Unlocking our Domestic LNG Potential Act of 2023

Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 712 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Madam Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), the ranking member of the Rules Committee, 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

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on House Resolution 712.

Madam Speaker, last night the Rules Committee met and reported out a rule, House Resolution 712, providing for consideration of H.R. 4365, the Department of Defense Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2024, under a structured rule.

It provides 1 hour of general debate equally divided and controlled by the

chair and ranking member of the Committee on Appropriations or their respective designees. It also makes in order 184 amendments, more than 75 percent of those eligible for consideration. Finally, it provides for one motion to recommit.

The rule also makes in order H.R. 1130, the Unlocking our Domestic LNG Potential Act of 2023 under a structured rule. It provides for 1 hour of general debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce or their respective designees. It provides for one motion to recommit.

Finally, the rule makes in order H. Res. 684 under a closed rule. It provides 1 hour of general debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking member of the Committee on the Judiciary or their respective designees.

I rise today, Madam Speaker, in support of the rule and the underlying legislation.

Madam Speaker, as Members are aware, the House has previously debated an identical rule covering H.R. 4365. This was a fulsome and passionate debate, and I said most of what was needed to be said from my point of view during that debate, but I will make a few key points about this bill again now.

The bill before us provides full funding for our national defense. It appropriates $826 billion in new discretionary spending, which is a modest increase of $300 million over the President's budget request of nearly $29 billion or 3.6 percent over the FY 2023 enacted level.

Madam Speaker, this truly is a good bill, one that I think the House can and should be proud of. It makes appropriate investments in the military and ensures that dollars are being directed where they are needed the most. It invests heavily in our servicemembers, providing them with a 5.2 percent pay raise. It provides continued funding for new advanced weapons systems, ensuring that the military has the force it needs to confront any foe anywhere in the world at any time, and it continues to expand the Navy to protect the freedom of the seas and invests heavily in Asia and the Pacific theater where China continues to expand its own military might in anticipation of a confrontation with the United States and our allies.

Madam Speaker, providing funding for our national defense is both Congress' privilege and its responsibility. In order for our brave men and women in uniform to do their jobs, Congress must do its job. Today, we can take that first step toward doing so.

The rule also provides for consideration of H.R. 1130, the Unlocking our Domestic LNG Potential Act of 2023. This bill removes regulatory barriers for the construction and licensing of new liquid natural gas or LNG import and export terminals.

Madam Speaker, when the Republican majority took over in January, we committed to unleashing America's energy potential. For too long, regulatory roadblocks and active hostility of the Biden administration have made it difficult to expand production of America's abundant energy resources, but despite the Biden administration's hostility, America is today the top producer of natural gas in the world.

From my home State of Oklahoma, this is not an academic point. Oklahoma is the fifth largest natural gas producing State in the country, with nearly 350,000 jobs in the State tied directly to natural gas production. It is a critical part of my home State's economy.

In recent years, innovation and new technology have revolutionized and expanded the production of natural gas, both in Oklahoma and in the United States as a whole. The people of my district are very proud to be part of that revolution. There is still more to be done, and the passage of H.R. 1130 will help make it easier, cheaper, and quicker to bring new LNG export terminals online.

It is no exaggeration to say that American natural gas is a critical part of the world's energy mix, particularly in Europe, which previously sourced much of its natural gas from Russia, and we are capable of achieving more. The end result will be a strong future for us as we create more high-paying jobs and maintain America's energy independence and a strong future for our friends and allies around the world who can source their energy needs from us rather than from vicious dictators like Vladimir Putin.

Madam Speaker, all in all, this is a strong bill, one that I am certainly proud to support.

Finally, the rule makes in order H. Res. 684, which condemns New Mexico Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham for her executive order attempting to subvert the Second Amendment rights of New Mexico's citizens.

As Members are aware, earlier this month, Governor Grisham issued an executive order purporting to suspend the right of New Mexicans to open and concealed carry of firearms. Governor Grisham claimed that this was necessary in order to deal with a public health emergency.

Of course, this claim is patently absurd, and there is not now, nor has there ever been, a public health emergency and exception for constitutional rights. The right of Americans to bear arms is protected by the Second Amendment to the Constitution, and a constitutional right cannot be subverted at the whim of an elected official.

Last week, a Federal judge in New Mexico agreed and issued a restraining order blocking implementation of this patently unconstitutional order.

