Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to bring up H.R. 471, the PAUSE Act, so that we can protect all Americans from President Biden's border crisis.

Madam Speaker, I rise for the purpose of inquiring of the majority leader the schedule for next week.

Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the majority leader of the House.

Madam Speaker, as we look at the schedule for next week, obviously, there are a lot of concerns about the continuing rising price of gasoline that we have been seeing for the last year and a half. President Biden talked about some things that he will do.

In regard to some of the long-term fixes to lower gas prices that have been filed, I know I have mentioned them to the majority leader in the past. H.R. 6858 is one of the bills that would address some of the real impediments to getting more oil and gas production here in the United States. There are a number of other bills, including six different bills that were filed by the Natural Resources Committee recently, that would address some of the other specific challenges that are holding back the ability for America to produce more oil and gas.

I would ask the gentleman if we could get those bills on the calendar so that we can move to actually address the problems that are holding back American oil and gas production, thus leading to higher prices.

Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman.

Madam Speaker, a number of problems with the way that the President's plan was described is that that is not what the President has done. The President has worked aggressively through many of his Federal agencies to, in fact, block the production of oil and gas.

And let me bring you back to candidate Barack Obama. There are a

number of specific examples I am going to give the gentleman because the gentleman gave a number of specific examples that just don't comply with the facts, starting with the 9,000 leases, the thousands of acres that I know the----

President has talked about and others have talked about that, frankly, don't tell the picture of what the President is also doing to ensure that you cannot develop on those lands. You cannot develop with those 9,000 leases.

And I will go back to candidate Joe Biden. This is what Joe Biden said when he was a candidate for President. ``No more drilling on Federal lands. No more drilling, including offshore. No ability for the oil industry to continue to drill, period. It ends.''

That was Joe Biden as a candidate. The problem is he continued to take steps to carry through on that, starting with the 9,000 leases. If you have a lease to drill, it sounds really good until you realize that you still have to go through other steps to develop that. First of all, in some cases, you may actually go test wells, and you find out that they are not producing.

Thousands, by the way, of those in the 9,000 are not producing wells, meaning they are dry holes. There is no oil. Now, I don't know if you are going to fine a company because they are not drilling in an area where there is no oil, but maybe that is what the President is talking about, or maybe he doesn't understand the process of drilling for oil.

So then you go to some of the other areas, and I will give you section 1002 of ANWR, as an example. There needs to be seismic development where you go and test to see where the oil is.

We have a lot of advanced technology where, in the past, they might drill even more dry holes. Today, you can actually go and develop through seismic technology to know pretty well where the oil is, where the biggest reserves are, and then that is where you go and drill.

And so the Federal agencies are blocking the ability to do seismic activity, so you can't find out what is under the ground. So great. You have got a permit. You can't find out the seismic because the Biden administration is blocking it, so you can't make the multibillion- dollar investment because you don't know what is under the ground where.

In other countries, they allow that to happen. These companies are making investments, by the way. They are just not making the investment in America because they can't get cooperation from the regulating agencies because the regulating agencies don't want them to drill. Because, again, President Joe Biden as a candidate said, ``There will be no more drilling. . . . No ability for the oil industry to continue to drill, period. It ends.'' And then he directed his agencies to do it.

Another example that has been brought up just the other day, less than a week ago. Again, we are talking about prices hovering in the $100 range. Raiding, in the short term, the Strategic Petroleum Reserve actually makes our country less safe because the Strategic Petroleum Reserve is there to be a safety net. If there is a national crisis somewhere, you can rely on the Strategic Petroleum Reserve to get you through the next few weeks while you are working on a supply chain issue. That is not what is going on. The President is just raiding the Strategic Petroleum Reserve to try to cover up for his failed policy.

And so if you look at what he just did the other day, President Biden's Securities and Exchange Commission just put out a whole new set of rules and regulations to make it hard, not just for oil and gas companies, but any other company to use fossil fuels.

Again, he has talked about this publicly. He wants to move away from fossil fuels. The problem is, he is telling his regulatory agencies to go make it incredibly difficult and more expensive to use fossil fuels. In his budget just earlier this week, he proposed $45 billion in new taxes on oil and gas in America.

Now, I know he has been, in the past, begging Putin to produce more. He is begging Venezuela, other dictators, Iran, to produce more oil. He is not proposing to raise their taxes. He is proposing to raise the tax on oil and gas produced in the American to the tune of $45 billion in his budget he just released Monday.

That would mean higher gas prices. But what it also does is it tells the oil and gas companies, don't drill in America because that is what President Biden as candidate said, No more drilling, period. It ends.

Then the SEC continued to do other things; this ESG movement where they are trying to get the big oil and gas companies to not drill for oil. So you are an oil and gas company, you are Exxon, and they are pushing to try to get those companies to separate into two different entities so that they can cut off financing for oil and gas development projects. They are doing it right now.

We have got a number of bills to fix this. And as the gentleman talks about, we want to do these things. We want to open it up. Except if you are saying on one hand, I am going to build this road, and I don't know why you are not driving down the road. But on the other hand, you have got people barricading the road, and then you say, look, nobody's using the road, so why even bother. You know, fine them for not using the road. And then you go look at the on-ramp, and you find out that they have put 10 barricades in front of the on-ramp so you can't get on the road.

That is what President Biden has done to oil and gas drilling in America. He has actually failed to comply with the law on the requirements that he conduct lease sales that he has not conducted which the law requires him to do. There are actually lawsuits that we have won in court, and he continues to obfuscate those laws.

So there is a bill called the Restore Onshore Energy Production Act. It immediately resumes oil and gas lease sales and requires quarterly lease sales in each State with an oil and gas program. That is something the President should be doing if he wanted to actually lower the cost of gasoline and produce in America, he would be doing, but he won't do it. So this bill would require him to do it. I would love us to bring that bill up.

And, again, if the gentleman says, Hey, why don't we produce on those 9,000 leases? This would actually help the ones that aren't dry holes where companies are trying to find out how they can go and drill, but they are being blocked by President Biden's different regulatory agencies. This would remove some of those roadblocks.

The Strategy to Secure Offshore Energy Act would actually require the publication of the 5-year plan for offshore oil and gas lease sales and require timelines for developing subsequent leasing plans. That is supposed to be done under law. The President's not doing it. This would require he do it.

The Energy Permitting Certainty Act requires the Department of the Interior to process applications for permits to drill under a valid lease, regardless of any unrelated civil actions where some of these groups use other laws like the Endangered Species Act to block drilling, again, saying there are leases. Why aren't you using them?

President Biden is saying, We are going to fine you for not using them as he is using his other agencies to stop them from using the leases.

You have got EPA over here and the Department of the Interior over there. You have got the SEC over there, all putting up roadblocks to the roadway, and then the President says, Look, there are no cars on the road. We are going to fine you for not using the road.

Well, how about you take the roadblocks off the on-ramp so that you can actually get on the road and drill? President Biden is trying to have it both ways. He is trying to appease the people who he promised, I am going to shut down drilling. Unfortunately, he is doing that. But then he is going and telling the public, I want them to drill. And in fact, I am going to fine them if they don't drill, while he is stopping them from drilling.

Again, other bills that we have to fix these problems that President Biden is putting up as roadblocks: The Securing American Energy and Investing in Reliancy Act requires the Department of the Interior to conduct all remaining offshore oil and gas leases in the current leasing plan and issue the leases, one, as a result of Lease Sale 257; additional impediments he has put

in front of people that have already followed the rules, but he is still not letting them actually go do what they want to do.

