Floor Statements

Mr. Chair, I thank the gentlewoman from New York for yielding and for her amendment to such an important bill.

The Parents Bill of Rights Act is a basic concept, but it is a powerful statement that says we stand with parents and children in the ability for them to have a say in their kids' education. You would think: Who would be against this? Why do we need a law to do what everybody should think is the right thing to do?

Unfortunately, what we have seen through this debate is that the left is scared to death of parents having more of a say in their kids' education. Union bosses are scared to death of parents having a say in their kids' education.

It begs the question: Why would they be so afraid of parents wanting to see the curriculum that their kids are experiencing when they go to school?

I think we all saw why their concern is so vocal. This all happened during COVID. As we went from classroom learning to virtual learning, millions of parents actually got a glimpse into what was going on in the classrooms of their kids.

I am sure most of those parents thought they were just going to be watching their kids learn how to read, how to write, how to break down sentence structures, and how to learn math. Some of that was going on, but what alarmed parents were all the other things that had absolutely nothing to do with their kids having an opportunity to achieve the American Dream.

In fact, some of the things that were going on undermined the basic values that those parents are teaching their kids at home, things that had nothing to do with helping those kids learn and be prepared for better opportunities in the future. They started asking questions, and they were right to ask those questions.

Except the Biden administration got concerned because the union bosses didn't want those parents to see what was going on. You had the Justice Department trying to tag parents as domestic terrorists for showing up at school board meetings, for God's sake, because they cared about what was happening in their kids' schools.

It shouldn't have taken an act of Congress to give parents that right. If it does, I am proud to stand with the

parents and kids against the union bosses who don't want parents to have that right to care about their kids' education.

For God's sake, we shouldn't have to be here doing this. The unions shouldn't be fighting this every step of the way, but it really shows you what they care about if they don't want parents to have these rights.

Thank goodness we have Virginia Foxx's committee, Julia Letlow's bill, and Members of Congress coming together and saying parents ought to have that ability. Republican, Democrat, Independent, it doesn't matter what your political viewpoint is because, for anybody in this country, part of the American Dream is being able to pass on better opportunities to your kids than what you had. The best way to do that, the greatest equalizer, is education.

If you have to be concerned about what is happening in your kid's classroom, and the school doesn't want you to see what is happening in your kid's classroom, you really ought to be alarmed. Every parent ought to have that right because when kids are sent to school, they should be learning how to get more opportunities, how to advance and have more success than we had. If they are being taught things that undermine that, every parent ought to be able to know about that. Under this bill, they finally will.

This is a power that every parent should already have. We saw during COVID some parents had that ability, but unfortunately, many parents were denied that ability to have a basic understanding of what was happening in their kids' classrooms. Millions of kids were denied education, which ultimately means those millions of kids are denied opportunity. No one should stand for that.

Mr. Chair, on this day and on every day, I am proud to stand with the parents and the kids. Nobody should get in their way, especially union bosses who don't want parents to be able to have that opportunity to stand up for their kids.

Let's stand with the parents and the kids. Let's pass this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Arkansas for the introduction, but I especially thank him for having the idea to call Coach Rollo, as we call him, and say: Can these Members of Congress come on over and spend a few minutes to see what true excellence is all about?

That was a treat that we got to experience for that next hour and a half or so, to watch what so many young men through the years got to experience.

You can only think of the joy and the treat it was for those students at Mater Dei High School who had the great fortune to play for Coach Bruce Rollinson over those years. We just saw it in a brief period of time, and since getting to know him over these last few months, we see what kind of leader of men Coach Rollo is. We surely saw it in the eyes of those young high school students.

Although, I will say, when I was looking up to some of those six- foot-plus linemen, many of them looked like they might have played for the New Orleans Saints. I would have encouraged a few of them to go and play for--I didn't want to get into trouble and encourage them to play for my alma mater of LSU, but they could have been playing in the NFL. In fact, many have gone on to play at higher levels.

This year, maybe the number one pick in the NFL draft, Bryce Young, had the honor of playing for Coach Rollo, as did Matt Leinart, who tried to throw a pass to my colleague, Congressman Gallagher.

The treat was just watching the character of those young men at Mater Dei High School. That doesn't happen by accident, it comes through leadership.

As Coach Rollo and I were talking about earlier, I am sure when people look at his career--and we didn't know at the time that he was going to retire when we met with him just a few months ago. At the time, his team was the number one high school team in the country. That was not anything new to Coach Rollo.

A lot of people would look at all of the accolades. For a State as large as California to win eight State championships, six of those were deemed national titles--a high school national champion. That doesn't just happen by itself.

Sure, it takes great players, but to do it year-in and year-out and to build that record of excellence, it takes a special leader--a leader who touches the hearts of young men and shapes them.

What I recognized the most, it wasn't about the size or the physical abilities of these high school players, it was their character. You could see it just as we were talking to them.

They were all incredibly polite and respectful. They were eager to learn from Coach Rollo. They came to learn from him, and that is what a real leader is all about.

As we talked about earlier, we had the opportunity to listen to Drew Brees a few days ago. Of course, I have known Drew for many years, as a fan of the New Orleans Saints I had gotten to know him--talk about a person of character who led us not only to a Super Bowl, but he would probably tell you the NFL Man of the Year Award--the Walter Payton Man of the Year Award might be the accomplishment he appreciates the most because it really signifies what he did in communities.

One of the things he said to us the other day, he was talking about how young people--he was talking about it in relation to his kids. They might not always listen to what you say, but they watch everything you do. All of those young men got to watch Coach Rollo and watch his leadership. That is what really lasts with them.

The trophies and the championships, those are all things that you can put up on a shelf. You saw three Heisman trophies in a box in that school, but it was really the character and the values that he stands for.

The old sports adage that ``game recognizes game.'' I have another great high school coach in my State, Coach J.T. Curtis--John Curtis. He won State championships, multiple championships, over the years. He was the second most-winning high school coach in the country. He won this year's State championship in Louisiana.