Governor Grisham has rightly received condemnation on a bipartisan basis for her actions. H. Res. 684 will give all Members of Congress an opportunity to do so officially and on the record.

It is always appropriate for the House to take time to reaffirm our values as a country and to protect the constitutional rights that form the foundation of our Republic.

Indeed, I urge all Members to do so and speak with one voice, reminding all Americans that when it comes to their constitutional rights, the House of Representatives has their back.

Madam Speaker, I urge Members to support both the rule and the underlying bills, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Madam Speaker, I would again return my friend's compliments. I enjoy working with him on the Rules Committee. We have been there together a long time. There is nobody I have a higher professional and personal regard for than my good friend.

Now honestly, Madam Speaker, I wish I had his talent for colorful rhetoric. I particularly like the ``Groundhog Day'' reference. I remind my friend, while there are some similarities, the movie had a happy ending. Everybody learned some lessons and they got to where they needed to be. I think we may be involved in a process something like that.

I disagree with my friend that the issues being brought up in this bill are trivial. Defending the United States of America is not a trivial thing. You can agree or disagree with the bill, and I will talk about that in a minute. That is fair enough. I don't consider that trivial.

Providing natural gas in abundance and at modest prices to Americans and having that resource to deal with our adversaries overseas, who often use energy as a weapon, and to be able to provide for our friends and allies reliable energy is not a trivial matter. It is an extraordinarily important matter.

The 10 million Americans that work in the domestic energy industry think what we are doing here is the right thing to do. I don't consider their interests and their views trivial. I am just very privileged to represent many people that have that point of view and are involved in that particular profession.

Finally, I don't consider standing up for the Second Amendment a trivial thing. We have a Governor that issued an order that a Federal judge immediately overturned and Democrats in New Mexico condemned-- elected Democrats, law enforcement officials. It is actually one of the areas that is usually a contentious issue that we had really strong bipartisan agreement. We think it is important to make my point.

My friends have a different point of view. That is fair enough. Just express it, and we will move on. Again, we don't consider defense of the Constitution to be trivial.

I agree with my friend about a number of things, and we have had this discussion, frankly, as friends in the Rules Committee.

I agree with him about shutdowns. I do not think it is an appropriate tactic, and I hope that we are able to avoid one. There will be an appropriate time, I am sure, when we discuss with our friends how to do that, but we need a negotiating position. We are working toward that, and we hope we will get there.

Believe me, I am well aware that we have a Democratic Senate. This House has done wonderful work on things like H.R. 1 to deal with energy, H.R. 2 to deal with our border. We send them over there and they are never picked up, never heard of again unless we can snatch pieces out of them here or there and attach them to one of these broader agreements, as we were able to do on the debt ceiling crisis over permitting of facilities, both for renewable and nonrenewable energy.

Again, it is a difficult legislative process, and I agree it is going to be complicated, but our goal is to get to the same place; that is, to make sure that the government is funded, and also, that we advance shared values that we have and have an open and honest discussion with the United States Senate. When we do that, we have been able to find some agreement.

My friend likes to point out--all my Democratic friends like to point out regularly--well, gosh, why are you passing appropriations bills that are less than to the letter agreed on? Well, gee whiz, where I come from, if you can do something for less money, that is usually a good thing to do. I am never going to apologize. If we see a different way to get to a policy objective that costs less money, that is a good thing to do.

Now, I know when we discussed this last night, the Senate is consistently appropriating above the agreed-upon number. All the appropriations bills, or pretty much all of them that they have dealt with so far, are at higher levels. So guess what? We will get into negotiation. My guess is they will come down some. We will come up some, and we will find some sort of common deal. That is just the way politics work. I am never going to be critical of my colleagues for trying to do something cheaper and save money.

I remind my friend of the condition in which the Democratic majority left

our fiscal finances. We are running a $1.7 trillion deficit this year. That is bigger than all the discretionary budget of the United States of America. We have not had a Democratic President submit a budget that comes into balance--not in a decade, but ever, since Bill Clinton.

President Obama never did. President Biden never has. I don't think any future Democrat will.

We used to have Democrats in the 1990s that we disagreed with, that we fought, but they said, well, let's try to get to a balanced budget within 10 years, and they managed to do that.

My friends have basically abdicated that debate. They just let it go on and on out to infinity. Even President Trump submitted budgets that within a decade came into balance. I didn't always agree with some of the decisions. I don't think either party has done a very good job.

