Sydney Kamlager-Dove

Ms. KAMLAGER-DOVE

Ms. KAMLAGER-DOVE. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of the Indo- Pacific defense supplemental and all of the foreign aid bills we are voting on today. I recently returned from a State Department-led trip to Japan where we discussed the security challenges the region is facing from the PRC. Our partners in the Indo-Pacific are dealing with the daily threat of aggression from China. China is quite literally seeking to gobble up other countries, including the vibrant sovereign democracy of Taiwan, and China is working to gain leverage over countries through cheap infrastructure deals and digital authoritarianism. The Indo-Pacific region has been calling on the United States to be reliable, present, and engaged. Just last week, the Japanese Prime Minister came to Congress to tell us that Japan and the region need the United States and that our partners will be by our side. All we need to do is show up. With this bill, the United States is saying we need you, too, we will not cede our leadership, and we are here for good.

Ms. KAMLAGER-DOVE

Ms. KAMLAGER-DOVE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor a great public servant, colleague, and friend, Megan Garrison. Megan was a staffer in various California state government offices for over a decade before working for me as we served the people of Assembly District 54, starting in 2019, and the people of Senate District 30, starting in 2021. Notably, Megan helped me transition to my role as a new Member in this very body and served as Director of Operations for California's 37th Congressional District at the beginning of this Congress. Megan was an exceptional scheduler who brought a wealth of experience to her role. Throughout many long days and late nights in the California State Senate, she juggled conflicting events and last-minute crises, always ensuring that my staff and I were taken care of. Her dedication enabled all of us to do our best work for our constituents. Megan managed a complex and dynamic calendar, scheduled District and Capitol meetings, and coordinated myriad requests that came through the office. She also handled front desk management and facilitated legislative resolutions, predicting office needs ahead of time so that we would be set up for success. Megan's keen sense of organization and detail-oriented approach to her job were invaluable assets. Megan maintained exceptional professionalism through stressful situations. Her interpersonal skills and her savvy approach to problem- solving made her an asset to the team. In addition to her excellent scheduling abilities, Megan had extensive knowledge of the California state legislature and the political landscape. As a former Capitol staffer, she understood the intricacies of the legislative process and could navigate it easily and applied this knowledge to best serve constituents. Most importantly, Megan's deep sense of public service propelled her to positions of public trust. Megan's exceptional work ethic and friendly demeanor earned her the respect and admiration of everyone she worked with. Her positive attitude and ability to maintain a calm demeanor, even in high-pressure situations, made her well-liked by everyone. Megan was a valuable asset to the team and a trusted friend to many of her coworkers. Throughout her long career of hard work and many late nights in Sacramento and Washington, D.C., Megan remained dedicated to being there for her family. It takes a strong woman to juggle the long hours and taxing work of politics while always showing up for her amazing daughters and son. Megan's dedication to her family life is an inspiration for all of us. And now, I'd like to congratulate Megan on becoming a new grandmother. I am truly delighted for Megan and her family. Megan is back in Sacramento, living her best life with her doting family who look up to her and cherish her intelligence and warmth. While I miss Megan cracking jokes during the workday, I wish her the best in this new chapter. I thank Megan for her many years of service and dedication to the people of Los Angeles.

Ms. KAMLAGER-DOVE

Ms. KAMLAGER-DOVE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to celebrate the life of South Los Angeles' spiritual and moral center, Reverend Dr. Cecil ``Chip'' Murray. For 27 years, Reverend Murray served as pastor of Los Angeles' oldest Black-founded church, First African Methodist Episcopal Church, or FAME. Many a Senator, Congressperson, Foreign Minister, community advocate, or person in need found their way to FAME and Reverend Murray. He guided our community through times of crisis and toward prosperity. He sheltered and fed thousands of displaced residents at FAME during the 1992 L.A. riots and later created over 4,000 jobs, 300 new homeowners, and 500 new businesses across South L.A. through the FAME Renaissance Economic Development program. Upon his retirement from FAME, Reverend Murray served as the John R. Tansey Chair of Christian Ethics in the School of Religion at my alma mater, USC, passing on his wisdom to a new generation of community leaders. He was a constituent of the 37th. He was a shepherd of faith, justice, and mercy. He was an icon to Los Angeles. Mr. Speaker, please join me in honoring Reverend Murray's incredible life and legacy.