I texted him. I said: I don't know if you know him, but I am here with Coach Rollo at Mater Dei High School.

He texted me back, and he said: I know Coach Rollo. We got to run into each other.

He knew who you were, and he had nothing but tremendous respect for you and what you have done.

When I saw him the night when he won the State championship a few weeks ago in Louisiana, I said: Do you know that Coach Rollo just announced he is retiring?

He didn't know that yet. He almost teared up because of the respect that he has for you.

So as Congressman Gallagher said a little while ago, while you have touched the hearts of so many at Mater Dei High School, your legendary character and your values transcend and reach people all across this great country.

I appreciate that my colleague from Arkansas took the time to reach out and that we got to go and spend some time with you because everybody who has gotten the opportunity to meet with you has come out a better person.

Thank you for your years dedicated to young men. I know there are better things ahead for you in the future. This isn't the last chapter. What a legacy you have left for so many.

Congratulations to you, Coach, on your many years of service at Mater Dei.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Kentucky, the chairman of the Oversight Committee, for yielding.

I also thank Congressman Clyde for bringing H.J. Res. 26, the bill to address this serious problem of crime.

You have been hearing this debate on the floor. I am sure people watching at

home are watching in amazement that this is not a unanimous discussion, that we are not all standing up here on the House floor deploring the crime that is out of control in the District of Columbia.

We have seen it in so many communities around America. You see it in so many big cities--pretty much all run by Democrats, I will point out--where crime is out of control after they have dropped penalties for criminals, where they have defunded the police, this massive shift against law enforcement, against keeping communities safe. You would think we would all be in agreement on that.

The fact is that in D.C., sexual abuse is up 157 percent. You would think you would hear the other side joining us in speaking out against that, not trying to defend laws that make it easier to get criminals out of jail.

Motor vehicle theft up 88 percent. Total property crime up 31 percent. Homicides increased 22 percent.

We see stories of carjackings every day, and what did the D.C. Council do?

They passed a resolution to get rid of mandatory minimums on many violent crimes.

This isn't some petty crime we are talking about. We are talking about violent crimes. Armed carjackings. The mandatory minimum used to be 15 years for an armed carjacking; dropped to zero. Not a day.

You can hold somebody up at gunpoint and take their car from them, and you could literally walk out of jail the next day without serving a day in prison, and you wonder why crime is out of control. The D.C. Mayor vetoed the ordinance; the council overrode it.

Now, you hear a lot of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle talking about why is Congress even doing this?

Well, you know, Mr. Speaker, just the other day, we actually spent a day reading the entire United States Constitution on the House floor.

Maybe my Democrat colleagues didn't listen to that discussion. Maybe they haven't read the United States Constitution in a long time, but I will break the copy out. It is easy to read.

Article I, Section 8 talks about the District of Columbia. It says, ``Congress shall have power to exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such District. . . .''

Yes. Congress is given the exclusive right to legislate in all cases dealing with the District of Columbia.

You can talk about debates that go on in statehouses. The District of Columbia is not a State for a lot of reasons.

Our Founding Fathers actually wanted a Capitol of the United States that wasn't part of a State. There is a lot of debate about why that happened.

In fact, this land that we are standing on right now used to be part of a State. The State is called Maryland. It is still there.

Maryland gave land to the United States because our Nation decided we wanted the Capitol to be in a place that is not tied to the other States, that is just the home of the Nation's Capital.

It gave Congress in the Constitution the authority to get involved in these kinds of issues.

It doesn't happen often, but my God, if we can't come together with crime out of control, with people being killed, with criminals being let out the next day after violent crimes are committed, and mandatory minimums are dropped from 15 years to zero, if you hold a gun to somebody's head and carjack them, that is why we are coming together, to take a stand.

Everybody can vote. If they are okay with letting the carjackers walk scot-free, they will have that opportunity.

Don't count me in that number. I would say don't count the people that live in the District of Columbia, living in fear of crime. They don't want that crime.

The millions of people that come as tourists to visit our Nation's Capital should not live in fear of that violent crime every day because criminals get to walk free.

How is the governance determined?

They allow people that are here illegally to vote in D.C.

We have another bill that we are bringing up to say that people here illegally cannot vote in D.C. elections.

It is bizarre, listening to the debate on the other side that wants to defend that ability for illegals. We went and verified. There is not even an exception for foreign nationals.

So people that work at the Chinese Embassy, we saw how they respect our laws in the United States. They flew a spy balloon over most of the sensitive military bases of our Nation last week.

Yet, people that work at the Chinese Embassy are Chinese citizens and can vote in D.C. elections. There is a piece of legislation that repeals that, as well.

Obviously, there are some in this Chamber who want to defend the right for people here illegally, including people that work for the CCP that are Chinese nationals, that are Russian nationals, they want them to be able to vote in D.C. elections.

Enough is enough. We are exercising our constitutional right to say no to this madness. Let's restore law and order. Let's stand up for law and order and the people of the District of Columbia and all the millions of people who come to visit this Nation's Capital who don't want to live in fear, who don't think that the carjackers should be able to walk scot-free if they pull out a gun and put it to somebody's head to take their car or to break into their house or to do so many other violent things that are causing fear through our communities.

We can do something about this. We ought to do this. We ought to pass both of these pieces of legislation. I urge passage.

Amendment XXVI, Section 1:

``The right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of age.''

Section 2:

``The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.''

Mr. Speaker, I move that the message of the President be referred to the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union and ordered printed.

Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at 10 o'clock and 42 minutes p.m.), under its previous order, the House adjourned until tomorrow, Wednesday, February 8, 2023, at 10 a.m., for morning-hour debate.

Mr. Speaker, I rise for the purpose of announcing the schedule for next week.

Mr. Speaker, the House will meet next Monday at noon for morning hour and 2 p.m. for legislative business.

On Tuesday, the House will meet at 10 a.m. for legislative business. At 9 p.m. the House and Senate will assemble for a joint session to receive President Biden's address on the State of the Union. Members should be seated in the House Chamber by 8:25 p.m.