My friend and I have had this discussion in dealing with the real drivers of debt: that is mandatory spending; that is Social Security, Medicaid, and Medicare. We need to have that debate. I hope the Presidential contest has it. I note at least some of the discussions we have been having in our caucus talk about having a debt commission attached to some of this, so perhaps we can make some modest steps.

My friends heard me talk about my Social Security bill, which is really modeled after what was done in 1983 by Ronald Reagan, Tip O'Neill, and Howard Baker working together, a commission, then Congress voting--including, by the way, the President of the United States at that time who liked commissions, voting for the commission, for the deal, and it worked. It improved the fiscal solvency of the country. It extended the life of Social Security, a program I know that we both support.

Again, you may think these are trivial issues. We don't. We think we have a long process in front of us. These are steps in the right direction on the appropriate end that won't be enough.

Madam Speaker, the last point I will make--and my friend and I just disagree here--look, defense is a very different thing than any other part of the appropriations process. Most appropriations process is about things that are desirable and good.

I have worked pretty hard on cancer research, so my friend's points are well made there. I think those are valuable investments.

Defense is about threats. We had a peace dividend in the 1990s. You know why we had it? Because the Soviet Union had collapsed, and we could prudently save money in defense.

I will tell you right now, I would go higher than the number here; but if the number we have on defense is outrageous, your first call ought to be to the White House because it is basically the President's number. We actually pulled back from where our defense appropriators wanted to go and a lot of our defense hawks wanted to go because we did think addressing the horrific deficits that were inherited from the last Democratic era meant we even had to make sacrifices here.

I am not really comfortable with it, but it is a step in the right direction. We might not even had to have that if you hadn't, through reckless spending, unleashed the worst inflation in 40 years. I actually have a 40-year-old son. He had never seen anything like what happened in the Biden administration because of irresponsibly passing the $1.9 trillion American Rescue Plan and another $700 billion much- misnamed Inflation Reduction Act.

We inherited a mess. We inherited inflation. We inherited record deficits.

It is a pretty tough deal. My friends don't want to address it. Well, this majority is going to do its best to address those issues. We do struggle and disagree, and sometimes I get frustrated with some of my friends on my side of the aisle about tactics.

My colleague is right about one thing, and I will agree 100 percent. There is no objection to this rule on the basis of the rule. There is nothing wrong with it. It has 184 amendments. You can agree or disagree with the bill, but it is a good rule.

In my view, there is nothing wrong with the bill, other than I would like to have spent a little bit more money. Like any bill that spends this amount of money, everybody could do it a little bit differently.

People are trying to make other points unrelated to the bill, and I will agree with my friend that that is unfortunate. I don't think that is a good way to legislate. I think my colleagues should look at the legislation in front of them. If they agree with the rule, they ought to vote for it. If they disagree, it is fair enough to vote against it. However, if they agree with the basic bill, don't relate it to something else and try to use it as a weapon. We don't have many Members who do that, but we have a few.

As my friend knows, we have a very narrow majority. He has been here once or twice himself when they had narrow majorities. It is part of the legislative process. We will continue to work it.

My hope today is we will advance this rule. It will open the way to advance what I think is a good Defense appropriations bill, and we will continue to move legislatively as rapidly as we can. We will work and, at the appropriate time, I am sure, work across the rotunda with Democrats in the Senate and probably in this Chamber with some of my Democratic friends. Hopefully, we will avoid a government shutdown.

The most important thing today: Move the rule. Move the bill. That is what we are going to try to do.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

I want to respond to some of my good friend from Pennsylvania's points, and some of them I agree with. I do think shutting down the government is not an appropriate tactic. We agree on that.

You know, linking them to election results is really an interesting exercise. The government shutdown that I think my friend thought was in 2011, if I am correct, and I may be wrong, was really the one in 2013. We actually picked up seats in 2014. I don't think that is why we picked up seats. My friends always forget that they shut down the government in 2017, and they won seats in 2018. So you can pretty much play these numbers however you want.

The important point, which my friend makes and I agree with, is that shutting down the government is bad for the American people. It is an abdication of our responsibility. It is something we should not do. I have never supported it in the past. I hope we manage to avoid one now. I think that is exactly what the Speaker is engaged in trying to accomplish, whether my friends agree with his methods or not.

