Andrew Ogles

Mr. OGLES

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

Mr. OGLES. Mr. Chair, this amendment simply inserts or adds a clarifying clause. While religious student groups are free to select people who aren't members of their religion to lead them, most people agree that it is reasonable for a Muslim student group to want its leaders to be, well, Muslim or a Catholic student group to want its leaders to be practicing Catholics. Unfortunately, administrators of some of our universities keep showing that they disagree. Many believe that if a religious group requires that its leaders are of their religion that it is somehow unfair discrimination. It is only common sense that a religious group should be able to require its leaders to agree with its religious message and mission. Because student leaders may lead the group's Scripture, prayer, or worship, they should have a familiarity and agree with the group's religious beliefs. In 2018, the University of Iowa threatened to derecognize almost every religious group on campus: Christian, Jewish, and Muslim. It was a deliberate effort to force religious student groups to abandon their religious leadership requirements. In 2021, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals held that the university administrators were personally liable for violating the religious groups' First Amendment rights, but that required 3 years of litigation. In 2022, at the State University of New York at Cortland, a student organization was told that its selection process in which it asked potential leaders about their religious beliefs, as well as its requirements that its leaders demonstrate knowledge of and uphold the organization's religious teachings, was unacceptable. Whether you understand the beliefs of an organization could obviously be relevant to your ability to lead it. The university changed course only after legal counsel sent a letter explaining the law. In 2006, the University of Wisconsin-Madison derecognized a Catholic student organization because of its religious leadership and member requirements. The university eventually lost its case before the Seventh Circuit Court but not until 2011, long enough for an entire class of students to enroll and graduate without access to a recognized Catholic campus ministry. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. OGLES

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

Mr. OGLES. Mr. Chair, there are nearly 300 sanctuary jurisdictions in the United States. That is 300 places in our Nation that refuse to cooperate with Federal law enforcement to detain and remove illegal aliens. That is why this underlying bill is so important. There is not a single so-called sanctuary jurisdiction locality that intentionally refuses to uphold the law who should be receiving Federal funds. Every city, county, or State that has laws, regulations, resolutions, or policies protecting illegal alien criminals from ICE should not receive a penny of Federal funding for the benefits of those illegal aliens. Unfortunately, these jurisdictions received over $300 million from the Department of Justice in 2021 alone. My concern with this legislation, and it is a fairly minor one, is the timeline. Right now, the bill says that there will be a complete funding prohibition on food, shelter, healthcare, and other services for illegal aliens in sanctuary jurisdictions, but the funding ineligibility kicks in at the beginning of the fiscal year after the date of an enactment. Practically, that could raise a circumstance in which the funding prohibition described in this bill wouldn't kick in until nearly a year after this bill becomes law. In my view, that is too long. It is too long of a timeframe for these sanctuary cities, these jurisdictions, to get away with violating our laws and taking tax dollars from hardworking Americans. This amendment amends section 3 of the text to ensure that the funding ineligibility for these jurisdictions become effective no later than 60 days after the date of the enactment of this act and potentially even sooner. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. OGLES. Mr. Chairman, these jurisdictions are aiding and abetting criminals. They are ignoring and violating Federal law. They created this problem, so if they have to call a special session to fix the problem they created, that is on them. It shouldn't be the taxpayers of Tennessee who have to fund it. I have got veterans in my community that aren't getting services because of illegal immigrants. There are only so many dollars to go around. Tennessee spends roughly $850 million a year annually for illegal immigrants. That is textbooks, that is computers for our kids, that is psychological evaluations and treatment for our veterans. If I have to choose between a citizen and an illegal who is violating our laws, I choose an American every single time. Mr. Chairman, if Soros-funded sanctuary jurisdictions want to violate the law and turn their backs on America, on our citizens, and on law enforcement personnel, they should not be financially rewarded for doing so. There is no good argument my colleagues on the other side of the aisle can make that involves asking my constituents, hardworking Americans in middle Tennessee, to subsidize the lives of lawbreakers as well as the decisions of sanctuary jurisdictions who want to protect those lawbreakers. It is time to defund and to deport. This is our country. We get to decide who comes in, and we get to decide who has to leave. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. OGLES. Mr. Chairman, the crazy conjecture of the consequences is clearly confounding. Let's be honest. We are talking about the food, the shelter, and the healthcare that is going directly to illegal immigrants, nothing to American citizens. Keep in mind, it is the jurisdictions who created this problem. It is the jurisdictions that are violating our laws and making a mockery of our system and turning their backs on law enforcement. Mr. Chair, you have girls and women all across the country who have been sexually assaulted by illegals. These are crimes that would never have happened if they were back in their home country if they had never been allowed in this country, if they had not been given sanctuary, had they not been released. So when the gentleman talks about consequences, why doesn't he ask those women and those children? Why doesn't the gentleman ask those families? Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. OGLES. Mr. Chairman, what this does is asks Homeland Security to produce a report. So-called sanctuary jurisdictions choose to undermine Federal law enforcement when it attempts to enforce our immigration laws. I am grateful we are considering the underlying bill to hold them accountable. I thank the chairman. One policy that would make a city a sanctuary city is a prohibition or a restriction on government entities or officials from complying with lawful requests from the Department of Homeland Security under section 236 or 287 of the Immigration and Nationality Act. My modest amendment just asks that DHS provide an annual report to Congress detailing which jurisdictions have failed to honor such lawful requests. I believe having that information and having the report is important. Without it, it could be difficult to know which jurisdictions are complying with the law. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. OGLES. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chair, I thank my colleague for supporting my amendment. As we look at the jurisdictions across the country that may be ignoring current Federal law, whether by ordinance, whether by order of the mayor, by statute, or just an unwritten rule, this report would illuminate and bring to light those jurisdictions that, quite frankly, are putting America at risk. A border crisis is a disaster for the country. It has turned every State into a border State. It spurred drug trafficking, human trafficking, and other crime. There was just a bodega that was shut down that was trafficking illegals today. It has caused resource crises for cities and towns across the country who have found that they don't have the resources to deal with the influx, the mass influx, of people the Biden-Harris administration has released upon them. Again, this information is critical as we move forward, as we look for solutions and put an end to this crisis that is plaguing our country. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. OGLES. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Chair, in closing, again, it is a simple report. It is valuable information. It is time that all cities, all communities enforce the Federal law. It is time to deport the illegals who are draining our system, taking money away from American citizens. Mr. Chair, I urge adoption of my amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. OGLES

