Dan Crenshaw

Mr. CRENSHAW

Mr. CRENSHAW. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. CRENSHAW. Mr. Chairman, I have seen a lot since we have been here. This is my third term. Never before have I actually been frightened about what could happen if FISA is not reauthorized or this warrant amendment is passed, which effectively kills our ability to detect and connect the dots between foreign terrorists and what they might do here domestically. I have never been more concerned. I spent the last 20 years of my life fighting for this country. I lost an eye doing it. Additionally, I don't think we actually disagree very much on principle. There is always a balance between civil liberties, privacy, and security. I don't think my colleagues and I are very far apart on that. We are very far apart on the facts at hand. So let's talk about some myths and some facts. Myth: FISA is used to spy on Americans. The myth goes like this: If you query an American's name, you can see their in-box. That is not true. It is used to spy on foreign intelligence targets, foreign terrorists, and you need a warrant to do so. If they speak to an American, you will get that part of the conversation. That is all you get. There is another myth. This bill doesn't go far enough. It doesn't do any reforms. That is not true. The reforms in here would stop in their tracks what happened to President Trump with Crossfire Hurricane. It is almost entirely intended to stop what happened to President Trump. Not only that, it would codify 56 warrant reforms. It would put in processes before queries are even made. It would put in criminal penalties for those who do not abide by those processes. The FBI hates these reforms, by the way. Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to support this bill and not to support the amendment to require a warrant for queries.

Mr. CRENSHAW

Mr. CRENSHAW. Mr. Speaker, I want to address all of my colleagues who I think are confused about the First Amendment, confused about the nature of TikTok, and confused about the intentions of the Chinese Communist Party. Let me explain this very simply. TikTok is owned by ByteDance. ByteDance is in China, and when you are in China, you have to do whatever the Chinese Communist Party says you have to do. That is according to the National Intelligence Law passed in 2017. If they want you to spy for them, you will spy for them. That is how that works. They have a board member from the Chinese Communist Party on ByteDance. My colleagues wouldn't allow a radio tower owned by the Chinese to be put up right in the middle of Washington, D.C., and then allow it to put out Chinese propaganda. My colleagues would probably complain about that. That is exactly what TikTok can be used for because millions of Americans are addicted to it. They see it, and the Chinese can absolutely manipulate those algorithms. The First Amendment does not give the Chinese Communist Party the right to American data or the right to manipulate the minds of Americans. That would be a really weird interpretation of the First Amendment. The primary counterarguments to this bill seem to be as shallow as it doesn't do everything I want, and Facebook is really mean, and I don't want them to make money. Does that mean we owe the Chinese access to all of our data and access to manipulate the minds of Americans? I don't think so. This is a very specific bill, very specifically tailored. It does not harm American companies or American individuals. You know it. You have to read it. Pass this bill.

Mr. CRENSHAW

Mr. CRENSHAW. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of my bill, the Medicaid Primary Care Improvement Act. I thank both the chair and the ranking member for their support. I also thank Representative Schrier for being such an excellent co-lead and advocate; and Representatives Smucker, Blumenauer, and Pettersen, who continue to also champion direct primary care. Mr. Speaker, a lot of attention gets paid to the Members who come down here and raise their voices and scream and yell about all the things they are really mad at because they want the public to know how mad they are. Every once in a while, we can raise our voices and wave our arms for some good things that we all work on together just to improve people's healthcare. This bill is just that. It is a first step for addressing one of the most important issues in healthcare, which is access. We can promise people health insurance, and we can add more money to it, but it doesn't necessarily translate into actual access to a provider. Direct primary care is one of the easiest and most direct ways to deliver primary care to patients. It is a payment model that makes sense to patients because it is simple. It is unlimited access to primary care providers by paying a monthly fee. It is a win-win for both patients and doctors because it simplifies and guarantees that relationship. It keeps patients out of costly emergency rooms. It saves money for the entire healthcare system. It encourages more efficient preventative medicine, as well. This means treating prediabetes before it becomes diabetes. This means treating heart issues before they become heart disease. The market has already created direct primary care, and it is a model that actually thrives in districts like mine, where we have doctors like my friend, Dr. Glenn Davis, whose direct primary care practice saves businesses lots of money on their premium payments and also delivers quality care to patients, but, as usual, the government has not caught up. This bill removes the uncertainty about whether Medicaid can pay for direct primary care access and empowers States with the necessary guidance to provide direct primary care for vulnerable patients who need it most. It is a game changer because many Medicaid patients aren't accessing primary care right now. They are more likely to show up at an ER than schedule regular visits with a primary care physician, and ER costs keep going up because too many people are not getting the preventative care that they need. Why? Well, because the truth is a lot of primary care doctors simply can't serve Medicaid patients due to low reimbursement rates. If we allow States to tailor their Medicare programs for direct primary care, which this bill does, we can fundamentally change this dynamic. Our legislation is straightforward, and it has zero cost. It clarifies that current laws don't prohibit direct primary care arrangements while offering guidance for States that want to use direct primary care in their Medicaid programs, just like my home State of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I genuinely hope that we can push this forward in a truly bipartisan way.