I will tell you, I am mystified by this concern about the agreement. Again, we agreed on top-line numbers. We didn't say we are going to the top-line numbers. This is the top-line number, and if we can do it for less and persuade the Senate that that is a good idea, then I don't see that as a bad thing.

If my friends are concerned about keeping agreements, maybe they ought to call over to their friends in the United States Senate who are producing bill after bill that are above these numbers.

Guess what? I suspect each side is positioning for a negotiation, and magically, we probably won't be too far off, if we come to an agreement, of the numbers that are laid out in the debt ceiling deal.

I am not telling you this is the most efficient way to legislate, but I have seen it before, and we are seeing it from both sides right now.

In terms of the budget, I tell you what, I am interested in the opinions my friends have on the budget because they didn't bother to do one for the 4 years they were in the majority. I am thrilled they are actually marking up a budget in the Budget Committee. I give Chairman Arrington a lot of credit for doing it. It is hard to do. My friends didn't do it for 4 years because they couldn't do it because they couldn't come to an agreement.

As a matter of fact, I remember those 4 years I used to serve on the Budget Committee. You couldn't get a budget out of the Budget Committee that you controlled.

Do you want to talk about dysfunction? The Budget Committee sets the top-line number for all spending. Maybe that is why we overspent so much. As a matter of fact, you deemed budgets in the rule.

So I would agree with you. We should probably be sitting down and figuring out ways to run our fiscal affairs better and particularly do it in a more cooperative way because, as my friends point out, they do control the United States Senate and the United States Presidency.

However, please don't lecture me on how you do budgets when you had the House, the Senate, and the Presidency and could not write a budget in 4 years and get it out of your own committee, let alone bring it to this floor. Some of those years you weren't operating with a five-seat majority. You just couldn't get the job done.

We are trying. I commend the Budget Committee. I hope they bring one out here. I will be disappointed if they don't, but at least they are making the effort.

Finally, again, to my friends, I can't figure out whether you want the Speaker to succeed or not because there are lots of expressions that you feel sorry for him in the job he has. Don't worry, he likes the job he has. He works hard at it every day.

I think he is a good Speaker. He delivered on a debt ceiling deal that my friends even in the end came around and voted for. He delivered one that was a heck of a lot better because it had some genuine concessions in it, in terms of energy production and in terms of setting top lines.

We are on the eve of another kind of negotiation, and maybe we can find common ground again. I genuinely, quite frankly, hope that we do. In that process, there will be plenty of people on both sides of the aisle who don't like what the end product is, and they will vote accordingly. That is fair enough.

This is just kind of the way it works around here right now, and I think the Speaker is doing a terrific job of trying to work the process, trying to make sure legislation moves across the floor in regular order, and trying to get to numbers that begin to bring down this horrific deficit that my friends left the country with, with no plan to deal with it.

Nobody in the White House has a plan. The President has never submitted a budget that comes into balance. He won't talk about entitlement reform. He rules it out.

Sorry, if you are serious about the budget deficit, you do control two-thirds of this process. I know it is inconvenient when we bring up the fact that we are spending a lot more money and you have no plan to deal with it, but that is what we are going to do.

We will see. The American people can make a choice in the next election about that, but I am not going to be critical of my friends. Even when I am critical of their tactics, and I am sometimes, I am not critical of people who are trying to lower the budget deficit and trying to restore a measure of fiscal sanity to this country. That is something the Democrats used to care about, did care about when I first got here. They totally abandoned it during the Obama Presidency.

When my friends want to get serious, they will have a willing negotiating partner on the budget.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Alford), my very good friend.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. In closing, I urge all of my colleagues to support the resolution.

The rule will make in order three bills.

First, it makes in order the Department of Defense Appropriations Act for fiscal year 2024. It will provide full and complete funding for our Armed Forces and Defense needs and provides the resources necessary to defend freedom around the world.

It makes in order H.R. 1130, Unlocking our Domestic LNG Potential Act. We think that is important.

My friend had an interesting discussion about LIHEAP. I actually share my friend's view. It is an important program. I remember when I chaired the subcommittee on Appropriations, I had to actually reverse a cut ordered by President Obama of $300 million in his own budget, and we stopped that from happening.

People throw out numbers, and then you work it through. I always call a Presidential budget a bargaining position. I think the same thing tends to be true of congressional budgets, but we will work that through.

The real cause of lack of heating, though--let's be real about this-- is not LIHEAP and whether it is funded or not. It is whether or not there is natural gas to heat it in the first place. My friends have done everything possible to increase the cost and limit the availability of the very product that they want to provide with a government program.