On 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.

We will be considering several bills under suspension of the rules during the week. The complete list of suspension bills has been posted on the Clerk's website.

Next week, the House is expected to consider a number of bills under rules: H.R. 185, to terminate the requirement imposed by the Director of CMS for proof of COVID-19 vaccination for foreign travelers and for other purposes.

H.R. 185 rescinds the Biden administration's vaccine requirement on travelers who are coming to visit the United States.

The House is also expected to consider H.J. Res. 26, disapproving the District of Columbia's City Council revised Criminal Code Act of 2021. H.J. Res. 26 makes it clear that Congress does not approve of the City Council's radical decision to reduce penalties for a variety of crimes, including many violent crimes.

Finally, we expect to consider H.J. Res. 24, disapproving the action of the District of Columbia's City Council in approving the Local Resident Voting Rights Amendment Act of 2022. What this resolution would do is reverse the decision by the D.C. Council that would allow illegal aliens to vote.

As we all know, our southern border has been wide open under President Biden. Millions of people have come into our country illegally, and he continues to keep that border open. We have talked about bringing legislation to this floor, which we are working on in committee, to secure America's border.

But, in the meantime, the idea that allowing people that are here illegally to vote here, not only undermines one of our most sacred rights in the United States, but it also sends the wrong message to those who are seeking to come into our country illegally.

We need President Biden to close the southern border, secure the southern border, get back to a legal process of immigration. That is what H.J. Res. 24 would do.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Massachusetts (Ms. Clark), my friend, the new majority--minority whip of the House.

Mr. Speaker, what I would first say to the American people is, thank you for giving the Republicans the House majority to finally stop this mad rush toward socialism that we have seen in the last 2 years by the Biden administration: the taxing; the spending; the out-of-control policies that have led our country into one of the worst economic times we have ever seen. Inflation through the roof to the point where families can't even afford to put gasoline in their car. Inflation through the roof to the point where families can't even go to the grocery store and buy all the things that they would want. That is what the American people surely were fed up with.

The good news is, as I thank them for giving the Republicans the majority, which they did in the last election, Republicans have already gone to work delivering for those families. We have actually brought-- it is interesting, as the gentlewoman talks about scoring points, we have scored a number of points for those American people to the point where we have actually had a number of Democrats vote with us.

The bills that were called partisan just 2 weeks ago--we brought a bill to the floor to say, on energy, the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, which is supposed to be America's security blanket in case there is some major disruption with American energy supply. I am not talking about the disruption we have seen from President Biden's attack on American energy, which has been so severe that it has made our country dependent on foreign nations again, which is unconscionable, when we can produce our own energy, cleaner, better than anybody else in the world.

But it said, if you are going to raid, Mr. President, that Strategic Petroleum Reserve, you certainly can't do it

to sell it to China. It was called partisan when we filed it. What is interesting is a majority of Democrats actually voted for that legislation, and it is now over in the Senate.

I hope it ends up on President Biden's desk. I hope he signs it. But if he vetoes it, there was a veto-proof majority that passed that bill.

We just brought a piece of legislation a few minutes ago on to the floor to reject the ills of socialism; not just what we are seeing here in the United States socialist movement that has been damaging to our economy, but all throughout time, so many examples of socialist dictators killing millions and millions of people.

I am glad to say a majority of Democrats joined with us to vote for that bill. It is still a little bit shocking that 86 Democrats were not willing to stand up against the ills of socialism and that, I would consider, an extreme position, but clearly, there is still work to be done.

The American people, I am sure, will continue to engage their Members of Congress on those issues, but we are also going to continue to move policies to help families who are struggling; energy policies, obviously, and there is more to come on that.

The Energy and Commerce Committee just got constituted. They are working now on a good energy security package. The Natural Resources Committee and the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee are doing the same thing.

I had mentioned to the gentlewoman earlier, on the border, as we would like to see real security from our southern border. I hope President Biden, when he is speaking from the podium here in just a few days, will address that problem.

More people have come into our country illegally under President Biden's watch than the entire population of the State of New Mexico. Where it has caused real damage is more than 100,000 young kids, our young kids, have died because of drug overdoses from drugs like fentanyl because the drug cartels in Mexico now have operational control of America's southern border. That is disgraceful.

That is all brought on by President Biden's policies. He could end those today through executive action; reverse the things that he did that created the problem. He won't do that, so I do think it is important that this Congress take that action.

We still wait for the President to do it on his own, but we are not going to stand by. We will take our own action and show the country how we can get a secure southern border. I hope that would be a bipartisan vote when we bring that to the floor.

The 87,000 IRS agents--I don't know of any Member of Congress--I would love to hear from any of them--who have gotten phone calls from their constituents saying please double the size of the IRS.

Now, what they have said is please get Federal employees back to work because some people--I have got constituents that have been waiting 2 years for their tax return and, yet, you have still got about half of the Federal workforce that is working remotely, not coming into work.

I have got veterans who call my office all the time who can't get their benefits that they earned. They showed up for work, by the way, they showed up and said I am going to go defend the rights of this country, and some of them got injured. Some of them are trying to get their benefits today and can't because some of those people working, getting their full salary at the VA, are not showing up for work.

People that are waiting for passports to go visit loved ones overseas can't get their passports processed because some Federal employees feel they should get their full salary but not show up for work.

So we brought a bill this week to say you should show up for work. It seems pretty basic. It is unfortunate that there were less than a handful of Democrats that joined with us to do that.

So we are addressing the needs of those families who are struggling. Some of those votes have been bipartisan; some haven't. But we are going to continue to address them because they are bipartisan issues for America, even if they are not bipartisan in this Chamber and, hopefully, that improves over time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Massachusetts (Ms. Clark).

