Steny Hoyer

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, I want to recognize the loss of an exceptional law enforcement official and community leader in Prince George's County, Maryland: Sheriff Melvin C. High. After a barrier- breaking career in law enforcement spanning 53 years, Sheriff High passed away on November 17, 2022, just weeks before he was set to start a well-deserved retirement. Although many throughout the region and throughout the country will mourn his loss, his legacy endures through his profound impact on the communities he served and on policing broadly. Most importantly, his memory lives on through his wife, Brenda, and his daughter. Tracy. Throughout his life, Melvin displayed an unyielding commitment to serving others. After teaching high school science in Mississippi, he served his country in Vietnam as a United States Marine. When he returned, he joined the Metropolitan Police Department here in Washington, DC in 1969. As one of the only Black officers in the ranks, he had to work his beat on foot since the police cruisers were reserved exclusively for his white colleagues. When he left the department after 24 years, however, he did so as Assistant Chief of Police--the first Black person in the department's history to serve as second-in-command. Melvin then spent a decade as Chief of Police in Norfolk, Virginia, before he came to Prince George's County in 2003. Melvin was appointed Chief of the Prince George's County Police Department at a time of immense distrust between law enforcement and the community. He worked to restore the public's faith in his department by improving accountability, addressing mismanagement, and implementing policies to build safer communities. From rewriting the department's use-of-force policy to instituting the county's first system to detect and track the early signs of abuse, High's stringent standards and innovative leadership got his department back on track. Prince Georgians were so pleased with his work that they elected him to serve as their county's sheriff in 2010 and again in 2014 and 2018. In that role, he continued to make accountability a priority and worked to bring attention to pressing issues facing his community, including domestic abuse. Melvin faced many obstacles over the years, but he worked to dismantle them for those who followed in his footsteps. Throughout his career, he cultivated greater diversity in law enforcement, developed more equitable and more effective community policing methods, and mentored numerous officers. While Melvin's many achievements are impressive, his humility is what makes them so inspiring. Despite being one of the most accomplished law enforcement professionals in the country, he still saw himself as a father and husband first. I am sure that he would remind us that he was just one of the many law enforcement officers across America who serve quietly to keep their communities and country safe. Nevertheless, I ask all my colleagues to join me in mourning his loss, honoring his life's work, and wishing strength to his family.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, pursuant to section 5 of House Resolution 1499, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bills: H.R. 4899, H.R. 8203, H.R. 9308, and S. 3825.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to section 10 of House Resolution 1396, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bills: H.R. 1638, H.R. 3304, H.R. 4081, H.R. 4821, H.R. 6889, H.R. 6967, H.R. 8163, H.R. 8510, H.R. 8681, H.R. 8875, H.R. 8956, and S. 1198, and concur in the Senate amendments to H.R. 5641.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I would indicate to Chair Lofgren that perhaps we can yield to the ranking member because he would like to yield me 1 minute, I am sure. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this legislation. I was the sponsor of HAVA. Republicans were in charge, and I worked very closely with my friend Bob Ney on HAVA. It was legislation that was called by The Washington Post as the greatest reform legislation in 25 years since the civil rights bill. That may have been some hyperbole, but it was a good bill. This bill corrects, essentially, a fault that we made in terms of its inclusiveness. The bill before us concerns two critical objectives that have been central to my work here in the House. The first is ensuring that those with disabilities have equal access to the same opportunities as their fellow Americans. On July 26, we celebrated the passage of the Americans with Disabilities Act signed by President George H.W. Bush, a very bipartisan piece of legislation that has made a historical difference. The second is ensuring that all eligible voters in America have access to the ballot box and can make their voices heard in our democracy. That is, after all what our democracy is about. The PAVA Program Inclusion Act helps accomplish both of those goals, and that is why I am proud to bring it to the floor today. Specifically, this bill would improve access to the ballot for Americans with disabilities who live in the Northern Mariana Islands-- clearly, we want those included--and our Native American Tribal lands in the Four Corners region of the southwest, which we also expected we had done. This bill expands key programs first laid out in the Help America Vote Act, also known as HAVA, that provided funding to regional protection and advocacy systems to assist people with disabilities in the voting process. Although HAVA intended to provide funding for this important purpose to all protection and advocacy systems across the country, a technical oversight, as has been mentioned, led to the exclusion of these two regions. Today's legislation would correct that error and help us realize HAVA's original vision. I was proud to serve as the principal House sponsor, as I said, of HAVA back in 2002 along with Bob Ney, who was the Republican chair of the House Administration Committee and a very good friend of mine. We are prepared to celebrate its 20th anniversary later this month. I am glad to see that the groundbreaking law continues to evolve and be strengthened by Congress. HAVA was based on the principle that the integrity of our democracy depends on the accessibility and accuracy of our electoral system. I brought together a bipartisan coalition to enact that legislation in order to establish a number of commonsense policies that make voting easier and more secure, from reliable voting equipment to expanded provisional ballot access, HAVA and the bipartisan Election Assistance Commission--which I strongly support, and I am glad to see that we are investing in--make our Federal participation more broad and more effective. Today's bill reminds us, however, that HAVA must continue to adapt to new needs and challenges. I very much appreciate the efforts of Chair Zoe Lofgren, the gentlewoman from California, who has worked so hard on voting rights issues as head of the House Administration Committee, and I thank the ranking member Mr. Davis, as well. I thank Senator Lujan, our former House colleague, for authoring this bill and advancing it through the Senate. We must do everything in our power to ensure that people with disabilities, especially those from historically marginalized groups such as Native Americans and Pacific Islanders, can participate equally and fully in our democracy. Mr. Speaker, that is why I ask all of my colleagues to vote ``yes.''