Mr. OGLES. Madam Speaker, we have heard time and time again in the Financial Services Committee and in our hearings across the Hill that there is a dire need for transparency and accountability among the banking agencies. Yet, blatant partisanship has dictated the appointments of leftist bank regulatory officials during the Harris-Biden administration. One of my bills was included in H.R. 4790, which passed the House earlier today. My bill, the Supervision Reform Act, amends the Federal Reserve Act to remove the confusing designation established by the Dodd-Frank Act for one of the members of the Board of Governors to be designated as vice chair of supervision. The vice chair of supervision should not be afforded special treatment and be allowed to abuse the position to rewrite the narrative for the failures of the banking system and to cook up unjustified climate rules and force them on banks. Americans are watching Kamalanomics eat away at their hard-earned savings, and the Fed's ESG-related partisan regulations are part of the problem. It is time to end the confusion, which has been the result of Dodd- Frank's misguided creation of the vice chair for supervision position. Mr. Speaker, we have heard time and again--at Financial Services Committee hearings and across the Hill--that there is a dire need for transparency and accountability among the banking agencies. Blatant partisanship has dictated the appointments of leftist bank regulatory officials during Harris-Biden Administration, to include the Federal Reserve's Vice Chairman for Supervision Michael Barr. Mr. Barr in particular appears to be far more interested in advancing his own partisan plans than in confronting the serious financial and regulatory costs on the American people by the Harris-Biden administration. One of my bills was included in H.R. 4790, which passed the House earlier today. My bill, the Supervision Reform Act amends the Federal Reserve Act to remove this confusing designation, established by the Dodd-Frank Act, for one of the members of the Board of Governors to be designated as the ``Vice Chairman for Supervision''. The Vice Chair for Supervision should not be afforded special treatment to write his own narrative on bank failures on behalf of the Federal Reserve System as a whole, but the current Vice Chair for Supervision did just that. The Vice Chair for Supervision should not be afforded special treatment to undertake his own experiments on climate change with private banks, or to cook up unjustified climate rules at the Fed, but the current Vice Chair for Supervision did just that. The current Vice Chair for Supervision's assertion of special powers has led to disastrous results regarding policy positions of Federal Regulators. Americans are watching ``Kamala-nomics'' eat away at their hard- earned savings, and the Fed's ESG-related partisan regulations are part of the problem. Fed-Supervised banks are supervised by their regional Fed. Banks in regions where supervisors have stayed focused on practical supervision to ensure safety and soundness face the confusion of worrying about how to balance the sound supervisory guidance of their own supervisor with that of the unnecessary ``Vice Chair for Supervision.'' It's time to end that confusion, which has been the only result of Dodd-Frank's misguided creation of the Vice Chair for Supervision position. I am happy that my colleagues recognized this and passed H.R. 4790 to provide more clarity and transparency for the Federal regulators to ensure that they do not overstep their authority by forcing ESG initiatives.

