Kelly Armstrong

Mr. ARMSTRONG

Mr. ARMSTRONG. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. ARMSTRONG. Mr. Chair, H.R. 21 is about strengthening the SPR by requiring any nonemergency use to be accompanied by a plan to produce American oil resources. This increases energy security, increases the supply and affordability of oil, and creates stable prices. This amendment seeks to condition a plan based on entities that may or may not even participate in available lease tract auctions. This amendment undermines the purpose of the bill, and I urge a ``no'' vote on the amendment. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. ARMSTRONG. Mr. Chair, I do insist on my point of order.

Mr. ARMSTRONG. Mr. Chair, the amendment violates clause 7 of rule XVI of the rules of the House because it is not germane to the underlying bill. Specifically, the bill limits the drawdown of the petroleum in the Strategic Petroleum Reserve until the Department of Energy develops a plan to increase the percentage of Federal lands leased for oil and gas production. This amendment requires the Chair of the Federal Election Commission to submit to Congress a report of certain campaign donations. Campaign donations are outside the scope of H.R. 21. I would also suggest that the disclosure of campaign donations falls within the jurisdiction of the Committee on House Administration, but that committee does not have any jurisdiction over the subject matter of H.R. 21. This amendment is not germane.

Mr. ARMSTRONG. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. ARMSTRONG. Mr. Chair, H.R. 21 is about strengthening the SPR by requiring any nonemergency use to be accompanied by a plan to produce American resources. By lowering the number from 10 percent to 0.1 percent, you essentially defeat the whole purpose of introducing the bill. To be quite frank, it wouldn't be worth the paper we are using to put it in front of Congress at this point in time. We should have a conversation about this because at any point in time we are going to blame, whether it is an invasion in the Ukraine or Big Oil or small oil or gas stations or American consumers or the climate crisis or all of those different things. The reality of this conversation is the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, which is at the lowest rate it has been since 1983, is putting us at dangerous risk if any kind of weather event happens in the Chair's home State of Texas or Florida or the Gulf, where we really have these types of issues. The reality to this entire conversation is that prior to the election of President Biden as President, the oil and gas production onshore and offshore in the United States had made us less vulnerable to foreign interference than at any other time in our current history. Since this administration has been in place, we have relied more and more on outside oil and become subject to the same crises and problems that we witnessed in the 1980s and the 1990s and until we discovered shale in places like North Dakota. This amendment guts the entire purpose of the bill. And while that is the intent of the amendment, I would strongly urge a ``no'' vote, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. ARMSTRONG. Mr. Chair, I move that the Committee do now rise.

Mr. ARMSTRONG

Mr. ARMSTRONG. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Pence), my good friend.