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding. Madam Speaker, Congress has a sacred duty to uphold our elections and to safeguard our democratic process. I rise in strong support of that mission. I am not surprised that we hear on this floor the rationalization of insurrection, the rationalization of what I believe was treason. I rise with extraordinary respect for the gentlewoman from Wyoming, as Republican as any Member of that side of the aisle, save a willingness to stand and speak truth to power, to honor facts, to honor the Constitution. I applaud her for it and have deep respect for her willingness to stand up today and for history. The gentleman from Georgia called January 6 an incident. The Republican National Committee passed a resolution, almost overwhelmingly, that referred to January 6 as legitimate political discourse: see no evil, speak no evil, hear no evil. I hear my friend, Mr. Davis, speaking about this being a partisan issue. This is an American issue. This is a democracy issue. This is a values issue. To those who come to this well or speak from the floor to try to rationalize the invitation given by President Trump--the incitement stated by President Trump--and the deployment of a mob to fight like hell and stop the steal--I advise my colleagues and I urge my colleagues to look at Vice President Gore's comments when he lost the election 5-4. He honored the Court's decision, not because he agreed with it, but because he said it was good for America and our democracy. I call attention to the remarks of Hillary Clinton when she lost to President Trump. That night, knowing that she had gotten 3 million more votes, she conceded because the law is the electoral college makes that decision. In 1864, despite the turmoil of Civil War, President Lincoln-- President Lincoln would be standing with Liz Cheney if he were on this floor. President Lincoln went to great lengths to ensure that Americans had the opportunity to make their voices heard in a national election. He argued that ``We cannot have free government without elections,'' and that ``if the rebellion could force us to forego or postpone a national election, it might fairly claim to have already conquered and ruined us.'' Liz Cheney has said that, not exactly in those words, but it is exactly the same substance of what Abraham Lincoln said over a century and a half ago. We came face to face with a similar danger on January 6 last year. It was rationalized then, and, sadly, it is being rationalized now. History will judge. The insurrection revealed a willful and false refusal to accept the certified and judicially confirmed election results. The gentleman from Illinois said that the Trump administration went to the courts. They lost time after time after time after time, and to this day, they do not accept what Al Gore accepted, that we are a nation of laws and not of one man. There are ambiguities in our electoral system, and they can jeopardize our democracy. That is what this bill is about: upholding our democracy. Questions surrounding the Vice President's role in counting electoral votes served as a pretext for the insurrectionists' assault on the Capitol. Fortunately, their conspiracy and their plot failed. In that incident that the gentleman from Georgia talked about, police officers died, civilians died, and hundreds were injured severely in that incident. What a polite word for treason and insurrection. That tragic and dangerous episode, however, underscored the importance of clarifying any uncertainties that future malevolent actors could exploit to undermine the will of the American people as expressed through their votes. I went to the Charles County Fair last weekend. I went to the Democratic booth. As I always do, I went to the Republican booth, and the biggest sign was: Trump won. We are a nation of laws. Try to respect a nation of laws. The bipartisan legislation the Presidential Election Reform Act provides the clarity necessary. It reaffirms, as former Vice President Mike Pence correctly concluded--which is why those incidents were calling for the death of the Vice President with a noose hanging out in front of the Capitol and why they were calling for the life of the Speaker of the House in that incident--that he did not have, and he does not have the authority to delay or reject the counting of electoral votes. Why? Because we are a nation of laws and a nation of the Constitution. That principle was established in both the Constitution and the Electoral Count Act of 1887. Not only would this legislation raise the threshold required to object to a State's slate of electors from the ridiculously low one House Member and one Senator to one-third of the membership--at least 152 million people ought to be given that respect who voted in that election--at least one-third of us would have to rise to overturn their judgment. This bill also restricts the grounds on which objections can be made, limiting the ability of Members to lodge frivolous and partisan objections. The bill also contains important provisions to restrict the ability of State and local elected and election officials to undermine or overturn the process of tabulating and certifying results in their jurisdictions. People elect the President, not State legislators, and not this Congress. The American people elect the President. Not only do these measures align with the overwhelming consensus--not just conservative commentators, but commentators of all stripes whether ideological or not, believe this is a good piece of legislation. I share their view. No individual or group of conspirators ought to have the power to subvert the will of the American people. I thank the Committee on House Administration Chair Zoe Lofgren, and I share the remarks of the gentlewoman from Wyoming about her integrity, her intellect, and her conscientious carrying out of her duties as a Member of the Congress. Indeed, Vice-Chair Cheney's work on this bill and the January 6 Committee will go down as one of this institution's greatest examples of political courage and integrity. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for her work. Similarly, I thank Chairwoman Carolyn Maloney and her colleagues on the House Oversight and Reform Committee for their work investigating vulnerabilities in our democratic process. We must now come together not as Republicans, not as Democrats, and not as partisans, but as protectors. We raised our hands and said that we would protect the Constitution and laws of this Nation. This is one of those days that we get to meet that oath. Let me conclude because not only did Lincoln argue that elections were essential to free government, but he also made clear his belief that ``elections belong to the people. It is their choice.'' That is what this legislation is about. Stand up for your country. Stand up for the people. Vote for this bill.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to section 2 of House Resolution 1361, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bills: H.R. 1433, H.R. 4009, H.R. 4358, H.R. 6265, H.R. 6846, H.R. 7240, H.R. 7338, H.R. 8453, H.R. 8503, and H.R. 8520; and agree to H. Res. 558.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. HOYER. Here?