Ms. KAMLAGER-DOVE

Ms. KAMLAGER-DOVE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor my constituent Elizabeth Gomez. Elizabeth is a community advocate driven to effect positive change within underserved communities. As a cofounder of the Integrated Community Collaborative, a coalition of parents and self-advocates fighting for individuals and families with intellectual and developmental disabilities, Elizabeth established the Community Outreach Integradoras program to address disparities and inequities facing neurodiverse individuals, like her 17-year-old son, Oscar, who has Down syndrome, within California's support systems. Elizabeth also serves on the Local Advisory Committee on Self- Determination for Westside Regional Center and previously served on the board of Disability Rights California. As we celebrate Autism Acceptance Month, please join me in thanking Elizabeth for her tireless advocacy to strengthen accessibility and inclusion in our community.

Ms. KAMLAGER-DOVE

Ms. KAMLAGER-DOVE. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 45 seconds to the gentleman from California.

Ms. KAMLAGER-DOVE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, Representative Boebert's so-called Restoring American Energy Dominance Act would have only one effect: furthering Big Oil's dominance over our public lands. This bill, H.R. 6009, would force the Bureau of Land Management to withdraw its proposed oil and gas rule. This rule will implement reforms that Democrats enacted in our historic climate law, the Inflation Reduction Act, along with other long-overdue reforms to the onshore oil and gas program. The rule will help hold Big Oil accountable for cleaning up after itself, provide a fair return for the use of taxpayer-owned resources, and end speculative leasing of our public lands. This is important but also very basic stuff. If you make a mess, you should be responsible for cleaning it up. If a public company extracts a publicly owned resource for profit, taxpayers should get a fair return. It makes sense to me. Those are not difficult concepts to understand. It is for these reasons that BLM's rule has broad support across Western voters. Mr. Speaker, 92 percent of comments provided from all 50 States in response to BLM's proposed rulemaking were in favor of the rule. That is listening to the people. What we are seeing here is out-of-touch House Republicans attempting to block this rule as a giveaway to the fossil fuel industry. It is a blatant effort by Big Oil and corporate lobbyists to game the system in their favor. The proposed rule is common sense. The reforms have long been recommended by the Government Accountability Office and nonpartisan entities like Taxpayers for Common Sense. Republicans call it Biden's war on American energy, but with domestic oil and gas production and profits soaring, it is hard to see how Big Oil is suffering. As I said, their pockets are not on life support at all, but our public health is. It is past time to commit to reforms to protect taxpayers and the environment. We are talking about modest increases in royalty rates, going from 12\1/2\ percent to 16\2/3\ percent. Texas royalty rates are up to 25 percent. In the bill sponsor's home State of Colorado, they are at 20 percent. To repeat, these rates have not impeded domestic production. Domestic oil and gas production and profits are at record highs. No one is disputing that. As if that were not enough, these companies continue price gouging the consumer. It is obscene that these polluters, these extremely profitable corporations, are now pushing for more tax handouts. They are the last industry that needs it. We must vote down this out-of-touch giveaway. Mr. Speaker, I oppose H.R. 6009, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. KAMLAGER-DOVE. Mr. Speaker, I am so relieved to hear my colleagues from across the aisle continue to talk about national security concerns. It makes me question why they want to support isolationist values. If we are so concerned about Russia and our adversaries, then why are we not voting on a supplemental to help Ukraine? Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Porter).