They want to drill in America, and he is forcing them out of America. That is why he is begging foreign countries when he, himself, can remove the roadblocks that he put in place to stop drilling in America.

And there are more bills. There are a number of other bills. We will be happy to go over each of them with you.

But what we are saying is, there are very specific things President Biden has done to impede the ability for us to drill in America.

There are companies all across the country that know how to drill and can't drill in America. And instead of the President trying to use taglines and divert and talk about Putin and everybody else, when he is the one that is giving Putin leverage by shutting America off--and, again, this isn't accidental. He, as a candidate, said, ``No more drilling on Federal lands. No more drilling, including offshore. No ability for the gas industry to continue to drill, period. It ends.''

Unfortunately, it has ended, and we are trying to get it started up again by reversing the very things Joe Biden did to stop it. And we are asking for help here on this floor to address these very specific problems.

Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman.

Madam Speaker, for correction, that is not what I did. I actually went through how those 9,000 leases are being blocked by the President from being utilized properly.

Madam Speaker, clearly the gentleman and I disagree on many of these items. Drilling in America is the cleanest way to produce oil in the world. If it is going to come from Russia, which I don't want, if it is going to come from any dictator, they actually emit more carbon than if you make it in America.

But I want to point out, as the gentleman talked about, this magical lease sale in the Gulf of Mexico and why no one bid on it, the reason is because it didn't happen. The Biden administration did not move forward with that lease sale. That is what we are trying to address with these bills.

But the gentleman was saying it wasn't bid on; the oil

companies didn't want to do it. They did. They wanted to invest in America. An environmental group went to block it and got a court to go along with them. The normal practice is the administration stands up for America and American policy and objects, and the Biden administration refused to challenge it in the courts because they didn't want the lease sale to go forward. And the lease sale did not go forward. That is why no one bid on it, because there was no lease sale.

We fix that with these pieces of legislation we would like to bring to the floor, but we will continue this discussion. Hopefully, we can resolve it. We will continue pushing for it.

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

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

What a great tribute, to be naming this Coast Guard reauthorization bill after Don Young. While we mourn his loss today and pay tribute to Don in Statuary Hall, his family was here, and as you are paying tribute to a great life, the dean of the House who served 49 years in this great Chamber from the 49th State of Alaska, you can't

help but think of all the Don Young stories.

Clearly, there is a tie to this bill because Don served on the Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation Subcommittee for his entire tenure that the committee was in existence. Don loved the Coast Guard, loved the relationship they had in Alaska, just trying to get more icebreakers so that we could keep up with Russians continuing to open up their shipping lanes, but our not having the ability to get enough Coast Guard cutters to break ice in Alaska.

Don Young was always a champion for Alaska. He was a great friend. He was somebody who you knew where he stood all the time. And if you stood in his way, he would make it clear that he was going to keep moving forward.

As we look at the seat that Don Young always sat in, in a Chamber of 435 people where there are no reserved seats, everybody knows that is where Don Young sat. When you look over there today, it is a little bit sad, but you can only think of great memories of Don Young when you see the black cloth draped over that seat.

We will always remember Don Young, a man who loved this country, surely loved the Coast Guard, and epitomized what is the great State of Alaska. No better champion they had in Congress than Don Young.

I look forward to passing this bill with overwhelming support.

Mr. Speaker, I rise for the purpose of inquiring of the majority leader the schedule for next week.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the majority leader of the House.

Mr. Speaker, I share the gentleman's expression of unified support with the people of Ukraine. Clearly, we stand with the heroic people of Ukraine, President Zelensky, and the inspiration he has been showing to the world, and the strong people of Ukraine.

What we are seeing from Russia is barbaric. One of my colleagues, Representative Spartz, who actually was born in Ukraine, she has been very outspoken about the genocide that is happening to the people of Ukraine. As the gentleman mentioned, the resolution that we passed with Mr. Meeks and Mrs. Spartz, it was bipartisan, and an overwhelming vote of support standing with the people of Ukraine.

Clearly, they have asked for a number of very specific things: some military equipment, supplies, as well as humanitarian relief. We need to continue to push as hard as we can to make sure it is delivered as expeditiously as possible as we watch continuous barbaric attacks, raids, bombing, carpet bombing, cluster bombs, things that are illegal under international law, yet Putin continues to commit these barbaric crimes against the people of Ukraine. They are tough people, and they are not going to give up their country. We need to do everything we can to help them.

One other thing that was mentioned in this resolution because people, obviously, want to know what they can do. There are a number of steps that are being taken and there are other steps that we would also like to see this Congress take. In the resolution there were two provisions specifically that I wanted to bring up.

One of the resolution requests was that we--the United States Congress--pledge support working with Europe and international partners to bolster Europe's energy security and reduce its dependence on Russian energy imports.

The resolution that we passed also goes on to say: We resolve that we underscore the importance of maintaining United States' energy independence for the benefit of the American people and United States' allies. With that there was a piece of legislation that was just filed earlier this week to do just that. H.R. 6858, offered by Mrs. McMorris Rodgers and Mr. Westerman, the ranking members of the Energy and Commerce Committee and the Natural Resources Committee, goes to the heart of what we can do as a country and as a Congress to take leverage away from Vladimir Putin as it relates to energy.

We can all see over the years how Europe has become very dependent on Russian energy. They, unfortunately, get over 40 percent of their oil from Russia. This is also putting billions of dollars in the pocket of Vladimir Putin. When you look at the price of oil today, over $110 a barrel, just look at the daily benefit that that gives to Vladimir Putin. He is making over $700 million every single day selling oil to the United States and Europe. Think about that.

Vladimir Putin is pocketing today over $700 million, and he is going to get another $700 million tomorrow and another the day after by selling his oil to the United States and to Europe. There are things we can do to stop that. That is what H.R. 6858 goes to the heart of. Some of those things are very specific.

President Biden, just a few weeks ago, put a complete freeze on all oil and gas projects in America. All oil and gas projects. That means we are not allowing the United States to provide for the resources of our country and our allies. We used to be exporting oil to our allies around the world, it is becoming harder to do that because those policies by President Biden are shutting off American energy, and at the same time President Biden was asking Vladimir Putin to produce more oil for us.

There is no reason we should be asking Russia to do what we in America can do, yet that is a policy that was put in place. President Biden can reverse that today. I have called on President Biden to reverse all of these specific actions today. This legislation would at least show that Congress is ready to allow ourselves to be energy independent so that we can take that leverage away from Putin. We can take that $700 million away from Putin.

Obviously, there are a number of other things, just permits for things like LNG--natural gas--Putin is supplying a tremendous amount of natural gas to Europe. There are six projects right now sitting on the Biden administration's desk to approve LNG permit applications for major projects, multibillion-dollar, private-sector-funded projects in America to allow us to ship natural gas to our European allies so they don't need to get it from Putin. Not one of those permits has been approved in over a year.

Same thing, permits for pipelines. It is not just the Keystone pipeline. There are many other pipeline projects including two States in the Northeast. In the United States, States like Massachusetts are importing their oil from Vladimir Putin because they can't get it through pipelines in America. This opens that up.

It does a number of other things to allow America to become energy independent, but, more importantly, to take the leverage away from Vladimir Putin that he has today that he is using to pocket over $700 million a day by selling his energy to us and Europe. I would love to see that bill on the floor, and I think a lot of other people would, too, to send a message to Putin that we are not going to be a part of helping him finance this barbaric war on Ukraine.

Mr. Speaker, I would ask the gentleman if we could look at bringing H.R. 6858 to the floor, have a full debate, and pass a strong piece of legislation that would send a signal to our

friends around the world, surely to the people of Ukraine, but also to Vladimir Putin that he is not going to be able to finance his war off the backs of oil he is selling to the United States and Europe and using that against the people of Ukraine.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to gentleman.