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Louisiana for yielding. Mr. Speaker, on Monday, the House will meet at 12 p.m. for morning hour and 2 p.m. for legislative business, and votes will be postponed until 6:30 p.m. On Tuesday and Wednesday, the House will meet at 10 a.m. for morning hour and 12 p.m. for legislative business. On Thursday, the House will meet at 9 a.m. for legislative business. Next week, Mr. Speaker, the House will consider S. 1098, the Joint Consolidation Loan Separation Act, bipartisan legislation sponsored by Representative David Price and Senator Mark Warner to provide relief to borrowers who need to separate their joint consolidation student loans. This legislation would greatly benefit the individual borrowers who are most in need of relief, including victims of abuse. The House may also consider a continuing resolution. As all of us know, on September 30, at midnight, the government's ability to fund and operate goes out of authorization; therefore, it is necessary for us to take action before September 30, and we may do that next week. The House may also consider legislation to reform the Electoral Count Act from Representatives Zoe Lofgren and Liz Cheney. The House will consider bills under suspension of the rules. The complete list of suspension bills will be announced by the close of business tomorrow. As is usual, as we come very close to ending and then have a substantial period of time, October and the first and second week in November for the election, it is common that we may have other pieces of legislation, Mr. Speaker, available and necessary to pass. We will notify Members as soon as we have that information. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. First, let me say, the gentleman dismisses what other countries are doing or he says they are doing bad things and therefore they have inflation. Every country has inflation. Why? Because the pandemic shut down the world. It shut down the markets. It shut down the production of supplies. That is why. People had to stay home and they weren't out producing and making things. We kept a lot of people employed. We spent trillions of dollars doing it, which were bipartisan bills signed by Donald Trump. Trillions. As soon as Donald Trump left, all of a sudden the other party--his party, the Trump party, decided it is over. It wasn't over for the American people. Kids were not in schools. People hadn't been given shots in arms yet. People were really hurting. Those 48 percent of the children in poverty were still in poverty, but it was over. No more bipartisanship. It is another President, so we are going to blame him. That is politics over people. What we did is people over politics because we knew people were hurting. We passed legislation to give them help. Every Republican, Mr. Speaker, voted no. We voted to help them gets shots in arms. Every Republican voted no. We voted to get their kids back in school to make their schools safe and healthy. Every Republican voted no because they wanted to bleat about inflation. The reason they don't like these figures is because these are the economically successful nations of the world, many of whom have inflation higher than we. The gentleman is absolutely right. We need to get inflation down. There are 126 economists that say that the Inflation Reduction Act will reduce inflation, reduce healthcare costs, and reduce energy costs. Now, the gentleman and I have had this discussion about his energy bills, which they think will be the salvation. They always think: Drill more, life will be better. I get it. Louisiana is a State that wants to drill. I get that. We use that product. It is an important product, and we are going to continue to use it. That is why I have no criticism of that. In the last bill that we passed, which is really going to fight the climate challenge that we face--there were four 1,000-year floods in four different communities in America within 30 days of one another. The West is on fire, literally and figuratively. Climate challenge is real. Every Republican voted ``no'' to invest in meeting that challenge head-on; every Republican, House and Senate, Mr. Speaker. I can't read the chart, but 13 percent inflation is too high. I go to the grocery store almost every weekend. I live alone. I don't buy a lot of food at any one time because I am traveling a lot and here a lot; don't want it to go bad. So I get it on the prices. I get it on gasoline prices. They are tough. That is why we passed a food and fuel bill. The gentleman from Louisiana voted ``no.'' The leader of the Republican Party, Mr. McCarthy, in the House, voted ``no'', and the overwhelming majority of Republicans voted ``no.'' They wanted to make sure that we had competition. That is the free market system. That is what brings prices down. If you have a monopoly, you can charge anything you want if people need the product. Now, I won't go through the statistics because the statistics are we are producing more energy today than we produced 2 years ago. I read those statistics. I am not going to bore the gentleman, Mr. Speaker, with them again. They don't bore me because it shows that--when the argument is the reason we have inflation is because we are not producing energy, the reason we don't have as much energy is because companies made a rational decision. What was that rational decision? In March and April of 2020, people started staying in their homes. They stopped buying gas and other products, petroleum products, and, as a result, corporations made a reasonable judgment. We are not going to produce more capacity. So, when we got out of the inflation, we are still not doing that. But we are doing more than we did some years ago, as those statistics that I read to the gentleman three or four times, so I won't read them again. But the industry, as I have also told the gentleman, owns 9,000 unused permits to drill onshore; 37 million acres offshore; which can be permitted, ready to go. So when you simply ignore and pretend that somehow Joe Biden, the President of the United States, is responsible for worldwide inflation, and dismiss the pandemic--I don't think I have heard one time, Mr. Speaker, the Republican whip mention the pandemic as a cause of the inflation. It is all about energy. I beg to differ with the gentleman, Mr. Speaker. I think, honestly, the American people need to know that. Yes, the stock market had a rough tumble. Why did it have a rough tumble? Because the Federal Reserve, the chairman of which was appointed by President Trump, responsibly, along with his board of governors, responded to try to get this inflation under control and bring it down. I don't know whether the gentleman supports that action or not. Ronald Reagan supported that action; although he did not appoint