Mr. CRENSHAW

Mr. CRENSHAW. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Crenshaw, I rise today to offer amendment No. 137, which takes the simple yet important step of directing the Defense Health Agency to report to Congress on options for allowing Active-Duty servicemembers to participate in VA psychedelic-assisted therapy clinical trials. I repeat, these clinical trials are already happening in partnership with the VA, and there is no reason that we should not be looking at the benefits of this research for our men and women that are already currently serving our country actively. Mr. Chair, I want to be really clear about why I am supporting this small step to research psychedelic-assisted therapy for Active-Duty servicemembers. This is not about legalization. This is not about recreational use. It is about honoring our promise to our military families and confronting the high incidence of suicide in the military and veteran community. There is a reason for the high rate of suicide--it is the trauma of serving. There are more than 20 veterans who kill themselves every day and 27 percent of post-9/11 veterans are diagnosed with PTSD. We have a crisis, and the idea that we wouldn't research potential breakthrough treatments is unacceptable. The status quo is inadequate and it won't stop servicemembers and veterans from committing suicide. I believe this research will. I have good reason for believing that, so let's look at the data. The most recent phase III clinical trials with MDMA found that 86 percent of the study participants had reduced PTSD symptoms and 71 percent didn't even qualify as having PTSD anymore. Most people hear the word psychedelics and think of Woodstock. This is not the 1960s LSD trip that many people might be imagining. Some groups are actively lobbying Congress--no, this is not the work of the devil. It is not the work of the devil when this treatment is actually saving families and keeping families together. This therapy is supervised by medical practitioners, and it occurs with repeat treatments in a very controlled setting. Oftentimes, it is a one- or two-time treatment and follow-up results reveal that the positive effects continue for years, even after just one treatment. These clinical trials are already changing the lives of people I know. I have so many close friends of mine who can say that they are alive today because of this treatment. Their marriages have survived because of this treatment. The idea that we wouldn't even research it-- that we would keep this out of the hands of people who need it is appalling, frankly. We should be listening to these stories. They have come up on Capitol Hill multiple times. For the Members we say: We need to learn more. We don't know enough. Well, why would you get in the way of more research? You haven't come and listened to these veterans and these servicemembers when they have come up and told their stories. They have come up many, many times. We shouldn't make them come up here and spill their guts anymore. We should listen to them and we should act on it. Mr. Chair, I unapologetically support this research. We shouldn't think twice about it. We owe this to our servicemembers and we owe it to their families. This is a really small but a positive step in the right direction. I think the VA and the Department of Defense need to coordinate on this research into this psychedelic-assisted therapy, and that is all this amendment does. I encourage my colleagues to support it, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. CRENSHAW. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. CRENSHAW

Mr. CRENSHAW. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in recognition of National Infertility Awareness Week. In the United States, infertility impacts at least 1 in 8 couples. The impact of infertility is devastating for people who are trying to build a family and can take a serious toll on their mental and emotional health. Many people face difficulty in accessing or affording treatments. Infertility can impact anyone, and for many people the underlying cause is never known. Infertility has a serious impact on everyone, but it can be particularly challenging for men and woman in the military and our veterans. Studies have shown that among veterans, infertility is nearly twice as prevalent as it is among the general population. This can be for a variety of factors including the significant stress that members of the military are under, exposure to environmental toxins, and other hazards of their service to our country. In 2021, Blue Star Families issued its annual Military Family Lifestyle Survey. The survey found that 67 percent of military families have experienced at least one family building challenge in their lifetime. This week, I ask all of my colleagues in Congress to support our military and veterans who are struggling to have a child.