Mr. ARMSTRONG. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 8542, the Mental Health Justice Act of 2022. ``In lieu of law enforcement officers in emergencies.'' I am going to say it again, because that is the exact language used repeatedly in the bill. ``In lieu of law enforcement officers in emergencies.'' Mr. Speaker, this bill is dangerous. This legislation gives Federal grants to States, Tribes, and localities to hire mental health providers to respond to certain emergencies involving an individual with an intellectual disability or developmental disability; an individual experiencing a mental health crisis; or an individual under the influence. There is nothing wrong with mental health professionals assisting law enforcement in appropriate circumstances. Communities around the country are adopting these models with law enforcement, mental health providers, and prosecutors. I would be open to supporting legislation limited to training mental health providers to assist law enforcement in appropriate situations, but that is not what this bill does. A sentence in the bill begins by stating that ``mental health providers may coordinate with law enforcement.'' Sounds acceptable, but it continues to read, ``which may include operating independently'' from law enforcement. Let's be clear. The purpose of this legislation is to provide financial incentives to deploy mental health providers to inherently dangerous situations in lieu of law enforcement and operating independently of law enforcement. That is a policy that will endanger the mental health professional, the suspect, the person experiencing the mental health crisis, and the person who called 911. A crime scene or a home experiencing a domestic violence dispute is not the setting to provide mental health care. In the first half of 2022, the leading circumstance of law enforcement officers killed with firearms was in response to domestic violence calls. Nobody can confidently tell us they know in advance which domestic violence call should get a mental health response instead of a law enforcement response. Mental health professionals are not trained for the inevitable physical confrontations that occur in these situations. The priority in an emergency situation is to secure the scene and all individuals involved, which is a law enforcement function. Once the scene is secure, I will be the first person calling for mental health services, whether it is addiction-related, trauma, or mental illness. There is a time and a place for mental health care, but it is not rolling up to a scene without the training and tools to defend yourself and at-risk civilians. A first responder typically does not have the time and information to know when it is appropriate to provide mental health services. Who are we expecting to make the distinction on mental health? The 911 dispatcher? An elected official inserted into the emergency dispatch process? Every additional second layer of bureaucracy will cost lives. The risks are even greater in rural parts of the country, like my home State of North Dakota, where backup is often measured in hours, not minutes. Ask a mental health provider if they want to be deployed without law enforcement at 1 a.m. on the side of Highway 85 between Dickinson and Watford City. As if the public safety concerns aren't enough, the bill provides additional financial incentives for the actions that may not be in the best interest of the individual, the community, or comply with established laws of the jurisdiction. The bill provides additional awards for referrals to community-based, voluntary support services without consideration of the specific needs and circumstances. Community-based care could be the appropriate setting, but there are circumstances where inpatient care or incarceration are simply more appropriate. The bill also provides incentives for decarceration rates of certain groups of individuals. Again, decarceration may make sense at times. I have advocated for it in lots of circumstances, but it is case specific. I have seen it before. Police arrest on a domestic violence charge, release, and respond to a murder 2 hours later. These decisions should be made at the local level based on specific circumstances with State and local input. This bill attempts to treat the subject of the 911 call with fairness and dignity. That is something we should all strive toward. The flip side is that this bill does not account for the person who made the 911 call. These policies will not work in the real world. It will only make dangerous situations more dangerous. The unintended consequences of this bill are extensive, and emergency situations will become more dangerous than they already are. This is why we need committee process to work through these challenging issues. Criminal justice reform is hard. There are lots and lots of unintended consequences. I have legitimately worked on it my entire adult life. But my Democratic colleagues skipped that process because their focus is on frontline elections in the House, not frontline communities battling rising crime rates. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. ARMSTRONG. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Guthrie).

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

Mr. ARMSTRONG. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time to close. Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record this letter from the National District Attorneys Association in opposition to this legislation. National District Attorneys Association, Washington, DC, September 21, 2022. Hon. Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the House, House of Representatives, Washington,

Mr. ARMSTRONG. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time to close. The only time you know a traffic stop is routine is when it is over. The only time you know it is only a mental health service call is after the scene is secure. Far too often, and more complicated, are addiction-related issues and mental health-related issues, but none of those preclude the fact that a weapon is there or domestic violence has occurred. When you continue to coordinate this stuff for cash-strapped departments across the country with decarceration, you will have real consequences. For well over 25 years, victims' rights groups have fought all across this country to get domestic violence offenders held for the weekend on misdemeanor charges, and there are reasons for that. You need them to sober up; you need everybody to cool off; and victims need the opportunity to get out of the house. These bills do nothing to do any of those things. These bills will make communities more dangerous from one end of the country to the other. This bill sounds really good. Cooperation, coordination, all of those words sound fantastic. I will be the first one championing mental health and addiction services to anybody in lieu of custody, in lieu of prison, in lieu of jail time, but I want to do it after the scene is secure and we know there is no weapon onsite and nobody is in danger, when we know the victim is not in danger, the community is not in danger, and the person who is experiencing addiction, mental health, whatever crisis it is, is not in danger. This bill doesn't do that. This bill does the opposite of that. We should reject it and get back to work on the hard work of passing reasonable, real, strong criminal justice reform. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose this bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. ARMSTRONG