Mr. Speaker, the good news is, we not only have already brought some bills to achieve cost savings, we are going to continue to bring bills to achieve cost savings. In one example, the gentlewoman referred to a piece of legislation that deals with drug prices, and it was failed to mention that part of what that bill did was limit about 40 percent of lifesaving drugs to come to market.

We are already seeing right now a reduction in R&D and drugs being developed to cure new diseases because many of those countries that have government-fixed pricing also don't have many of the lifesaving drugs that America has because of that very policy.

I am curious to see which lifesaving drugs they don't want to have on the market in America anymore. You can go to Canada, you can go to France, and you can see a long list, unfortunately, of drugs that you can't get in those countries that you can get in America that save lives every day.

That bill also raised taxes to the tune of over a trillion dollars on Americans. It raised spending to the tune of over a trillion dollars in America. That has increased inflation.

The biggest concern I hear from families who want cost savings is to stop the mad spending in Washington. It has not only caused them to have to pay more for everything they buy, it has literally taken a paycheck a year--at least one month's pay a year--out of their pockets because of all of the spending we have seen in the last 2 years in Washington. Our constituents just want Congress to try to rein in that spending.

In fact, we brought another bill this week. We can talk about D.C., we can talk about other places, but all across America, most Americans are saying, let's get back to our lives, let's end this COVID emergency. We announced last week that we were going to bring a bill during this week to end the COVID emergency.

What was interesting was, after we took the lead, President Biden himself actually acknowledged that it does need to end, but he said he wants to wait until May to do it. What is interesting about waiting until May is it allows the Federal Government to continue spending billions and billions of dollars under the guise of COVID that has absolutely nothing to do with COVID, like paying people not to work.

Millions of people today are able-bodied, fully capable of working, but because of the waiving of things, like welfare-to-work requirements, where people can right now get $25,000, $35,000

a year to sit at home and not work, well, you know what that does. We want to reverse that policy. If somebody is capable of working, they should be working.

We believe in a social safety net for people. If somebody comes on hard times, that is why you have programs there.

We are in America. If you want to stay at home and not work, that is your right. Just don't ask that hardworking taxpayer, the single mom who is working two jobs, to pay for you to stay at home.

The Biden administration policies that pay millions of people to stay at home from work undermines Social Security because those are millions of people who our seniors are counting on to be in the workforce. These people are fully capable of being in the workforce paying into Social Security so that those who work their whole lives and earn that benefit can have confidence that it will be there for them.

When you have millions of people being paid by the Federal Government to stay home, of course it adds trillions to our deficit, but it also takes billions of dollars out of Social Security that we want to put back in. We want to shore up Social Security, but President Biden has undermined it with these policies that pay people not to work.

Our bill would end that immediately. Let's get those people back to work who are fully capable of working. Let's shore up Social Security immediately. We shouldn't have to wait more and more months like President Biden said he would want to do. Of course, if we didn't file that bill, he probably never would have wanted to end that emergency.

Hopefully, as we continue to lead, we will see the President follow along. We welcome him to join us in saving this country and getting the country back on track, so we will continue to bring bills to address those many problems our country is facing.

I earlier pointed out, I reject what President Biden did to undermine Social Security. In their discussions about the debt ceiling yesterday, Speaker McCarthy discussed with President Biden what Republicans are hoping to do. Frankly, I think most Americans have been hungry for us here in Washington to have the same adult conversation that they have been having at their kitchen tables for years as to how we can actually get spending under control in Washington.

We have talked about the problems of paying people not to work. It not only adds to our deficit and debt; it also undermines Social Security. Let's get people back to work who are fully able-bodied.

Let's talk about the Nation's credit card. The debt ceiling is a symptom of Washington's spending problem. According to Treasury, we are approaching in June the end of extraordinary measures where the Nation would exceed its debt limit. What that means for a family is: Families have credit cards. The credit card has a limit, a maximum amount you can spend. Many families would not like to spend up to that limit. Some like to pay their credit card off fully at the end of the month. Many don't have that luxury, so they watch what the maximum is so they know, okay, if I have got $300 before I hit it, I am not going to spend 300 bucks, because then the card will be declined.

Well, if you max out the card, which Biden has done in his last 2 years, $6 trillion minimum--those are the conservative estimates; some estimates go as high as $10 trillion that President Biden has racked up on the Nation's credit card. The $31.3 trillion maximum on the Nation's credit card has been hit by President Biden and the Democrat majority's spending the last 2 years.

Interestingly, when they were doing that spending, they didn't account for raising the cap on spending when they were spending the money. They pushed that off on us, so now we have to confront this problem that they created.

The conversation really should be focused on how we stop this from happening, how we stop maxing out the Nation's credit card. If a family maxed out their credit card, of course they would pay the minimum payment; of course they would pay the must-dos.

Again, Speaker McCarthy has made it very clear, we are fully committed to Social Security and those promises that have been made.

Why is it that the first thing President Biden threatens is Social Security?

A dollar is coming into the Federal Government; $1.29 is going out. That is the spending problem. If you really want to break it down in raw numbers, for every dollar the Federal Government takes in, it spends $1.29. Very few families sustain themselves on that kind of trajectory.

What we are saying is why don't we try to figure out, Republicans and Democrats--by the way, this shouldn't be a partisan exercise. Both sides should want to say if a dollar is coming in, how do we make sure that only a dollar goes out? That is not where we are today. Let's have that conversation. It is a responsible conversation to have.

In the meantime, let's make sure we are paying our debts and talking about how we can make reforms so we don't keep maxing out the Nation's credit card. That is what this debt ceiling discussion is about.

If we just give the President a blank check, which he asked for--he is not going to get it; nobody should just get a blank check, give me more money so they can just go spend more money--that is not responsible.

Let's figure out how we can stop the Federal Government from continuing to max out the Nation's credit card. There is no better time to have that discussion than after President Biden has maxed out the Nation's credit card.

We will have that conversation, and I think we can get to an agreement where both sides come together and say this is a problem we need to tackle together. Previous Presidents have done that, Republican and Democrat, working with Congresses of the other party. I think we can have that conversation.