the chairman of the Federal Reserve that did it. So, Mr. Speaker, we are going to continue to fight for the people and put them above our politics, or even our own personal economic interests, by passing the American Rescue Plan; by passing the bipartisan infrastructure bill; by making sure that America can be seen as a country that makes it in America; chips, investing in science for the future, for the people and, yes, the Inflation Reduction Act, which the gentleman and his party has misrepresented over and over and over again with something they know is not the truth. They project 80,000 new people going after average Americans. They know that is not true, Mr. Speaker. After years of trying to defund the people who collect the revenues from our people so everybody pays their fair share, and those of us-- and I say of us--who are doing well, pay our fair share, and the people who make billions, who pay less of a percentage, in many respects, as Warren Buffett said, than those who work for them. Yes, we want taxes fairly enforced, Mr. Speaker. We don't want anybody paying an unfair share because somebody is not paying at all. The IRS will, after those 10 years of accretion of employees, have as many employees as it had back in the 1990s; trying to make sure it can, in fact, enforce a fair system that provides the revenues that the Federal Government needs to protect, preserve our people's welfare, economy, and national security.

Mr. HOYER. Obviously, that is a good question and a good thing to have. The appropriators are working through the administration's list of anomalies, which I know there are three or four items dealing with health and also dealing with Ukraine and a couple of other matters. I don't have that list in front of me, but the answer to my friend's question is that they are trying to get that together. I think they are pretty close. I will talk to Chair DeLauro. I presume she is in conversation with and discussions with the ranking member, as well, but I am sure that that is the case. There is also, I believe, money also being asked for for disaster relief that may well be in the CR. The gentleman referred to the discussions that occurred in the Senate between Senator Manchin and Majority Leader Schumer. Obviously, we are going to see what the Senate does. I don't know what the Senate is going to do. It is one of the reasons there has been a discussion about the Senate moving first on that and discussions with the Senator about when they were going to move. I think that is under discussion.

Mr. HOYER. If I might add, I want to make the gentleman aware--and I know he is--but I want to make the Members aware that we will need to be here for such time as it takes us to pass the continuing resolution so that government will continue to operate. It is essential for the economy, essential for our national security, and essential for the employees, but it is also essential for all those whom they serve on a daily basis. I have told my Members in some discussions about what we are going to do the last week in September. I have told my Members, and we also would make clear to all of our Members, including the Members on my friend's side of the aisle, that they ought to be making sure that the last 3 weekdays of November and that Saturday they ought to keep clear so that if, in fact, we need to work during those periods of times--and my expectation is we are going to have to--that they not be canceling events that they scheduled. So, being on notice, I think, will be fair to them and fair to anybody that we are scheduling with.

Mr. HOYER. I could not agree with the gentleman more. I think I am probably just as frustrated. I know the members of the Appropriations Committee are as frustrated as anybody in this institution. As someone who served on the Appropriations Committee for 23 years, we ought to be passing bills in a timely fashion. We ought to be passing them one at a time. We ought not to have these gigantic omnibuses that nobody knows about. Both sides have had to prepare two omnibuses at the end of the year to fund government because we haven't passed individual appropriation bills in a timely fashion either through the House or the Senate or through the House and the Senate to the President. So, I agree with the gentleman entirely. I agree also that we ought to give everybody as much notice as we possibly can. I will tell the gentleman, frankly, I was hopeful that we would have passed the CR this week. For reasons that are, I think, obvious to everybody, we haven't done that. But I am hopeful that we can do it sooner rather than later and don't have some September 30 crisis that we seem to always create. I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I, obviously, anticipated that question. I thought about it, and I want to say to the Members my thoughts that I, frankly, talk about all over the country. We passed a number of bills. Inflation is hurting our people. Inflation was not caused by President Biden or this Congress. Inflation was caused by the pandemic. Inflation hurt businesses severely and hurt employees severely. In a bipartisan way, we voted as that pandemic started. As we saw the broad impacts of that, we, in a bipartisan fashion, stepped in to help. It made a very big difference. I start that way because the representation of some is that somehow we, by passing legislation, have caused this inflation. The OECD nations, the economically developed countries of the world, have all had inflation. As a matter of fact, the average OECD nation has a 10.2 percent inflation rate. As the gentleman knows, ours is 8.3 percent. Mexico didn't have any of the bills that we passed and had an 8.7 inflation rate. The Netherlands that didn't have an American Rescue Plan has a 13.6 percent rate of inflation. Sweden, a small and very successful country, didn't have an American Rescue Plan and has an inflation rate of 9.8 percent; Austria, another strong economic country, 9.3 percent; Denmark, the country of my father's birth, 8.9 percent. And you say: So what? The ``so what'' is that we have seen a global inflation. I haven't mentioned some of the other countries in Asia who have inflation rates, as well. I simply say that so both parties and all Members understand the consequences and pain of inflation at the pump. The gentleman in some of the discussions we have had has pointed out that prices have gone up. I have not heard him say that the President has taken certain action, and it has come down about 35-plus percent over the last 6, 7 weeks from $5.02 as an average down to somewhere around $3.60. Is that low enough? It is not. It has been much higher. It was higher in 2008 under George Bush. But it needs to come down further. We will continue to work on that. We passed a number of pieces