Protecting American Energy Production Act

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.

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).

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).

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.

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)

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Indiana for yielding me the time, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, it is good to be back on the House floor with the gentlewoman from Indiana. It is great to be with her, and so far, she is allowing me to actually speak and hasn't called for me to be silenced.

The last time we debated, I stated an uncomfortable fact about he who shall not be named and the gentlewoman had me silenced, had my words stricken from the Congressional Record.

You just have to love that, Mr. Speaker. The party of free speech that rails against woke this and cancel culture that, and calls us snowflakes, can't handle it when someone comes down here and tells the truth. They try to silence the people they disagree with. It is really quite stunning.

Here is more of the truth, and let's see if I am allowed to talk this time.

Mr. Speaker, under Republican control, the House of Representatives has become a place where trivial issues get debated passionately and important ones not at all. What we are dealing with today is a bunch of weird, whacky, poorly drafted culture war nonsense.

This is all just a waste of time. These bills aren't going anywhere. It is not even political theater. It is theater of the absurd.

The government shuts down in a few days, and instead of actually working with Democrats to keep the lights on, instead of actually doing something to fix the problems that the American people want us to fix, my Republican friends are doing nothing.

The roof is on fire, and instead of calling 911, they are sweeping the floors. I mean, it is beyond nuts.

Last night in the Rules Committee, during our hearing on this rule, I had some Republican Members telling me they didn't like my tone. They didn't like the fact that I said we don't share the same values.

I am sorry I hurt people's feelings, Mr. Speaker, but the truth is the truth. We don't all believe in the same things. When it comes to my friends on the other side of the aisle in this Chamber, we really don't share the same values. I know many of my friends on the Republican side are nice and good people, but their ideas are not nice and are not good.

Let me just give you a couple of examples.

Democrats want to make sure that our kids go to college and get a good education that prepares them for the workforce, and instead of working with us, Republicans go on and on about woke this and woke that in our schools.

Apparently, anyone who wants to teach facts is woke nowadays. They want colleges to stop being ``woke,'' even though they can't quite define what that even means. It is all political BS, Mr. Speaker.

Here is another example. Democrats actually want an economy that works for everyone, and thanks to the Biden-Harris administration, we are fighting to grow the economy from the bottom up and the middle out, but not Republicans. They are talking about woke economic policies.

I don't even know what they are talking about or what they mean, but do you want to know what people back home talk to me about? They are asking me: Why are Republicans trying to cut taxes for millionaires and billionaires? Why are Republicans trying to go after Social Security and Medicare?

Another example, Mr. Speaker, is that Democrats actually care about strengthening and protecting the Violence Against Women Act, but not Republicans. A majority of their Conference voted against extending the Violence Against Women Act. Let me say that again: A majority of their Conference voted against extending the Violence Against Women Act.

Now, they have the nerve to come down here and talk about violence against women and use it as part of their sick ploy to go after immigrants. Give me a break. Their bill is so poorly written that it could hurt survivors of domestic violence.

I could go right down the list. It is obvious to me that, at some point, the RNC talking points went out to everybody, and those talking points said woke, woke, woke. Now, we have to waste time on this trash.

It is just another week of the GOP circus. As I have said before, calling this a clown show is an insult to actual working clowns.

Most of all, it is an insult to the American people for Republicans to use these hallowed Halls and to spend hours and hours of time this week on these absurd, awful bills. Again, none of them are going anywhere.

The reason to be in Congress is to help people. That means putting people over politics. It means not caving in to the most extreme members of your party. It means getting stuff done, which is a radical idea.

None of these bills, as I said, are going anywhere. Yet, here we are, playing these absurd, ridiculous games.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I enjoyed listening to the chairman of the Rules Committee, but let me just state for the record that nothing he talked about will be at all impacted by any of the stuff that we are talking about here today. None of these bills are going anywhere.

If you want to pass legislation to address some of the issues that were raised, maybe we ought to work in a bipartisan way. Maybe it ought not to be ``my way or the highway.''

These aren't serious pieces of legislation. These are press releases. Let's all be honest with the American people about that. This is not serious legislating. We haven't done serious legislating here in a long time.

Mr. Speaker, I will zoom in a little bit on this Congress in general. I just mentioned that this is the most dysfunctional Congress in history. If anyone wants proof, look no further than this resolution: five more closed rules that allow zero amendments to come to the floor.

Mr. Speaker, for folks who don't know, a closed rule means no amendments. It means: Take it or leave it. If you have a good idea and want to improve a bill, too bad.

This is how they govern in Russia and China, and that is what the Republicans are turning this place into.

With these five closed rules they are bringing to the floor today, Republicans are breaking their own record for shutting down debate. With today's vote, there will be 106 closed rules in this Congress-- 106. This is now officially the most closed Congress in the history of the United States of America.

Mr. Speaker, what gets me is that my friends on the other side have been totally fooled. They were tricked by their own leadership, first by Speaker McCarthy and now Speaker Johnson.

The gentlewoman from Indiana and her colleagues on the Rules Committee were promised a more open process. They were told the Rules Committee was going to be different, more open, would have more regular order and more amendments, and more debate.

