[Congressional Record Volume 169, Number 38 (Tuesday, February 28, 2023)]
[House]
[Pages H924-H930]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




 PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 347, REDUCE EXACERBATED INFLATION 
NEGATIVELY IMPACTING THE NATION ACT, AND PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF 
   H.J. RES. 30, PROVIDING FOR CONGRESSIONAL DISAPPROVAL OF THE RULE 
SUBMITTED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF LABOR RELATING TO ``PRUDENCE AND LOYALTY 
   IN SELECTING PLAN INVESTMENTS AND EXERCISING SHAREHOLDER RIGHTS''

  Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 166 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 166

       Resolved, That at any time after adoption of this 
     resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule 
     XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the 
     Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of 
     the bill (H.R. 347) to require the Executive Office of the 
     President to provide an inflation estimate with respect to 
     Executive orders with a significant effect on the annual 
     gross budget, and for other purposes. The first reading of 
     the bill shall be dispensed with. All points of order against 
     consideration of the bill are waived. General debate shall be 
     confined to the bill and shall not exceed one hour equally 
     divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority 
     member of the Committee on Oversight and Accountability or 
     their respective designees. After general debate the bill 
     shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. 
     The bill shall be considered as read. All points of order 
     against provisions in the bill are waived. No amendment to 
     the bill shall be in order except those printed in the report 
     of the Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution. Each 
     such amendment may be offered only in the order printed in 
     the report, may be offered only by a Member designated in the 
     report, shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for 
     the time specified in the report equally divided and 
     controlled by the proponent and an opponent, shall not be 
     subject to amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand 
     for division of the question in the House or in the Committee 
     of the Whole. All points of order against such amendments are 
     waived. At the conclusion of consideration of the bill for 
     amendment the Committee shall rise and report the bill to the 
     House with such amendments as may have been adopted. The 
     previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill 
     and amendments thereto to final passage without intervening 
     motion except one motion to recommit.
       Sec. 2.  Upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in 
     order to consider in the House the joint resolution (H.J. 
     Res. 30) providing for congressional disapproval under 
     chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule 
     submitted by the Department of Labor relating to ``Prudence 
     and Loyalty in Selecting Plan Investments and Exercising 
     Shareholder Rights''. All points of order against 
     consideration of the joint resolution are waived. The joint 
     resolution shall be considered as read. All points of order 
     against provisions in the joint resolution are waived. The 
     previous question shall be considered as ordered on the joint 
     resolution and on any amendment thereto to final passage 
     without intervening motion except: (1) one hour of debate 
     equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking 
     minority member of the Committee on Education and the 
     Workforce or their respective designees; and (2) one motion 
     to recommit.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 1 
hour.
  Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the 
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. 
McGovern), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. 
During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the 
purpose of debate only.


                             General Leave

  Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their 
remarks.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Texas?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  House Resolution 166 provides for the consideration of two measures, 
H.R. 347 and H.J. Res. 30. The rule provides for H.R. 347, the REIN IN 
Act, to be considered under a structured rule with 1 hour of debate 
equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member 
of the Committee on Oversight and Accountability or their designees and 
provides for one motion to recommit. The rule makes in order 15 
amendments.
  Additionally, the rule provides for consideration of H.J. Res. 30, a 
resolution of congressional disapproval of the rule submitted by the 
Department of Labor relating to ``Prudence and Loyalty in Selecting 
Plan Investments and Exercising Shareholder Rights'' under a closed 
rule with 1 hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair 
and ranking minority member of the Committee on Education and the 
Workforce or their designees and provides for one motion to recommit.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the rule and in support of 
the underlying bills.
  Today, the Republican majority is holding the Biden administration 
accountable. The American people sent the Republican majority to 
Washington to exercise a moderating influence on the executive branch 
and as a

[[Page H925]]

check against President Biden and the Democrats' worst policy impulses.
  Mr. Speaker, over the past 2 years, the American people have been at 
the mercy of President Biden's and the Democrats' reckless tax-and-
spend agenda. Having survived those 2 long years, the American public 
could not stomach 2 more years of unified Democratic control in 
Washington, so this past November, American voters elected a Republican 
majority in the people's House to address the people's business.
  Instead of devoting all of their time and effort to service 
industries and projects favored by Democratic consultants, the green 
lobby, and woke political activists, Republicans are working at 
breakneck pace to address the issues that the American people actually 
care about: protecting the retirement savings of hardworking Americans 
from Green New Deal radicals. The House GOP is the last line of defense 
between the American people and President Biden's inflationary agenda.
  Mr. Speaker, I also commend Mr. Barr for introducing H.J. Res. 30 so 
we can bring this important piece of legislation to the floor today. 
Without his leadership on this issue, pensioners and retirees would be 
defenseless against the designs and machinations of a loud but vocal 
minority planning to conscript the retirement savings of retirees and 
American workers to pursue an investment agenda that is not founded on 
a fiduciary responsibility to maximize a return on investment.
  Democrats understand that their Green New Deal agenda is politically 
toxic as far as the American public is concerned. They know that their 
radical energy agenda has been exposed and laid bare to the American 
people. For that reason, they have orchestrated and overseen a 
coordinated campaign to capture the boardrooms and the pension funds, 
seeking to implement the change that they simply could not achieve at 
the ballot box.
  What Democrats are trying to achieve would be more intellectually and 
morally defensible if they had the courage to bring these measures to 
the floor for a vote in the people's House. In fact, the Democrats 
could not take that risk, Mr. Speaker. It would be a highly 
embarrassing spectacle exposing their woke, ESG agenda as toxic to the 
American public. Instead, Democrats and their radical environmental NGO 
allies will continue to work in the shadows, strong-arming and 
intimidating corporations and investors alike, using any means 
necessary to conscript the life savings of pensioners and retirees to 
implement a dangerous and illiberal investment strategy centered not on 
the welfare of retirees but on their favorite pet political projects.
  In addition to this being an unwise and undemocratic investment 
strategy, Mr. Speaker, if this investment strategy is allowed to 
metastasize, the traditional energy sources that heat our homes, clean 
our drinking water, and power our electrical grid will be seriously 
placed in jeopardy.
  This isn't hypothetical, Mr. Speaker. Democratic policies are pushing 
our electrical grid to the brink. Reliable baseload generation sources 
are being phased out at a dizzying pace. The traditional energy 
projects that make the comforts of modern life possible are being 
prematurely marked for closure, not because they are uneconomical but 
because they run counter to the Democrats' crusade against fossil 
fuels.