of legislation. I mentioned the American Rescue Plan took 48 percent of America's children out of poverty who were in poverty; not 48 percent of America's children, but 48 percent of America's children who were in poverty were taken out by the American Rescue Plan. None of us are wearing masks on this floor or around the country when we gather together and get in rooms close to one another. Why? Because we got 250 million shots in arms. We also have people struggling for a variety of economic reasons primarily brought upon them by the pandemic, so we put money in their pockets. We have one of the fastest growing economies. We have one of the lowest unemployment rates in the world. We have a country that is doing well. The gentleman mentions the stock market declining. It did. Why did it decline? Because we had the pandemic. Inflation resulted from that, and the Federal Reserve--as was true under Ronald Reagan when unemployment went to 10.5, 6, 7, 8 percent because Paul Volcker was slowing down the economy to defeat inflation. Inflation is harmful, particularly to people who are elderly and on fixed incomes. So, I want the gentleman to know that we empathize with that, and, therefore, we are distressed. When we passed a bill, the Inflation Reduction Act, not a single Republican voted for it. And there is absolutely no denial on the reality that is going to bring Americans' costs down. Not only that, it kept 13 million people who were going to fall off insurance on the Affordable Care Act--which I know the gentleman's party does not support--but 13 million Americans who had healthcare insurance as a result of the American Rescue Plan, it was going to stop on December 31, and we continued that. We put on legislation that would bring down prescription drug costs and allow companies to sell drugs to Medicare in a negotiated way. We negotiate, as the gentleman knows, and I don't know whether the gentleman thinks that policy ought to be stopped, but we negotiated for prices with veterans' healthcare. Now we are going to do it with Medicare. We wanted to do it for everybody, but the Senate Republicans would not agree to that. We believe that the infrastructure bill is going to really help bring down inflation, create jobs, and expand our economy. We believe the CHIPS and Science bill is going to do the same. Only 13 on the Republican side voted for the infrastructure bill, which was, I think, a bill that would have helped inflation by making supplies better. The energy portion of the Inflation Reduction Act is going to bring down the cost of energy. It is going to create competition on energy, and fight climate change. I lament the fact that not a single Republican voted for the Inflation Reduction Act. Even if you reject the fact that it is going to reduce inflation--as I think you probably do, I don't want to anticipate what you do, but that is my guess. There are literally scores of economists who believe it is going to bring down inflation. As importantly, the committee who looks closely at this--scores of economists say it is going to bring it down. The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget say they believe it is going to bring down inflation. I don't want to project that it is going to bring it down a half a point, a point, 2 points, 3 points, 4 points--I hope it does. I think it was certainly worth a try. None of your colleagues either in this House or in the Senate--down the aisle--gave it a chance. We passed it anyway under a process, obviously, that allows just Democrats in the Senate to pass something under a process called reconciliation. I want to tell the gentleman that I have apprised the committee chairmen of the bills that you have talked to me about. I have asked them to look at them. Frankly, I cannot tell you I have gotten a response from each one of them, but we are giving them attention. Obviously, we want to know what our committees think about not only your legislation, our legislation--our legislation, that is, bipartisan legislation. We lament the fact, I will tell you, very frankly, Mr. Speaker--we lament the fact that our Republican colleagues in all four of the bills I have just mentioned, which are designed to grow the economy--the CHIPS bill, the bipartisan infrastructure--19 Senators voted for the infrastructure bill and helped put it together with President Biden and Senate Democrats. Lamentably, only 13 of your colleagues chose to vote for it. I am glad they did, but it was over the advice and counsel of their leadership. That bill clearly was embraced by the American people and incorporated policies, essentially, that President Trump said in 2016 he was going to recommend and have the Congress adopt. It didn't happen in 2017. It didn't happen in 2018. It didn't happen in 2019, and it didn't happen in 2020. I say to my friend, we think all four of those bills are going to have a very positive impact on our economy, on growing our economy, ensuring supplies of basic goods, and bringing down inflation. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

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

Mr. HOYER. I don't think I made that comment.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. First of all, to your last statement, the unions. What were the unions trying to do? They were trying to keep teachers healthy. They were trying to keep kids healthy. Because we were telling people, don't congregate. Don't get all together. They were trying to keep kids out of school whose HVAC systems, heating, ventilating systems were not up to date and couldn't transfer the air in a clean, healthy way. So we gave them billions of dollars. Yes, we spent a lot of money to make our people safe, to get people back to work, to get kids back in school, and it worked. They are back in school. None of us are wearing a mask. We congregate now. We all get together. Hardly anybody, if anybody, some people who have particular vulnerabilities are wearing masks. God bless them. It worked, and the Republicans voted ``no.'' Now, I want to go to this energy issue because they are Johnny-one- note. Inflation is caused by administration policy on inflation, gas prices, and energy production. But the fact of the matter is he ignores that inflation is happening in a lot of places. Mr. Speaker, in Denmark, they are pretty energy independent with renewable energies and not relying on supply chains per se. Their inflation is higher than ours because it was a global phenomenon. Their economies were assaulted. Ours came back faster and better. Why? Because we invested in our people. Now, let me go to a simple fact. According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, average production--that means over 4 years for Trump--for Donald Trump was 10,968,000 barrels per day; for Joe