Mr. CRENSHAW

Mr. CRENSHAW. Mr. Chairman, energy is the most important element of a prosperous society. Nothing else functions without it. Reliable electricity allows us to work at night, keep our sick and injured on life support, heat our homes in freezing weather, manufacture the materials that we use to build our homes, and powers the systems that allow the public to watch these remarks right here on this House floor. Energy is connected to everything. The price of energy affects the price of everything else, and the world devolves into the Dark Ages without it. This might explain why Republicans think an energy bill should be labeled H.R. 1--because it is our number one priority, as it should be. We have to introduce this bill because, bewilderingly, energy security has been under relentless attack by radical leftists and the Biden administration. They don't believe in energy security. They don't believe in reliable, affordable energy. They seem to think that the only energy worth pursuing is so-called renewables, solar and wind. This is not sound policy or science. This has become a religion, and it has become an irrational pursuit of intermittent, weather-dependent energy sources that take up vast amounts of land, vast amounts of resources to make, and vast amounts of critical minerals to be mined. Still, it doesn't deliver the energy security the American people need. I am not against these things. It would be fine to pursue these technologies if it didn't also come with a simultaneous attack on the sources of energy that actually work--namely, oil and gas. Every good thing you have in this world, Mr. Chairman, is because of petroleum products--every single thing. Your shoes, your cars, your iPhones, your Netflix, your Patagonia jackets, medical devices that save your life, your heating, your cooling--literally everything comes from petroleum products. The attack on oil and gas has been relentless, and it has been deeply foolish. It started with day one of the Biden administration and the Keystone pipeline, then executive orders banning new leases on Federal lands, and then refusal to permit pipelines. Then they turn around and attack the suppliers and producers for higher prices. It is pure gaslighting. They have drained our Strategic Petroleum Reserve, all while prioritizing the same crazy climate policies that have caused Europe to enter an energy crisis and that are now causing developing nations to be priced out of gas markets and turn to coal production. This gets me to quite the irony here. The administration's policies are more likely to increase global carbon emissions as a result, and for one simple reason. I really want everyone to understand this. By refusing to push for increased natural gas exports, we are shelving the best tool for displacing coal power around the world. Coal burned in foreign countries accounts for about 50 percent of global power emissions. Natural gas is an easy substitute with half the emissions. American natural gas could easily be leveraged to increase prosperity for all and reduce emissions. This is not rocket science. It is common sense. It is just math. Promoting American natural gas is better for energy security, better for our own affordability, and better for reducing global emissions. There is no logical counterargument to what I just said. There is not one. Maybe--I believe this--the Biden administration actually knows this. That is why they prefer oil production in foreign countries and beg them to drill so that we can pretend we care about the climate while allowing other countries to do the dirty work for us.

Mr. CRENSHAW. Mr. Chair, I have a brief response to the gentleman's remarks. This does not change at all the Safe Drinking Water Act that the EPA regulates. All it says is there is a timeline for that primacy application. It can always be denied within that timeline. By the way, the entire point of this is to reduce carbon emissions. It should be bipartisan. Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Pfluger).

Mr. CRENSHAW. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. CRENSHAW. Mr. Chair, I really hope this amendment can be bipartisan. I see no reason why it wouldn't be. It simply provides predictability for States applying for primacy of class 6 carbon capture wells. It is very straight forward. When a State submits a primacy application to the EPA, the EPA has 270 days to either approve or deny the application. If the EPA is unable to do so within that generous time window, we give them another 30 days to explain why. If, for whatever reason, the EPA fails to make a determination after 300 days, then the State can move forward. Importantly, we preserve EPA's ability to deny the application or revoke the approval using emergency measures under the Safe Drinking Water Act. Why is this needed? Unfortunately, when States submit primacy applications for these wells, it can take years for the EPA to even bother to review the application. There is a lot more demand for carbon capture projects. They are ramping up around the country, especially in Houston. The need for expanded permitting capacity has greatly increased. The EPA should not be the roadblock to projects that are designed to reduce carbon emissions. Let me say that again: Reduce carbon emissions. The International Energy Agency said carbon capture is necessary to meet national, regional, and even corporate emissions reductions goals. Even EPA administrator Michael Regan called carbon capture a priority for the Biden administration. It is a bipartisan issue. States like Texas have already proven they can manage these wells and giving them primacy will be a game changer for speeding up carbon capture projects. Giving States regulatory certainty is critical to successful carbon capture projects moving forward in their States. That is all this amendment does. Mr. Chair, there is no reason why this should not be bipartisan, and I encourage my colleagues to support it. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CRENSHAW. Mr. Chair, I yield myself the balance of my time. Again, opposing this amendment would mean that you want more carbon emissions in the air, that you don't want carbon sequestration. I am pretty sure that is not what you all want. We all want the same thing here. This is a commonsense amendment that simply expedites the permitting process, which is well established. Everyone knows it is safe. It doesn't change any regulations. It doesn't circumvent any EPA regulations or standards for drinking water at all. This is a commonsense amendment. If we can't agree on things like this, it just tells me that we are looking for disagreement for the sake of disagreement. That makes me sad. It really does. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. CRENSHAW