                              {time}  1215

  In my native Texas, Mr. Speaker, I am in communication with capital 
market professionals who inform me that their firms will no longer 
invest in energy projects that provide dispatchable and reliable power 
to the electrical grid; not because these projects are undeserving or 
won't deliver a return on investment, but for fear of being named by 
Democrats and their corporate allies for being insufficiently committed 
to their radical environmental agenda.
  I am reminded of the passage from the Gospel of Matthew, Mr. Speaker: 
``You will know them by their fruits.''
  Democrats are once again looking to conscript the life savings of 
pensioners and retirees in this Green New Deal agenda.
  Mr. Speaker, this is the deleterious downstream effect of the 
Democrats' Green New Deal and their moral panic. It is jeopardizing the 
health and well-being of American citizens in pursuit of a disturbing, 
dogmatic energy agenda that is myopically focused on potential 
environmental impacts rather than the flourishing and prosperity of all 
Americans.
  Mr. Speaker, the conventional wisdom would suggest that President 
Biden and his Democrat allies in the House would step back and reassess 
their policies after having lost their majority in November.
  One could be forgiven for thinking that having been humbled at the 
ballot box, Democrats would benefit from reflection and introspection 
to try to understand why American voters rejected their policies so 
thoroughly in the midterm elections.
  Unfortunately for the American people, President Biden and House 
Democrats have doubled down on their inflationary and unpopular agenda 
all in the wake of November's election.
  Instead of triangulating and trying to better align themselves with 
the priorities of everyday Americans, the Biden administration has 
continued this barrage of unpopular executive orders. From trying to 
cancel student loan debt to increasing household costs for American 
families through increased energy and food costs, Democrats and 
President Biden have demonstrated once again they are simply out of 
step with the American public.
  This is why Republicans are united in holding the Biden 
administration accountable for their reckless economic policies that 
seek to supercharge and further embed inflation into the American 
economy. The Republican majority is proud to bring to the floor H.R. 
347, the REIN IN Act, which would mandate that the Biden administration 
undertake and produce a report for any major executive order that it 
issues that would detail the inflationary impact of said executive 
action.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Burgess) for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself 
such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I congratulate our Republican colleagues on finally 
releasing their big plan to end inflation. What a day.
  We have all been home for 2 weeks. We know inflation is a big 
problem. We hear about it at the supermarket. We see it in our 
communities. It is a global problem impacting every single country.
  Now over the last 2 years, Democrats here in the House, alongside 
President Biden, have taken aggressive action to fight inflation and 
lower prices, and at every step Republicans have voted ``no,'' ``no,'' 
``no.''
  At every step, they have boasted about their own alternative 
comprehensive plan to stop inflation in its tracks. It has got to be 
big. It has got to be really big; can't wait to read it. Wow, wait 
until you hear about the Republican plan to stop inflation in its 
tracks.
  Forgive me if I am confused today, because after months of waiting 
with bated breath, after all your announcements and after all your 
press releases and all your tweets about inflation, we finally find out 
what your big plan to stop inflation really is, your big bill to 
address the American people's number one concern.
  It is a report. More government paperwork. Great.
  I mean, will people be able to print out the report and trade it in 
for cheaper gas or lower food prices? Because unless they can, and I am 
not an economist here, but I don't think this is going to make a 
difference.
  The bill, and I hesitate to call it a bill, because it might as well 
be a tweet or a press release, does nothing. Maybe it should be an 
amendment to an actual bill that fights inflation--just a suggestion. 
Don't try to pass this off as a real plan. Don't pretend this actually 
does anything.
  I am embarrassed. I am embarrassed for my Republican colleagues, to 
be honest.
  Mr. Speaker, it took 2 years to put this together?
  The number one issue for the American people and this is what they 
come up with?
  A book report on inflation.
  It reminds me of the time last year when they tried to solve crime 
with a report. This is what happens when you

[[Page H926]]

try to write a bill for Twitter instead of a bill that actually helps 
everyday people.
  The audacity, the sheer audacity of saying all this inflation was 
caused by President Biden when the guy before him added nearly $8 
trillion to the national debt, when the guy before him presided over a 
39 percent increase in the national debt, when the guy before him 
accumulated 25 percent of the total debt in American history. The 
hypocrisy is incredible.
  Now, just contrast that with what Democrats did to rein in inflation 
and lower costs for people.
  Democrats capped insulin at $35 per month.
  Democrats reduced the price of prescription drugs for seniors.
  Democrats, for the first time in history, are making sure that Big 
Pharma faces penalties for raising their prices faster than inflation.
  Democrats are saving families money with special tax credits for 
making good investments--all things that Republicans voted against.