Thirty million, I believe it is.

Mr. Speaker, there are many areas where we have been unified in our response to Ukraine, but it is not unifying to say leave Russia's oil off the table in terms of sanctions. That was left out by President Biden. When he issued sanctions he specifically exempted Russia's oil, and that is not unifying. There are a lot of people who are angry about that because we are watching the amount of money that Putin is putting in his pocket every day, and he is using that money.

So you take other sanctions, you take other things off the table, the banking system might be hit hard, except if he is able to put $700 million--and it is probably closer to $1 billion a day now with this higher price of oil because of what he has done and because of what our country has done to take energy off the table.

I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.

I appreciate that clarification because it is in President Biden's set of sanctions that he specifically exempted energy. Clearly, that is not unifying, even to us.

But it is the money that is still allowed to be flowing into Russia, into Putin's pocket, to finance the war that many of us want to get at.

If H.R. 6858, after the gentleman looks at it, has some provisions that we could work on, I think it would be very unifying to the country to say we are finally going to confront what might be Vladimir Putin's largest source of funding, and that is his oil exports to the United States. It offends many, many people that, today, we are getting over 100,000 barrels every single day from Russia because we took things like the Keystone pipeline off the table.

That would have brought us oil from Canada. Canada is a friend, by the way. And it is not like the need and the demand just went away. The demand is still there.

President Biden said no, we don't want Canadian oil. But it wasn't because he didn't want any oil. He didn't say no, we don't want any pipelines. He just said no to the Canada-to-America pipeline, but he said yes to the Nord Stream 2, initially. But he also said to Vladimir Putin: Would you produce more oil?

And let's keep in mind--I know there is this conversation about the planet. Let's be honest about carbon emissions. Carbon is emitted all around the globe. So if we shut down production in America, which has been done--and it is not just on Federal lands where the President is not issuing permits. He put a freeze just 2 weeks ago on all new permits.

But it is also the banking system that he is using to go after oil and gas companies, so there is no investment being made in America. They are making investments, billions of dollars of investment, in other countries. They are just not making it here in America because of those policies.

Again, that just gives more leverage to Putin. We were paying less than $2 per gallon under President Trump. I know the gentleman wanted to bring up President Trump.

President Trump stood up to Putin, by the way. You didn't see an invasion anywhere in Ukraine under President Trump. You surely did under President Obama and Vice President Biden when Putin walked in and took Crimea with no consequence. Afghanistan, the weakness that was being showed clearly was being watched by Putin and Xi and other adversaries as a preface to then go and start marshaling troops on the Ukraine border.

President Trump didn't let that happen. He stood up to Putin and pushed back on Putin. He also used energy as a weapon against our enemies because we were producing enough to not only meet our needs but to export to our friends around the world.

Surely, lower pricing was a benefit to Americans, but it also helped our allies around the world. That has been taken off the table.

But let's talk about the carbon emission side because oil is being produced. It is just that a lot of it isn't being produced here that would otherwise be in the mix.

So if you look at, for example, Russian oil, Russia emits probably 40 percent more carbon to make the same oil that otherwise would be made in the United States because we have better standards in America.

I know a lot of people love beating up on America. We do it better than anybody else. Our technology is better than anybody else. In fact, our technology for producing energy is the envy of the world. It should be the model for the world because if we are not making it, Russia is going to be making it.

Believe me, futures prices of oil have an impact on price today, which is why, when President Biden walked in and shut the spigots off in America--sure, there is production going on from previous leases that happened under previous administrations, including President Trump, that was driving the price down. But when he walked in day one and said no to the Keystone pipeline--in other words, no to Canada's oil but yes to Russia's oil--that had an impact on price.

When he said no to Federal drilling, which then he expanded to all drilling, any new permits--sure, the stuff that is going on out there is still going on, but there is no new investment being made in America. It is being made in other countries, including Russia, including OPEC nations. Because of that, they are able to control the price because they are cartels.

We had literally taken the monopoly away from OPEC and Russia when we were producing enough and using the resources of this great Nation, by the way, in a much more energy efficient way than anywhere else in the world. We were reducing carbon emissions in America while producing our own energy, while manufacturing more in America. The more things are shut down here, they are being made in other places, and those other places emit more carbon.

China is building a coal plant probably every single week. China emits more carbon, probably five times more carbon, to make many of the same things we make in America.

So the less we make here, it is still being made; it is just being made in other countries. They get the jobs, but they also emit more carbon. So, as people talk about carbon emissions, don't leave that point out because it is an important point.

Again, it was President Biden himself who asked Putin to produce more oil, just last year. The oil produced in Russia has a higher carbon price than made here in America.

And it makes us less secure. It makes Putin more strong. It gives him hundreds of millions of dollars a day that we can take off the table.

I think that would be very unifying if we had that debate and said: Can we get an agreement on some of these provisions that would actually strengthen our country?

Even if Russian wasn't invading Ukraine, it would be smart American policy. It would reduce carbon emissions. But especially considering what is going on in Russia, this is much more pertinent today to have this discussion. Again, I think it can be unifying.

Just because right now we may not see eye to eye, I think there is a way to see eye to eye on this if we actually had that debate and looked at it from a global perspective, not just in a silo in America because, again, there is a global market for oil. Carbon emissions are global.

The countries that are taking the things away that we are shutting down here in America emit more carbon. It is a fact. Why shouldn't we be talking about that, too, and, frankly, taking away the leverage that Putin would have?

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.

As we talk about this energy policy difference, again, I do think it could be unifying. I do think we can get to a point where we recognize some of the impediments that are real today. While the President says Make It In America, there are things that President Biden is doing that are blocking the ability for us to make it in America.

Again, I have talked about some of the regulatory agencies that are making it very hard even on some of those lands the gentleman references that could be open for production where they can't because they reinstated some of the things like WOTUS and some of the other regulations that were removed so that States could look at the ability to permit applications where now they are not able to do that, where banking systems, through Treasury, through the SEC, are blocking financial institutions or bullying financial institutions to not allow investment by American banks into American production of energy.

It is real. It is going on. It is a problem. And it is why many of those energy companies are making their billions of investments in other countries right now.

Again, when you have John Kerry, the President's global warming czar, just the other day saying he hopes Russia helps us with this.

Mr. Speaker, probably about 4 days ago, where he was talking about getting energy production addressed and some other things addressed. We shouldn't have a strategy that involves Russia helping us right now or Putin helping us right now.

So don't give Vladimir Putin that leverage. He has leverage. While Nord Stream 2 is blocked today, Nord Stream 1, the original Nord Stream

pipeline, is still operating, providing over 40 percent of Germany's energy. That was what President Trump was critical of Merkel about, why are you signing contracts that make your country more dependent on Russia? He said that verbatim. He was right back then. Germany probably wishes they wouldn't have done it today because they were hamstrung in the beginning of this. They are now helping, but they are also dependent on Russian oil.

We should be looking at things that we can do to not only wean ourselves off of Russian oil but our allies around the world. There are real specific things we can do and there are impediments in this country today that exist that are unnecessary, that are hurting our ability to shut down Russia's ability to use energy as leverage. They are doing it right now. They are using it not only as leverage but as a financing source. Putin still is pocketing over $700 million a day by selling oil to Europe and America.

If there are things that we can come to an agreement on that would address it, I think it would be important that we do it as fast as possible to take away those points so that Putin has to think twice about continuing what he is doing, this barbaric genocide that is happening in Ukraine.