Ms. KAMLAGER-DOVE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. There is so much to fact check and so little time. My colleagues have mentioned bonding proposals, but the BLM's bonding proposal would help ensure that oil and gas foot the bill for cleaning up their messes, not the American people. By requiring them to post adequate bond money before they drill, we can help avoid them shirking that duty later on by selling off their exhausted wells to shell companies and similar tactics. My colleagues across the aisle have said this proposal is unnecessary; no need to post bond ahead of time. Trust Big Oil. They are good for it. Pardon me if I am skeptical. We have been hearing so much about posting bonds over the last week or so. It is often the same story: A company or an individual will brag and brag about supposed wealth, but when it comes time to put that money up, suddenly they come up short. Sometimes they even have to file for bankruptcy. Many oil and gas companies operate in the same way. They benefit from resources but are afraid of regulations that would set bond amounts that ensure that they actually clean up after themselves instead of skipping town. The proposed BLM rule would require fossil fuel companies to provide reasonable collateral to ensure they pay to clean up after themselves. I have another fact check for you before I yield. We have heard Republicans say that bonding reform isn't needed to make sure the oil and gas companies clean up after their messes, supposedly because BLM has identified only 37 orphaned wells on Federal land. Well, let's widen the land to show the truth. An unplugged well can sit idle or even abandoned for many, many years before a Federal agency seeks to enforce reclamation requirements and finally have it declared officially orphaned. That process eats up valuable staff time and resources. In that time, these unplugged wells can leak oil and gas, creating environmental and public health hazards, regardless of whether or not they have been officially deemed orphaned yet. We are talking huge numbers here. In 2019, a nonpartisan GAO identified 2,294 unplugged wells that had not been produced in over 10 years. That is 2,294 wells specifically on BLM Federal land. The oil and gas industry should pay to plug and remediate those wells, not the American people. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Huffman), who is the most illustrious Congressman.

Ms. KAMLAGER-DOVE. Mr. Speaker, my Republican colleagues always want to bash California, and then they find ways to sneak into the State to visit. California is bringing it today as it relates to H.R. 6009. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Mullin).

Ms. KAMLAGER-DOVE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I hope that we can stay focused on the issue. We keep talking about foreign policy issues, and I think we should just, then, pass the supplementals to support Ukraine and our other allies rather than supporting isolationist foreign policies that actually encourage the kinds of human rights violations that my colleague keeps talking about. I am also very grateful that my colleague mentioned helping the military. I have to say that Republicans voting for H.R. 6009 doesn't, in fact, do that. It doesn't do that at all. Republicans could actually help our military personnel if they voted to support them with housing supports and making sure that our military personnel have access to quality healthcare, especially our female military personnel. Instead, they want to vote for tax breaks for oil and gas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Levin).

Ms. KAMLAGER-DOVE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time to close. Republicans have claimed that H.R. 1, their polluters over people bill, would solve all of our Nation's energy problems and that it is their number one priority for this Congress. Lately, some of them have even started saying that Senate Democrats and Leader Schumer are letting this legislation gather dust on the other side of the Capitol. Let's just fact-check. I love doing it. It is false. The truth is that the do-nothing Republican House hasn't even sent H.R. 1 to the Senate. Despite passing in the House a year ago, this bill has never been transmitted to the Senate and has languished in limbo with Republican leadership, gathering dust first on Speaker McCarthy's desk, then on nobody's desk, and now on Speaker Johnson's desk. If Republicans are so proud of their energy policies for the American people, why are they burying their landmark legislation and trying to blame Democrats? Why are we here passing sections of H.R. 1 for the second time? It is because it is all show. The do-nothing Republican House has no real solution. Instead of taking real action to invest in a cleaner and safer energy future for every American, House Republicans are just repeating the same stale, tired arguments and passing the same washed-up bills over and over again, fully knowing that these messaging bills aren't going anywhere. The American people deserve better. I reiterate that this Republican legislation is a messaging bill that, fortunately, is going nowhere. House Republicans should be doing the bare minimum work this week of funding the government and keeping the lights on. Instead, they are trying to win political points with people's lives and livelihoods on the line. This legislation creates unacceptable risk, and the President should have every single tool to protect public health and the environment. Mr. Speaker, I oppose this bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. KAMLAGER-DOVE