Mr. ARMSTRONG. Madam Speaker, it is actually pretty nice in North Dakota right now, but we are on our way to winter. Saying gas prices have lowered 91 days in a row is a whole lot like giving a medal to an arsonist for helping put out a fire he started. Gas prices are not lower than when President Biden took office, and other energy prices are continuing to rise. And I want to see the report that says inflation has gone down because I have seen it has gone up in the most recent numbers to 8.3 percent. I think there was very great dueling chryons going on as we are celebrating an Inflation Reduction Act that does nothing to reduce inflation while the stock market is tanking, and we get a new report that inflation is actually going up. But I would urge my colleagues to defeat the previous question so we can consider commonsense policy that would reverse the decision by 220 Democrats in this Chamber to tax American energy producers and raise prices on consumers. Democrats frame their price-increasing $1,500 methane tax as a way to reduce emissions, but the small and medium oil and gas companies in States like mine were already taking steps to reduce pollution in an economically viable way. These small and medium companies are the ones that drive energy production, particularly in North Dakota, and are going to be double-regulated from the wellhead to the market. The structure of the methane program is unwieldy; it is burdensome, and it will only serve to increase prices for consumers. And we have seen just that. In New York, a typical customer's electric bill is expected to increase by 29 percent from last year--29 percent. Ratepayers in New Hampshire saw the price of electricity double over the summer. With one in six families falling behind on their utility bills, and winter right around the corner, the last thing we need are policies that make it more expensive to produce energy in the United States. We need to take the handcuffs off domestic producers and deliver affordable, clean, and reliable energy. In any rational place in the world, California's energy policies, where they are demanding electric vehicles by 2035 and, 2 days later, ask people to not charge their electric vehicles, and the energy policies of our allies in Germany and other countries in Europe that are seeing the highest utility rates of any civilized country in the world should be a big, red blinking stop sign. But we are not in a rational world. We are in Washington, D.C., and instead of taking the time to reflect and take reasonable steps to ensure that our country doesn't go down the same path as these other places, we double down on policies that will not work, and they have the added benefit of not actually doing anything to clean up the environment. Madam Speaker, I urge everyone to defeat the previous question so we can go back and deal with an energy policy that is based on reality and not ideology.

Mr. ARMSTRONG

Mr. ARMSTRONG. Mr. Speaker, tonight in Bismark, there is an event honoring the State senate career of Nicole Poolman. Elected in 2012, Nicole served in the North Dakota State senate for a decade. She used her career as a teacher to educate members of the Senate on how to govern with intelligence, competence, and grace. Mr. Speaker, I know this better than most. She was my seatmate on the floor of the State senate for 6 years. Because of her friendship, I have become a better public servant, and more importantly, I have become a better person. She is retiring from the senate to continue to focus on her true passion, teaching. This year marks her 25th year as an educator. In that time, she has taught in three high schools and has had such a positive impact on thousands of North Dakota students. The North Dakota State government is going to miss her dearly. But their loss is her students' gain. I am so very proud to call her my friend.

Mr. ARMSTRONG

Mr. ARMSTRONG. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 3962, the SECURE Notarization Act, is a bipartisan bill that would authorize the nationwide use of remote, online notarizations, which is simply an electronic notarization where the party and notary are in different locations. Society has widely adopted remote meetings, events, and even social activities. Requirements for a signer to be physically present before a notary are often impractical and sometimes impossible, such as with military deployments or travel restrictions. Remote online notarization increases the use of notarization and allows individuals to conduct crucial business, particularly if both parties are unable to be physically present with a notary. This bill would provide businesses and individuals with the ability to execute documents using two-way audiovisual communication, while protecting consumers with multifactor authentication and tamper-evident technology. The bill would not replace State laws governing the authorization and regulation of notaries public, nor would this bill alter State control over the practice of law or commonly notarized legal papers, like estate documents. It would simply provide for the recognition of remote notarization performed in interstate commerce, Federal courts, and would ensure the recognition of remote notarizations performed under another State's law. This is similar to the Full Faith and Credit Clause and implementation statutes that ensure the recognition of official activities or judicial proceedings in another State. Again, this has been said, but this bill has 123 cosponsors. It proceeded through regular order. It passed the Energy and Commerce Committee with a 56-0 vote. It also has the support of 20 organizations like the American Land Title Association, which utilizes notaries public on a daily basis. Mr. Speaker, I, too, thank the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Dean), my friend, for working so closely with our office and having a lot of fun as we moved the notary bill forward. If you think having fun on a notary bill is easy, Mr. Speaker, you have got to work at it, but we have had a lot of fun, and I appreciate it.