So just saying that while it might not be something we recognize as unifying today, I think it could end up being something unifying in a short period of time, if we can keep working through those differences. I would just encourage that we try to do that.

If there is anything else on that, I would yield, but there is one other issue I wanted to raise as well.

The Senate just a few days ago passed unanimously a resolution asking to open up the Capitol again to the American people, our constituents, who still are not able to come to the Capitol to visit with Members of Congress, to sit in the gallery, to participate even in the State of the Union. It was a unanimous resolution in the Senate.

There is a companion resolution by Congressman Steil that was filed, H. Res. 961, that would do the same thing and express from the House side what the Senate just expressed, that it is time to open the Capitol to the public again. The Senate Republicans and Democrats came to an agreement to do it. I would just ask that we do the same and show the American people that the people's House is open to the people of the Nation. If the Senate can come to an agreement on it--again, I don't think there is anything controversial in the resolution, but I would ask that we would bring that up as well.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman.

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I have been very clear from the very beginning, anyone who broke into this Capitol ought to be held accountable and is being held accountable. More arrests have been made than probably all of the cities where people were burning down cities across America in the summer. That is something that ought to be addressed, and the Democratic Party doesn't want to talk about that. They just want to talk about January 6.

These resolutions are not about January 6. It is allowing the American people to exercise their First Amendment right to come and meet with their Members of Congress, which they are not able to do right now.

If you look at that resolution, the head of the RNC even came out and said that is not what they were referring to, what the gentleman just alluded to. They said they were talking about the people who weren't even in the District of Columbia on January 6 who are being targeted right now. That is what they said that they were doing. Go take that up with them.

I have been clear about what has happened to the people who broke into this Capitol and that everybody who breaks the law ought to be held accountable, not just the people who broke in here on January 6, but also people who burned the cities down over the summer of 2020 who haven't been held accountable. That is something that angers people all over the country. They want to see the law equally carried out for people who broke the law, no matter where they were, here or in cities across America.

If you want to criticize one side of it, at least be willing to criticize the other side of it, too. I surely have. I haven't heard it from the other side. I would be more than happy to hear the gentleman talk about people who were shooting at cops, killed cops, beat up people in streets, burned down police stations, government buildings in cities, took over cities, and haven't been held accountable. Shouldn't they also be held accountable? I say both should be held accountable. Does the gentleman agree with that?

And I yield to the gentleman.

Just again, we condemn violence of all kinds: Political violence, people that just commit violence because they want to or they think they can get away with it or they think somebody will bail them out if they do it. But we should do it across the board, and the punishment fits the crime. The laws are on the books. It is the prosecutors who go after the people, and they are in some instances. It should be in all instances.

I will continue to call it out on both sides. I would hope on the other side we hear that as well, not just when they see it in one place, but when they see it in all places, and I would hope we would open up the people's House and get the Capitol back open to the American people who want to and have a right to come and express their views on issues.

They might want to send an email, they might want to make a phone call, but they also might want to go to the office and sign that log book and try to sit down either with the Member of Congress or their staff to convey their feelings, and we just hope that happens. Again, the Senate unanimously said they want that to happen. I would hope the House would do it, too.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Pennsylvania for yielding. First of all, opposing the previous question, the bill that is going to be coming up later is a very partisan bill. We could actually bring up the Senate bill for our veterans that passed the Senate unanimously. Imagine in these times when a bill passed the Senate unanimously, and Democrats in the majority won't even bring that bill up, which clearly is the way to help our veterans.

But there is something more important that we can do today, dealing with the crisis in Ukraine. There are many crises in America, but in Ukraine Putin is running roughshod over the people of Ukraine, carpet bombing cities. One of the ways he is fueling his war is with oil that America and other countries are buying because President Biden took American energy off the table.

There are very specific things President Biden does that if we reject this previous question, we can turn around and bring up this legislation by my colleagues, the gentlewoman from Washington (Mrs. Rodgers) and the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Westerman), that actually open up American energy and take leverage away from Putin and also take billions of dollars away from Putin that he is using to finance the war.

Let's talk about a few of those very specific things we can do with rejecting the previous question to bring up this important energy legislation. When President Biden came in office, he did a number of very specific things to undermine American energy. Not energy all over the world. He is begging OPEC and Russia to produce more oil. Think how tone deaf that is, begging Russia to produce more oil. Let's open up our American energy reserves that President Biden shut off. Let's approve LNG exports so we can help Europe get energy from America, not from Russia. President Biden hasn't approved a single LNG facility in over a year or pipeline. Let's get rid of the red tape that they are using. Do you know that Russia right now is making $700 million a day by selling oil to America, EU, and U.K.? $700 million a day to fund his war against Ukraine. Let's end it by opening up American energy reserves. Reverse all these radical policies by President Biden that are emboldening Putin. Let's reject this.

Madam Speaker, I rise for the purpose of inquiring of the majority whip the schedule for next week.

Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Clyburn), my friend, the House majority whip.

Madam Speaker, it was a special day for all of us that were there, not just to celebrate Joseph Rainey, but to have the Rainey family. You had direct descendants of Joseph Rainey, his great- granddaughter was there, as well as other relatives of Joseph Rainey to celebrate, especially during Black History Month, the first African American ever elected to the United States Congress, and to learn more about his history.

Someone who was born into slavery--something we talked about--only in America can someone born into slavery just a few years after the end of slavery be elected to the United States Congress and come up here and fight for equality. He had a great record for almost 10 years serving in Congress from the great State of South Carolina.

Now there is a room, the Joseph Rainey room, H-150, named after him. It was a truly special day, especially to have direct descendants of Joseph Rainey come to participate in that ceremony. I am happy to yield to the gentleman.

Madam Speaker, as it relates to the funding of government, February 18 is the current date of expiration for government funding. As the gentleman knows, we are not scheduled to be in that week, so next week would be the last week that the House is scheduled to be in session prior to that date.

We haven't seen any agreement on a broader, long-term package. There has been some talk--we have been hearing there may be a short term CR brought forward next week.

Does the gentleman know if there is any anticipation of a continuing resolution to be brought forward next week, and if so, is there a length of time that is being anticipated if that legislation were to come forward next week?

Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman.

So we will determine whether or not that happens. If there is a date that the gentleman is aware of if there would be a short term--we would be interested in seeing that.

Madam Speaker, hopefully those negotiations can escalate. As it relates to a few weeks from now, the State of the Union that was announced will be March 1, where President Biden will come here to this Chamber to give his annual State of the Union.

We know last year's State of the Union was a very different look in terms of a limited House Chamber. Does the gentleman know the protocols that are being planned for this year's State of the Union?

Madam Speaker, as we talk about the broader issues relating to opening things back up, hopefully we can get the House fully operating again, ending proxy voting, getting committees to meet in person again because across the country you are seeing more States open, more communities and businesses open.

If you just look this past weekend, you had red States, blue States-- in California you had the NFC Championship Game, over 73,000 people were in SoFi Stadium to watch that game. From all the footage you saw, very few people had masks on. You didn't hear of incidents, but you saw in the State of California 73,000 people gathered together. In Missouri, for the AFC Championship Game, again, over 73,000 people watching that game.

For those of us from LSU, as the gentleman knows real well, we are excited by Joe Burrow, Ja'Marr Chase, Shelvin, and other LSU Tigers going to the Super Bowl for the Bengals. To see that many people--and we would understand for the Super Bowl there will be over 73,000 people there as well.

Is there any reason why science changes in California or Missouri, and when you get to D.C. why we can't have a full House Chamber here? We have been hearing we might only get 25 tickets in a Chamber that typically holds over 500 for a State of the Union.