  Mr. Speaker, 100 percent of Republicans voted against reducing drug 
prices; 100 percent of them voted against cheaper insulin for our 
senior citizens; 100 percent of them voted against lower gas prices.
  I guess we could give them some credit because only 95 percent of 
them voted against lower food prices.
  Hear me out here. Maybe Republicans don't want to solve inflation. 
Maybe they know that addressing inflation takes on greedy CEOs, Big 
Oil, and billionaire corporations. Maybe they know it means standing up 
to Putin, who is driving up energy prices with his war in Ukraine.
  Maybe Republicans are too scared to fight inflation, but Democrats 
are ready to go to bat against corporate greed, because we stand with 
everyday families who are being hurt by rising costs.
  Today, Leader Jeffries is introducing the PRO Act, a bill empowering 
workers to unionize and hold their employers accountable for improper 
work practices. Because while Republicans continue standing with the 
billionaire corporations responsible for price gouging, Democrats stand 
with workers hurt by inflation. We support their right to organize for 
better wages.
  Instead of wasting time writing a bill that only requires a book 
report on inflation, we spent the last 2 years taking action to 
actually stop inflation in the long term by bringing jobs and 
manufacturing back to America.
  Democrats secured over $300 billion in investments in U.S. 
manufacturing to move supply chains back to America.
  We voted to lower food and fuel prices, made the most robust updates 
in 70 years to the Buy American Act to boost domestic manufacturing, 
and after the Ocean Shipping Reform Act to cut costs for American 
families and bring down shipping prices, oversaw the largest 1-year 
decrease in the Federal deficit in American history. That is the 
Democratic record.
  Now, we don't claim its perfect. Prices are still too high. Inflation 
is hurting people. I know it. Joe Biden knows it. Democratic leadership 
knows it. So there is a difference here. There is a difference here, 
and it is a big one.
  Democrats are fighting for the families being hurt by inflation and 
taking on the greedy corporations who are driving prices up. And 
Republicans, their solution is to blame Democrats, blame Biden, and 
write a book report.
  Now, I guess when you have no plans, when you have no real ideas, you 
will do anything to say you did something. That is all this is: a 
talking point, a press release, and a total waste of time. Apparently, 
the bar is on the ground for this new House majority, and it is a real 
shame.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will 
offer an amendment to the rule to provide for consideration of a 
resolution that affirms the House's unwavering commitment to protect 
and strengthen Social Security and Medicare and states that it is the 
position of the House to reject any cuts to the programs.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my 
amendment into the Record along with any extraneous material 
immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Massachusetts?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, Social Security and Medicare are the 
bedrock of our Nation's social safety net. Yet, as many of my 
Republican colleagues demand reckless cuts in exchange for paying our 
Nation's bills, these programs are under threat.
  Despite recent rhetoric to the contrary, Republicans claim that they 
won't cut Social Security and Medicare benefits.
  Well, Mr. Speaker, today, Democrats are giving Republicans a chance 
to back up that claim with action by providing them a chance to 
reassure the American people not just with their words, but with their 
votes.
  Today, they can vote unequivocally that they won't cut these vital 
programs. Anything short of that is an empty promise.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I have no further speakers, and I reserve 
the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, it is interesting that none of my fellow 
Republican colleagues want to come down and join in with my colleague 
from Texas to talk about how great this bill is to fight inflation. I 
would be embarrassed to be here defending this measure, as well.
  Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record an article from The Washington 
Post titled, ``What should the White House do to combat inflation? 
Experts weighed in with 12 ideas.

               [From the Washington Post, Jan. 26, 2022]

What Should the White House Do To Combat Inflation? Experts Weighed in 
                             With 12 Ideas

                   (By Jeff Stein and Rachel Siegel)

       The United States is experiencing its most dramatic burst 
     of inflation in four decades, as rising prices hit nearly 
     every sector of the economy and create new political hurdles 
     for the Biden administration.
       As the country frets over inflation and the administration 
     weighs how to react, The Washington Post asked independent 
     experts from across the ideological spectrum how they would 
     respond if they controlled the White House.
       Their 12 ideas include using antitrust to break up large 
     corporations, relaxing the trade war with China, and 
     massively scaling up U.S. manufacturing production, among 
     other proposals. Some of the experts blamed President Biden 
     for increasing economic demand, while others insisted that 
     concerns about inflation have been overblown. The proposals 
     are not meant as exhaustive, and many of these economists 
     support each other's ideas.


                     1: make america produce again

     We can once again make the United States the world's workshop 
         for democracy

                         (By Robert C. Hockett)

       It should have been obvious even in February 2020 that the 
     coronavirus was going to present the American economy with 
     both demand-side and supply-side challenges. It should 
     therefore also have been obvious that measures to boost 
     demand with government programs--such as stimulus checks and 
     unemployment benefits--would fuel inflationary pressures if 
     not accompanied by measures to boost supply and the 
     availability of goods and products.
       Almost two years after our pandemic began, policymakers are 
     now finally talking about supply chains, as they should have 
     done early in 2020. But thus far they are talking almost 
     solely about improving the domestic transport links in those 
     chains--not the production of what is being consumed.
       Attention to truck routes, warehouses and loading docks is 
     helpful, but it isn't nearly enough in our present 
     environment--not in a world where we needlessly import so 
     much of what we used to produce.
       This presents all of us with a grand opportunity now--to 
     reverse inflation in a manner that restores American 
     production and world leadership in the industries of today 
     and tomorrow. We can, in other words, make our war on 
     inflation a war on national decline.
       For instance, America invented the semiconductor industry 
     and then globally dominated it for decades until the turn of 
     the millennium. Yet since we relinquished our lead over 
     microchips to insecure sources such as China and Taiwan, the 
     importance of this ubiquitous input to all modern products 
     has only grown. That is why so many supply shortage stories 
     we read about now--from autos to homes to appliances--boil 
     down to chip shortage stories.
       Next, consider electric vehicles and their lithium-ion 
     batteries, as well as other related forms of high-capacity 
     power storage, such as the big battery packs used by power 
     generation stations nationwide. Here, too, production lines 
     are bottlenecked, slowing

[[Page H927]]

     product availability, lengthening product waitlists and 
     raising product prices.
       Similar stories to these can be told about solar power 
     cells; hydrogen fuel cells; steel, concrete and other housing 
     materials; essential medical equipment; affordable cutting-
     edge pharmaceuticals; rare-earth metals; and a host of other 
     essential inputs to modern life. If we want to end inflation 
     and reclaim the mantle of ``workshop of the free world'' in 
     one stroke, there can be no better way forward than to invest 
     massively in restoring U.S. productive prowess.
       It can be done. When Nazi Germany rolled over France in but 
     six weeks in 1940, President Franklin D. Roosevelt demanded 
     that our aircraft industry, which had produced just over 
     3,000 planes the previous year, produce at least 50,000 
     planes that year. Roosevelt then directly set about building 
     the factories, in consultation with public officials and 
     private-sector industries, to produce U.S. planes, ships, 
     tanks, trucks, munitions, synthetic rubber and other 
     materiel. The government then cheaply leased these facilities 
     to manufacturers with plausible production plans, selling 
     them once the war had been won.
       Roosevelt also built entire neighborhoods for workers 
     wishing to move near the new factories, schools for their 
     children, clinics for their health and power lines for their 
     domestic needs, making the United States the world's 
     ``arsenal of democracy.''
       This massive expansion provided the productive foundation 
     for America's global economic leadership from the end of the 
     war to the late 1970s. We lost that edge only when we began 
     massively ``outsourcing'' in the 1980s and 1990s.
       We have all the tools Roosevelt had. The president and 
     White House Cabinet, in consultation with experts from 
     industry, should plan a national reindustrialization across 
     industries in every region of the country, and the Federal 
     Financing Bank within Treasury can fund projects devised by 
     all relevant federal agencies.
       We can once again make the United States the world's 
     workshop for democracy. That will reverse not only inflation, 
     but also four decades of decline.
       --Robert C. Hockett is a law professor at Cornell Law 
     School.