It would be better for every single American if you would just simply be pro-energy production in our country. It is okay to be for renewables. I am for renewables. My State is number one or two in the country in wind power, well ahead of a lot of other progressive States.

We just think what works is what you ought to do. We have got a lot of wind in Oklahoma. It makes a lot of sense, so we use it, and, if it lowers emissions, we think that is good. Natural gas, by the way, has been the single biggest driver of lowering emissions. My friends have done nothing but make it harder in that industry. Frankly--and I mean this with all due respect--I hear people in that industry and companies in that industry vilified routinely. If I said those things about people in your respective States engaged in energy or in other kinds of production, you would be appalled, because you know those people.

I have got millions of people in the energy industry. I have thousands of people in my district that go out and work on rigs. They go out and lay pipeline. They go out and find oil and gas. It is hard work. They do that, and they give many parts of the country that don't have energy production the cheapest energy in the world outside of a couple of petrostates, and the most secure product, and they have tripled production in petroleum since about 2006. Yet, the price of gas goes up--it is a lot less here than it is almost anyplace in the world--and then they say, oh, my gosh, they are profiteering. No, there are market forces out there. That is off the subject.

I would just say my friends are worried about the cost of heating. LIHEAP is a good program. I support it. I have proven that over and over again. Please, let's make sure that we have the gas in the first place.

Finally, my friends dismiss the importance of the Second Amendment because they disagree with it for the most part. That is fair enough. All we are saying is we want the opportunity to actually invest things.

My friend made a couple of other points I just want to quickly address, because I want him to be under no--

and I don't think he is--under any illusion. I hold Senator Murray and Senator Collins in very high regard. I have worked with them both. I have worked with Senator Murray, in particular, for 8 years, either as chair, or ranking member of the Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services, Education, and Related Agencies when she held the same respective position. We came to a deal almost every year. The gentlewoman is a good legislator, and Senator Collins is legendary.

What the Senate is crafting over there right now is well above the agreement that my friend thinks we are violating. It is pretty easy to declare emergencies. Yes, I would love to spend more money on defense. I have said that on this floor. I have said that during this debate. Let's call it emergency and heap it on.

They are laying out a negotiating position. It is fair enough. My guess is we are going to end up pretty close to the numbers we agreed upon.

My friends have been very critical of my leader, the Speaker of the House, and that is fair enough. This is politics. I will tell you this: You guys said he wouldn't get elected, and he did. You said he wouldn't get a bill across the floor to deal with the debt ceiling and then negotiate a deal, but he did. Let's wait and see how this plays out.

My friends need to remember, when it comes to these fiscal issues, they are the ones that never passed a budget for 4 years. They are the ones that left us with a $1.7 trillion deficit, and they have got the White House and the Senate and have not produced any plan to address it, nor have they been willing to sit down and talk to us about, in a bipartisan way, how could we start dealing with what we all know is the big driver, and that is entitlement programs.

We have a lot of problems in front of us. We can point a lot of fingers. Let's do the right thing today, though, and start addressing them.

The right thing today is to move ahead and pass this rule, get onto a debate about what we think are important issues. Defending the country is certainly an important issue. Securing our energy future is important, and dealing with constitutional rights, and we will continue to discuss and work on these other matters.

I will agree with my friend. I am not for shutting down the government. I hope we don't get there, and I always worry about that as we approach these kind of deadlines.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Oklahoma for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Is this Groundhog Day, Madam Speaker? Back again once more to debate a rule for bills that were considered and failed to make it to the floor.

You can't make this stuff up.

So what changed? Not the bill text, not the fact that we have less than a week before the government shuts down. Maybe the minds of a few of our colleagues across the aisle? I guess we will see later today.

Look, none of my remarks are directed to the gentleman from Oklahoma. I respect him personally and professionally. I think the world of him. I don't envy the task he has of trying to defend these bills or this process, but what the hell is going on in his Conference?

The truth is that under Speaker McCarthy's weak leadership, this Republican majority is a total failure; an unmitigated disaster.

Those aren't even my words. That is what one of your own Members said on TV a few nights ago about the process playing out in this Chamber right now.

First, we have this absurd nonbinding resolution condemning the Governor of New Mexico for trying to keep her constituents safe from gun violence.

Just to explain to folks who may be watching, this resolution does nothing--not a thing.