There is clearly no science that has come against what we saw in those stadiums with over 73,000 people. We would sure encourage that we open up the House Chamber, not to just the State of the Union but to voting in general, to getting the House functioning again, to show the rest of the country that is already getting there themselves that we should and can open back up again.

Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman.

Madam Speaker, as we have seen some more reports coming out, Johns Hopkins just came out with new reports that talk about, frankly, the detriments of shutting down. When you look at schools, especially, there is a lot of science that shows that kids that are in the classroom are not only learning better but having better health outcomes than in those schools that are shut down, where theoretically they are sitting alone by themselves which, as we know, that is not what is happening. You know, in a controlled environment it is actually better for those students than you are seeing in other environments.

If you are only looking at a silo of cases at a stadium, but you are not looking at cases that are going up in places that are shut down, you have got to look at the whole picture. I think too often some people have only cherry-picked data, and it has been at the detriment of the overall picture.

So the science ought to be clear and vivid in its description of what really is happening out there across the country in States that are fully open, in States that are more shut down. Again, red State, blue State, last weekend was a really good example that you can open things up again.

People are making choices. People know what is out there. Whether they are home alone, theoretically, they are still getting COVID in those places where things are shut down. So we would sure hope that the science would not just look at a silo but would look at the whole picture. Other scientists have done scientific studies like the Johns Hopkins report that just came out yesterday, they show there is a bigger picture.

We are hearing reports that there would be a limited number of tickets available. Maybe that is premature, but if the gentleman is saying that you are waiting on the doctor to make those recommendations, then maybe the number we were given a few days ago of 25 limitation is a premature number. Hopefully that opens up.

Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman.

Madam Speaker, is there an expected date when that protocol will be released?

Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman.

Madam Speaker, I am glad to hear the gentleman's update as well on the majority leader's health. We miss him here and look forward to seeing him back here. He has left things in very good hands with the majority whip, but we also look forward to the day when he returns, hopefully next week, and that is encouraging news to hear as well.

Madam Speaker, unless the gentleman has anything else, I am prepared to yield back the balance of my time.

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

Madam Speaker, I rise for the purpose of inquiring of the majority leader the schedule for next week.

Madam Speaker, I yield to my friend, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the majority leader of the House.

Madam Speaker, on the school bill, I know one of the big concerns many people have been raising is trying to get schools open again.

Last week it was reported that 5,200 different schools were closed last week. And I know this Congress has sent billions of dollars to school systems across the country. The intent was that that money be used to get schools opened, and yet, there are some schools taking the money and staying closed, which goes against all the medical science out there. We know the damage this is doing to our young children, learning, depression, and so many other challenges that it creates for them.

Will there be any part of that legislation that helps require that in order to get money schools have to be open?

Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).

Madam Speaker, I appreciate that. Maybe we can work on something that would ensure that as tax dollars are going to school systems that it is going to keep the schools open, not to allow them to then shut down on the kids because, as we know, the science is very clear that kids are much better off in school, safer in school than not being in school, and that the learning experience is dramatically less if they are not in school, as well as the mental conditions, the social development that is not occurring if they are not in the classroom.

I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.

Madam Speaker, our teachers have been true heroes through this, our frontline hospital workers, people that work at grocery stores; we have seen so many people rising up to the challenge, and even where governments failed their ability to do their job.

I know one challenge that, hopefully, we see resolved in the United States Supreme Court--it won't be today; we were expecting it maybe this week, but, hopefully, early next week we see the Supreme Court resolve these challenges where there were mandates on vaccines that required people to get fired from their job if they chose a healthcare decision on vaccinations.

I have been vaccinated. I know the gentleman from Maryland has too, but for those who haven't, whether they are frontline hospital workers or teachers, people shouldn't be forced to lose their job based on that choice they make. But the Supreme Court will, hopefully, address that and resolve that next week. It is something that is out of our hands now, but it is in the court's hands at the highest level.

And I would hope the government would drop that mandate, but if not, it is hopeful that the Court would make it clear that the government doesn't have the authority to require that people get fired if they don't get vaccinated, encourage people to follow the science. If they have questions or concerns, that is a conversation they should have with their doctor, not a government mandate.

But as the gentleman knows, we may have disagreement on that, but fortunately for us, it will get resolved at the Supreme Court, hopefully, early next week.

I wanted to ask the gentleman since, we are looking at the schedule for next week, I didn't notice any of the bills that we have highlighted in the past that would address some of the many crises our country is facing, whether it is inflation, whether it is high gas prices, whether it is the border crisis--all that are running out of control--the empty shelves that we are seeing at so many stores.

Will the gentleman commit to working with us to bring some of the bills to the floor to address the real crises that are hurting hardworking families like the ones I just mentioned?

Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.

Clearly, some of those bills that have been discussed and offered up in the past to address the inflationary problems but also the policies of this administration that have caused that. And as we know from the energy crisis, it is not pandemic related that gas prices are so high. This President made a decision starting on day one of his administration to shut down American energy production, to shut down pipelines in America, green lighting pipelines in other countries, begging foreign countries to make more oil, but shutting off and making it harder to make energy in America.

Clearly, that self-imposed supply shortage has created higher prices that we would love to see addressed. We might disagree philosophically on how to get there, but I don't think there is much disagreement from people who spend over $100 filling their car up that it needs to change. But if you look at the workforce challenges, and every small business owner I talk to--I would imagine all of us could share similar stories--our small business owners are telling us they can't find workers. Somebody might want to go to their favorite restaurant but they are waiting an hour and a half and wondering why a third of the tables are empty, because they can't get people to work.

And so as some might want to look at the unemployment number, clearly the number of people that are not even in the workforce that just stopped working because they can get paid, right now large amounts of money, to stay at home is a challenge that we should confront here in this Congress to help encourage people to get back into the workforce, not to be paying people not to work. And the enhanced unemployment benefits were, one, part of that problem, but there were many other parts of that problem.

But it is the idea that there are too many dollars, as the gentleman said, chasing too few goods is the driver of inflation, but the biggest driver of that is all of the money that has been spent in Washington. And if you look at about $6 trillion that has been spent on various relief packages--some of it was targeted to COVID, which we all supported, very bipartisan, some of it had nothing to do with COVID which, unfortunately, has created higher inflation--there is talk right now that the administration--and I am not sure if the Democratic leadership is having serious conversations on this--is looking at yet another bill, potentially over a trillion dollars of additional spending.

I would ask the gentleman, is that something that is anticipated to be brought to the floor? I would urge, if that is being looked at, to not do it because there is about $800 billion remaining from other relief packages that are unspent. And hopefully we stop the spending in Washington that is driving inflation and try to encourage the economy to get opened at a more rapid pace. And if people need additional help, to look to the money that is sitting there, the $800 billion that is unspent, rather than trillions more dollars that would be put into a marketplace that is already oversaturated with Federal spending that is driving this inflation.

Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman.

I thank the gentleman, and clearly we have a difference on----

What the effects of spending trillions of dollars would have. And Build Back Better, as the gentleman brought up, would be about $4.5 trillion of higher taxes, additional spending, things that, by many accounts, would increase inflation even higher; but we will see where the Senate goes on that bill. I am not sure if the gentleman is anticipating bringing

other legislation, the bipartisan bills that we did, to do things like create Operation Warp Speed, which was maybe one of the most successful things government did in reaction to a pandemic in the history of the world, to come up with not one, not two, but now three proven and effective vaccines in less than a year to a virus no one even knew about. It never happened in the history of the world but something that we came together, Republicans and Democrats with President Trump, to achieve a great achievement, something we would sure urge President Biden to build on.