                          2: stop the spending

     This surge in spending is a key driver of other prices

                            (By Brian Riedl)

       A year ago, the Federal Reserve forecast that inflation 
     would increase by 1.8 percent in 2021. Instead, consumer 
     prices jumped 7 percent--the highest rate since 1982. Some of 
     this unanticipated inflation was driven by knotty issues such 
     as supply chain disruptions, rising energy prices, and shifts 
     in demand to sectors with less capacity to maintain low 
     prices.
       Yet Washington poured gasoline on this fire by enacting the 
     $1.9 trillion American Rescue Plan in March. This surge in 
     spending is a key driver of higher prices faced by consumers. 
     To combat it, lawmakers should begin paring back portions of 
     the remaining $500 billion in scheduled spending from the 
     rescue plan, put Biden's Build Back Better legislation on the 
     back burner and resist new spending sprees.
       The critics of Biden's rescue plan were ignored, mocked--
     and ultimately vindicated. A year ago, the Congressional 
     Budget Office estimated that the baseline economy would 
     operate $420 billion below capacity in 2021, and then 
     gradually close that output gap by 2025. Biden and 
     congressional Democrats--believing that the Great Recession 
     had been unnecessarily lengthened by insufficient stimulus--
     overlearned their lesson and decided to shoot a $1.9 trillion 
     bazooka at a $420 billion output gap.
       The problem is that once America's output capacity taps 
     out, any additional stimulus will simply bring inflation 
     rather than additional production--especially when financed 
     in part by Federal Reserve bond purchases. Economists on the 
     left and right warned lawmakers that ARP would accelerate 
     inflation, with top Clinton and Obama White House economist 
     Lawrence Summers leading the charge.
       With the word ``trillion'' becoming commonplace, it is easy 
     to downplay the sheer size of the American Rescue Plan. It is 
     the most expensive spending law of the past 50 years, 
     including the Cares Act approved under President Donald 
     Trump.
       In its first seven months, ARP spent $1.2 trillion--which 
     exceeds the entire cost of the 2017 tax cuts from their 
     enactment through the same late 2021 date. All this spending 
     is on top of the December 2020 stimulus bill that poured in 
     $900 billion.
       The inflation damage created by Biden's stimulus would be 
     more justifiable if it was necessary to end the pandemic. 
     However, just 1 percent of its cost went toward vaccines and 
     5 percent had any direct relation to health care. Instead, 
     the law gave state and local governments $350 billion for 
     budget deficits that did not exist. Schools received $129 
     billion even as they sat on $50 billion in unused relief 
     funds from earlier emergency bills. The unemployment bonuses 
     were so large and self-defeating that 26 states took the rare 
     step of refusing federal assistance and canceling the bonuses 
     before they expired. Even the popular relief checks--which, 
     combined with earlier checks, amounted to $11,400 for a 
     typical family of four--contributed to the very inflation 
     that ultimately eroded their value.
       Moving forward, combating inflation requires addressing 
     supply chains, reducing tariffs and gradually tightening 
     Federal Reserve policy. Yet it makes no sense to push one 
     foot on the gas and one foot on the brake. Lawmakers should 
     explore options to pare back the $500 billion in scheduled 
     ARP spending, such as rescinding extraneous assistance to K-
     12 education, businesses and private pension bailouts. They 
     should also reject BBB legislation that would spend trillions 
     more upfront, yet delays many of its disinflationary taxes 
     until later years. BBB's subsidies and regulations would also 
     drive drastic price increases in child care, and thus should 
     be rejected.
       --Brian Riedl is a senior fellow at the Manhattan 
     Institute.


                     3: Control the covid pandemic

     `Covid's fingerprints on inflation are unmistakable`

                           (By Claudia Sahm)

       Consumer prices rose 7 percent in 2021--the fastest pace in 
     40 years--and covid deaths doubled to more than 800,000. 
     These two facts are bound together. The solution to today's 
     high inflation, as with labor shortages and supply chain 
     disruptions, is clear: Contain the pandemic.
       Federal Reserve Chair Jerome H. Powell agrees. Asked at his 
     reconfirmation hearing by Sen. Catherine Cortez Masto (D-
     Nev.) if he believes containing the pandemic is the best way 
     to fight inflation, Powell said: ``I do. And imagine a world 
     in which we no longer have to deal with the pandemic. . . . . 
     We would quickly see the supply-side problems alleviate. We'd 
     probably see significantly more labor supply. So these issues 
     are still related to the pandemic.''
       The data supports Powell and experts like me who focus on 
     covid. As one example, economists at the Federal Reserve Bank 
     of San Francisco estimate that the price increases in the 
     spending categories most sensitive to covid disruptions 
     accounted for about half of the total inflation (excluding 
     food and energy) before the pandemic. Now they account for 
     three-quarters of it. Of course, what's pandemic-related and 
     what's not is impossible to know for certain. But covid's 
     fingerprints on inflation are unmistakable.
       We do not have a monetary policy crisis. We have a covid 
     crisis. In fact, up to this point, fiscal and monetary policy 
     have been a relatively bright spot in the pandemic and 
     notably better than after the Great Recession. Yes, inflation 
     is high. Consumer spending, even with the higher prices, is 
     strong. The unemployment rate dropped below 4 percent in 
     December, less than two years after the recession began. 
     Overall, the economy is moving rapidly in the right 
     direction. But the pandemic is moving rapidly in the wrong 
     direction with the omicron variant.
       To fight inflation, the Biden White House must end the 
     pandemic. The goals the administration set in January 2021, 
     including ``expanding masking, testing, treatment, data, 
     workforce and clear public health standards'' and 
     ``protect[ing] those most at risk,'' are the right ones. 
     Julia Raifman, a public health professor at Boston 
     University, argues: ``That's what we need to do now that will 
     help us navigate our way out of this pandemic. If we don't 
     have that, we will continue to have the virus manage us.'' 
     High inflation and labor shortages will continue too.
       The White House must use all its influence to push business 
     leaders, community organizers, members of Congress, governors 
     and mayors across the political spectrum to join in these 
     public health efforts. Instead, administration officials used 
     their bully pulpit to bust a strike by the Chicago teachers 
     union over a lack of coronavirus protections, saying that 
     they ``do not believe people should be sitting at home'' and 
     should go to unsafe workplaces. That won't solve our economic 
     problems, but it will kill people.
       The Fed is not ``behind the curve'' in fighting inflation. 
     It's the White House that's behind on ``bending the curve'' 
     of covid cases, and it's falling further behind every day.
       --Claudia Sahm is the director of macroeconomic research at 
     the Jain Family Institute.