Mr. CRENSHAW. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his leadership on this important issue because the unelected career bureaucrats are at it again. They are launching attacks on our constitutional rights, the constitutional rights of law-abiding gun owners. This seems to be the sole purpose of the agency lately, attacking the Second Amendment. Now they want to ban pistol braces. Americans who don't know what a pistol brace is might have some obvious questions after hearing about this ban. What is a pistol brace? Obviously, it makes guns more deadly, right? It makes guns shoot faster. It makes them want to be used only by people who want to murder other people. Why else would the ATF want to ban it? But the Americans who actually use pistol braces know the reality: There is zero logical reason to ban pistol braces. It is a device used by a lot of disabled veterans, a lot of people I know, to provide more stability when shooting a gun. Tens of millions of Americans own this brace, but they would immediately become felons when this goes into effect. That is not even practical from a law enforcement perspective. Now, you could argue, actually, that the pistol brace makes the gun safer; it makes it less likely to shoot things they are not aiming at. But no, the impulsive leaders at ATF have once again failed to apply simple logic and reason to their decisionmaking and, instead, chose to apply the mindset of the authoritarian, gun-grabbing bureaucrats we all know that they are. Congress cannot sit idly by. I recently re-introduced a bipartisan piece of legislation that would create an appeals process for small business owners hurt by these haphazard rulings. Right now, the only recourse that exists is for these gun shop owners and manufacturers to sue the Federal Government in court. Now, for the average American, that is not exactly doable. It takes time and a lot of money and a lot of resources. My bill would put the ATF in line with every other Federal regulatory agency's appeal process and ensure Americans can petition their government for the redress of grievances and get decisions handed down in a timely manner. These taxpayer-funded, anti-gun activists at the ATF cannot continue to trample on our Second Amendment rights without a response from Congress. We must never cease fighting against these shameless power grabs, and Republican must use our House majority to protect law-abiding gun owners.

Mr. CRENSHAW

Mr. CRENSHAW. Madam Speaker, on Friday, July 1st this year, Sergeant Virgil Poe, age 96, passed away surrounded by family in Houston, Texas. Virgil was born on June 28, 1926, near Mansfield, Arkansas. He lived the first ten years of his life in Hoberg, Missouri. At ten years old, Virgil's parents, Loyd and Elsie Poe, moved to Portsmouth, Iowa where his father worked as a banker. He graduated from high school in Harlan, Iowa in 1944. Virgil was drafted in June 1944 and reported to the famed Fort Leavenworth in Kansas to serve his country in the United States Army. He would go on to take basic Infantry Training at Camp Wolters, Texas. Virgil fought for the Allies with selflessness and nobility. He served in the 7th U.S. Army in France. Belgium, and Germany as a rifleman, truck driver and heavy artilleryman until Germany's surrender in 1945. Following Germany's surrender, Virgil did not rest. Upon his return to America, he boarded a troop train to Seattle with other soldiers shipping to fight the Japanese in the Pacific Theater. While en route to the Pacific, Virgil and the other servicemen learned Japan had surrendered. After the war, Virgil was sent back to Ft. Hood, where he would meet his wife, Dorrace, at an evening service at the Church of Christ in her nearby hometown of Temple, Texas. His battalion eventually moved to Camp Polk in Louisiana, where Virgil served as the Administrative NCO in the newly organized Rocket FA Battalion Headquarters. He also served as Supply Sergeant in the same battalion. Virgil was honorably discharged from the service in August 1946. He and Dorrace married shortly thereafter in October of 1946. Virgil went on to Abilene Christian College, where he graduated in 1952. Upon graduation, he worked faithfully for 42 years at Southwestern Bell Telephone Co./AT&T as an engineer across the Midwest, including in Dallas, Houston, and St. Louis. In 2020, the President of the Republic of France authorized the National French Legion of Honour Medal, the highest military medal in France, to Virgil Poe. 75 years after the landing at Normandy the French consulate in Houston awarded the medal to Mr. Poe to honor him for his service in France during World War II. Indeed, Mr. Poe was an exemplary member of the Greatest Generation. Virgil and Dorrace remained happily married for 72 years before her passing in April 2019. He is survived by his daughter, Jayne Poe Massey, of Jersey Village, Texas; son, former Congressman Ted Poe and wife, Carol; eight grandchildren and eighteen great-grandchildren. Please join us in honoring a true American hero and patriot.