Speaker McCarthy was even blackmailed into putting members of the Freedom Caucus on the Rules Committee to guarantee a more open process, but apparently, it didn't matter because he totally broke his promise, and now Speaker Johnson is shredding it.

During the first 9 months under Speaker Johnson, we saw 64 closed rules, even more than the 42 closed rules we saw under Speaker McCarthy. They traded a bad Speaker for an even worse one. Republican leaders have blocked 5,799 amendments from even coming to the floor. Mr. Speaker, 5,799 amendments have been blocked from coming to the floor by the Republican majority.

By the way, they are not just Democratic amendments. They blocked Republican, bipartisan, and Democratic amendments. They blocked an amendment to disrupt the smuggling of U.S. firearms across the Mexican border. They blocked an amendment to combat fentanyl trafficking at ports of entry.

Holy hell, Mr. Speaker, they even blocked my amendment to protect food for seniors who participate in the Meals on Wheels program. They have even blocked over half of their own Republican Members' amendments.

Let me say that again. Most Republican amendments have been blocked by this Congress. These amendments have been prevented from even seeing the light of day or getting a debate on the House floor. There have been 98 amendments that Rules Committee Republicans had either authored or supported that have been blocked by their own majority.

When you are on the Rules Committee, you like to have a little juice, but 98 of your amendments, Republican amendments, have been blocked by your own party. That is almost 100 amendments, and that is just Rules Republicans.

I am sure they would have loved to have had the opportunity to debate their amendments on the floor. If Rules Committee Republicans can't get amendments, how the hell do you think the rest of us are doing?

Republicans said they wanted an open process in this Congress. They want an open process, my foot, Mr. Speaker.

Under this majority, the Rules Committee has become a place where democracy goes to die. Their Members should be outraged with the Speaker and this leadership just as much as Democrats should be. Again, 106 completely closed rules blocked all amendments--a shameful statistic, an all-time authoritarian high set under this Republican majority.

Let's look at the results. Look at what they have to show for it. Republicans had the most unproductive Congress in the history of the United States of America.

Mr. Speaker, 26 days we went without a Speaker because they were fighting with each other. Weeks were wasted with failed rule votes while they argued among themselves instead of negotiating with Democrats.

There were broken promises on the appropriation process where they kicked the can down the road with another failed CR, bringing us to the brink of catastrophic debt default and then asking Democrats to bail them out. Mr. Speaker, 10 months of passing no legislation through the Rules Committee that ever became law.

I congratulate my friends. In addition to being the most incompetent, dysfunctional, unproductive Congress in American history, they now have also presided over the most closed Congress in American history. Well done, well done, and they are not done yet. We have to live through 3 more months of this. God help us.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, again, I reiterate what the gentleman from South Carolina just said. We have different viewpoints and different values.

I am sorry that he feels he lives in a wrecked country. I don't believe that. I think the United States of America is the greatest country on this planet, and I am proud to serve in Congress to try to help the people of this country. I would never refer to this country as a ``wrecked country.''

Again, the gentleman who just spoke, I thought when he was appointed to the Rules Committee, he was appointed to make sure that we had a more open process.

I regret to inform the gentleman that 106 closed rules slipped by him this Congress. I appreciate him standing in the breach.

By the way, when he refers to all the amendments that were rejected as being dumb, 50 percent of them were Republican amendments.

I think 27 of your amendments were denied. I wouldn't classify them as dumb, even though I may disagree with the intent.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to include in the Record a list of the 106 closed rules issued by the Republican majority in the 118th Congress.

Mr. Speaker, beneath all these statistics about closed rules are actual ideas that are being blocked from being debated on the House floor.

These are thoughtful proposals that Members have worked hard to develop, ideas to help actual people, and they deserved a debate in an up-or-down vote.

They are proposals like this: An amendment to disrupt the smuggling of U.S. guns across the Mexico border to help cartels, an amendment authorizing funding for DHS to combat fentanyl trafficking at our ports of entry, and an amendment to prevent cuts to Meals on Wheels.

Those are home-delivered meals to seniors, Mr. Speaker, and that was my amendment, by the way, so I can assure you that it was a very, very good idea.

They even blocked an amendment to provide postpartum mental health information to pregnant students, and that was a Republican amendment.

Mr. Speaker, Republicans haven't just blocked amendments by reporting out closed rules. Their structured rules, the rules that allowed a few amendments, have also continually blocked thoughtful, rule-complied amendments.

They seem especially focused on blocking Democratic ideas from a debate in an up-or-down vote on the floor. A quarter of their structured rules--get this--blocked all Democratic amendments.

Now, let me quickly just list a few ideas that Republicans were either too afraid to debate or couldn't spare 10 minutes for consideration on the House floor: An amendment to protect children from getting asthma; amendments to ensure the regulation of dark money in politics, and to prevent corrupt pay-to-play political donation deals with Federal contractors; and an amendment to provide cancer screenings to Federal firefighters as part of their DOD annual physicals, when we know they are exposed to cancer-causing chemicals as part of their jobs. There is simply no excuse for this, Mr. Speaker.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, after listening to the gentlewoman from Minnesota, I was confused when she said, you don't offer alternatives. That is what amendments are. They are alternative ideas.