Mr. OGLES

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

Mr. OGLES. Mr. Chair, this amendment would make it the policy of our Nation to advocate for Taiwan's full participation in the World Health Organization. For far too long, we have allowed Communist China to dictate the course of U.S. foreign policy as well as the agenda and membership of every major international organization, including the United Nations. This decades-long policy of global appeasement to the CCP came home to roost 4 years ago. Decades upon decades of giving in to China has left Taiwan with fewer and fewer allies. In the late 1990s, over 30 countries recognized Taiwan. Now, the number is down to 12. Much of the world has placed Taiwan in the company of pariah states like North Korea and Iran. Because the world allowed the PRC's pressure campaign against Taiwan to succeed, no one listened when Taiwan tried to warn the World Health Organization of possible human-to-human transmission of the coronavirus on December 31, 2019. No one listened to them when Taiwanese health experts visited Wuhan and found indications of human-to-human transmission in mid-January 2020. In fact, at the same time, the WHO released a statement declaring no clear evidence of human-to-human transmission of the coronavirus. Mr. Chair, we lost weeks. We lost weeks of preparation against the ravaging effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on our Nation all because Communist China told the world that under no circumstance could Taiwan be given a seat at the table at the World Health Organization. We can only guess how many untold thousands of American lives were lost as a result. We do know, however, that decade after decade of U.S. foreign policymaking has prioritized appeasing the PRC over the security of the American people, and it needs to stop. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. OGLES. Mr. Chair, I appreciate the comments of my colleague because we should show our support and allegiance to Taiwan, nor should we placate the People's Republic of China regarding Taiwan. We are, in fact, making war more likely, not less, if we allow the Chinese Communist Party to have influence over our policy on such things as Taiwan's participation in the WHO. We cannot and should not surrender our national sovereignty out of fear. This is the definition of weakness, and weakness invites aggression. If the Communists in Beijing don't think we have established a credible deterrence, they will attack Taiwan. They will consider attacking Taiwan. I know my colleagues and I agree that Taiwan is an ally to the people and nations of good around the world. They want to work with the United States. They want to help, as they did in April 2020 when Taiwan provided free personal protective equipment to our Nation at a time when it was scarce. Communist China, on the other hand, would rather cover up a deadly virus, wasting weeks and resulting in the deaths of untold hundreds of thousands if not millions. They are more worried about their reputation. That is an atrocity. It is appalling, and we need to recognize the fact that the existential threat to the United States of America is China. At every turn, they work to undermine us, and I, for one, have had enough. Mr. Chair, I thank Chairman McCaul for his support, and I urge adoption of my amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. OGLES. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. OGLES