Biden it was 11,185,000 barrels a day. That is more, not less, than the average under Donald Trump. But it serves their political interest, Mr. Speaker, to somehow project to the American people that Biden has shut down the energy industry which is why you are paying more. I explained that the energy companies did, in fact, cut production. It was a rational business judgment. People were driving less and buying less petroleum. There is still concern. Most of them are seeing that there is going to be an alternative energy that is going to be required if we are going to make sure that this globe does not burn up with the people with it. He also says--I don't have the report in front of me, so I am going to wing it--that no one earning under $400,000 per year got a tax increase as a result of the bill the gentleman alludes to. If CBO says--and I will read the report--that $20 billion is going to be received from that category, it will be because somebody, whether they are making $100,000, $200,000, $300,000, or $400,000, is not paying their fair share pursuant to laws that we adopt--not because we put new taxes on them but because they are not paying the taxes that are due. I don't have the CBO report in front of me, so I am opining because it certainly wasn't because we have new enforcement officers, unless those enforcement officers find that the people to which the gentleman refers are not paying their fair share. By the way, it will also apply to the people who are making billions and not paying any taxes, much less their fair share. Let me repeat that energy figure again because I think he will probably go back to energy because that is what we do almost every colloquy. More energy is being produced under Joe Biden than was produced under Donald Trump.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I think we are probably pretty close to closing. I would say this, Mr. Speaker. I think the American people are in the process of making a judgment. On our side, we see things as pretty positive in terms of the response to the policies that we have been adopting without any significant help from our Republican colleagues, but they will have a chance to vote and decide. We have passed legislation, as we said we would do, for the people-- not for the sake of politics but for the sake of children, families, the young and old, and, yes, even the rich and poor. I want to comment because I urge my Republican friends to be precise in their conversations with the American public. There are not 80,000 revenue auditors or agents included in this bill that we talked about on bringing inflation down and which economists say will bring inflation down. Our Republican friends say they want to do that, but they vote against bills that will bring down demonstrably, and without possibility of denial, costs for people, health costs for people, prescription drug costs for people, insulin, which costs about--it is single figures, and we capped it at $35. That is about 400 percent profit, but they are now paying $300 or $400 or $500. Now, luckily, because we could pass it with Democrats, seniors won't be paying that. They will be capped at $35. But millions of other Americans, because the Republicans would not support it in the United States Senate--we passed it here--will not get the benefit of that cap. They will be paying far above justifiable prices for insulin. We are producing energy. The argument is specious that somehow this inflation is caused by our cutting back on energy supply when I just read a figure, subject to dispute. Maybe next week I will hear, no, that figure is wrong. Maybe. We are producing more energy than Trump did--not Trump himself, but the country--during Trump's Presidency. I urge, Mr. Speaker, my Republican friends to tell the American people the truth. Yes, there are some more agents because there are people not paying their fair share. If you have an audit, and they say you are not paying your fair share, and you pay more, isn't that what we expect when we pass tax bills, that people will pay pursuant to what the law says, whether they make $100,000 or $100 million or $100 billion? I don't guess anybody makes $100 billion in a year. We ought to be honest with the American people. Give them the facts, and then they will make a decision, but tell them the truth.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, there are 80,000-plus additional, which will get back to the 20 years ago level of employment in the IRS. The IRS has been reduced in personnel in all categories, not just enforcement agents, but in all categories, which will undermine their ability to serve the public and collect taxes so that we all pay our fair share and so people who don't have accountants and who don't have ways and means to avoid taxes are treated fairly themselves. Everybody ought to be treated fairly. If we don't think they are being treated fairly because of the law then we ought to change the law, but we ought to tell the American people the truth. There are not that many enforcement agents. They are in so many different categories in the IRS to make sure that the IRS can successfully do its job and answer people's questions about what, when, where, and why they have to do things pursuant to law. That is what I meant, not that the 80,000 people are enforcement agents. They are not. They are not. It is a far lower number than that. But we know that there is over $100 billion--I think it is a much larger figure than that--in taxes that are owed under the law that are not being paid, which means that the tax rates need to be higher on others than they ought to be. That is what this bill gets at. In other words, this bill, the inflation reduction bill, is more than reducing inflation. I am sorry that my Republican friends made a determination it was not a bill they could support to help bring down inflation, but that was the judgment they made. I think they want to bring down inflation. We want to bring down inflation, but when we present a bill to the floor which does it, we would hope we would get support on a bipartisan basis.