I just went through a list of some of the alternatives we wanted to offer dealing with firefighters and cancer screening, dealing with children with asthma, and dealing with making sure senior citizens have adequate access to nutrition. Those are alternatives. Those are ideas.

My friends, unfortunately, are in control of this place, so they get to bring the bills to the Rules Committee.

We try to present alternatives through the amendment process, but here is another alternative. If we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to bring up H.R. 16, the American Dream and Promise Act of 2023.

Mr. Speaker, the bigoted hatred that we are seeing directed at immigrants in Ohio and across the country is sickening. According to research done by the Center for the Study of Hate and Extremism, there has been a rise in conspiracy theories that stigmatize minorities and promote hatred of ethnically diverse communities.

Get this. Politicians' use of bigoted rhetoric can also play a role in hate crime incidents. It is sad, but to be frank, we didn't need researchers to tell us this.

We can see and we can hear it from the Republican Party every single day, and it does a grave disservice to the Dreamers, to TPS holders, and to DACA recipients in this country who only know America as their home.

These are taxpayers, small business owners, educators, and critical parts of our communities. Dreamers were brought to the United States as children through no fault of their own, and it is past time to grant them the pathway to citizenship that they rightly deserve.

Mr. Speaker, let me be clear. There is a lot of work that needs to be done to fix our broken immigration system and secure our border, but unlike the messaging bills before us this week, this is a bill that actually does something, and it is actually bipartisan. It sends the message that we are sick of the vitriol and hate crimes against this community and that we value their many contributions that make this country a better place.

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.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Escobar), a great leader, to discuss our proposal.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Garcia), who will also speak on the importance of defeating the previous question.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

You have got to love when Republicans try to talk tough about immigration reform. I just want to remind my colleagues that one of the most conservative Senators in the United States Senate is from Oklahoma. He wrote a comprehensive immigration reform bill that has some very tough provisions in it. Their standard-bearer, the man who I cannot name on the floor for fear that my words will be taken down, told Republicans to not allow it to come to the floor for debate or a vote.

They would rather have a campaign issue than to solve a problem. I mean, let that sink in. Let that sink in.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to include in the Record an article from the National Institute of Justice titled: ``Undocumented Immigrant Offending Rate Lower Than U.S.-born Citizen Rate.''

Mr. Speaker, all day long, Republicans spout hateful rhetoric about undocumented immigration and crime because they want us to be scared and they want to divide us, but their claims are simply not rooted in truth. In fact, undocumented immigrants are less likely, not more, than U.S.-born citizens to commit crimes, including violent crime.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to include in the Record an article by the CATO Institute titled: ``Sanctuary Jurisdictions in Florida Do Not Have Higher Crime Rates.''

Mr. Speaker, there is no evidence, none, either in Florida or in the rest of the country that sanctuary cities result in more crime. There is none, zero. However, that won't matter to Republicans because they are unmoved by the facts.

Mr. Speaker, earlier I listed some examples of ideas that Republicans blocked from even being considered on the floor. Here are a few more. I just want people to appreciate this.

An amendment that would protect access to IVF for Federal employees, they blocked it.

They blocked an amendment to require a study for Tribal consultations before enactment of an oil and gas bill that could affect their subsistence resources.

An amendment to make critical targeted investments in small-town police departments for the recruitment, retention, mental health support, and training they need to protect themselves and their communities, they blocked that, too.

They blocked an amendment to ensure continued access to emergency care for pregnant servicewomen at military treatment facilities.

Maybe Republicans don't believe in IVF or any of these other ideas, but they can just vote ``no.'' Why block these ideas from even being debated unless they are afraid they would pass?

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I am not prepared to close yet. There may be someone else.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I want to get back to this extraordinary closed House. I just want everybody to appreciate how awful this process is.

Here are yet more examples of ideas that were too scary, too revolutionary, too controversial to even be debated on the House floor, according to this Republican majority:

An amendment to provide grants to organizations that are helping to transition servicemembers to civilian life, including job recruitment training, they blocked that. I mean, what are they thinking? Who does that?

They blocked an amendment to ensure that students with dietary restrictions like lactose intolerance can have an alternative to whole milk at lunch. Is lactose intolerance now woke? I mean, I don't get it. That was blocked.

They blocked an amendment to ensure that a bill wouldn't cause our domestic energy prices to increase.

I ask, again, what is the majority afraid of? I mean, we have our differences. We ought to have substantive debate on the floor and then have votes. I am willing to bet there are some thoughtful Republicans who would support some of these amendments that I mentioned here.

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time I have remaining.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time to close.

We have heard a lot about wokeness here today, but I want to focus on the woke Democratic ideas that Republicans have blocked in this record- breaking closed Congress. I mean, ideas like protecting IVF, fighting fentanyl trafficking, and making sure lactose-intolerant students have something nutritious to drink at lunch. Wow. I mean, that those ideas are woke is crazy.

There have been 106 closed rules. That is a big number, a record- breaking number, but much more important is what that number represents. These ideas and all the other blocked amendments I highlighted would have helped everyday Americans. Is that woke? Is it woke to try and keep kids from getting asthma, to provide job training to veterans? To provide cancer screenings to firefighters, is that woke?

