critical national security project that many of us have worked on for more than a decade.

In fact, I started working on this in 2009 when the director of the FBI said: This building is very out of date, does not accommodate the work that we need to do, and we must have a new building--and requested that there be a campus-like setting where all of the FBI could be consolidated from the almost 20 different locations that they were located in in the city.

This legislation will ensure that we can build a fully consolidated FBI Headquarters that meets the needs of the Bureau with a substantial payment of $500 million toward that project. It limits the GSA to committing any of those funds only to one of the two sites in Maryland and one in Virginia. The GSA just recently adjudged all three of those sites to be eligible sites.

This project, first requested, as I said, by the FBI in 2009, is now ready for final site selection. This building, which had been delayed at a cost of giving the Bureau the tools and facilities necessary to fulfill its missions, can now be advanced in the timeframe I have understood from the administration, which is before the end of the fiscal year.

In May of last year, the four Senators from Maryland and Virginia wrote to President Biden and urged his administration to move forward expeditiously. That was some 15 months ago. It is long past expeditiously, and I look forward to seeing this project realized.

Mr. Chair, I thank the chair and the chair of the subcommittee, Mr. Quigley, for his help on this effort. It is an important one for our country.

Furthermore, this package would provide civilian Federal employees with a 4.6% cost-of-living adjustment--at parity with the raise being provided to military personnel--and makes DREAMERS eligible to serve as Federal employees.

It increases the V.A. Health Care System's budget by nearly $22 billion over last year, which will help provide high-quality care to 7.3 million veterans in our country.

And it provides the Army Corps of Engineers with $3.5 million to further oyster recovery in the Chesapeake Bay.

In addition to these priorities for Maryland's Fifth District, there are other critical investments for which I have advocated for a long time.

These include $400 million in Election Security Grants through the Election Assistance Commission, which was created under my Help America Vote Act Legislation in 2002.

It also funds a program I've championed to encourage college students to become nonpartisan poll workers in their communities.

I was also glad to see the inclusion of $100 million for the Technology Modernization Fund, which was launched under bipartisan legislation I led with Leader McCarthy.

This will help agencies upgrade technology systems so that they can serve americans more efficiently and securely.

Additionally, this package makes a strong investment in combatting hunger by providing W.I.C. funds to serve more than 6 million people and $28.6 billion toward child-nutrition programs.

It will also ensure that S.N.A.P. does not run out of money in 2023 and can continue helping those with the lowest incomes put food on the table.

Mr. Chair, this is a very solid and robust funding package, and it is--as I said--a first step in our effort to continue funding government and delivering the priorities of the american people on time.

I urge the Senate to match our pace in the appropriations process so that we can continue governing responsibly `for the people.'