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, there is always time to celebrate extraordinary Americans, which is why I rise today to recognize American tennis star and proud son of Maryland's Fifth District, Frances Tiafoe. Last week, he became the first American man to reach the U.S. Open semifinals since 2006 and the first African-American man to do so since Arthur Ashe in 1972. Indeed, Tiafoe is one of the only three African-American men in the history of tennis to advance out of the rounds and into the finals of the U.S. Open. Of course, we have been very proud to cheer Serena Williams and Sloane Stephens, who together won 4 out of the last 10 women's titles in the U.S. Open, not to mention an extraordinary young woman, Coco Gauff, who made it to the U.S. Open quarterfinals. Tiafoe's accomplishments in the men's tournament are especially impressive, Mr. Speaker, considering his extraordinary story. Born in Maryland's Fifth District--mine--to immigrant parents who fled civil war in Sierra Leone, Frances grew up living in a spare office at the Junior Tennis Champions Center in College Park, Maryland, where his father worked as a custodian. Indeed, earlier, his father had been part of the construction crew that built that tennis center. Noticing young Frances' upbeat attitude and love of the game, the coaches and staff of the center took him under their wing and helped him train to become one of the most promising American tennis players in recent memory. How proud they must be. We saw that training bear fruit last week when he made it to the semifinals by defeating one of the greatest tennis players in history, Rafael Nadal, from Spain. Although Frances ultimately didn't win the title, he showed the world that the future of American tennis is bright indeed. I had the opportunity of talking to Frances just a few minutes ago. I am inviting him down to the Capitol, and I want all the Maryland Members to meet him. But I am going to invite all of you to meet him, as well, Mr. Speaker. He is an extraordinary young man. I congratulate him, I congratulate his family, and I congratulate those coaches who saw a promising young man and took him under their wing not because he was paying them but because they saw great promise in Frances Tiafoe. Boy, were they right.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding. I rise in strong support of this and the other two bills that we will vote on, the Oversight and Reform Committee bills that we are considering this week. Not only will they make government more accountable to the people it serves, they are also a testament to the extraordinary work and dedication to service of the committee's chairwoman, my friend, Carolyn Maloney. She leaves Congress at the end of this year after an accomplishment of three decades in office. During that time, she has been a champion, not only for New York, but for all those across the country who cherish good government and the causes of justice, opportunity, and equality for which she has worked so very, very hard. Few in the history of the Congress have worked on behalf of the consumers in a more dedicated and effective fashion than Chairwoman Carolyn Maloney. Today, she continues that service by offering, on behalf of her committee, these three bills. I make particular mention of the bill authored by Chairman Gerry Connolly of the Government Operations Subcommittee, which has been strongly supported by Chairwoman Maloney and their colleagues and the committee's majority. I, too, strongly support this effort, which would protect the nonpartisan nature of our civil service by ensuring that Presidents cannot simply fire Federal workers by reclassifying them as ``schedule F'' employees. That is what the previous President suggested. That is what his supporters are suggesting now. And they are suggesting, not only that, but they are going to put people in place who want to follow their political edicts, legal or not. They made it quite clear they want to eliminate what they call the deep state. The deep state is a cadre of professionals dedicated to honoring the Constitution, the laws of this country, and carrying out the policies of the Congress and the President. By the way, it is the Congress that makes policy, under the Constitution, under Article I. It is the executive that carries out policies. Now, Presidents of both parties want to be policymakers also. I get that. It is a nonpartisan desire of Presidents. But our Founders but, more importantly, those who adopted the Civil Service Reform Act and have made amendments subsequent to that, and a majority of the Congress of the United States, both parties, thought that it was in the interest of citizens to have a professional cadre of employees, not subject to political pressure, or whim, or edict, but subject to following the law and carrying out the policies of this country. We must guard against a future President taking that dangerous step of making them employees at will. Frankly, we have had a very stark example of a President whose will was inconsistent with American principles. We must not return to the kind of patronage system that fueled corruption and partisanship before the civil service reforms of the late 19th century. The other two bills authored by Chairwoman Maloney are equally necessary and beneficial to the American people. The first would further protect whistleblowers against retaliation; and the second would protect the nonpartisan nature of the U.S. Census, prescribed by our Constitution, and so vital to equal representation. When we passed whistleblower legislation and protections, we did so because we wanted people to be able to come forward and say the emperor has no clothes. The policies being pursued are being done inefficiently. The policies being pursued are wasting money. The policies being pursued are illegal. That is why we protect whistleblowers, because it is in the interest of our citizens, of our country, and our laws and, by the way, in the interest of Congress, so that people can come forward to those of us who make policy, who appropriate money, to be told the policies that you passed are not being followed, or the money you dedicated is not being spent in the way you purposed it. So these bills are critically important. And by the way, the Constitution says, count everybody. That is what the Constitution says. The Supreme Court said that is what it said. Not just my friends; not just the people who like me; count everybody. And by the way, if you are going to change the rules, tell the Congress, and tell us before it is too late for us to do anything about it. That is all this bill says. This bill ought to be overwhelmingly supported by both sides of the aisle. Very frankly, if you have a deep state, you would think you would want to make sure that the Congress is the one that sets the policies of who is counted and not counted and how it is counted. President Lincoln famously described ours as a ``government of the people, by the people, and for the people.'' These bills, like the work of Chairwoman Maloney, throughout her career in public service, will help us keep it that way. I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support these bills. And in closing, once again, I congratulate Carolyn Maloney of New York for her dedicated, extraordinarily effective service to the people of New York, people of her city, the people of this country. She has been an extraordinary Member of this institution and has made us better.