                        4: Invest in child care

     Child-care policies `can boost the capacity, productivity and 
         the potential of our economy'

                          (By Lauren Melodia)

        Although the unemployment rate is falling faster than 
     expected, the pandemic continues to fundamentally disrupt our 
     economy. Many people are choosing to remain out of the labor 
     market altogether until public health conditions and 
     disruptions subside, which in turn limits productive capacity 
     and can raise prices. One policy that could address many of 
     these issues across sectors at once has already passed the 
     House and is waiting for Senate action: public investment in 
     our child-care system.
       Child care is the backbone of our economy and can enable 
     all parents--who historically have some of the highest labor 
     force participation rates across all genders, races and 
     education levels--to get and keep a job. But as of 2018, many 
     communities across the country are child-care deserts--a 
     result of our nation's complex history of underfunding, 
     undervaluing and under-compensating care work and women's 
     labor more broadly.
       The covid pandemic has further decimated this 
     infrastructure. As of this time last year, 20,000 child-care 
     providers were estimated to have permanently shut down. And 
     yet ample evidence exists that access to even part-time day 
     care and preschool programming has a

[[Page H928]]

     dramatic impact on parents' labor force participation.
       Private markets and existing policies will not solve these 
     problems on their own, for many reasons.
       First, America's historical and continued reliance on 
     unpaid care workers drives women's wages down throughout the 
     economy. This is one of the major dynamics of the gender pay 
     gap and makes the choice of paying for child care 
     unaffordable for many families. Because care work 
     traditionally done by women is unpaid, women are undervalued 
     in the labor market--where they make 83 cents on the dollar 
     to men. That disincentivizes them from entering the labor 
     market. What results is a cycle in which women are unable to 
     secure jobs that allow them to pay for the cost of child 
     care, which in turn keeps the pay for child-care providers 
     low.
       Second, because of this dynamic, the child-care industry is 
     built around low wages and thin, unsustainable profits that 
     have contributed to the failure of the market to deliver a 
     greater supply of child-care centers to meet demand.
       Lastly, the government's existing consumer subsidies 
     program, while making child care more affordable for many, 
     has not resulted in the growth of the supply of child care. A 
     2021 Government Accountability Office report found that 78 
     percent of families eligible for child-care subsidies do not 
     use them, often because there are no available spaces at 
     local child-care facilities or because they live in a child-
     care desert.
       By making supply-side child-care investments--building new 
     child-care centers; offering loans and grants to existing or 
     recently closed small-business child-care providers; and 
     offering universal pre-K--we could both enable parents to 
     reenter the workforce and create new jobs in child care. 
     Those new jobs would disproportionately go to Black and Brown 
     women, who have been hit hardest by the pandemic and are 
     still suffering from some of the lowest employment rates. 
     Black women, who historically have some of the highest labor 
     force participation rates in the country, currently 
     experience the largest gap (3.5 percent) in their employment 
     rate, comparing December 2021 with pre-pandemic levels.
       Many of these policies were passed by the House in the 
     Build Back Better Act and are now on the table in the Senate. 
     And once they are passed and implemented, we can boost the 
     capacity, productivity and the potential of our economy and 
     reduce future economic disruptions--all of which can be 
     deflationary and stabilizing.
       Insofar as today's inflation--or the fear of future 
     inflation--is linked to labor market tightness or dynamics, 
     investment in child care is critical for minimizing ongoing 
     disruptions and expanding people's ability to work across all 
     industries in our economy.
       --Lauren Melodia is the deputy director of macroeconomic 
     analysis at the Roosevelt Institute.


                        5: Tax wealthy investors

     The richest 10 percent consume as much as the bottom 40 
         percent combined

                          (By William Spriggs)

       The economy proved far less resilient to the shock of the 
     global coronavirus crisis than most people had expected. We 
     need to focus on measures that increase the supply of goods 
     and target price inflation--particularly in markets where 
     inequality is helping drive prices--rather than taking 
     measures that would destroy jobs and weaken growth. One way 
     to do so would be to raise capital gains taxes on investors 
     and levy new taxes on income from stock dividends.
       Consumption in America is currently extraordinarily ``top-
     heavy,'' meaning the wealthy consume far more than most 
     people. In fact, the richest 10 percent consume as much as 
     the bottom 40 percent combined, according to the Bureau of 
     Labor Statistics. Instead of taking measures that would hurt 
     growth and cost jobs, policymakers could temper demand amid 
     massive supply chain disruptions by slowing down the 
     consumption of those at the very top with modest taxes on the 
     rich.
       A tax on short-term capital gains and dividends would 
     disproportionately target wealthy Americans who are currently 
     responsible for very high demand. This would alleviate the 
     pressures on the supply chain without leading to a broader 
     economic slowdown. Encouraging longer-term savings--and 
     having companies retain earnings--will keep balance sheets 
     strong and result in investments that can help the economy 
     become more resilient.
       It's worth stressing the potential danger of alternative 
     approaches. Using the blunt instrument of raising interest 
     rates, the tool of the Federal Reserve, would be an attempt 
     at price controls. But that mechanism for lowering prices 
     would broadly shrink demand across the income distribution. 
     Lower demand would lower prices, at the cost of even lower 
     production. In the case of automobiles, for instance, that 
     would be disastrous, because the unprecedented spike in used-
     car prices is caused by the collapse in the current auto 
     supply; domestic production in November was at 58 percent of 
     its February 2020 level. We do not want to solve inflation by 
     starving the economy and causing production to plummet.
       Policymakers should remember that inflationary trends are 
     caused in part by numerous factors outside higher demand, and 
     we need to be careful if we are attempting to tame it. We 
     have seen a rapid recovery in demand for consumer goods, but 
     weak demand for services. This switch in consumption has 
     helped protect employment by facilitating the movement of 
     workers forced out of the service sector, but it comes with 
     higher prices for some goods. In addition to exacting a 
     devastating human toll, the lack of protections for workers 
     has led to millions getting sick, creating disruptions that 
     lead to supply shocks that drive up prices. And it's not 
     clear exactly how broad-based inflation is. For instance, 
     rental costs have been relatively stable--well within the 
     Federal Reserve's target level for inflation--in another sign 
     that price pressures have more to do with supply shocks and 
     demand shifts than an overheating economy.