Mr. Speaker, I don't know what my Republican colleagues are afraid of. Maybe they are afraid to vote ``no.'' Maybe they are afraid to vote ``yes.'' This is Congress, Mr. Speaker. We are here to take hard votes. This record-breaking number of closed rules is a disservice to the people the Republicans represent.

Mr. Speaker, while Republicans want to talk about being woke, I wish instead that they would wake the hell up and do the people's business. For example, I don't know, maybe pass a bill to prevent a government shutdown. What we are doing today is merely a political exercise. Their obsession with trying to inject politics and culture wars into everything is getting really old, almost as old as the Presidential nominee.

Let me just say I love this place, and I love all the different things that we have been called on to do. I will just say this, Mr. Speaker: I want everybody to join with me and let's end this. I yield back the balance of my time.

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

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. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.

Mr. Speaker, last night, the Rules Committee met and produced a rule, H. Res. 1455, providing for the House's consideration of seven pieces of legislation.

First, the rule provides for H.R. 3724, the End Woke Higher Education Act, to be considered under a structured rule.

Second, the rule provides for H.R. 4790, the Prioritizing Economic Growth Over Woke Policies Act, under a closed rule.

Third, the rule provides for H.R. 5339, the Protecting Americans' Investments from Woke Policies Act, under a closed rule.

Fourth, the rule provides for H.R. 5179, the Anti-BDS Labeling Act, under a closed rule.

The rule provides for H.R. 7909, the Violence Against Women by Illegal Aliens Act, and H.R. 5717, the No Bailouts for Sanctuary Cities Act.

Mr. Speaker, I support this rule and the underlying legislation, beginning with H.R. 3724, the End Woke Higher Education Act.

As a Member of the Education and the Workforce Committee, we have spent countless hours addressing the serious issues within higher education under the Biden administration, where activism is often prioritized and differing viewpoints are silenced.

These conversations have become increasingly necessary, as we have seen waves of anti-Semitic protests where students are supporting terrorist organizations, and these protests are sweeping the Nation.

Too many institutions of higher education have cowered to the mob of protesters, often compromising the safety and well-being of their students. Freedom of speech is under attack on our campuses nationwide, and it is our students who are paying the price.

This mindset weakens what has historically been the strength of America: free-flowing and open debate at our institutions of learning. We must not let campus activists, woke faculty, and partisan administrators turn post-secondary education into DEI indoctrination camps. Denying speech undermines the very fabric of the Nation and is against everything our Founders intended.

Mr. Speaker, I am glad this legislation includes my Students Bill of Rights Act of 2024, which aims to address the erosion of First Amendment rights faced by students, and provides protections for academic freedom and expression.

Our students should never feel afraid to express their point of view or fear retribution or negative consequences for their future.

This woke mind virus doesn't stop there, which brings me to H.R. 5339, the Protecting American Investments from Woke Policies Act. It protects the retirement savings of workers, retirees, and their families by rolling back woke ESG requirements that have nothing to do with the bottom line.

The bill ensures that financial institutions are focused on maximizing returns in retirement plans rather than advancing the Biden- Harris administration's radical agenda at the expense of American workers. Forcing often underperforming and relatively high-risk investments on our seniors is not what they are asking us to do in this Chamber.

In this spirit, I am glad the bill includes one of my pieces of legislation, the Retirement Proxy Protection Act. The bill ensures that fiduciaries prioritize economic interests of plan beneficiaries when voting on shareholder proposals.

Finally, the rule also provides for consideration of H.R. 4790, a comprehensive bill package targeting unelected bureaucrats.

Time and time again, this administration has prioritized, again, an ESG agenda and initiatives that are against the well-being of workers and American businesses.

Democrat-appointed bureaucrats are attempting to use regulation to create climate and social policy in our financial markets, ultimately raising costs and limiting growth.

This legislation aims to stop unnecessary political reporting requirements for companies, make Federal regulators more transparent, and reduce the SEC's power over shareholders.

I am proud that another one of my bills, the No Expensive, Stifling Governance Act, or No ESG Act, is included as part of this package.

I will also touch on a bill brought forward by the gentleman from New York (Mr. LaLota), my friend, H.R. 5717, the No Bailout for Sanctuary Cities Act.

I am proud to be a cosponsor of this bill. Despite the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 clearly stating that no restrictions can be placed on communication between local or State authorities and Federal immigration officials about someone's immigration status, many cities still choose not to comply.

We have known for years that sanctuary cities create incredible challenges for Federal law enforcement, and in doing so, public safety is endangered.

Let's take Aurora, Colorado, for example. They are experiencing unprecedented gang violence due to a neighboring sanctuary city.

We also know that the Biden-Harris administration has been a master class in how to not handle border security. This administration has totally failed, alongside the sanctuary cities, in enforcing our immigration laws because the crime that finds a home in a sanctuary city spreads to other jurisdictions.

If sanctuary cities choose to operate this way and endanger their own communities, neighboring communities, and, ultimately, the entire Nation, then they must be forced to balance their irresponsible choices with the loss of other Federal support. It is pretty simple: If you fail to comply with the law, you should not expect support.