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

Mr. OGLES. Mr. Chairman, my amendment pertains to the Inflation Reduction Act. In order to pay for what ended up being approximately $1.2 trillion in green subsidies, the Biden-Harris administration chose to raise the royalty rate on onshore oil and gas leases from 12.5 to 16.66 percent through the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022. Progressive Democrats also voted in unison to quintuple the minimum bid amount from $2 an acre to $10 an acre. The minority voted to increase the rental rate by a factor of 9 from $1.50 to eventually $15 an acre. At the time of the bill passage, estimates indicated that the bill would impose a $6.5 billion hike on oil and gas development. At a time when we need to get back to energy independence, when we need to fight inflation by lowering the price of fuel, we have to peel back these failed policies that hurt the economy and hurt the consumer. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. OGLES. Mr. Chairman, what I find to be one of the more remarkable things about the so-called Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 is nowhere in that bill do progressive Democrats identify any government program worth cutting, not $1 of the $80 billion appropriated to the IRS to audit middle-income Americans, not $1 of spending in Ukraine, and not $1 of the billions given to advance tree equity. This is absurd. We are spending ourselves into oblivion. We have to give relief to the American consumer, and a $6.5 billion hike in the cost of oil and gas to the consumer is real. The cost of groceries is up 30 to 40 percent. Rents are up. It is impossible for some to buy a home. We have to recognize that the Biden-Harris administration is a failure. People were better off under Donald Trump than they are under Biden-Harris. This is obvious. This isn't about pandering to oil and gas. This is about working-class Americans seeing increased prices at the fuel pump. Everything at the grocery store, everything at the big-box store, and everything at the mall is touched by oil and gas. If the price of that underlying commodity is increased, the price of everything else goes up. This is simple math. We have to get back to common sense. Quite frankly, our enemies laugh. America produces the cleanest energy in the world. If we were really serious about climate change, we would export our natural gas to Europe because ours is better and cleaner than Russia's. That is not my colleagues' objective. The minority's objective is about control, wealth distribution, and hurting the middle class. I, for one, stand for the middle class. I, for one, want to give relief to the middle class and quit pandering. Mr. Chairman, I urge adoption of this bill. We have the opportunity to get back to energy independence, and we have the opportunity to give relief to the middle-class consumer. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. OGLES. Mr. Chairman, the Environmental Financial Advisory Board, or EFAB, was chartered under the 1972 Federal Advisory Committee Act. The EFAB boasts of making recommendations that would supposedly lower the cost of environmental protection. Unfortunately, they are entirely beholden to the left's climate alarmism agenda. In a 2022 meeting, the EFAB spent taxpayer resources gloating about the establishment of the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund created from the so-called Inflation Reduction Act of 2022, a bill whose subsidies will cost the American taxpayer $1.2 trillion. The de facto slush fund provides $27 billion to the EPA through September 2024. If the argument here is that we need the EFAB to expedite the rate at which we can give out green subsidies to his donor base, I admit to my colleagues that perhaps the EFAB has grown to be successful in that endeavor. Let's take a look at eligible recipients for this boondoggle: State-sponsored green banks, nonprofit or quasi-government green banks, nonprofit energy conservation funds, and nonprofit social impact funds. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. OGLES. Mr. Chair, if we look at the EFAB's charter, you will find they provide recommendations on ways the EPA can implement funding from the infrastructure law and Inflation Reduction Act to support environmental justice and to tackle the climate crisis. The charter goes on to say that the EFAB is focused on decarbonizing our Nation's schoolbuses. Let's put aside whether it is even the role and scope of the Federal Government to address environmental justice or to work to decarbonize schoolbuses. The EFAB is singularly focused on weaponizing the power of the Federal Government to distort market incentives and transform the economy, all in the name of promoting what has been rightly characterized as climate alarmism. Mr. Chair, I urge adoption of my amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. OGLES. Mr. Chair, my amendment prohibits funds to be used by the Environmental Protection Agency for the U.S. Global Change Research Program. I know that is a mouthful, but this program coordinates with 13 different Federal departments and agencies. Its focus, as it relates to the areas within the EPA's jurisdiction, is to conduct research on climate change. I think it is fair to say that the climate is changing, and perhaps we have a role to play in it. However, there is a degree of climate alarmism in this country that has compelled smooth-talking bureaucrats and their grant-seeking associates in the private sector to grovel for more and more and more funding, lest the world end in 8 years is kind of the mantra. Mr. Chair, we have got to stop giving these handouts for alarmism. We have got to get back to simple metrics. We have got to have things that are truly measurable and not subjective. I do believe Al Gore predicted the end of the world by now. Guess what? We are humming along just fine. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. OGLES. Mr. Chair, the alarmism that is coming from the progressive Democrats ignores the fact that you have more and more individuals moving into coastal areas where hurricanes have an impact. You have more and more people and individuals moving into tornado alley or into Nashville where we have tornadic activity on a regular basis. Some of this is common sense. It is not that the climate is somehow attacking us, maybe we are just moving in the way of the climate because you have denser populations in areas that are affected by weather. Michael Shellenberger, a leading environmentalist, points out that economic development and technological advances are important factors that the left tends to exclude in its analysis on climate change. Mr. Chairman, we have to get back to the metrics, get back to common sense, and recognize that if we get out of the way of industry, they want to advance. They want to be more efficient. They want to produce a profit margin, but also a savings for their consumer. There is competition between industry to be more green, to be more environmentally friendly, and you see that playing out all over our Nation. You don't have to have the Federal Government putting industry in a choke hold and strangling innovation, and ultimately at a time when the middle class is struggling, strangling the middle class. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. OGLES. Mr. Chairman, this is, again, a commonsense policy at a time where the Biden-Harris administration has failed our country. Our southern border is wide open. We have little girls being raped by illegals. I have a family in critical condition because a drunk illegal hit them head-on. Fentanyl is killing 300,000 people. We have a crisis, and they want to talk about the climate. Our inner cities are desperate. Mayors in Dallas, Chicago, and New York are crying for help, and the Biden-Harris administration is silent. They are too busy pushing their alarmist, progressive, woke agenda on the middle class. The Biden-Harris policies have failed our country, they failed hardworking Americans, and this is a commonsense policy to inject common sense into the Federal Government. Mr. Chair, I urge adoption, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. OGLES

Mr. OGLES. Madam Chair, as the designee of Mr. Norman of South Carolina, I have an amendment at the desk.