Again, I think most of America has been saying it is about time Washington finally starts having that conversation because families have been having that conversation at their kitchen tables for decades and generations.

Madam Speaker, I appreciate you bringing up a number of constituencies that we need to fight to help.

Let's start with the people that have been struggling the most. The lower- and middle-income families, they have been struggling the most in the last 2 years. They thrived like never before during those Trump years that are being decried by the left.

Why did we see such growth from lower- and middle-income families into the middle class and into higher income categories?

Because we actually cut taxes so that we could be competitive as a Nation again and create millions of jobs. We actually created millions of jobs by cutting taxes and making our country competitive, and not keeping money in Washington, but actually freeing up power so that people could control their own destiny again. Those people did take control of their own destiny.

Again, we were losing our middle class during the Obama years. We were seeing great American companies leave America. You can get the list of them. It is a long list, unfortunately. Let's reverse that. Let's fight for those forgotten men and women.

The millionaires and billionaires have their attorneys and their accountants and all the folks on the left who took care of those millionaires and billionaires. How about we start fighting for those people who were left behind--because they were being left behind. We said, let's make a tax code that is competitive for them.

If you go back and look--and the good news is there is real data now. You don't have to wonder about it. You can throw away the talking points about the rich that are always thrown out there.

The income groups that benefited the most from those tax cuts were the lower- and middle-income groups, and millions of people became part of the middle class who were left behind. Those are the facts. The data is out there.

Some people are angry about that because they still want to live in this false universe where they just decry tax cuts because that takes power away from Washington. I think that is what scares the left so much, is when they see people being empowered again to be free to control their own destiny. Not bureaucrats and autocrats in Washington taking their money and then telling them what they can get back. Telling them how high they can go.

How about you break the ceilings and just let people go out and succeed and give them the tools to do it. If you want to go out and work and succeed and achieve the American Dream, it is there for everybody. We restored that again.

By the way, some of those tax cuts expire. I hope the gentlewoman and their side will join with us in continuing to keep that tax structure in place so those middle-income folks can continue to grow and thrive, but also for our seniors.

This is where the President, I think, is looking for ideas on how we can start living within our means again. As I will refresh, as the gentlewoman talked about, spending that has already been done and leverage and full faith and credit to the United States, none of that would even be a discussion point today, if--as the Democrats, when they had the House, Senate, and White House for 2 years, and spent over $6 trillion of money we don't have--they also would have addressed the debt ceiling at that time, we wouldn't be standing in this spot.

We literally took the majority weeks ago and the Nation has already hit its debt ceiling because of the spending; not by President Trump, he actually addressed the debt ceiling as we were putting policies in place that grew our economy and created a middle class again. That was already done.

Over the last 2 years, over $6 trillion in spending, but no time seemed to be

available to address the debt ceiling. So here we are. We are willing to have a discussion about how to get control over spending. There are really good ideas. In fact, many of these ideas will strengthen Social Security for our seniors.

I talked a little bit earlier about getting people that are being paid not to work back into the workforce. That will strengthen Social Security. How about we restore some of the work requirements that used to be there?

This goes back to Bill Clinton, a Democrat, who signed those work requirements. It helped get more people into the workforce. It helped give them a chance to achieve the American Dream, but it also strengthened Social Security. When the government is paying people not to work, they are not paying into Social Security. That undermines the program. We should be wanting to strengthen it.

By the way, there is also a long list, and we are going to be getting these lists out. I hope Democrats will go down this menu, and say, okay, we agree paying people tens, if not hundreds, of billions of dollars to get tax credits who don't even have Social Security numbers, who don't even live in America. If a tax credit is there, it is there for people who pay taxes, not for people who manipulate the system because, for whatever reason, this administration won't even verify a Social Security number. Just doing that verification would save tens, if not hundreds, of billions of dollars--we are talking about real money.

Those things could all help. These aren't cuts to things, these are savings for fraud; real fraud, waste, and abuse that equals hundreds of billions of dollars. We have been outlining these things. I haven't found any takers yet, but I am not going to give up. I think eventually we will get a lot of takers on the other side who will recognize this is something we all need to come together and do because there is no reason that the families who are working hard should be paying for somebody else to cheat the system. There are many, many examples.

We will continue to highlight them. We will actually bring bills to address those exact problems. All of that should be a part of this discussion so we don't keep maxing out the Nation's credit card.

Again, nobody just says, here, if their kid maxed out the card, they are not just going to give them a new card and say, go max out the next one. They are going to sit down and have an adult conversation about how you don't put the country in this situation again.

Mr. Speaker, I would say on that, you can go look at the tax cuts. After those taxes were cut, the Federal Government took in more money than it has ever done in the history of the country because more people were working, and lower- and middle-income people were making higher wages, lifting those at the bottom into the middle class, which was evaporating under the Obama years.

The data is very clear on that. Those tax cuts actually brought more money into the Federal Treasury. If anybody wants to dispute it, I challenge them to go to President Biden's Treasury website and find the numbers because they are there.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding. I enjoyed our first of many of these colloquies. As we look toward hearing from the President, which we welcome together into this Chamber, I look forward to working with the President to address these problems our country is facing so we can get the country back on track and focus on the challenges ahead. There will be many more conversations we will have.

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

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that when the House adjourns today, it adjourn to meet on next Monday, when it shall convene at noon for morning-hour debate and 2 p.m. for legislative business.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Kentucky for yielding and for bringing this important legislation to the floor.

When you look across the country, people have worked hard to get their lives back in order, to get their small businesses back up and running. States pushed to open up again because they knew that the health of their people, the mental health, the ability for kids to get back in school, was so critical.

Of course, data is out there all around but especially amongst our young kids. Many millions of young kids in America lost a year-plus of learning because of virtual learning. Not being in the classroom just wasn't the same. Those communities that made the effort to open back up again were able to provide a much higher level of education than those schools that went out of their way to shut down. Damage was caused to so many.