Our constituents understand and also demand that their tax dollars not support sanctuary cities that actively undermine their public safety and our immigration law.

The rule also provides for consideration of H.J. Res. 136 to push back on EPA overregulation, H.R. 5179 to end anti-Israel boycotts, and H.R. 7909, the Violence Against Women Act, which would crack down on crime caused by the Biden-Harris administration's open-border policies.

Mr. Speaker, I look forward to consideration of these important bills, and I urge the passage of this rule.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Burgess), my colleague and the chair of the Rules Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I note that what my colleague, the ranking member, does not note is that this House has passed under Republican leadership more than 300 bills out of the House of Representatives with 92 percent bipartisan support. Many of these bills go to the Democrat- controlled Senate where they die.

The ranking member also likes to criticize this majority when he knows full well just last Congress when he was chair, the Rules Committee was no bastion of an open process.

For the record, here are some statistics that might help paint a better picture and provide context for the cherry-picked numbers the Member rattled off.

It is true there have been more closed rules, but this majority has reported nearly twice the amount of bills in the last Congress. Considered as a percentage, this majority has reported fewer closed rules than when he had the gavel.

Even more, over a third of the closed rules were because no amendments

were offered, making the rule closed by definition.

Not considering those closed rules brings us still at roughly the same rate as a percentage of closed rules from the last Congress but with significantly more bills offered.

I also remind this body that the previous Congress saw the use and abuse of partisan en bloc amendment votes, which created omnibus-style amendments designed to defeat Republican, or tough amendments, and had the practical effect of stifling the Republican minority.

Even with this procedural atrocity, the ranking member still can't claim a higher ground on making minority amendments in order.

We also needed to keep up with the onslaught of regulations from the Biden-Harris administration that they have unleashed on the American people from unelected bureaucrats.

We have considered numerous disapproval resolutions, which traditionally are carried closed because of how they are written. The ranking member carried on this tradition when he had the gavel.

While the ranking member wants to talk about how we are stifling Democrat amendments, this majority has actually made more minority amendments in order as a percentage than the previous Congress when he was calling the shots.

While the ranking member shakes his finger at the majority for the way this Congress has gone, I point out that he understands the unique difficulties and the tough decisions the Rules Committee is tasked with in moving the majority's agenda.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to my colleague from South Carolina (Mr. Norman).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Minnesota (Mrs. Fischbach).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

The other side of the aisle won't even deport violent criminals. That is against the very safety of American citizens. In New York City, under Bill de Blasio, they passed a series of sanctuary city policies between 2014 and 2018 that prohibit the New York Police Department and correction and probation departments from cooperating with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents except under very limited circumstances.

However, now, more than 100,000 migrants have passed through New York City since the spring of 2022, and 58,000 still remain in the city's care. Current Mayor Eric Adams and the Governor of New York, Kathy Hochul, have said: ``We don't have capacity.''

For years, ICE has warned that sanctuary cities create a public safety threat, and they are one of the biggest impediments to public safety efforts. However, under the Biden and Harris administration, the crisis at the southern border has only worsened the consequences of sanctuary policies and made enforcing current immigration laws even more difficult.

H.R. 5717, despite mischaracterizations from my friends on the other side of the aisle, creates an incentive for local jurisdictions to cooperate with Federal immigration officials by prohibiting Federal funds from being used to provide sanctuary for illegal aliens going to sanctuary jurisdictions. Under current law, it creates a perverse incentive for sanctuary cities to willingly flout the law.

H.R. 5717 holds sanctuary cities accountable for exacerbating the Biden-Harris border crisis and flouting Federal immigration law by prohibiting the use of taxpayer dollars to fund housing, healthcare costs, and other benefits for illegal immigrants in such municipalities.

Taxpayers who are at risk due to the border crisis should not be funding local governments not interested in upholding the rule of law. No Bailout for Sanctuary Cities corrects these perverse incentives and ensures that taxpayers are not on the hook for this lawlessness.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to inquire if the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern) is prepared to close.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Despite what my colleagues on the left have to say, the American people know that the Biden-Harris administration has been a relentless, woke assault on the American economy, the education system, and even Americans' retirement accounts.

The American people know the Biden-Harris administration has resulted in crippling inflation, a wide-open border, decreasing public safety, and increasing drug overdose deaths.

With the bills before us today, we continue to deliver for the American people. House Republicans are fighting at every turn to secure our borders, restore our economy, and protect free speech and free markets.

The Violence Against Women by Illegal Aliens Act and the No Bailout for Sanctuary Cities Act are commonsense bills that would immediately make our communities safer, something the Biden-Harris administration has repeatedly failed to do. I would hope that our colleagues on both sides of the aisle would support these important bills.

I look forward to moving these bills out of the House this week, and I ask my colleagues to join me in voting ``yes'' on the previous question and ``yes'' on the rule.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 1085, I call up the bill (H.R. 1121) to prohibit a moratorium on the use of hydraulic fracturing, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 1121.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 1121, the Protecting American Energy Production Act.

H.R. 1121, introduced by Congressman Duncan, would prevent any President from issuing a moratorium on hydraulic fracturing while also establishing a sense of Congress that States should regulate the practice on State and private land.