Because President Biden did run with a promise that he would, ``shut down the virus.'' Clearly, he has failed at that. We have asked through a number of different means to have hearings on some of the things we have heard concerns about. And I would start with testing. There was an article recently that the President was presented with a plan in October to come up with about 750 million tests that people could have for COVID at home that would be readily available by Christmas where they, in October, anticipated a resurgence of COVID by December.

It has been reported that the President rejected that plan. We have asked for a hearing into that. For whatever reason, the majority has not agreed to that. Here is a letter I sent to Mr. Clyburn and Mrs. Maloney through the Select Subcommittee on Coronavirus, as well as through the Committee on Oversight and Reform. Myself and Ranking Member Comer asked to have a hearing into some of these things, the testing failures that were reported. If they are true, we ought to hear about them. If they are false, the administration ought to be pointing that out. They have not, which tells me they must be true. But then why in October would the President have rejected a testing plan that could have prevented us from getting to the place we are at right now with this resurgence?

What about some of the national plans that the President said he had as a candidate that then he later told Governors recently he doesn't have a national plan on COVID. The mixed messaging coming from the administration is causing tremendous confusion across America, and we have asked that we have hearings to clarify, give the administration a chance to state their plan or the lack thereof, state whether or not they rejected a massive testing plan for the Nation in October that would have prevented what happened in December.

The lack of desire by the administration to be transparent about any of this is creating tremendous confusion across the country. This Congress could address that by holding hearings to get the facts out. I know we are going to continue to press for those kinds of hearings. I would hope we have them, but so far we have not gotten any response to the affirmative on that.

I don't know if the gentleman has anything to add. Maybe the gentleman would agree that we would have these kind of hearings to get some of these facts out or get some of these issues addressed.

Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman.

The problem with President Biden's plan is that it has been reactionary and not visionary. When he was presented with a plan in October to make sure that every American that needed a test would have it in December, when they in October said there will probably be a real uptick in December, the President said no to that.

So if today he says let's go and order 500 million tests, that sounds fine and well, except that he said no to that in October when he could have staved off what we see, and that is hours-long lines of people to get tested. People shouldn't have to be waiting 5 hours in a line to get tested when the President in October was presented with a plan.

Again, if he wasn't, as it has been reported, he should come out publicly and say that. The report has been out for weeks now, and he hasn't done that.

We should be having hearings on this to find out what was the plan that was presented and who was involved, by the way, in rejecting that plan. Was the CDC involved? Was NIH involved? Was HHS involved in rejecting a forward-thinking plan in October that predicted what inevitably did happen this Christmas?

Who was involved in the rejection of that plan, and why did they do it? Is it that the administration doesn't want accountability? I don't know, but we have asked those questions, and we have asked for a hearing on that.

We have been told that it is not going to happen. I hope the gentleman would help push to get this to happen, to find this out so we don't play catch-up every time something happens, when there were there people saying: Let's try to stop something before it becomes a problem.

If there are people in the White House who said, no, we are not going to do it until it is a problem for families, those people ought to be removed from the White House. And they shouldn't be involved in the decisionmaking chain because their decisions caused maybe more death, surely caused a dramatic increase in ills that people are facing right now because it could have been staved off, and it wasn't. We don't

have that information from an administration who promised to be transparent.

We did have a hearing a few days ago in the select subcommittee. It was a private hearing; it wasn't open to the public. I didn't agree with that, but that was the decision made by the majority. We have to start having transparency, as was promised to the people.

People deserve transparency. They deserve to have these questions answered and, frankly, to have a more forward-thinking plan, not a reactionary plan when forward-thinking was presented and rejected.

Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.

Madam Speaker, under President Trump, when he created Operation Warp Speed, the one thing he did say is that we are going to move red tape so we can focus the entire scientific community, both the Federal agencies but also the private sector, in working together in removing the red tape so they can focus on getting a vaccine. He didn't say three, but he said let's at least get them the ability, all of these great companies, many that are American companies, to go put their innovation to work and get bureaucracy and red tape out of the way and follow science but expedite so that we can get there quicker when many scientists, including some who still testify at committees today, said it was going to take years to get a vaccine.

In less than a year, we had three. President Biden inherited that when he walked in the door and took the oath of office. He had three proven vaccines.

I know the gentleman talks about statistics. Look at COVID deaths. During the campaign, President Biden not only said he would crush the virus, but he said that anybody who presided over that many deaths-- that was months before the election--doesn't deserve to be President of the United States. I thought that was an inappropriate statement.

More people have died under President Biden's watch from COVID than under President Trump's. It was an unfair standard that President Biden put in place when he was at one of the debates. If he is going to say things like he is going to crush the virus and going to have a plan, but then he comes out and obviously didn't crush the virus and tells Governors that there is no Federal plan, I do think that is a mixed message, at the least. That dereliction in his promise, at the worst, ought to be confronted.

What is the plan, if there is a plan? If there is not a plan, admit there is not a plan. But you campaigned saying there was going to be a plan, and clearly, there is not one. Those are other facts that we can put on the table.

Clearly, when you look at how President Trump pushed the Federal Government to work and partner with the private sector to move red tape so we can expedite the research and the trials, more tests than were ever done maybe on any other attempt for a vaccine, and come up in less than a year with vaccines when many said it would take years, it was clearly a remarkable achievement that we all worked on. President Trump led the effort, and we funded it in a very bipartisan way, and it was very effective.

Obviously, this is a challenge for every country. There were other things said that ought to be put out there, and let's at least try to all be saying the same thing and focusing on the same thing.

When scientific experts say that this is what we anticipate happening--if you are going to reject that science, at least hold people accountable who were part of the discussions to reject that science, as I referred to the October rejection of a testing plan that would have been in effect for December that was rejected.

Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.

Clearly, we have some disagreements, but as we both have advocated for the vaccine, I do think one of the differences that we may have is that I strongly feel that it is a personal decision. It is a medical decision. And if government thinks that shaming people, threatening people, and firing people is going to address that challenge, they have missed the mark, and I wish they would instead move away from the shame and the firing. Hopefully the U.S. Supreme Court agrees with us and stops at least the firings of people by mandates from the government and just encourages people to have that conversation with their doctor if they have hesitation. But, ultimately, it is a decision that each individual would have to make.

We will continue this conversation I am sure, and I yield to the gentleman.

To be clear, I never said it was for health reasons. I said it was a health decision. So this is a medical decision that people are making.

Again, in the past we have seen this suggested by some in the medical community inaccurately that if you get vaccinated you can't get the virus. A Supreme Court Justice said that if you get vaccinated you can't spread the virus. That turned out to be false. We know whether vaccinated or not you can get the virus. You can receive the virus, you can give it to other people, and you can die. We know in the hospitals the higher propensity of people in the hospitals are unvaccinated.

Those are the kinds of things that we should be encouraging to get the facts out and then encouraging people to go make their decision with their doctor if they have concerns and questions.

There are valid questions. There are people in the past who have raised religious exemptions to other vaccines and, by the way, been given approval for those religious exemptions that today are not getting similar religious exemptions for this.

So let's just treat it equally, let's treat it fairly, and let's just focus on the facts. This idea that if you mandate something and threaten somebody it is going to change behavior, it is just not proving itself to be correct, and it is causing more division and forcing people into corners that they shouldn't be on. So hopefully, again, we can continue this conversation and get back to a place where we are in agreement which we have been in things like Operation Warp Speed.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Pennsylvania for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the underlying legislation that we are trying to bring to the floor which, if we defeat the previous question, would actually come up to confront a major problem facing families.