It is a press release. It doesn't go to the Senate. It doesn't go to the President. It does nothing.

So we are doing that, and we are doing nothing right now to avert a government shutdown. This place is becoming a Chamber where we debate trivial issues passionately and important ones not at all.

Then we have a ridiculous bill about liquified natural gas. The House has already passed this bill not once, but twice. Of course, it makes sense to waste more time passing it again when a shutdown is looming and Republicans have no plan to keep the government running, right?

This rule will also bring to the floor the Republicans' Department of Defense appropriations bill. Yes, this bill

has horrible, harmful policy riders that strip people's rights and push MAGA culture wars. It also reaffirms the Pentagon's bloated budget at a time when the far-right wing nuts are holding up all other appropriation bills because they feel they don't cut enough money for programs that help everyday Americans. We still don't have a plan to fund the government.

Madam Speaker, I know if some of my Republican colleagues had their way, we would pass their continuing resolution that contains mindless, across-the-board spending cuts.

My colleagues on the other side of the aisle want to cut funding for cancer research, for our Head Start programs, for air traffic safety, for border security, and a 65-percent cut to heating assistance for families just as it is starting to get cold. Talk about cruel.

Now, these cuts aren't just cuts, they cost us. Do people realize what Head Start does? It invests in kids from low-income families so they can have more opportunity in life. The return on investment is almost $10 for every $1 spent.

Cancer research. Do Republicans realize that investing in cancer research saves us healthcare costs not just now but down the road, and it saves lives.

Their appropriation agenda cuts all this and more.

Madam Speaker, you know where Republicans refuse to cut from? This bill, the Pentagon, the biggest, most expensive bureaucracy in our Federal Government: the Department of Defense.

So for whatever reason, it is okay to cut programs like WIC that help feed pregnant moms, but they can't find a single weapon system where there is any waste? I am happy to provide numerous articles and reports from my colleagues about the cost overruns in so many of these wasteful missile systems.

The Defense spending bill, which is the most extravagant Defense spending bill ever, failed a rule vote on Tuesday because the Republican Conference is in absolute chaos. Best I can tell, no one on the other side of the aisle has any objection to the top-line number in the Pentagon bill, but yet they voted down the rule just the other day.

I know that whipping votes can be difficult, but the number of backroom secret deals and late-night seances Republicans have had to hold this year to revive bills from the dead is astounding, and I am afraid things will only get worse as we near September 30.

Republicans are acting like the end of the fiscal year just snuck up on them.

News flash: The deadline to fund the government isn't some big secret. They have had months to prevent a government shutdown. The reality is that not once--not once--have Republicans given us a bill that could keep the government open.

Republicans barely control one-half of one branch of government. Yet, they act like they are king of the hill, like it is their way or the highway, that nothing else matters.

The only way this slim House Republican majority can keep the lights on is if they get Senate Democrats and the President to agree, but they haven't even begun to reach across the aisle to negotiate because they are busy negotiating amongst themselves.

Hell, at this rate, they might not even be able to get Senate Republicans to agree given how extreme their Conference has become.

Madam Speaker, this majority is a failure. The clowns are running the circus. The day Speaker McCarthy handed his gavel over to the clown show, this was the inevitable outcome. There is a different path that we can choose right here and right now: Work with Democrats to prevent a shutdown; work with us to keep the government open; work with us to honor the deal you made earlier this year.

It is time for the ringmaster of this circus, Kevin McCarthy, to stand up to the clowns and say enough with the extremism and the blackmail. Stop wasting time and work with us to get this done in a bipartisan way.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Before I yield to my next speaker, I want to clarify for the record because I don't want to be misunderstood or mischaracterized because I have great respect for the gentleman. I never said the Defense appropriations bill was trivial. I said the Defense appropriations bill was bloated and filled with the kitchen sink of MAGA culture wars.

On the second bill, the LNG bill, I said it was repetitive because we have passed it twice already. It is going nowhere. We are going to pass it a third time, and that is going nowhere at a time when our government is about to shut down. To take up a bill that is repetitive and that is going nowhere seems like not a good use of our time.

I did say that the nonbinding resolution on guns was trivial because it doesn't do a damn thing. We are living in a country where we have massacres occur on a regular basis, and we can't get any legislation to the floor. The only bill we get to the floor on guns is a nonbinding resolution that does nothing and that doesn't even go anywhere. It doesn't go to the Senate. It doesn't go to the President.