Hydraulic fracturing has been around for almost 100 years. The practice, combined with recent technological improvements and the advent of horizontal drilling, has propelled the United States to global energy superpower status.

This surge in supply has contributed to lower energy prices for consumers, stimulating economic growth, and improving the quality of life for all Americans.

In truth, a ban on hydraulic fracturing would cripple the American economy while surrendering world energy leadership to Russia, Iran, and China.

Federal efforts to regulate fracking, which is currently adequately regulated by the States, could have an equally devastating impact.

The 2005 Energy Policy Act clarified that Congress never intended the Federal Government to regulate fracking under the Safe Drinking Water Act.

In the Obama administration, the Bureau of Land Management attempted to regulate the practice for Federal lands and minerals, but the courts threw out that effort.

In the decision, the judge clearly stated, ``Congress has not delegated to the Department of the Interior the authority to regulate hydraulic fracturing. The BLM's effort to do so through the fracking rule is in excess of its statutory authority and contrary to law.''

Currently, States regulate fracking, and each has comprehensive laws and regulations to provide for safe operations, to protect drinking water sources, and to have trained personnel effectively regulating oil and gas exploration and production.

In addition to preventing the President from implementing a unilateral fracking ban, this bill would also express a sense of Congress that States should maintain regulatory authority over fracking on State and private lands.

Mr. Speaker, I urge all my colleagues to join me in support of H.R. 1121, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, one of the things my good friends and colleagues on the other side of the aisle have stated is that the Big Oil and Gas companies are making record profits, and these bills are essentially tax cuts for Big Oil. That couldn't be further from the truth.

This President's anti-energy agenda has driven up energy prices for all Americans, which also has created greater revenues for Big Oil companies. If Democrats are really concerned about energy prices, the best thing they can do is mirror the energy dominance policies of the previous administration.

Doing so would create abundance, driving down energy prices for all Americans. Producers with no more than $5 million in retail sales of oil and gas in a year account for 83 percent of America's oil production, 90 percent of its natural gas, and natural gas liquids production.

These are small businesses, Mr. Speaker, often locally and independently owned with a handful of employees, but collectively they support 4.5 million American jobs.

Our Republican energy bills help ensure small businesses can continue to operate on Federal lands.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle say that this bill, H.R. 1121, is unnecessary, as the President has not proposed a hydraulic fracturing moratorium. They say it sets a dangerous precedent for limiting the authority of the President and the Secretary of the Interior to manage energy resources on Federal lands.

The fact is, this President, on the campaign trail, said: ``No more, no new fracking.'' This was candidate Biden. We know from what he has done in his first 3-plus years in office, don't necessarily listen to his words, watch his actions. He has done it on mining. He said we were going to mine domestically for our critical minerals. Once he became President, he changed his tune. Now he wants memorandums of understanding with other countries that are adversarial to the United States.

After years of disastrous energy policies by this President, we know we cannot take him for just his word, which is exactly why this bill is necessary. This is especially true, Mr. Speaker, given that the Obama administration's Bureau of Land Management tried to regulate fracking.

The courts ultimately stopped this effort. In the decision, U.S. District Court Judge Skavdahl clearly stated: ``Congress has not delegated to the Department of the Interior the authority to regulate hydraulic fracturing. The BLM's effort to do so through the Fracking Rule is in excess of its statutory authority and contrary to law.''

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, my good friends and colleagues on the other side of the aisle make statements that fracking is mostly unregulated and the practice can consume millions of gallons of water. They say this is industry first and that the Republicans look to take away and protect public health and combat the climate crisis. That couldn't be further from the truth. Absolutely couldn't be further from the truth.

According to the Interstate Oil and Gas Compact Commission, member States each have comprehensive laws and regulations to ensure safe operations and protect drinking water sources. They have trained personnel to effectively regulate oil and gas exploration and production.

Mr. Speaker, even President Obama's own EPA found that fracking has no widespread systemic impacts on drinking water resources in the United States of America. No evidence has arisen that this practice is dangerous, and to say anything else is simply fear-mongering to the American people and pandering to the radical left that would rather have us rely on Iran, Russia, and Venezuela for our energy needs.

Mr. Speaker, one last thing. This President took the sanctions off Iran. Iran is now making $90 billion because those sanctions were taken off. Who do you think is funding the war against Israel? Iran, the top sponsor of terrorism. He took the sanctions off.

When we produce here in the United States of America, it is a win- win, Mr. Speaker. It is the safest, and the cleanest. It employs American technology, American resources, provides American jobs. It helps American families, American communities. We do it better than anybody else.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Graves).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have continuously said that oil production on Federal lands is at an all- time high. The fact of the matter is that the production is occurring on lands leased by the Trump administration and previous administrations.

I guess my colleagues now support the policies of the Trump administration as best they are trying to take credit for them.

My good friend, Ranking Member McGovern, made this point in the Rules Committee just yesterday. After mentioning that America is a top energy producer, he said: ``Let me be very clear. I am not highlighting these facts because I like them. I find it very troubling that we are producing so much oil. . . . ''

How very sad it is to hear that from my colleagues. Why are they so ashamed that we produce energy here in America? Would they rather us be dependent on Russia, Iran, or Venezuela for oil and natural gas in the same way Democratic policies have made us dependent on China for critical minerals?