Mr. CRENSHAW

Mr. CRENSHAW. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of amendment No. 23 to create a grant program for psychedelic treatment for PTSD. That may come as a shock to many, and I say good, because to be frank, we need new ideas because it seems we are losing the battle with veteran suicide. For our Active Duty servicemembers, the situation is even worse, as they are precluded from even trying treatments such as psychedelics that could save their lives and bring hope to their families. I aim to change that. First of all, this form of treatment actually isn't new. It is proven, and it is tested. Many hear the word psychedelics, and they think acid trips from the sixties. They believe this amendment would legalize or deschedule psychedelics, but that is not what we are talking about here. What we are talking about is the proven use of psychedelics to treat PTSD. Private-sector research shows that following MDMA treatments, 88 percent of veterans have a significant reduction in symptoms, and 67 percent no longer have PTSD. This treatment also has a face. It is servicemembers like Jonathan Lubecky, a veteran who made multiple suicide attempts until psychedelic treatments saved his life. He credits his treatment as the reason that his son, Joey, has a father instead of a folded flag. It is a man like Marcus Capone, a SEAL Team Six operator, who credits psychedelic therapy with treating his PTSD, saving his life, and bringing his family back together. It is my own friends, people I served with on the SEAL Teams who have told me that this cost effective, often one-time treatment has completely transformed their life. All I am asking is that we give our servicemembers the ability to access this treatment instead of forcing them to travel abroad to psychedelic clinics to save their own life. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to get outside of their comfort zone and vote for this amendment. Our servicemembers deserve it.

Mr. CRENSHAW

Mr. CRENSHAW. Madam Speaker, this week, we celebrate and bring recognition to National Infertility Awareness week. April is also the month of the military child. Parenthood is one of the most rewarding chapters in life, and our armed service members experiencing the challenges of infertility should have access to quality care, treatment, and resources. One organization working to make that happen is the Military Family Building Coalition (MFBC), a non-profit military support organization started by two SEAL wives, Ellen Gustafson and Katy Bell Hendrickson. One of MFBC's initiatives, ``The Tadpole Project'', allows the NSW community to cryogenically freeze their sperm so conception can occur whenever the service member and spouse is ready to build their family, even if the service member is deployed. For our military families, the time to have a child should not be dictated by the enemy or deployment cycle. I commend Ellen and Katy on their critical work. They show the grit and determination of SEAL spouses, who just like their husbands, always accomplish their mission.

Mr. CRENSHAW

Mr. CRENSHAW. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained in a committee hearing and missed the final vote in the series. Had I been present, I would have voted ``nay'' on rollcall No. 117.