  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, maybe my friends on the other side of the 
aisle should take a look at this article. While I don't agree with all 
the ideas in here, at least this article has actual ideas to bring down 
inflation, instead of the Republican plan to write a book report on 
inflation to Congress.
  Mr. Speaker, all I can say is that the American people deserve 
better. They deserve more than a book report. They deserve action that 
will make a positive difference in their lives.
  I encourage my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this rule and vote ``no'' 
on the underlying bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record an article from The Hill titled, 
``Five actions Biden has taken in response to high gas prices.''

                     [From The Hill, Apr. 22, 2022]

      Five Actions Biden has Taken in Response to High Gas Prices

                            (By Zack Budryk)

       Gas prices are both a top concern for American consumers 
     and a consistent drag on President Biden's approval rating, 
     prompting the administration to take several measures to 
     counter pain at the pump.
       An ABC News/Ipsos poll in March indicated widespread 
     approval for the president's decision to ban oil imports from 
     Russia over its invasion of Ukraine, which Biden has warned 
     could exacerbate energy costs. However, the same poll 
     indicated 70 percent of respondents disapprove of Biden's 
     handling of gas prices.
       A number of factors impact gas prices, and experts note 
     many of them are outside the White House's control. Still, 
     the administration has taken several steps in hopes of 
     providing some temporary or near-term relief.
       Here are five actions the Biden administration has taken so 
     far on gas prices:


              1. Releasing oil from the strategist reserve

       Biden initially announced a release of 50 million barrels 
     of oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve in November in 
     response to rising gas prices.
       However, after a further spike around the time of Russia's 
     invasion of Ukraine earlier this year, Biden announced 
     another one-time release of 30 million barrels followed by an 
     average daily release of 1 million barrels over the next six 
     months--or about 180 million barrels overall.
       Biden told reporters in late March that the price of gas 
     ``could come down fairly significantly'' as a result of the 
     move.
       In the days after, gas prices fell about eight cents, 
     according to AAA, although they have since crept up. However, 
     during the same period, some regions of China imposed 
     lockdowns in response to new COVID-19 outbreaks, which 
     reduced overall demand.
       ``This is a wartime bridge to increase oil supply until 
     production ramps up later this year. And it is by far the 
     largest release from our national reserve in our history,'' 
     Biden said as he announced the release. ``It will provide a 
     historic amount of supply for a historic amount of time--a 
     six-month bridge to the fall.''


        2. Removing restrictions on sale of higher-ethanol fuel

       In an executive order last week, Biden removed restrictions 
     on the sale of E15, or fuel that is 15 percent ethanol, 
     between June and September of this year.
       Ethanol-heavy fuel is sold at a limited number of stations 
     concentrated in corn-producing states, and sales are normally 
     restricted during the summer months due to concerns that 
     another mix, E10, could contribute to increased air 
     pollution. Ethanol and renewable fuel industries, however, 
     maintain that tailpipe emissions, rather than fuel 
     volatility, is a bigger contributor to smog, and that E15 is 
     less of a contributor than E10.
       Biden administration officials projected at the time that 
     the availability of E15 could save a family about 10 cents 
     per gallon on average.
       ``This will also help us bridge towards real energy 
     independence and implementing the emergency fuel waiver the 
     [Environmental Protection Agency] EPA will work with states 
     across the country to ensure there are no significant air 
     quality impacts in the summer driving season,'' an official 
     said on a call with reporters. ``EPA is also considering 
     additional action to facilitate the use of E15 year-round, 
     including continued discussions with states who have 
     expressed interest in allowing year-round use of E15.''


         3. Asking oil-producing nations to increase production

       The U.S. has appealed to members of OPEC to step up 
     production and exports to cover demand, including Saudi 
     Arabia in particular.

[[Page H929]]

       However, this plan has encountered difficulties due to the 
     rocky Washington-Riyadh relationship.
       The Biden administration has faced tensions with the Saudis 
     due to America's vocal criticism of the Gulf kingdom's human 
     rights record, particularly the Yemen civil war and the 2018 
     killing of dissident journalist Jamal Khashoggi.
       Meanwhile, human rights advocates have called it 
     inconsistent to seek closer ties with Saudi Arabia while 
     seeking to isolate Russia over its invasion of Ukraine.
       ``I hate that the Biden administration has to figure out 
     how to leverage our relationship with Saudi Arabia to get 
     them to do that so that my constituents aren't being squeezed 
     at the pump,'' Rep. Tom Malinowski (D-N.J.) told reporters in 
     March.
       Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, who numerous 
     intelligence agencies have concluded ordered Khashoggi's 
     killing, reportedly refused a call from Biden soon after the 
     Russian invasion. White House press secretary Jen Psaki has 
     denied the report.


                    4. Pressuring U.S. oil companies

       Republicans have vocally blamed the Biden administration's 
     energy policies, in particular an executive order freezing 
     new oil and gas leasing on public lands, for gas prices and 
     insufficient supply.
       That pause has been in limbo since a court order halting it 
     last summer, and the Biden administration last Friday 
     officially announced a forthcoming lease sale.
       In the meantime, however, the administration has sought to 
     shift the blame to oil companies and accused them of gouging 
     customers, pointing to the industry's numerous currently 
     unused leases, which include some 9,000 approved drilling 
     permits.
       Biden has called for Congress to enact a ``use it or lose 
     it'' policy that would impose fees on companies that do not 
     make use of their leased land.
       ``I have no problem with corporations turning a good 
     profit. But companies have an obligation that goes beyond 
     just their shareholders to their customers, their communities 
     and their country,'' Biden told reporters in late March. ``No 
     American company should take advantage of a pandemic or 
     [Russian President] Vladimir Putin's actions to enrich 
     themselves at the expense of American families.''