Ms. KAMLAGER-DOVE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I welcome everyone to the long-anticipated, endlessly rescheduled energy week. Over the next 2 days, with only a matter of days until a partial shutdown, rather than a transparent discussion on how to fund the government, this Chamber will debate and vote on a number of energy- related bills, bills Republicans claim will boost so-called energy dominance. It is not hard to see through their talking points. The U.S. is producing more oil and gas than ever before, and what do we have to show for it? Everyday Americans still face volatile energy prices because oil and gas are global commodities and because we are exporting record amounts of fossil fuels. The communities nearest to this record-breaking production are overburdened with pollution, and their health and well-being are suffering. The climate crisis, because it is real, is getting more dire each year. The United States should be leading the way to a new, cleaner future, not drilling deeper into this catastrophe. Rather than addressing these issues head-on and building a just future that generations to come can be proud of, House Republicans are instead choosing to lead us toward more of the same--stuffing the pockets of Big Oil executives who are hoping to make another quick yacht off the backs of hardworking Americans just as they have done for years. We have seen these washed-up, has-been proposals before. Last year, Republicans passed H.R. 1, the polluters over people act which contains some of these repeat proposals. It is like a bad boyfriend coming back who just needs to be gone. This week is no different. We are going to see the same tired handouts to the richest and most polluting megacorporations, all while leaving our most vulnerable communities in the toxic dust. It is polluters over people 2.0. The first bill on the agenda is H.R. 1121, which would prevent the President from banning fracking unless authorized by Congress, even if there is a public health emergency, poisoned drinking water, or any other fracking crisis. For my colleagues across the aisle, maybe this is just a messaging bill, but for folks on the ground, it is extremely dangerous. It ignores the very real consequences of fracking for impacted communities. Fracking is a method of extracting oil and gas from deep underground. It involves blasting open rock at high pressure with a mixture of water, sand, and chemicals, many of which are undisclosed. In areas where fracking is concentrated, it has been linked to preterm births, high-risk pregnancies, asthma, migraines, fatigue, respiratory symptoms, skin disorders, and the list goes on. The fracking chemicals we do know about--things like benzene and ethylene glycol, are known to be hazardous to human health. Children living near fracking sites have lower birth weights and higher rates of cancer. Fracking chemicals end up in our soil and in our groundwater. Fracking is known to contaminate air and drinking water, but this Republican sweetheart legislation would stop the President from banning or even pausing fracking on public lands and in Federal waters, even if it poses a clear, known, and present danger to drinking water and public health. Here is something you are going to hear a lot from Democrats this week: Big Oil and Big Gas don't need any more favors right now. They don't need more tax breaks. They don't need more special loopholes. They don't need more handouts. The President should have the full range of tools to protect the American people, especially when it comes to our public lands and resources. Mr. Speaker, I urge opposition to the legislation, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. KAMLAGER-DOVE. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to look at the balance sheets of all of these Big Oil executives. No one is waiting in a food line. No one is trying to cash an unemployment check. They have the money, and they will be getting more because of these loopholes. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Levin).

Ms. KAMLAGER-DOVE. Mr. Speaker, in 2015 the Obama administration published a rule regulating fracking on public lands, and I should mention that the rule was not a ban on fracking, but a commonsense requirement that companies disclose what chemicals they are using. It would also have required storage protocols for wastewater, barriers between wells and water zones, and the disclosure of the location of existing wells--additional commonsense protections for the public. The rule was challenged, and the District Court of Wyoming struck down an appeal. The District Court of Wyoming read the Safe Drinking Water Act's exclusion of fracking from that law's underground injection program to mean that no Federal agency can regulate fracking. This was a flimsy court case that has not been reviewed on appeal, and the Trump BLM rescinded the rule before the appeals court could rule on it. The case does not mean that the Federal Government should have no role in regulating fracking for oil and gas. This issue is too important for us to leave 100 percent to a patchwork of State laws. The President must have the full range of tools to protect our health, safety, and climate from the dangers of fracking. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Michigan (Ms. Tlaib).