Mr. CRENSHAW

Mr. CRENSHAW. Madam Speaker, I rise to oppose the previous question so we can immediately consider the American Energy Independence from Russia Act, led by my friend and the Republican leader of the Energy and Commerce Committee, Cathy McMorris Rodgers. This week our President, our American President, asked Venezuela and Saudi Arabia to increase oil production, asked them to boost their output so that American consumers wouldn't see a spike in gas prices. It seems like a noble cause at first glance, but I couldn't help to think to myself what a strange thing to ask because surely he knows that we can also boost domestic production right here at home. Surely he knows that domestic production supports American jobs, and surely he knows that domestic production is cleaner, by far, than foreign production; far better for the environment than Venezuelan oil unless that Socialist dictator suddenly became a devout green energy disciple without any of us knowing it. Surely President Biden knows that energy demand doesn't just disappear because you tell middle-class Americans to go buy a Tesla. Surely he knows all of this, right? The answer is, of course, yes, he does know that, and the entire Democratic Party knows this. It is impossible not to know these things because these things are called hard facts. They are indisputable. Those facts are simple and worth repeating. Number 1: The world will demand at least 50 percent more energy in the next 50 years. That is a fact. Number 2: The energy demanded will be reliable energy; electricity that turns on when you want it, heat that keeps you alive in the winter, and air conditioning that keeps you cool in the summer. Fact number 3: Solar and wind cannot and will not ever provide this reliable energy, no matter how often you worship and pray to the deities of wind turbines and solar panels; proudly made, of course, by the Communist genocidal country of China. Fact number 4: American production of oil and gas is far cleaner than any other country, except maybe Canada. These are indisputable facts. So where does that leave us? For anyone wise in the ways of common sense, it leads to one conclusion. It is in the American interest to pursue absolute American energy dominance. If you don't believe me, let's outline the alternative. Let's imagine we go the way of Germany and invest half a trillion dollars in building out unreliable wind and solar production, only to watch our energy prices rise faster than anywhere else and yet still be forced to turn on coal plants and import Russian gas because your green energy just doesn't work the way you wanted it to. The rest of Europe wasn't all that different. They increased their reliance on Russian gas from 10 percent to over 40 percent now, and I cannot help but notice that the Democratic Party seems intent on pursuing this very path, canceling leases and pipelines, increasing regulations, chastising our industry. If no one else here noticed, someone in Russia certainly did. Fast forward to 2022, and Putin, with his newfound leverage over European energy supply, realizes it may just be the right time to exercise his imperialistic ambitions and retake the old Soviet territory of Ukraine, leaving thousands of innocents dead and a Western world order completely upended. We are all left thinking the same thought, wouldn't it be better if it was America supplying Europe its energy? Wouldn't it be better if Europe wasn't held hostage to the whims of a dictator? Wouldn't it be better if we didn't have to wonder where the extra oil would come from after we rightfully ban Russian imports? Most of us are thinking that, of course. Unfortunately, those in the majority, those in power are not. I pray that you start. We should defeat the previous question, pass the American Energy Independence from Russia Act and pursue true American energy dominance.

Mr. CRENSHAW

Mr. CRENSHAW. Madam Speaker, I rise today to commemorate the life of Misty April Holley, who we lost on November 20, 2021, in Houston, Texas. I will do my best to give the world a glimpse of who Misty was. And I would like to do that using the words of her father, Ron Holley. Here is how Ron describes his beloved daughter: Misty spread love and charity to everyone she knew. Misty was a person full of grace who fully owned her shortcomings and gave out forgiveness freely to all. She knew in her heart that we are all of one race, the human race. Humanity would do well to learn lessons of love and charity from her. Misty was fueled by dreams and aspirations of what could and should be. She could make you laugh, make you sad, and sometimes frustrated. She evoked feelings you didn't know you had. In short, she would keep you real. She was above all pretenses. We will miss her contagious laugh. Without Misty, the world feels lacking. But somehow, we will laugh again. Misty would have it no other way. We will see you on the other side. Madam Speaker, and my colleagues, please join me in praying for the Holley family, Misty's friends, and everyone she touched. May the strength of the Lord be with them as they endure the tremendous loss of a wonderful life taken much too soon.