            5. Promoting the transition to renewable energy

       Amid concrete steps to bring down consumer prices, the 
     Biden administration has emphasized the necessity for 
     increased support and infrastructure for renewable fuels, 
     saying the current market illustrates the need for less 
     volatile resources.
       In a fact sheet distributed to reporters, the 
     administration presented its steps to increase access to 
     clean energy as a key tenet of its response to gas prices.
       Specifically, officials pointed to sales of offshore wind 
     leases, with a goal of 30 gigawatts of offshore wind 
     installed by the end of the decade. Officials further cited 
     the Interior Department's road map this week that sets a 
     target of doubling clean energy permits, with a goal of 25 
     gigawatts installed by 2025.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, President Biden has taken steps to lower 
prices at the pump for the American people. Since prices began to rise, 
President Biden released 50 million barrels of oil from the Strategic 
Petroleum Reserve, removed restrictions on the sale of higher ethanol 
fuel, and called out oil companies for taking advantage of their 
customers, communities, and their country. He also continues to promote 
a transition to renewable energy.
  So President Biden has acted to try to lower prices. My Republican 
colleagues cannot do the same.
  Mr. Speaker, I will say finally that we have some serious challenges 
in this country. Inflation is one of them. The idea that after all the 
buildup, after all the talk of, We have a comprehensive plan to fight 
inflation. This is it? This is it?
  This is an embarrassment, Mr. Speaker. There are things that we can 
do together to lower costs for the American people. A book report 
doesn't lower the cost for anybody.

                              {time}  1230

  By the way, under this bill, the book report that is required for 
executive orders, it is not even required to be published. They could 
write a book report, and no one gets to see it.
  I mean, this is not what the American people had hoped for. They had 
hoped we would come together and kind of rally around ideas that would 
actually make a difference in their lives.
  So, yeah. You can pass this and say, we just passed this big plan to 
fight inflation and then hope that nobody realizes that you did 
nothing.
  I will say, Mr. Speaker, this is a missed opportunity. This was a 
time, quite frankly, where committees of jurisdiction should have come 
together, done hearings, heard ideas, Republican ideas and Democratic 
ideas, and taken the best of them and brought them to the floor; ideas 
that would have made a difference in people's lives. This does nothing. 
This does nothing.
  So I guess you can tweet out that you voted for a book report on 
inflation and hope that your constituents will think that somehow you 
accomplished something big, but I would say that my constituents 
certainly would not be satisfied with this.
  Mr. Speaker, all this talk about bringing down the deficit--and do I 
need to remind everybody that the first Republican bill passed this 
year when we came into the majority, their first bill added $114 
billion to the national debt. I mean, come on.
  Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record an article from The Hill titled, 
``CBO: GOP's IRS bill will add $114 billion to deficit.''

                     [From The Hill, Jan. 9, 2023]

             CBO: GOP's IRS Bill Will Add $114B to Deficit

                    (By Mike Lillis and Aris Folley)

       The Republican proposal to eliminate billions of dollars in 
     IRS funding will pile more than $100 billion onto federal 
     deficits, according to a new estimate from Congress's 
     official budget scorekeeper.
       The bill, which is slated to hit the House floor Monday 
     night as the first legislative act of the new GOP majority, 
     would claw back most of the almost $80 billion in new IRS 
     funding provided under the Democrats' massive climate, health 
     and tax package, which was signed by President Biden last 
     year.
       Almost $46 billion of that spending would go toward agency 
     enforcement efforts designed to prevent certain taxpayers--
     largely corporations and wealthy individuals--from paying 
     less than they owe.
       The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimated Monday that 
     the legislation would cut federal spending by $71 billion, 
     but would reduce tax revenue to the tune of almost $186 
     billion. The net effect would be a $114 billion increase in 
     deficits over the next decade.
       The numbers were not overlooked by Democrats, who wasted no 
     time hammering Republicans for vowing to rein in deficit 
     spending, then defying that promise in their first act of 
     business.
       ``It's a giant tax cut for rich tax cheats,'' White House 
     chief of staff Ron Klain tweeted on Monday. ``Bill #1 from 
     the new House GOP. Adds to the deficit.''
       Republicans had made the IRS funding cut a top promise on 
     the midterm campaign trail, warning that the money would lead 
     to the hiring of 87,000 new tax collectors to target middle-
     income Americans. Some Republicans said those agents would be 
     armed.
       Those claims were highly misleading, however, as much of 
     the funding will go to hire thousands of customer service 
     agents and other employees with no auditing responsibilities. 
     And the 87,000 figure is a reference to the total number of 
     employees--not just auditors--the IRS hopes to hire over the 
     next decade, when 52,000 workers are expected to retire.
       Additionally, Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen has said 
     that, while the new funding is crucial to streamline 
     processing and eliminate the backlog of returns, the agency 
     will not increase audit rates for those taxpayers making less 
     than $400,000.
       Still, few government agencies are less popular than the 
     IRS, and the Republican message appeared to resonate with the 
     GOP base.
       ``On our very first bill, we're going to repeal 87,000 IRS 
     agents,'' Rep. Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.), who was newly 
     elected as Speaker, said last year as he unveiled the 
     Republicans' agenda. ``Our job is to work for you, not go 
     after you.''
       Zach Moller, who previously worked as a Senate Democratic 
     budget aide, says the GOP's bill would violate previous House 
     rules targeting legislation that would add to the deficit, 
     known as PAYGO, that were in effect when Democrats held 
     control.
       Under the prior rules, Moller explained, it wouldn't be in 
     order for lawmakers to ``have a bill on the floor that 
     increases the deficit over the first five or seven or first 
     10 years.'' The PAYGO rules were often waived, but aimed at 
     fiscal responsibility, Moller said.
       The Republican majority is expected on Monday to pass a new 
     set of rules governing the new Congress, to include a so-
     called ``CUTGO'' rule that exempts tax cuts from the deficit 
     spending prohibitions.
  Mr. McGOVERN. So anyway, look, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on 
the previous question, and again, I want to repeat that.
  The reason why you want to vote ``no'' is because the previous 
question basically would allow us to bring up an amendment that 
basically says it is not the intention of this House to do anything to 
cut Social Security or Medicare.
  My friends, they are all upset, notwithstanding their rhetoric, that 
they want to go after Social Security and Medicare.
  Yeah, they were all upset that they were being called out on their 
words. Well, here is an opportunity to put