If you look over the last few weeks, Mr. Speaker, this Congress has done a lot of things. It has spent a lot of money. There was a bill just 2 weeks ago to raise over $4.5 trillion in taxes and new spending, which would fuel inflation even higher.

What families across America are telling us is: Why doesn't Congress work for those families who are struggling?

Why doesn't Congress work to confront the challenges they are facing every single day?

It seems as if this majority is tone-deaf to the real problems that are hurting families today. It is inflation, and it is the spending in Washington that is driving that inflation. And one of those leading indicators is the high price of gasoline because it is something that maybe multiple times a week families have to go fill up their car. They pay over $150 to do it, and they can't afford it.

So we have a bill to actually do something about that, something we haven't seen on this floor for weeks. It is a bill to actually confront a crisis that was created by this President. Unfortunately, there are crises after crises that have been created by President Biden.

One of those is an energy crisis self-created by President Biden. When he walked in the door prices were 40 to 60 percent less for gasoline. When you go to the grocery store everything is more expensive, Mr. Speaker; and if you are shopping for Christmas, things are more expensive if you can even find those gifts that you want to put under the tree.

So here we bring a bill, if we are able to defeat this previous question, to confront one of these challenges. And that is how this President has abused the Strategic Petroleum Reserve because the Strategic Petroleum Reserve is not supposed to be a piggy bank to cover up for the failed policies of the Biden administration. Yet that is what they have done.

Mr. Speaker, when you saw the President raid the SPR the other day, we actually had an increase in prices because people recognize this President isn't serious about addressing the problem.

This bill by Republican Leader McMorris Rodgers of the Energy and Commerce Committee, as well as Fred Upton, myself, and others would force the Departments of the Interior and Energy to confront this crisis.

By the way, when President Biden goes and begs OPEC and Russia to produce more oil, how about we start here at home where we have actually got a surplus?

We were exporting oil to our friends all around the world, helping our friends geopolitically. And that was undermined when President Biden cut off the Keystone pipeline, cut off production on Federal lands, but he greenlighted the Russian pipeline. He begged OPEC to produce more oil, which, by the way, emits more carbon if that is what you are concerned about.

Mr. Speaker, why don't we focus on those things that will help American jobs and help lower carbon emissions? That is producing more American energy, and do you know what else it does? It lowers the price of gasoline. I urge rejection of the previous question.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize the service of Pam Marphis, a selfless public servant and one of the longest-serving staffers in my office.

Pam's 22 years working in Congress began with then-Representative David Vitter in 1999, then with Bobby Jindal, and then with my office when I won a special election in 2008.

Pam Marphis has helped thousands of constituents with their casework over the course of her career and she has been a rock star in so many ways.

In the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, Pam tirelessly helped Louisiana families navigate the FEMA bureaucracy so that they could get the help they needed to rebuild their homes and communities that were devastated.

When there was a child in Honduras needing heart surgery, Pam worked with the State Department to get that child to a hospital in Louisiana.

And as the world began to shut down in the beginning of this pandemic, Pam worked round-the-clock to get U.S. citizens back home.

I thank Pam, for her faithful service to our country. Her decades of experience will be sorely missed. Jennifer and I wish Pam and Gary the best in this next chapter of their lives.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Kentucky (Mr. Guthrie) for yielding time.

Mr. Speaker, I want to first associate myself with the remarks made by Ms. Eshoo of California, as well as Mr. Pallone, and stand up in strong support of this bill. I also thank the lead authors, Mr. Fortenberry and Mr. Quigley, and all of us who have worked on this and other issues to help patients with ALS.

This goes back to other legislation that we have worked on, including the 21st Century Cures Act, where Congress came together, Republicans and Democrats, through the Energy and Commerce Committee, to help put a sharper focus on finding cures for diseases like ALS, diseases like Alzheimer's, and so many other debilitating diseases where you have got people that just want hope; as Ms. Eshoo said, where you have people who want the ability to live their lives to the fullest.

I know I have worked on so many of these ALS-related issues with a hero back home in my district, Steve Gleason. Steve Gleason was, for awhile, more famous as a player for the New Orleans Saints, somebody who gave us a light in the darkness of Hurricane Katrina, but then Steve was diagnosed with ALS. He turned his notoriety into a call for action for other people with ALS to be able to live their lives to the fullest.

Steve has been an inspiration to so many. He has a speech device that allows him to communicate; and he stays incredibly active. Steve brought this bill up over a year ago. So this is one more thing that we can do to help people with ALS; so that they can bring new therapies so that people living with ALS do have more ability to treat this disease.

This means lifesaving drugs will now be available for individuals who are not otherwise able to get into ALS clinical trials.

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of heroes, inspirational battlers like Steve Gleason, and so many of us have other heroes in our districts, I rise in strong support of this great piece of legislation that brings Republicans and Democrats together to take action for those people who are counting on us.

Madam Speaker, I rise with a heavy heart but in strong support of this legislation, the CAROL Act.

Clearly, if you look at the policy, we are here today to expand research on valvular heart disease to help save more lives, but we are also here to pay tribute to Carol Barr and talk about a special person that we were blessed to know.

Carol was one of those people who would light up a room. I was blessed to be in many of those rooms with Andy and Carol and their two beautiful daughters. Then, we got the news. It was news that you don't wish upon anybody, but to watch how Andy has carried on a legacy since then, obviously caring for Carol's legacy, caring for those two beautiful young daughters, but then turning it into something bigger with the CAROL Act.

This legislation is going to help some of those 25,000 Americans who lose their lives every year to valvular heart disease, many of them young women like Carol.

Hopefully, we can prevent others from having to go through what Andy went through and what all of us went through because, while we battle on the day-to-day issues, we care about each other. We are family in many ways. We spend a lot of time here together. We get to know each other personally.

I got to know Andy. I was in charge of recruiting in 2012, and he was the first recruit that I called. We hit it off from day one and just developed an incredible friendship. With friendships like that, you get to know the families of the people that we serve with. Every time you were in a room with Andy and Carol and their family, it was just a special, special time.

I know so many of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle who are expressing those same passions. At least we get to channel this into something positive that can help other people.

Andy, your strength in her death serves as a constant tribute to Carol's life. Carol used to have a saying. She would say, ``Just get it done.'' Today, we are going to get something special done in honor of an incredibly special person.

I am sure they have C-SPAN in Heaven, and I know Carol is watching right now, as she is so proud of the strength you have exhibited. But today, she knows that her name is also going to be attached to something that is going to save lives for years to come.

God bless Andy, his beautiful daughters, and Carol.

Madam Speaker, I rise for the purpose of inquiring of the majority leader the schedule for next week. I yield to my friend, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), to talk about the schedule for next week.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for that update. As it relates to tomorrow's schedule, as the gentleman from Maryland said, it could be fluid, depending on how the CR is processed in the Senate. If the CR does not pass the Senate tonight, are there bills that are specifically designated to come up tomorrow, or is that a to-be- determined issue?

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for that update.

As it relates to the debt ceiling, we had a discussion a few weeks ago relating to the debt ceiling. Would there be a bipartisan negotiation? We haven't had that so far. Is there anticipation that there would be a plan to try to engage both sides in a negotiation on the debt ceiling, or is this something that we are just going to have to wait to see next week?

Well, then we will see what develops from that discussion.

As it relates to the National Defense Authorization Act, and as the gentleman pointed out, we are aware there are bipartisan negotiations between both the House and Senate, Republicans and Democrats.