We should celebrate American energy independence where, again, we do it cleaner and safer than anybody else in the world with the best labor standards.

Mr. Speaker, let's celebrate the opportunity. Let's be happy the good Lord blessed the United States with these rich minerals and this opportunity to become energy independent and critical mineral dominant.

My friends and neighbors, I want the technology here in the United States. I do not want this country to depend on foreign adversarial nations for our livelihood.

We have learned so much during COVID, Mr. Speaker. We cannot rely on adversarial nations for our energy any longer, nor should our allies.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I reiterate my good friend and colleague did reserve.

Listen, one of the things that we hear from my colleagues is that Big Oil is price gouging, which is why energy prices are higher. The fact is, this President's anti-energy agenda has created uncertainty for domestic energy producers and has driven up energy prices for all Americans.

Repeated in-depth investigations by the FTC have shown that changes in gasoline prices are based on market factors and are not due to any illegal behavior.

The price gouging argument is simply a red herring meant to distract the American public from the Biden administration's disastrous energy policies.

The fact of the matter is, when my friends and colleagues talk about transition, wind and solar, they don't want to produce those minerals for those solar panels or windmills here in the United States, Mr. Speaker.

Minnesota has the most mineral wealth of any State in the Nation with the exception of Alaska. Minnesota has the biggest untapped copper and nickel mine in the world, and this administration pulled the leases.

This administration, with support from the Secretary of the Interior, banned 225,000 acres of mining in northeastern Minnesota. Can you believe that? Yet, they will get the minerals from Congo, which uses child slave labor for their energy addiction.

Mr. Speaker, I submit that we have the opportunity today and now. I ask my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to join us to let the American worker succeed and energy dominance, critical mineral dominance in this country, be made here in America. We need it, this country needs it, and our allies are asking for it.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to cite a 2019 study by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce's Global Energy Institute. Their research shows a ban on fracking would eliminate 19 million jobs between 2021 and 2025 while simultaneously reducing the U.S. gross domestic product by $7.1 trillion over that same period.

The Global Energy Institute's research also shows that over the same 2021 through 2025 timeframe, energy prices would skyrocket, with natural gas prices rising by 324 percent, causing household energy bills for the average American to quadruple and the cost of living to increase by $5,600. Additionally, the price of gasoline would double, and government revenues would plummet by almost $2 trillion.

With these sobering facts in mind, I urge all of my colleagues to join me in support of H.R. 1121 to prevent the worst case scenario from becoming our reality.

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

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 1085 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Scanlon), 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. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this rule and in support of the underlying legislation.

House Resolution 1085 provides for consideration of six measures: H.R. 1023, H.R. 1121, H.R. 6009, H. Con. Res. 86, H. Res. 987, and H.R. 7023.

The rule provides for consideration of H.R. 1023, the Cutting Green Corruption and Taxes Act, under a closed rule, with 1 hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce or their respective designees, and provides one motion to recommit.

Additionally, the rule provides for consideration of H.R. 1121, the Protecting American Energy Production Act, that being under a closed rule, with 1 hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Natural Resources or their respective designees, and provides one motion to recommit.

Further, the rule provides for consideration of H.R. 6009, the Restoring American Energy Dominance Act, under a closed rule, with 1 hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Natural Resources or their respective designees, and provides one motion to recommit.

The rule also provides for consideration of H. Con. Res. 86, expressing the sense of Congress that a carbon tax would be detrimental to the United States economy, that being under a closed rule, with 1 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.

The rule provides for consideration of H. Res. 987, denouncing the harmful, anti-American energy policies of the Biden administration, under a closed rule, with 1 hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce or their respective designees.

Finally, the rule provides for consideration of H.R. 7023, the Creating Confidence in Clean Water Permitting Act, under a structured rule, with 1 hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure or their respective designees, and provides one motion to recommit.

The rule makes in order eight amendments.

Mr. Speaker, since President Joe Biden took office, energy costs for Americans have risen by 28.6 percent. On January 20, 2021, a gallon of gasoline was--wait for it--$2.39.

During President Biden's Presidency, the average price has reached a record high of $5 a gallon. This is a direct result of the President's dangerous, extreme, far-left agenda, the Green New Deal agenda that spent trillions of dollars and enacted costly regulations on the American family.

The underlying legislation before us this week will help unlock and unleash American energy independence and block President Biden's war on the American worker and American energy.

For example, H.R. 1023 will eliminate $27 billion of Green New Deal slush funds for coastal elites and Chinese Communists. We know China dominates the extraction, processing, and production of rare earth elements and critical minerals. Solar panels, windmills, and EVs all rely heavily on these materials, which further deepens our dependency on Communist China.

This legislation will also repeal the proposed natural gas tax that will burden so many American energy producers in southwestern Pennsylvania and across this Nation.

In addition, H.R. 1121 will block the President from declaring a moratorium on hydraulic fracking. In 2019, then-candidate Joe Biden expressed his support to ban fracking. The President said: ``We would make sure it is eliminated,'' when asked about the future of coal and fracking. Then, in March 2020, he said: ``No more new fracking.''