Ms. KAMLAGER-DOVE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to include in the Record Mr. Levin's amendment immediately prior to the vote on the motion to recommit.

Ms. KAMLAGER-DOVE. Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record an article from the Yale School of Public Health, published in ScienceDirect in response to the statements of my colleague on the other side of the aisle that fracking is safe and that it is safe for nearby communities. [From Science of the Total Environment, Aug. 16, 2016] Unconventional Oil and Gas Development and Risk of Childhood Leukemia: Assessing the Evidence (By Elise G. Elliott, Pauline Trinh, Xiaomei Ma, Brian P. Leaderer, Mary H. Ward, Nicole C. Deziel)

Ms. KAMLAGER-DOVE. Mr. Speaker, this article shows that living within a mile of a fracked well directly increases the risks of children developing leukemia. They are not children from the radical left. They are children from across the country. The study warns that millions of people living within a mile of fracked wells may have been exposed to these cancer-causing chemicals. In response to this study, several physicians are quoted as saying: ``This is like smoking in the 1950s. There was a lot of suggestive evidence, but the conclusive stuff came later. I think we're going to get it, maybe in 5 or 10 years, but it is a question of how much damage is going to be done in the meantime.'' ``Too often, we look at the political environment before we look at the evidence, and I don't think that's serving our future.'' This is just one study looking at a couple dozen pollutants. There is ample evidence out there to be concerned with fracking's impact on public health, but there is still too much to learn. Yet, H.R. 1121 would ban restrictions on fracking before we know the full realm of impacts on public health. This is unacceptable. The bill is rooted in many falsehoods as it relates to public health. I am so excited to hear my colleague talk about the fact that we should be hiring American workers, that we should be ensuring that we have great union jobs, that we should be invested in green energy infrastructure. I hope that is why my colleagues across the aisle woulda, shoulda, coulda supported the bipartisan infrastructure law--I know a couple of them did--as well as the Chips and Science Act, and also the Inflation Reduction Act. All of those bills are actually really focused on making sure that we are investing in our country, working on creating more clean, green energy that does not include fracking. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. KAMLAGER-DOVE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, my colleague from across the aisle is right: This makes no sense. If my colleagues across the aisle actually want to push back against Russia, Iran, and Venezuela, then pass the supplemental because that funding will do more to help support democracies around the world and help countries most in need than whatever is in H.R. 1121. Listening to some of the arguments we have heard from Republicans over the last week and even now today, I have to say, I am confused. Is oil and gas production higher than ever, or is there a war on energy? Are gas prices high because of Bidenomics, or are prices so low that we should continue exporting LNG? Should the government stop picking winners and losers through energy subsidies, or should we continue giving handouts to oil and gas and even expand those giveaways with the bills up today? I suspect Republican messaging is so confusing because continuing to rig the system for Big Oil just doesn't make sense. The U.S. is producing record amounts of oil and gas and is exporting more than ever before. I will say it again: The U.S. is producing record amounts of oil and gas and is exporting more than ever before. Yet, the American people aren't seeing the benefits. Prices for consumers are still high while Big Oil and other big corporations rake in massive profits. Reporting from the Groundwork Collaborative found that over half of recent U.S. inflation was caused by corporate price gouging, even as input costs decreased. Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record the Groundwork Collaborative report. [From Groundwork Collaborative, Jan. 18, 2024] Inflation Revelation: How Outsized Corporate Profits Drive Rising Costs (By Liz Pancotti, Strategic Advisor, and Lindsay Owens, Executive Director) As their cost of doing business comes down, corporations pad their bottom lines on the back of consumers. Inflation has come down significantly from its peak over the past year, yet prices remain high for American consumers. From housing and groceries to car insurance and electric bills, families are still feeling the squeeze. In the wake of the pandemic, virtually every company in every industry faced rising costs to make products and stock shelves. Labor costs rose sharply, the cost of transporting goods across the country hit record highs, and raw materials became costly or impossible to get. Corporations were quick to pass rising costs--and a little extra--on to consumers, fueling rapid inflation. As supply chain snarls have receded and the economy has stabilized, businesses continue to pad their bottom lines, rather than passing these savings on to consumers. corporate profits are driving more than half of inflation Some economists and pundits have sought to discredit the link between inflation and corporate profiteering. A Washington Post columnist recently claimed that blaming inflation on corporate profiteering is like saying ``it's raining because water is falling from the sky.'' But this isn't true. Prices are simply the sum of costs and corporate profits. While rising costs or inputs can drive up Americans pay at the gas pump or the grocery store, corporate profits can just as easily. As corporations have lamented supply chain woes and high labor costs over the past two years, their profits have skyrocketed, fueling inflation and exacerbating a longstanding affordability crisis. Some economists suggested that markup growth in 2021 was primarily driven by corporations raising prices in anticipation of future costs increases. However, corporate profit margins have remained high--and even grown--as labor costs have stabilized, nonlabor input costs have come down, and supply chains snarls have eased. While labor and nonlabor input costs have played a role in price increases, corporate profits drove 53 percent of inflation during the second and third quarters of 2023 and more than one-third since the start of the pandemic. Comparatively, over the 40 years prior to the pandemic, they drove just 11 percent of growth. Corporate profits as a share of national income has skyrocketed by 29 percent since the start of the pandemic. While our economy has returned to or surpassed its pre- pandemic levels on many indicators, workers' share of