As you see most of the country now back at work, they look at Congress and say: Why isn't Washington back at work?

When you look at Federal agencies that are there to provide a service for the 330-plus million people all across this great Nation, Mr. Speaker, those people expect that when they pick up the phone and call those agencies--if you are a military veteran who served this Nation, you surely showed up for work. You showed up, in fact, overseas, in some cases, risking your life, receiving injuries. You want to get your military record so you can be eligible to go get the healthcare you deserve. When you call the VA and they can't get your healthcare records because there are still people not at the office--those are things you can't do remotely--those veterans wait for help. That hurts people.

You have millions of people who are trying to get basic services like a passport. Maybe they are trying to go on their honeymoon; or they are waiting for a loved one to come back home that they haven't seen who lives overseas, and they have been waiting for years; or they want to go visit a relative and have waited 6 months in some cases. We get calls to our offices on these problems, people who have been waiting over 6 months to get a passport renewed.

That is something you cannot do remotely. If you call that office and somebody is at home, they are not able to process your passport from their home, so you have to wait and wait and miss dates and deadlines.

When you see what is happening with so many other people who are counting on the Federal Government to take care of their needs, they wonder why they haven't gone back to work when they have had to go back to work.

You saw the President wanting to hire 87,000 more IRS agents. There are many IRS agents that aren't showing up for work. We still get calls to this day from constituents, hardworking people who live paycheck to paycheck who filed their tax returns in 2021 who still haven't gotten their checks back. They are wondering why somebody is sitting at home not able to process that payment. Why do they have to wait over a year to get their money back from their government?

The answer is not to double the agency and hire another 87,000 people. It is to let people go back to work.

This bill just says to show up to work to do your job, to serve those millions of people who are paying your salaries and counting on you to get the job done.

This should have been done a long time ago. I am glad we finally are getting this bill brought to the floor. I thank the gentleman for bringing it.

Mr. Speaker, I send to the desk a privileged concurrent resolution and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Rules be discharged from further consideration of H. Res. 78, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the House Republican Conference, I send to the desk a privileged resolution and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding and for the great job she is doing as chair of the Energy and Commerce Committee to bring forward important bills that will increase America's national security and energy security.

There is absolutely no reason that we have to be reliant on foreign countries for our energy. We have actually got the energy here in America.

In fact, for those people that are concerned about carbon emissions, for all those carbon footprint warriors that got on their private jets and flew to Davos last week to lecture the rest of the world about not using fossil fuels--they didn't take commercial flights. They had to take their private charters, not with solar panels on the wings of those airplanes, using jet fuel.

They lecture the whole world about getting rid of fossil fuels in America, not in other countries.

You saw President Biden himself get on Air Force One and fly to Saudi and beg Saudi princes to produce more energy as he is shutting down production in America, limiting leases, limiting pipelines, killing Keystone and other pipelines, limiting the ability to get permits to do basic exploration in America.

He is green-lighting pipelines in Russia, green-lighting pipelines and drilling in other places, urging and begging drilling in other places.

By the way, if you are concerned about the carbon footprint, no country in the world that produces energy does it better than America. We should want to be doing more in America.

As production goes up and goes down based on good or bad policies, as we are seeing today with bad policies, the Nation back in the 1970s said that we are going to have a Strategic Petroleum Reserve--in essence, an American piggy bank to protect our country in case there is some major disruption in world markets, in energy production in America.

Maybe there is a hurricane in the Gulf of Mexico that limits our ability to produce energy for a brief period of time. That is why we have a Strategic Petroleum Reserve. It is not there to go mask your bad policies.

Yet, that is what we have seen from this President. As you can see, this President has raided more than 40 percent of America's strategic reserve; our piggy bank. He has just taken it away. In some cases, he actually sold that oil to China.

We came together last week, Republicans and Democrats. The press actually said it was going to be a partisan exercise, so why even waste the time. What they found out is not only did a Republican say it is wrong to raid our piggy bank in America and sell it to China, a majority of Democrats actually agreed with us and sent that bill to the Senate.

I urge the Senate to take up that bill that is important to America's national security.

But then, today we go even further and say, Mr. President, with this bill, H.R. 21, if you are going to raid our reserves, won't you at least put forward a plan to show how you will replace it.

Don't worry. I know the White House gets nervous when you tell them that you have got to produce energy in America. They don't have a problem, again, with foreign countries producing energy. They just don't want it made in America. They use the tagline a lot. You hear it all the time, made in America; except when it comes to making energy, they don't want to make it in America. They make it harder to make it in America. They beg foreign countries to make our energy.

This bill says--gives an exemption--except in the case of a severe energy supply interruption. So the President's still got the ability, if there is some actual emergency, to use the Strategic Petroleum Reserve the way it was intended in the 1970s.

All this bill says is if your bad policy is leading to higher gas prices--and people are getting angry about that, as they should--you can't go and raid it unless you show a plan, as the bill says, the development of a plan to increase oil and gas production under oil and gas leases of Federal lands here.

So this would make a lot of sense, except if you are at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

In fact, yesterday, the President actually issued a veto threat on this bill. Now, a veto threat should be a rare exercise that you reserve for policy that might hurt the country.

Well, let's read why the President issued the veto threat. In his veto threat he said, the administration's use of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve has been essential to protecting our energy security and to lowering gas prices for Americans.

I hope I am not the one that breaks this news to the White House, but Mr. President, your policies have not lowered gas prices for Americans. Maybe the calculator is broken at the White House, but we did the math.

Let's do some fact-checking. Since Joe Biden took the oath of office, gas prices have not lowered; they have increased 50 percent.

Then the veto threat says, we don't want to do this because our policies have lowered gas prices. Maybe the President, when he realizes that gas prices have gone up 50 percent--they have not lowered for families--he might reverse the veto threat. So we will wait during this debate.

Maybe we will get a reversal of this veto threat once he realizes that gas prices have actually gone up, not a little, but a lot, 50 percent increase for a low-income family who is struggling already under the weight of President Biden's spending that has led to inflation and higher prices everywhere you go, the grocery store, supply chain increases.