Mr. ARMSTRONG

Mr. ARMSTRONG. Madam Speaker, the Constitution grants Congress the power over the size and composition of the judiciary. The Judiciary Act of 1789 and subsequent laws established this structure. Since 1869, the number of Justices has been fixed at nine. Congress has the authority to change that number. Whether Congress should exercise this authority is another question entirely, and whether Congress should exercise that authority in a 50/50 Senate and a single- digit majority in the House is another question. In Sykes v. United States, Justice Scalia wrote: ``It should be no surprise that as the volume'' of law ``increases, so do the number of imprecise laws. . . . Fuzzy, leave-the-details-to-be-sorted-out-by-the- courts legislation is attractive to the Congressman who wants credit'' without dealing with ``the nitty-gritty.'' The real problem is that Congress doesn't want to deal with the nitty-gritty. We want to fundraise off of top-line messages and vague legislative text. We write ambiguous law that leaves important details and major questions to unelected bureaucrats. The decisions of those unelected bureaucrats inevitably are left to be sorted out by the courts. The Court is merely doing its job to say what the law is. Our reaction should be to take back our Article I authority and to clearly articulate congressional intent. If we write detailed laws, judges will properly implement Congress' intent. Instead, too many in this body seek to exploit congressional inaction, choosing to double down on fundraising pleas by bashing the courts and promising to pack judges onto the Court to guarantee their preferred outcome. Here is a better idea. If you can't pass the Clean Power Plan through Congress, don't ask the EPA to implement it and then feign outrage when the Court says, no, that is not how a democratic republic is supposed to work. James Madison said Congress would fight to the death to protect its Article I authority. Unfortunately, I think what we have seen is that Congress will fight to the death to maintain their membership in Congress. Now, the one way in which far too many on the left want to exert our Article I authority is to pack the Court so Congress can continue to outsource legislating to the bureaucratic state and then ensure the Court gives them the decision they would like. Madam Speaker, I urge everyone to defeat the previous question.

Mr. ARMSTRONG

Mr. ARMSTRONG. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the Restoring Hope for Mental Health and Well-Being Act. This bipartisan mental health package includes my legislation, the Summer Barrow Prevention, Treatment, and Recovery Act. This bill reauthorizes several substance use disorder programs administered by SAMHSA that help local communities provide substance use disorder and mental health services to those most in need. This is particularly important for rural States like North Dakota, where individuals struggle to access all treatment options that may work for them. The package also includes the Mainstreaming Addiction Treatment Act, or MAT Act. The MAT Act would remove the burdensome requirement that a healthcare practitioner apply for a separate waiver, known as the X waiver, through the Drug Enforcement Agency to prescribe certain drugs for substance use disorder treatment. The X waiver requirement limits access to lifesaving treatment, which is particularly painful considering recent news that drug overdose deaths hit a record high of more than 107,000 in 2021. Lastly, I offer my support for an amendment I offered with my friend Congressman Trone of Maryland that will come to the floor soon. Our amendment would add the State Opioid Response Grants Act to this program. This amendment will provide $8.75 billion over 5 years in flexible financing for State Opioid Response grants and Tribal Opioid Response grants, providing States and Tribes certainty and stability to implement prevention, treatment, and recovery.