corporate income has still not recovered. As White House National Economic Council Director Lael Brainard has noted, ``Overall, the labor share of income has declined over the past two years and appears to be at or below pre-pandemic levels. While corporate profits as a share of GDP remain near postwar highs.'' Economist Isabella Weber has pointed out that corporations are keeping prices high even as post-pandemic and Ukraine War supply chain pressures ease and wage growth slows. Why? Because they can. Weber argues that supply shocks allowed corporations to tacitly collude, hike prices, and rake in record profits. This type of inflation, where corporations raise prices to protect--and even increase--their profit margins, allows prices to rise faster than the costs to make goods or provide services. When corporations pursued this opportunistic pricing strategy, they found a lot of space to increase prices, drive up profits, and see very little dropoff in demand. Though inflation has eased, prices remain tremendously elevated from their pre-pandemic levels. Housing costs, for example, are up 21 percent, grocery costs have risen by 25 percent. consumer prices are rising much faster than corporations' input costs While prices for consumers have risen by 3.4 percent over the past year, input costs for producers have risen by just 1 percent. For many commodities and services, producers' prices have actually decreased. Input costs for key goods and services have sharply decreased over the past year. For example, nearly 60 percent of the drop in input goods prices was driven by large declines in energy costs, such as jet fuel and diesel fuel. Transportation and warehousing costs, which many corporations have cited as a main driver of price increases, have come down by nearly 4 percent since peaking in June 2022. These input costs are critically important for corporations' balance sheets. As costs go down but revenue stays high because of higher sticker prices, corporate profit margins expand on the backs of American consumers. One prime example of this is the diaper industry, which is highly concentrated--Procter & Gamble Co. (P&G) and Kimberly- Clark Corp. control 70 percent of the domestic market. Diaper prices have increased by more than 30 percent since 2019 from, on average, $16.50 to nearly $22. Wood pulp is a major input in diapers and other paper products, like toilet paper and paper towels. Wholesale wood pulp prices soared by 87 percent between January 2021 and January 2023. Yet between January and December 2023, prices declined by 25 percent. Using their pricing power, P&G and Kimberly-Clark have kept diaper prices high for American families, allowing their profit margins to expand considerably. In P&G's October 2023 earnings call, its CFO, Andre Schulten, said that high prices were a big driver of profit margin expansion and 33 percent of their profits in the previous quarter were driven by lower input costs. During P&G's July 2023 earnings call, the company predicted $800 million in windfall profits because of declining input costs. In Kimberly-Clark's October 2023 earnings call, CEO Mike Hsu said the company ``finally saw inflation in the cost environment'' and admitted that he believes the company has ``a lot of opportunity to [expand margins over time] between what [they're] doing on the revenue side and also on the cost side.'' Despite these large input cost declines, Hsu said he thinks the company has ``priced appropriately'' and did not anticipate any price deflation. The diaper industry is just one example of corporations exploiting their pricing power to expand margins as input costs normalize. The same is true for many consumer goods, including new and used cars, groceries, and housing. corporations have bragged about their ability to raise prices Over the past two years, corporations have been explicit about how they've exploited their pricing power, and how they have and will continue to do so even as inflation comes down. General Mills attributed their 16.5 percent increase in profits in FY 2022 to ``getting smart about how [they] look at pricing.'' PepsiCo raised its prices across snacks and beverages by roughly 15 percent during each of 2022Q4 and 2023Q1 as it increased its margin. CFO Hugh Johnson said they ``may, in fact, increase margins during the course of the year'' as costs decreases and prices remain elevated. The CEO of Holcim, a construction materials manufacturer, said on recent earnings call, ``We are in that inflationary environment already for almost two years now...We have done the pricing in a very proactive way so that our results aren't suffering. On the contrary, they are improving the margins.'' Profit margins for AutoNation's finance and insurance segment have increased by 7 percent as they continue to hike margins with new fees and increased prices for consumers, even while products don't improve. Carvana notes that it deceased its non-vehicle retail costs by nearly $1,000 per car, driving huge margin increases (30 percent) even as used car costs remain elevated. Used car prices remain elevated and are up nearly 40 percent. conclusion In the wake of the pandemic, consumer demand rebounded and supply chains struggled to keep up as a result of decades of disinvestment and offshoring. Goods became more expensive to make and transport, and tighter labor markets delivered long- overdue wage increases for workers. As businesses' costs went up, they jumped on the opportunity to pass on rising costs to consumers and have continued squeezing American's pocketbooks for more. Now that their costs have stailized--or, in many cases, come down significantly--it's time for companies to stop gouging consumers. The Biden administration is taking steps to strengthen global supply chains and onshore manufacturing, crack down on corporate concentration that has enabled corporations to put consumers through the wringer, and eliminate junk fees. President Biden said last month, ``To any corporation that has not brought their prices back down--even as inflation has come down, even [as] supply chains have been rebuilt--it's time to stop the price gouging.'' The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, the Federal Trade Commission, and the Department of Justice continue to dust off authorities not touched in decades to rein in corporate profiteering and concentration. As Congress turns to expiring provisions from the 2017 Trump tax cuts over the next year, they must take a hard look at the corporate tax rate. Our tax code should support a robust and equitable economy, not incentivize profiteering. The fundamental question we need to ask ourselves is whether we want an economy where corporations can exploit pandemics, supply chain crises, and wars at the expense of American workers and families, or an economy where corporations are put in check, allowing everyone to thrive?