This is crushing middle-class families. It is crushing lower-income families. So what we say is, let's just use our resources.

The President actually goes on to say--and this might be the most perplexing part of the President's veto threat; probably explains the most why the President is so misguided on energy policy.

He says, because H.R. 21 will jeopardize our energy security and increase gas prices for working families, the administration strongly opposes the bill.

So, somehow, some of the energy experts at the White House, again, some of the same people that fly around on private planes to Davos telling you not to use fossil fuels, they think that by increasing American energy production that will somehow raise gas prices.

Well, guess what? We have checked the record. These are the same experts whose policies have increased gas

prices, not a little, 50 percent. So the White House has been wrong on this issue over and over again, to the point where we had such a strong bipartisan vote last week.

Let's put up another strong bipartisan vote and maybe wake the people up at the White House as to what is happening in the real world. When families who are struggling go to fill up their gas tanks, they are not paying less, as the President suggests.

Again, the President actually thinks, in his veto threat, that his policies have lowered gas prices. A 50 percent increase is not a lower gas price. It is actually a kick to the gut of those families who are struggling; and we have got to stop having Washington kick them in the gut.

So if you look at the moniker right above the Speaker's rostrum, there is a plaque that says, let us develop the natural resources of our land.

Why don't we actually do that? Why don't we actually do what has proven to work over and over again?

If we open up American energy, it is the cleanest in the world. Don't beg foreign dictators to do it. They don't do it as clean as us, by the way; and it also lowers prices. It also creates good American jobs.

Let's actually make it in America again and, if you are going to raid the piggy bank, at minimum, show the country your plan for how you plan to replace it. That is the least this President should do.

Let's pass this bill with a strong vote over to the Senate and then get this on the President's desk, and maybe he will reconsider and recognize just what his policies have done to hurt families over these last 2 years.

Mr. Chairman, I urge adoption of H.R. 21.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Washington (Mrs. Rodgers), chair of the House Energy and Commerce Committee and my dear friend, for yielding and for bringing this legislation, H.R. 22, to the floor. It is such an important piece of legislation to start standing up for America's national security.

If you think about the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, just think of the first word in that name, ``strategic.'' It is there for America's national security.

First of all, raiding SPR, as it is referred to, President Biden has done over and over again, depleting 40 percent of our national security strategic reserve, not to move world oil prices.

As you can see, Mr. Speaker, multiple times, starting in November 2021, President Biden has raided SPR because he has attacked American energy. As he attacked American energy, starting on his first day in office, the price of oil and gasoline at the pump subsequently has risen dramatically, crushing middle-class families. So, he started feeling the heat.

His answer should have been to reverse the failed policies that are dramatically increasing gas prices by crushing American energy. That is not what President Biden did because the extremists on the left don't want that. They won't allow him to do it.

Then, he turned to SPR, and he said, well, maybe we can just try to trick the American people by raiding SPR. So, he did. When he raided it, what happened? You got a sugar high for about a week, and, boom, the price started going back up again because the world markets recognized President Biden has taken American energy off the market.

By the way, Mr. Speaker, we are the only country in the world that can produce massive quantities of oil that is a free-market country. The rest of the countries that have an abundant supply are cartels: OPEC, Russia, Iran, Venezuela. They want a high price. The only check- and-balance to high prices of oil is a free-market, producing America.

By the way, if you want to hide behind the Green New Deal and global warming and whatever other names they attach to it, climate change-- they change the name every couple of years because the American people figure out that all it is is an attack on American energy.

The price keeps going up because we are shutting off the cleanest producing country in the world.

Do you want to lower carbon emissions in the world? Produce more oil in America. It is not just about creating more jobs. It is not just about our national security, Mr. Speaker. It is about actually reducing global emissions.

This bill addresses President Biden selling our strategic reserves to China. China is building about a new coal plant every week, dramatically increasing carbon emissions, while President Biden shuts down American manufacturing and production, shuts down oil, which, by the way, we were reducing emissions during those times when we were producing energy.

Over and over again, raided SPR, raided SPR, raided SPR. The price kept going up. What went down is America's national security. That is what we are getting to the heart of here, 40 percent of our reserves.

We have two different ways to get energy. We can actually produce it. As the moniker right above the Speaker's rostrum says, let us develop our natural resources. We have natural resources. We have the best technology in the world. We can produce it cleaner than anybody else in the world. As long as we are producing energy, it actually can lower the cost.

We don't just produce enough for ourselves because, by the way, if we weren't allowed to export energy, then you would see a decrease in production. You would see a decrease in exploration. It is like a farmer. If a farmer can only produce and sell in America, they are going to plant a lot less because they can't have access to world markets.

You want to have access to world markets, but you want to also have a reserve in case--not in case you have a failed policy, as is what we are seeing with President Biden. You want to reserve in case there is a natural disaster. If a hurricane hits the Gulf of Mexico, as we have seen, it actually spikes the price, so you have a brief disruption, and you want a reserve to fill that need. If you have some kind of national security emergency, like they did in the 1970s--by the way, that is when SPR was created.

That is when we created this reserve for our country, when cartels controlled world oil markets, because we didn't have the technology to access like we do today. We didn't have fracking technology. We didn't have the ability to go 5,000 feet in the deep waters of the Gulf of Mexico to find billion-barrel reserves like we do today.

The cartels controlled everything. There were lines at the pump. You had to have an even-numbered license plate to get gasoline on a certain day. That was the 1970s. So, Congress created SPR for our national security.

I understand a little history lesson might help people recognize how we got here. It is not by accident that we got here. We should want, as Congress, to be able to work together to fix this problem, to address the fact that prices have gone up not just for gasoline at the pump but also when people are heating their homes in a cold winter. The price shouldn't be that high.

By the way, we were also, by exporting energy, helping our friends around the world so we don't have to be dependent on oil or natural gas from other places.