I share the hope and expectation that they can come to an agreement. There are a few final details that both sides are trying to work out. I think they have already agreed, which we both share, that our troops deserve a pay raise, need a pay raise, and that number has been agreed to.

Hopefully, that is part of this, as well as the proper funding levels for our Nation's defense as we see threats emerging throughout the world. We also know the detriment of not having proper defense funding because they can't enter into the contracts that are necessary.

Both of those conversations seem to be, from what we are hearing, going well. Hopefully, that is a bill that can come to the floor next week, and we can all come together to help pass that.

Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman for any comments.

Madam Speaker, there are two specific pieces of legislation I would like to ask the gentleman to look at.

One is, by the end of the year, as you know, there are some potential cuts coming to entities like Medicare if Congress doesn't take action. There is a bipartisan bill that members of the Doctors Caucus and other members of the Committee on Energy and Commerce and other committees of jurisdiction have worked on. It is H.R. 6020. That would stave off those cuts to our healthcare providers.

It would need to be passed by the end of the year--otherwise, those cuts would automatically kick in--if the gentleman could take a look at that bill and see if that is something we could do in a bipartisan way before we leave for the year.

Another would be, you and I have had this conversation successfully on other legislation dealing with ALS. The Steve Gleason Act was one of those; there are others. I have spoken to Steve Gleason recently. There is a piece of legislation that we were able to work on that got out of the Committee on Energy and Commerce unanimously. It is H.R. 3537, the Accelerating Access to Critical Therapies for ALS Act.

I would just ask if the gentleman could look at that bill. It came out unanimously, bipartisan, from the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and it is something that, obviously, would help a lot of people who could use that help.

Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman.

Well, that would be great news to so many people across the country.

I yield to the gentleman.

Madam Speaker, I share that sentiment the gentleman had, and hopefully, we can achieve those bipartisan victories.

As you mentioned, H.R. 3537 would be a tremendous victory for people who struggle with ALS to continue to seek out new therapies and be able to live their lives in the best way possible. I appreciate the gentleman's past efforts as well as the offer to bring that bill to the floor next week.

Madam Speaker, if the gentleman doesn't have anything else, I thank the gentleman, and I yield back the balance of my time.

I thank the gentleman from Maryland for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I would like to request if the gentleman could let us know what the schedule is expected to be for the remainder of today.

Obviously, the reports are that there may be a CBO score today. I also want to ask the gentleman: Would it be anticipated that there would first be a CBO score before any final passage of legislation?

I thank the gentleman. So regarding the CBO score, right now we are probably at about one-third of the bill being scored. Would it be expected that it wouldn't come up until the full 100 percent would be scored or something less than that?

The other question would be, if the Rules Committee is going to meet again to come out with an additional rule based on the Senate scrub, would there be additional debate on the bill added as part of that rule or would it just be a debate on the rule and then straight into final passage?

So for the three remaining committees, we have Ways and Means, Energy and Commerce, and Judiciary that still haven't been scored. Would all of those be at least in a table? The remaining committees that have not been scored, would they be part of a breakdown table at a minimum, whether or not it is the more detailed version, as well?

So Ways and Means and Judiciary would also be in a table before something came?

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Texas for his leadership and for yielding time.

Mr. Speaker, we are facing in America crisis after crisis after crisis created by President Biden's policies. Just look at some of the crises we are facing:

There is an inflation crisis that has probably the worst effect on lower- and middle-income families. They are paying 50 percent more for gas. They are paying more for everything they buy at the grocery store. This Thanksgiving is expected to be the most expensive ever because of President Biden's radical agenda and all the spending, the trillions in spending that has already been done.

So what is the answer of this majority? To raise more taxes, to spend trillions more dollars, jacking up inflation even higher.

And who is it to benefit? Let's look at the Joint Committee on Taxation who just came out with an assessment of this.

You know who benefits the most in this bill? The largest decreases go to those making a million dollars or more. That is right. The largest tax cuts go to the multimillionaires.

Do you know who gets the smallest tax cuts? The smallest goes to those making $40,000 to $50,000. They get the least amount. And where are they paying for it? They are paying for it in a natural gas tax. Everybody who uses natural gas to heat their home this winter is going to be paying about 30 percent more. For what? To give tax breaks to millionaires in five States.

And don't just take the Joint Committee on Taxation's word for it. Let's listen to Bernie Sanders, the chairman of the Committee on the Budget.

Do you know what he just said yesterday about this? ``You can't be a political party that talks about demanding the wealthy pay their fair share of taxes, and then end up with a bill that gives large tax breaks to millionaires.'' That is what Bernie Sanders said.

He also said the hypocrisy of that is too strong, giving tax breaks to millionaires in this bill. And for what? So that low-income families who are paying it can then see their tax dollars go to give $450,000 checks to people that come here illegally. That is right. You are going to be paying 30 percent on your household electricity bills for 87,000 more IRS agents, who President Biden says want to comb through your bank accounts.

If you make more than $10,000--not the millionaires and billionaires--if your grandmother on a fixed income, makes $10,000, 87,000 IRS agents will be unleashed on her bank account to then go and give $450,000 checks to people who came here illegally.

Stop this madness. Did you not pay attention to the results of the Virginia election just two weeks ago? They said enough of the spending in Washington. Let's focus on helping those hardworking families who are being crippled by this inflation. This will only be made worse if you throw trillions more dollars in taxes and spending onto this dumpster fire.

Let's save America. Stop. Defeat this bill.

Madam Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the rule, but specifically against this massive, multitrillion dollar tax-and- spend bill.

Of course, we just got the text last night, over 2,300 pages. As we have been combing through it, I would like to point out a few pieces in this bill.

Let's start with a natural gas tax. President Biden promised that anyone who makes less than $400,000 a year will not pay a dime in new taxes. He even whispers it into the microphone. The only problem is he breaks the promise right here in the bill with a tax that, according to the American Gas Association, will increase household electricity rates by 30 percent. By the way, it is low-income families that will be hit the hardest with that increase. Broken promise by President Biden right there.

Then you go down and you look at amnesty. It has been talked about. Millions of additional people will get amnesty in this bill, and it comes at a time where President Biden is negotiating--initially, he said he wasn't, and then the White House had to go back up and say the Justice Department is negotiating--half-a-million dollar checks to people who came across our border illegally. And then they are going to give amnesty to millions more people. Estimates are 7 million more people. Can you imagine the flood that will come over when they hear that you can get half a million dollars per person if President Biden gets his way?

Then you go down the line. There is more, unfortunately. We will comb through IRS agents. How many of us have our phones ringing off the hooks with people calling saying: Please add 87,000 more IRS agents to the rolls? Not one of us has probably gotten that call. Yet they put it in the bill.

They call this infrastructure. They call this equity. Whatever they want to call it, it is an army of IRS agents that are going to comb through our bank accounts.

Madam Speaker, they are going to be combing through your bank account.

Why? Because they have to generate hundreds of billions of dollars to spend on more inflation-inducing spending. That is right, according to the Penn Wharton Budget Model, you are going to have over $4 trillion of spending with $1.5 trillion of new taxes.

By the way, that is $2.5 trillion of additional debt, even though the President says there is no cost. No cost, just $2.5 trillion of debt. But these IRS agents are going to have to account for over $200 billion to find money from your checking accounts. That is what they are trying to do by dark of night.

We started the morning at 8 a.m. We are here after 9 p.m. starting to get into the details of this bill. No wonder they don't want a CBO score. No wonder they want to do this by dark of night. This is going to induce more inflation that is hurting families all across America.

Listen to what the voters of Virginia said. Stop the madness. Defeat this bill.