Ms. KAMLAGER-DOVE. Mr. Speaker, communities living closest to oil and gas production, mostly low-income and people of color, are left paying the costs of constant pollution and public health crises. We are all paying for the record number of billion-dollar climate disasters in 2023, driven by the fossil fuel climate crisis. These bills we are debating today would walk back important protections for taxpayers and local communities to keep funneling money into the pockets of Big Oil. It does not make sense to keep doubling down on a bad deal. Big Oil does not need more favors right now. They don't need more tax breaks. They don't need more handouts--I am going to keep saying it--and they don't need more special loopholes. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. KAMLAGER-DOVE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I often hear my Republican colleagues say that more oil and gas production in the U.S. benefits consumers and that fracking has helped that production along. We should celebrate. Then I did have to think about seeing this recent movie, ``Killers of the Flower Moon,'' and how that is probably not a really good thing to celebrate, but I digress. I don't want to do that. The U.S. is already the number one producer of oil and gas in the world. We are exporting record amounts of fossil fuel across the globe. Yet, our communities are still not seeing the benefits. That is because the benefits are going straight to Big Oil, which is seeing profits soar yet again. We cannot rely on the decades-old Republican agenda of ``drill, baby, drill,'' to lower prices for Americans. This bill proposes to give yet another handout to oil and gas, supposedly in the hope that these corporations will be so thankful that they will lower their prices just to be nice. I mean, does anyone still believe this trickle-down nonsense? Look, if we want better energy prices, then we need energy independence, which means a transition to clean energy, which is cheaper, safer, and generated entirely here at home instead of being at the mercy of global price shocks like oil and gas. I am also so grateful to hear my colleagues talk about the things that we should have learned from COVID. I hope that means that at some point they will be willing to discuss universal healthcare and making sure we all have access to affordable, high-quality healthcare. I hope that means that they are going to admit that COVID is a real thing and that vaccinations and access to that kind of healthcare and information is important. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. KAMLAGER-DOVE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, this bill is yet another shameless giveaway to Big Oil, even though Big Oil is still making earth-shattering, mineral- shattering profits by taking billions in taxpayer-funded subsidies, price gouging families, and leaving Americans with climate, health, safety, and financial consequences. This bill would enshrine Big Oil's exploitation of American taxpayers for the foreseeable future. Big Oil does not need any favors right now. I know I sound like a broken record, but sometimes you have to say it more than once so people can hear it. They don't need more special loopholes. They don't need more handouts. They don't need more tax breaks. Mr. Speaker, I oppose H.R. 1121, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. KAMLAGER-DOVE