Mr. ARMSTRONG

Mr. ARMSTRONG. Madam Speaker, the fact is, President Trump has exerted executive privilege, and Mr. Scavino has raised the issue of executive privilege at President Trump's request. No matter how much my colleagues on the other side want to say differently, it is a legitimate assertion, considering the D.C. Circuit Court, in Nixon v. Administrator, held that the executive privilege can be raised by a former President, a determination recently reinforced by Justice Kavanaugh in Trump v. Thompson by stating that the right of a former President to assert executive privilege exists, even if the sitting President does not support that privilege. Concluding otherwise would, in fact, actually eviscerate the privilege in total. Keep in mind that the ruling on executive privilege in Trump v. Thompson deals with a narrow set of documents from the National Archives. It has no bearing on whether Mr. Scavino testifies. The ruling does not apply to documents at issue in this case, nor does it apply to the testimony sought by the committee or whether the committee has a legitimate purpose for conversations between President Trump and his aide. The select committee has refused to acknowledge President Trump's assertion of privilege as it applies to Mr. Scavino, and the committee takes an overexpansive view of what Trump v. Thompson actually says and fails to even acknowledge that the Supreme Court case of Nixon v. Administrator exists. This is not a settled question, and it is not nearly as clear-cut as some would have you believe.

Mr. ARMSTRONG

Mr. ARMSTRONG. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the Prohibiting Punishment of Acquitted Conduct Act. I thank Mr. Cohen for introducing this important legislation. Mr. Speaker, due process is more than an ideal. It is a fundamental right enshrined in our law. The Constitution confirms that right and explicitly ensures procedural fairness to those accused and convicted of crimes. Yet, the criminal justice system often grants judges with discretion to increase the length and severity of punishment based on conduct for which an individual was proven not guilty. We can all agree that holding criminals accountable is essential to law and order. However, sentencing based on acquitted conduct is an affront to all Americans' constitutional rights. The Prohibiting Punishment of Acquitted Conduct Act will bring an end to this unfair practice. This bipartisan, bicameral legislation bars judges from considering an individual's acquitted conduct during sentencing, except for purposes of mitigating a sentence. This bill is a crucial step toward restoring some fairness in our criminal justice system and commands a broad coalition of support, including Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Dick Durbin, the ACLU, Americans for Prosperity, and the American Conservative Union. I thank both Chairman Nadler and Ranking Member Jordan for moving this bill through the Judiciary Committee. One last thing: Judges have a range of sentences in the sentencing guidelines. Prosecutors, after conviction, make recommendations. There is a pretrial sentencing report. Again, the sentencing can vary very highly up and down in that vein. There is absolutely no reason, in the interest of justice or fairness, where acquitted conduct needs to be used in sentencing offenders.

Mr. ARMSTRONG

Mr. ARMSTRONG. Mr. Speaker, my hometown of Dickinson, North Dakota, is in the southern part of the Bakken oil patch. It is where we unleashed this revolutionary technology of shale hydraulic fracturing, horizontal drilling, and producing natural gas. But you know what else? Eighteen miles away from my childhood hometown is an ethanol plant. Seven miles to the west is a biodiesel plant. Thirteen miles south, fourteen miles south is the largest wind farm in North Dakota generation of Brady I and Brady II. About 80 miles to the northeast we are figuring out how to strip rare earth metals out of lignite coal so we can be less dependent on Russia and China in all of those issues. The people who work and live in my communities grow all the cereal grains, and the by-products from the ethanol plant are fed as feedstock to our cattle industry, so I don't need lectures from anyone on all-of- the-above energy, particularly when the left's version of all-of-the- above energy is solely wind, solar, rainbows, unicorns. Here is the dirty little secret: The world is going to burn more carbon in 2 years whether we shut down domestic production or not, and this naive and idealistic viewpoint that if we shut down American industry, American ingenuity, then the rest of the world will follow along is fundamental differential to the fact we are watching it play out in real time. Our strategic adversaries and, indeed, our enemies will fill this space--that is the fact--because the world needs these products, and they are going to continue to utilize these products. But at least welcome this: We are going to do nothing to reduce global carbon emissions because the atmosphere doesn't recognize countries' borders. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to defeat the previous question, allow this to go back, and let us do what we were doing so well until the last year, developing American energy, allowing it to be utilized, rather than energy from our adversaries. I can tell you one last thing, and then I will close. In the last year, we haven't had a Federal lease sale in North Dakota. Congressional Democrats have tried to ban the transport of liquefied natural gas by rail, and so let's be honest about how we got here so we can get there in the future.