Mr. HOYER

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

Mr. HOYER

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

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, yesterday, I had the honor of introducing Alaska's newly elected Representative after she took her oath of office. Representative Peltola makes history in joining the House, and we are very glad to have her. The seat to which she was elected, however, became vacant because of an event for which we are all very, very saddened. The passing of our friend, a great friend of this institution, Representative Don Young, marked the end of an era for this House. Don was a repository of institutional knowledge and a keeper of the House's traditions. He was our dean, the most senior Member of either party. Today, as we reflect upon that loss for the House, for Alaska, and for all of us who were his friends, we recognize a new dean to succeed Don in that role. I join the Republican leader in congratulating Representative Hal Rogers. Mr. Speaker, Mr. Rogers of Kentucky has achieved that distinction to become our new dean of the House. It is humbling to think that our dean is from the same freshman class as I am. He was here just shy of 5 months before me, as does the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith). When we arrived here, we met the dean of the House, Jamie Whitten of Mississippi, who served in the House 122 years. I don't want to offend anyone from Mississippi. I know it was short of that time, but it was a long time. Mr. Whitten had been elected first in 1941. He, himself, came to the office when the dean of the House had been elected in 1907, and the person who had been dean at that time was elected in 1879, which is to say there aren't a lot of deans of the House. And the day that Member ended as freshman, Abraham Lincoln was first sworn in as President of the United States. Fewer deans, by far, than Presidents of the United States. So we are connected to the 37th Congress of the United States and the Lincoln Presidency by just four individual Members' span of service. Hal Rogers now inherits the title once held by former President John Quincy Adams, Speaker Sam Rayburn, and my dear friend, Debbie Dingell's husband, John Dingell. Those of us who know Hal can testify to the respect and love he has for this institution and for the role of dean. He will surely uphold its traditions and continue to carry forward this chain of history for the House and for our democracy. Mr. Speaker, I rise to congratulate the dean of the House, Hal Rogers of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. McCarthy), Republican leader.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, it is a rare privilege to be able to introduce as a new Member the dean of a delegation, but that is my particular pleasure today. There are few honors greater, Madam Speaker, in this country than being elected by your neighbors and fellow Americans to represent them in the House of Representatives. I welcome Senator Murkowski and Senator Sullivan to our Chamber and remind them you cannot be appointed to the House of Representatives. Only by election can one serve in the people's House. It is an extraordinary honor to have your friends and neighbors choose you to represent them in this body. When our friend and colleague Don Young passed away earlier this year, this House lost a giant. The people of Alaska lost a Representative who had served them with great ability, energy, courage, and commitment for half a century. Earlier this month, Alaskans cast their votes to send a new Representative to carry their voice and views in Washington. The woman they chose just made history with the oath that she took. She made history by becoming the first Alaska Native to be elected to the Congress of the United States. Madam Speaker, she also made history as the first woman not to represent Alaska but to represent Alaskans in the House of Representatives. Obviously, Senator Murkowski represents them in the Senate. In Representative Mary Peltola, Alaskans chose someone who was not only a friend of former Representative Don Young but also someone cut from the same cloth, someone who believes fundamentally in pragmatism, independence, and putting Alaska's unique needs first. The Senators applaud that, apparently. Representative Peltola is widely known across Alaska not only for her strong record as a State legislator but as a champion for rural and Native communities who are too often overlooked by policymakers. Don Young did not let that happen. She won't, either. She has built solid relationships across both parties in Alaska because of what many have called her extreme kindness and her determination to befriend all that she meets. Her record reflects Alaskans' independent approach to the most divisive issues, and in her election, she appealed to Democrats, Republicans, and Independents. Her campaign slogan reflected what she and many others consider the three fundamentals of Alaska: fish, family, and freedom. Indeed, she has already begun to assemble a bipartisan staff to serve her constituents. Representative Peltola has a long record of working well with Alaska Republicans and even campaigning for Republican Senator Lisa Murkowski, who is with us here today, when she faced a primary challenge from an extreme candidate. What Alaskans have known and shown by them electing Mary Peltola is that, like so many other Americans, they want to be represented by someone who is focused on bipartisanship and not on confrontation. They want someone who will put people over politics and get things done. That has been Representative Peltola's record back home in Alaska, and I know it will be her philosophy here in Washington. In so many ways, she is a perfect successor to Representative Young, who worked hard to make sure his fellow Republicans understood Alaskans' unique challenges and preferences on major issues. In similar fashion, Representative Peltola will be an important addition to the House, helping us better understand the perspectives of rural and Native communities and the special concerns of Alaskans as our majority works to deliver results and expand opportunities for all Americans. I know, Madam Speaker, Mary will be warmly welcomed to the House by all of her colleagues on both sides of the aisle. Because Alaska has only one at-large Representative in the House, the honor falls to me today, as the senior-most Member of our party, to introduce her. It is an honor I wholeheartedly accept, and I now ask my colleagues to join me in welcoming Alaska's new Representative and someone we will all very shortly be calling our good friend, Mary Peltola.