Ms. KAMLAGER-DOVE. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Ms. KAMLAGER-DOVE

Ms. KAMLAGER-DOVE. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Ms. KAMLAGER-DOVE

Ms. KAMLAGER-DOVE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to oppose H.R. 7521. Banning TikTok is an insufficient Band-Aid solution to the genuine national security concerns the app raises and exposes. The bill seriously undermines civil liberties by essentially banning a platform that 150 million Americans use to engage in free speech and expression. A statewide TikTok ban has already been paused by a Federal judge on First Amendment grounds. Even without TikTok, the PRC could still be able to conduct influence operations on other social media platforms and obtain sensitive U.S. user data through hacking or data brokers. Finally, this bill would greatly expand the executive's authority to ban tech companies with zero congressional oversight. I cannot sign a blank check to some future President who would easily and dangerously weaponize this legislation to profit and silence. The creatives, artists, content creators, and businesses in my district will get caught in the cross fire of this bill, and deserve better than Federal overreach as a substitute for a thoughtful and incisive solution to this complicated national security challenge.

Ms. KAMLAGER-DOVE

Ms. KAMLAGER-DOVE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to celebrate the life of Leonard Clifford Tibbs, Jr., born on March 3, 1934, in Los Angeles. Mr. Tibbs was the son of Aluia Lee Tibbs, a beautician, and Leonard Clifford Tibbs, one of the few Black pharmacists in Los Angeles at the time. In 1952, Mr. Tibbs graduated from Manual Arts High School, in my district, where he played football. After obtaining a business degree from UCLA, Leonard pursued many successful entrepreneurial endeavors, establishing a real estate business, Tibbs Tacos restaurant, a catering business, and World of Curls. He was a man of few words, yet he was always charming and friendly. He loved to golf, captain his boat, fish, and travel. In 1999, Leonard met the Honorable Gloria Gray, and they shared 25 loving years together. They were partners in every aspect of life, with Leonard staunchly supporting Councilwoman Gray's journey through public service. Leonard peacefully passed away on November 22, 2023, and is lovingly remembered by Gloria, his daughter Allison, and the many loving bonus children, grandchildren, and great-grandchildren. I join them in honoring his life and legacy.