As was the case in the buildup to Afghanistan, Putin was making about $700 million a day, Mr. Speaker, selling his oil to America and Europe because President Biden shut off the American supply. No reason that should have happened, but that is what got us here.

What can get us out? First, let me remind you what else got us here because they are trying to blame everybody else under the Sun. It is Putin's fault. It is the oil companies' fault. It is the weather's fault.

It is President Biden's fault. Day one, he started mountains of rules and regulations. These aren't laws passed by Congress, by the way. These are rules and regulations that have come out of the Biden administration just in the last 2 years attacking American energy, not foreign countries. President Biden was okay with pipelines from Russia to Europe, but he said ``no'' on day one to a pipeline from Canada to America.

All of these actions had a cost. The cost is dramatic prices at the pump for hardworking families, crushing the lowest income families amongst us.

What agencies, by the way, are represented here? The Department of Energy went after American energy, and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. The Securities and Exchange Commission, through woke policies, went after American energy. The Department of Agriculture, yes, went after American energy in these rules and regs. The Council on Environmental Quality, the Department of State--that gets to the Keystone pipeline. The Environmental Protection Agency, the Department of Justice,

and, yes, the Department of the Interior all represented right here in rules and regulations that crushed American energy, making us more dependent on foreign countries and leading to President Biden raiding our Strategic Petroleum Reserve, 40 percent, making our country less safe.

This foolishness has to end. We can solve this problem.

Now, Mrs. McMorris Rodgers in her committee, they actually have real ideas about how to solve this problem. The good news is, Mr. Speaker, under this majority we are going to be bringing bills through committee to the floor to fix this problem.

Now, on the other side today you hear them talking about this magic bill. They have got a bill. Boy, if we just killed this bill--because they want to keep selling our strategic reserves to China; 950,000 barrels already that President Biden has sold to China--they have some magic answer.

My question would be: Where was that magic answer 2 years ago, 2 months ago, 2 weeks ago when they were in the majority?

They had the House, Senate, and White House, and, I guess, in the last 2 weeks they finally figured out the answer because they surely didn't pass that to the President 2 weeks ago, 2 months ago, or 2 years ago.

What they did do is they brought mountains and mountains of regulations to crush American energy. Then Biden gets on a plane called Air Force One. We have checked it, there are no solar panels on the wings of Air Force One. It actually uses jet fuel.

He flies to Saudi Arabia and begs Saudi princes to produce more energy because he shut down America's energy production. No leases, no pipelines, no permits. He has done all those things, and it led to higher prices. He didn't have to get on Air Force One and fly thousands of miles back and forth.

Who knows what the carbon footprint of that is?

I would love to see the press dig into that because they love talking about carbon footprints for other things.

He didn't have to get on Air Force One at all. He could have picked up the phone and called Port Fourchon in Louisiana and said: Will you produce more energy in America? It is cleaner, more efficient, and there are better jobs than anywhere else in the world. He didn't do that.

It is time we get smart policies. It is time we have some common sense in our energy policy, so we stop crushing those middle-class families.

To sell our oil to China?

Not just our oil, our reserves. This is our piggy bank in case there is a disaster. He has depleted 40 percent of it, and he keeps reducing it to mask his failed policies.

Let's get the policy right and start fighting for those hardworking families who are suffering because of this.

Let's pass this legislation. Let's keep going to work for those families.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Ohio for yielding. Madam Speaker, I especially thank the gentlewoman from Missouri, Ann Wagner, for leading this effort for so many years.

I am so proud to rise in support of this bill that is about human dignity; and, frankly, it is about common sense. The idea, Madam Speaker, that if a baby is born alive outside the womb that that baby in America could be killed and it be called abortion and not murder defies logic. It defies humanity.

Over the years Kat Cammack has had a discharge petition to bring this bill to the floor. So many others all across the country have asked Congress to address this issue, and the first thing that people express is shock.

They say: Wait a minute. If a baby is born outside the womb alive, how could you then kill that baby and that be legal? How is that not already murder?

I questioned how it wasn't myself, and yet in a number of States it is legal, and it is happening today.

This is America. Madam Speaker, you see this in countries like China and North Korea. There aren't many countries in the world that allow this practice. The United States should not be one of those countries.

This is inhumane. This transcends the abortion debate. Before the Dobbs decision, this bill still would have been constitutional to pass because we are not talking about 20 weeks, we are talking about the baby born alive outside the womb.

Yet, in America there are some States that allow that baby to be killed and called abortion.

You can call it whatever you want, Madam Speaker. It should be murder. It shouldn't be allowed, and this bill takes care of that. Everybody should vote for this bill.

When you talk to people who identify as pro-choice, so many of them are shocked that this is a legal process. Some, obviously, still want it to continue, but we shouldn't. We should be better than that as a country.

There is an amazing group called the Abortion Survivors Network. Ann Wagner and I and so many of us have surely met with some of these incredible people.

If you want to talk about a walking miracle, Madam Speaker, these are people alive today in their twenties, thirties, and forties living incredible lives who were the result of an abortion that wasn't successful. They lived through it. Think of the special plan God has for them that they survived an abortion, and they are alive today. They are incredible people. Everybody in this country should reach out and go meet them. It is a group, and you can look them up.

Their stories are incredible.

Why should they be denied life?

We are a country of laws. We are a country of great rights. Of our inalienable rights--life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness--the first among those is life. Very few countries in the world allow this to happen to someone if they are born alive.

So while they are shocked when people find out that it is legal, we are the United States Congress, we can actually do something about it.

Thank God we have people who are willing to stand up for those babies. I am not even talking about inside the womb. They are outside the womb born alive. If someone takes their life after they are born alive outside the womb, that should be murder.

We should be protecting those young babies. That is what this bill does. It is a bill we should all be proud to support. It is a list that the United States should want to take itself off of. We shouldn't want to be associated with the very few countries that allow this barbaric process to happen.

Let's pass this bill. Let's become an even more perfect Union.