That is why, this week, House Republicans will block his ability to ban fracking.

Lastly, H.R. 7023 will build upon the progress under H.R. 1 and the Fiscal Responsibility Act to help reform our permitting process. This bill will streamline the permitting process under the Clean Water Act, instructing the administration to issue guidance that complies with the Supreme Court ruling in Sackett v. EPA and protect permit holders from frivolous lawsuits.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this rule, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, it is nice to hear my colleague talk about all the wonderful things that Democrats have done for the oil and gas industry, but it is shocking because Democrats want to ban fracking. Don't believe me. Take their word for it.

Here is Kamala Harris: ``There is no question I am in favor of banning fracking.''

Here is Bernie Sanders: ``The only safe and sane way to move forward is to ban fracking nationwide.'' He then literally introduced a bill banning fracking shortly after that comment.

There is also Pete Buttigieg. He said: ``I favor a ban on new fracking and a rapid end to existing fracking.''

Finally, here is Biden's Department of the Interior Secretary Deb Haaland:

``I am wholeheartedly against fracking and drilling on public lands.''

Those are some of the most influential Democrats in the country, and their goal is simple. They want to ban fracking.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Langworthy), my good friend.

Mr. Speaker, it is one thing that the Biden administration's extreme far-left positions on energy hurt the American economy and by extension the American worker and the American family, but the extremism also hurts our allies abroad.

President Biden has clearly weakened our position on the international stage. Shortly after canceling our own Keystone XL pipeline, which, by the way, crushed tens of thousands of union jobs, the Biden administration greenlit Nord Stream 2.

Before the 2022 midterm elections, the Biden administration released roughly 180 million barrels from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, or roughly 40 percent of that Reserve, that included at least 2 million barrels from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve to--are you ready for it?--China.

After pausing new LNG export approvals, the President then waived sanctions on Iranian energy imports into Iraq. I will talk about that momentarily, though.

It is clear from the administration's actions for these far-left extreme positions that President Biden favors Chairman Xi, Vladimir Putin, and the Ayatollah over the American worker.

Now, let's go back and talk about the Iraq-Iran waiver. After pausing the new LNG export approvals, the Biden administration waived sanctions on Iranian energy imports into Iraq. This unlocks $10 billion in frozen funds for the Iranian Government who helped fund the October 7 terrorist attack on our number one ally in the world, Israel.

It is clear to me that the White House's energy platform is the following: Yes to our enemies, no to America.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time to close.

Mr. Speaker, today, the EPA released their tailpipe rule, which is a de facto ban on gas-powered vehicles.

President Biden is setting performance standards for tailpipe emissions that automakers can only meet by producing EVs. This will do serious damage to the American family and the American worker.

Through a series of rules, the Biden administration is eliminating gas-powered vehicles in less than 10 years. For example, the EPA is set to approve California's outright ban on the sale of new internal combustion engine vehicles by 2035.

Additionally, the Department of Transportation is proposing CAFE standards that force fleets to switch to EVs.

What does this mean?

For all the talk about building the middle class, this is an attack, a direct attack, on the middle class. Your average EV driver is making well over six figures a year.

Middle-class Americans will struggle to be able to purchase a family car that can't travel long distances, has limited access to reliable fuel sources, and has components that are predominantly sourced from China.

So there are the Democrats' priorities: harming the middle class while benefiting China.

Also, if you think that it is cute to talk about so-called reliable energy sources, do some research and look at the power grid in Texas. Tell me how well that worked out.

But under President Donald Trump's leadership as opposed to Joe Biden's extreme far-left leadership and agenda, under President Trump's leadership, our Nation actually became energy independent. This was thanks to the progrowth, projob, pro-American energy policies that facilitated an energy renaissance and lowered energy costs for hardworking American families.

Just in my home State of Pennsylvania, we are second in the Nation for natural gas production. The industry supports hundreds of thousands of jobs in the Commonwealth, including roughly 130,000 union jobs that the Democrats falsely claim to care about.

Our Commonwealth has such an abundance of natural resources that we lead the Nation in electricity exports to other States.

Last year, Pennsylvania's impact fee revenue reached an historic level at $278.9 million, which helps to alleviate tax burdens on our local communities.

When the Biden administration bends the knee to the climate change mob by stopping new LNG export approvals, by taxing natural gas production, by proposing bans on fracking, and placing a de facto ban on gas-powered vehicles, what are they doing?

These actions are hurting American families and American workers, and

local communities are being harmed in States like Pennsylvania.

That is why we must pass this underlying legislation, which will strengthen our position on the international stage and when the final votes are tallied this week, you are going to see on display the stark difference between Democrats and Republicans.

If you stand with the American worker, the American family, and the American job creator, vote ``yes'' on the rule and the underlying legislation.

If you support energy resources from Chairman Xi, Vladimir Putin, and the Ayatollah, then vote ``no'' on the rule and ``no'' on the underlying legislation.

The choice couldn't be any clearer, and you will see the stark difference between the Democrats and the Republicans on this vote.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the previous question and ``yes'' on the rule.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.