Mr. CRENSHAW

Mr. CRENSHAW. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of amendment 56, which I was proud to offer. Madam Speaker, it is no secret what the Republican Party thinks of the Chinese Communist Party and their attack on our global leadership and the threat they pose to our exceptional Nation and the global order we established and maintained. If you look at the COVID outbreak and coverup, the treatment of Uyghurs in Xinjiang, or the repression in Hong Kong, the facts clearly establish that the CCP is unaccountable, unreliable, and untruthful. While some in this Chamber want to think of them as a partner, I cannot bring myself down to that level of naivety. Let's call them what they are: they are a competitor; they are a threat. That is why when I read this bill I was shocked to see that Democrats are almost being complimentary when they refer to China and their emission goals. They say China ``is likely to achieve its carbon emissions'' pledge to the Paris Agreement, and that their emissions will peak ahead of schedule in 2030, a full 15 years after they agreed to Paris. Some Democrats go on to highlight China's pledge to be carbon neutral by 2060 and to phase down their coal-fired power generation. It reads like a press release for the Chinese Communist Party published in the Global Times or something tweeted by the bombastic foreign ministry spokesmen, not policy from the United States Congress. Worst of all, there is not even an attempt to fact check this information. Take it as blind fact, despite coming from an autocratic, Communist regime. Trust but verify will not do here. With China it should be do not trust until we verify and continue to verify. Madam Speaker, are we so naive that we take China's word at face value? I believe I speak for my fellow Republicans, and probably a few of my friends on the other side of the aisle, when I say: No, absolutely not. We have no reason to believe the Communist leadership that has publicly stated that their goal is to best us in every technological field and establish global dominance. In fact, we already have evidence that they falsified emissions data before joining the Paris Agreement. But some still want to trust them? It doesn't take a classified intel report to call China's bluff. They have no intention of meeting these goals, but that won't stop them from telling us that they are on track. If I had to guess, they will say they are doing it even better than we are in reducing emissions, if for nothing more than their ongoing information warfare to make us appear weak and ineffectual on the world stage. Madam Speaker, that is the purpose of my amendment. We need to have the State Department, in consultation with the Department of Energy, come in and give us the facts. This amendment requires an annual briefing regarding the progress and efforts of China to meet emissions goals. We need to know: Is China telling the truth about how much they have reduced emissions? Are they building more coal-fired power plants? Have they successfully deployed carbon capture technologies the way we have? These are answers we need for the United States to compete with China. Knowledge is power and the quickest path to victory is understanding your adversary. Despite all the other problems scattered throughout this bill, I believe this amendment is a chance to at least do one thing right. This amendment is about accountability, this is about accuracy, and most importantly, this is about knowing the full capabilities of our largest and fiercest competitor. Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support accountability, to support accuracy, to support truth, and to support knowledge by supporting this amendment. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. CRENSHAW. Madam Speaker, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. CRENSHAW. Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Meuser).

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

Mr. CRENSHAW

Mr. CRENSHAW. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding. Mr. Speaker, `tis the season of misplaced priorities. In the midst of rising inflation, labor shortages, open borders, and foreign policy blunders, my colleagues seem to think that Islamophobia is what Americans care about. I would rather talk about something that Americans actually care about: gassing up their cars and keeping the heat on. In November, President Biden said: `` . . . the reason Americans are facing high gas prices is because oil-producing countries and large companies have not ramped up the supply of oil quickly enough to meet the demand, and the smaller supply means higher prices. . . .'' Well, that is true. But he is not making the point that he thinks he is. Yes, there is a lack of production, but the question is why. Why has the world's number one oil and gas producer, the United States, not been able to ramp up production? The answer is actually simple: because Joe Biden has made it a priority to kill the American energy industry. President Biden cancelled the Keystone pipeline, outlawed new oil and gas leases on Federal lands and waters, and has threatened even more burdensome regulations that put a freezing effect on any kind of new production that even Biden himself recognizes is needed. Of course, most recently, with the help of even my colleagues from Texas on the Democrat side, they managed to pass an unprecedented tax on natural gas through the House as part of their socialist spending package. It gets more interesting. In a letter to Speaker Pelosi, seven Texas Democrats put the natural gas tax in stark terms saying: This tax will ``cost thousands of jobs, stifle economic recovery, increase energy costs for all Americans, strengthen our adversaries, and ultimately impede the transition to a lower carbon future.'' These are very strong and very true words from my Democratic colleagues, but guess what? They voted for it anyways. And now Democrats are scrambling because they know Americans are starting to feel the pain of their policies. It has gotten so bad that Democrats are celebrating a two-cent decline in gas prices. Oh, I thank Joe Biden for the two-cent decline. It would be funny if it weren't so serious that the Energy Secretary doesn't even know that their plan to release from the strategic petroleum reserve was only about 2 days' worth of oil. There is nothing funny about this. And the administration responds by telling people to put on a sweater and buy an electric vehicle.