Mr. ARMSTRONG

Mr. ARMSTRONG. Madam Speaker, we all know the importance of the U.S. Postal Service and its core mission of prompt, reliable, and efficient mail service to all Americans, regardless of where they live. This is essential in States like North Dakota, where even the most rural postal customers rely on the USPS for the reliable delivery of everything from electric bills to essential medicine. But for too long, Congress has ignored the substantial problems plaguing the U.S. Postal Service. From declining mail volume to operational inefficiency, the Postal Service has been stuck with a business model that is not suited to meet the needs of the 21st century. This body has been complicit in allowing the financially independent Postal Service to die a slow death over the last 15 years. In that time, we have seen mail volume collapse by 40 percent; annual losses total more than $90 billion; and the addition of more than 1 million new delivery points every year. When I was on the floor debating these issues last Congress, I said the Postal Service does not need a short-term bailout; it needs serious reform. This bill begins that process. H.R. 3076 is complementary to Postmaster General DeJoy's 10-year reform plan and his request to Congress. This bill increases accountability by requiring a public dashboard with national and local service performance data that is routinely updated. It supports the delivery of mail at least 6 days per week. It requires regular reporting to Congress so we can keep on top of the Postal Service's plan and ensure the investment goals, cost savings, and revenue projections are met. It is more important than ever to support initiatives that place the Postal Service on a path to financial stability and maintain its self- sufficiency. With a current projected insolvency date of 2024, delaying postal reform today will only make future decisions more difficult and more expensive. The status quo is simply not an option. I appreciate Ranking Member Comer and Chairwoman Maloney coming together on this bipartisan bill to do the hard work of making the Postal Service more reliable and sustainable in the long term, and I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. ARMSTRONG

Mr. ARMSTRONG. Madam Speaker, I was in Minneapolis the Saturday that speech was given, so to say that it wasn't analogous, I think, is fairly uncertain. The entire town was a tinderbox. So as we continue to move through this, I would appreciate a little less of the self-righteous indignation. What is really damaging here and what is really unfortunate is that we have abandoned any recognition of institutional integrity, any pretense of fairness, any notion that something should be above partisanship. Because I got news--and I believe this--I thought what was said in Minneapolis doesn't rise to incitement of violence. Jury tampering, possibly. Irresponsible, absolutely. The same thing goes for this post. It was dumb. It was silly. It was stupid. It was mean-spirited. But you know what it is not? It is not incitement of violence. And when we use hyperbole in those words, we cause ourselves problems, but there is no point and attempt with the majority at this point to follow through on any rules or procedures. The U.S. House of Representatives looks significantly more like a junior high lunchroom than a legislative body. If you are in our clique, you are okay. If not, tough. If we like you, no fines. If we don't, we will take it out of your paycheck. A Member on your side calls for violence, motion to table; a Member on our side, stand in the well and answer for your sins. Rules matter, process matters, the institution matters. Madam Speaker, this will be the fourth Member of the minority stripped of their committees by the majority this Congress. That has never happened before, but it is going to happen again. And that is what I don't understand. I understand completely why the majority's leadership is willing to do anything to maintain control over the caucus until the next election. But in the process, you are all negatively and permanently changing the way this body functions--forever. You are weaponizing the gavel against minority Members. And if you think it stops at the next election, I have no doubt that the leadership in the majority has no intention of going back to being a rank-and-file Member in the minority, but the rest of you all will. And how do you think this ends? When the pendulum swings, and it will, we are all going to suffer the consequences. The SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE. The time of the gentleman has expired.

Mr. ARMSTRONG. Madam Speaker, the institution is going to suffer for it, and it is already suffering for it. Committee structures, scheduling hearings, witness lists, these are all purviews of the majority. But rules of conduct and decorum have to be applied equally to all Members or the institution continues to degrade. Madam Speaker, the rules are not being applied equally. It is noticed by us. It is noticed by the American people. It is unfortunate, and it is sad.