[[Page H930]]

that to rest; very, very simple. We are not going to cut Social 
Security. We are not going to cut Medicare.
  So if you vote ``no'' on the previous question, we can do that. I 
urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this rule, ``no'' on the 
underlying bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  You know, driving to the airport early Monday morning on the way back 
up here for another week in Washington, the price of gas was $3 a 
gallon in Texas in February.
  Now, that is bad news because by the time you get to Memorial Day, 
the peak of the summer driving season, gasoline is always a dollar more 
than it is in February.
  So, look. The President was able to bring the price of gas down 
artificially by depleting our emergency reserve, and who does that? Who 
does that?
  Who spends all of their emergency funds and says, ``Good on me. I 
brought the prices down,'' when you didn't do anything to increase the 
supply?
  Now, here is the good news. One of the reasons we aren't surrounded 
by a lot of our colleagues right now on the floor of the House debating 
this rule is because Members, both Democrats and Republicans, are in 
committees, in the committees of jurisdiction, doing the actual work.
  I left a markup from the Energy and Commerce Committee, the 
Subcommittee on Energy, looking at ways to increase our supply of 
energy to do what? To bring down the cost of energy for consumers.
  That seems like a logical thing to do. We see what the 
administration's response was. It was to sign an executive order to 
say, we are going to cut off a pipeline so you can't bring any more 
product into the United States.
  You can't ship that product from Canada down to Port Arthur, Texas, 
and refine it with Texas jobs. No. They cut that off. As a consequence, 
it has to be made up somewhere else.
  The good news is we didn't run out, and there is additional supply. 
There is additional energy to be pumped, harvested certainly in the 
Permian Basin and the Delaware Basin of Texas.
  The good news is that producers, a lot of small and independent 
producers, are doing just that.
  So rather than having to go hat in hand to OPEC or OPEC+--I guess, 
now because they added Russia to OPEC--rather than having to go to a 
dictator in Venezuela, you can buy your oil and gas from the United 
States of America.
  Who is doing that? Well, Germany is doing that. They hastened the 
development of several LNG offshoring plants so that they could bring 
in that Texas product to heat the homes of Germans who have been cut 
off by Vladimir Putin in an attempt to starve Europe for energy during 
the Ukraine war.
  You know, one of these bills that we are debating, the rule that we 
are debating will allow a bill to come to the floor for debate on 
looking into the cost of executive orders.
  I already referenced one of those executive orders; one done on the 
very first day of the Biden administration, which was to negate the 
Keystone pipeline, but there were others.
  The Committee for Responsible Budget actually has calculated a total 
of $1.1 trillion in executive orders in the last 2 years and 2 months 
since this President has taken office.
  Digging into the numbers--and, of course, it will be a big story over 
at the Supreme Court later this week--but the President wants to cancel 
student loan debt; that is $750 billion.
  Shouldn't that be a consequence that is argued in Congress? It is not 
done just through an executive order.
  Look, we wisely rejected a monarchy, and we said we want government 
with the consent of the governed. That means that all of the decisions 
do not flow from 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.
  By virtue of the fact that we have a divided government, the people's 
House is supposed to weigh in on these decisions.
  They are not made unilaterally by the President of the United States, 
which, by definition, is what an executive order is.
  So we have $185 billion in increased staff benefits. Maybe good; 
maybe not. The gentleman from Massachusetts and I agree on programs 
that tackle hunger in this country, but shouldn't we as Members of the 
people's House have the opportunity to debate that rather than the 
decision simply made by one individual down at the other end of 
Pennsylvania Avenue?
  We already talked about the Keystone pipeline. Canceling ANWR. 
Canceling ANWR, the exploration and development of oil in that plain in 
Alaska, which has been--honest Injun.
  If Clinton had not prevented that, if President Clinton had not 
prevented that in 1997, that would be a producing field today that 
would reduce our trade deficit, to be sure.
  So we would be able to produce American energy but also would have 
had a profound effect on the budget because, in fact, Mr. Speaker, you 
will recall it was a budget bill that year where President Clinton then 
blocked the development in the ANWR.
  What about repealing President Trump's rules on the waters of the 
United States and the NEPA streamlining rules?
  All of these things have been done as executive orders since this 
President took office, and the consequence, the fiscal consequence, the 
downstream consequence has been profound.
  So, look. I want to encourage everyone in the House today to support 
these measures when they come to the floor.
  If you want to remake financial markets, you can't do that by 
congressional fiat. You have to have the courage to bring that measure 
to the floor for a vote.
  I would encourage Members additionally to support the REIN IN Act, 
and this measure will act as an important check on the Biden 
administration, forcing President Biden to grapple with the harm that 
his executive orders are inflicting on the long-suffering American 
people.
  Mr. Speaker, Republicans remain united in pursuing legislative 
policies that put the American people at the forefront, put them ahead 
of the special interests, put them ahead of the army of lawyers and 
lobbyists that occupy this town. Let's put the people of America first.
  The text of the material previously referred to by Mr. McGovern is as 
follows:

                   Amendment to House Resolution 166

       At the end of the resolution, add the following:
       Sec. 3. Immediately upon adoption of this resolution, the 
     House shall proceed to the consideration in the House of the 
     resolution (H. Res. 178) affirming the House of 
     Representatives' commitment to protect and strengthen Social 
     Security and Medicare. The resolution shall be considered as 
     read. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on 
     the resolution and preamble to adoption without intervening 
     motion or demand for division of the question except one hour 
     of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and 
     ranking minority member of the Committee on Ways and Means or 
     their respective designees.
       Sec. 4. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the 
     consideration of H. Res. 178.

  Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time and 
move the previous question on the resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous 
question.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further 
proceedings on this question are postponed.

                          ____________________