I want to be clear on what I said because I think it is important. I do believe that this bill, this nonbinding resolution, is an example of how trivial issues get debated passionately here and important ones not at all.

Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Boyle), the ranking member of the Budget Committee.

Mr. Speaker, the concern we have over here on this side of the aisle is that there are Members on the Republican side who seem to be cheering on a shutdown.

The other day, in an interview with ``PBS NewsHour,'' a fellow colleague on the Rules Committee, Mr. Norman of South Carolina, was asked how likely a shutdown is, and his response was: It is 100 percent.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to include in the Record a Truth Social post from yesterday by Donald Trump opposing the GOP's continuing resolution.

Mr. Speaker, the twice-impeached, four-times-indicted former President is weighing in on the funding fights within his party, and ultimately he is endorsing actions that will shut down the government.

Now, I have a strange feeling my Republican counterparts will gladly comply at the expense of the American people because everybody on that side of the aisle is so frightened of him.

The gentleman from Oklahoma was talking about a shutdown in 2018. I don't disagree with my friend that there was a brief shutdown in early 2018 that a lot of people don't remember because it was so short. I should point out that Republicans were in charge of the House and in charge of the Senate at the time. I know some Democrats were pushing to help Dreamers as part of a funding deal, but that brief, symbolic shutdown lasted less than 72 hours, mostly over the weekend and, if I remember correctly, had no lasting impact.

Now, compare that to the 5-week Republican shutdown in 2018 which reduced economic output by $11 billion in the following 2 quarters, including $3 billion that the United States economy never regained. That was a partial shutdown. Then the 2013 full Republican shutdown reduced GDP growth by $20 billion, according to Moody's Analytics. $20 billion. I think it is a little more than unfair to play both sides of the card here, because it doesn't apply.

Mr. Speaker, Republicans claim that they are trying to save money but continually weaken the United States Government's creditworthiness at a cost to the United States taxpayers.

In August, Fitch cited a decline in governance as a key reason for the United States' downgrade due to repeated battles over the past two decades that have led to government shutdowns or even taken the government to the brink of a debt default. Republicans need to get serious about governing and protect the United States' creditworthiness.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to include in the Record an article from the AP titled: ``The U.S. government's debt has been downgraded. Here's what to know.''

Mr. Speaker, there are consequences to these games that people on the right are playing, and the consequences are detrimental to our economy, which in turn are detrimental to the American people.

The gentleman from Oklahoma also talked about the Senate. I wish we were behaving more like the Senate than behaving like we are here in the House.

In the Senate, the Chair of the Appropriations Committee, Senator Murray, is actually working with the Republican Vice Chair, Senator Collins. There is a statement from Senator Murray saying: ``Vice Chair Collins and I have discussed how best to address these concerns, and we have agreed to make use of additional emergency appropriations--just as we do every year, and is fully allowed under the debt ceiling deal--to address in a bipartisan way some of the pressing challenges our Nation faces.

``In order to take these concerns regarding our defense and nondefense needs seriously, and to ensure we deliver the strongest bills possible with the broadest bipartisan support possible, Vice Chair Collins''--a Republican--``and I agreed to add $13.7 billion in additional emergency appropriations, including $8 billion for defense, and $5.7 billion for nondefense spread across four subcommittees, including the State/Foreign Ops bill we are considering today.''

This is in response to that.

The bottom line is what they are doing in the Senate is what we should be doing here. Even though Democrats control the Senate, they are sitting down with Republicans and they are having conversations. They are trying to come to deals. They are trying to not only get a short-term bill done to keep our government from shutting down, they are trying to figure out a long-term way forward.

The Senate has used the Fiscal Responsibility Act as a starting point for meaningful bipartisan dialogue and compromise. They reached an agreement to stay within the 1 percent of the Fiscal Responsibility Act and collaborated to report out 12 bills with near bipartisan unanimity.

Meanwhile, House Republicans haven't taken a single meaningful step to engage Democrats on necessary compromise. They failed to garner a single Democratic vote for their bills in committee and haven't been able to bring two of their bills to the full committee for consideration because the cuts were too deep.

Even moderates on your side don't want to vote for those things.

This is about the Senate following a bipartisan, collaborative process versus House Republicans turning their backs on that process and negotiating amongst themselves to make their bills more partisan.

There is a way to do this, but, unfortunately, you have a small group of the most extreme of the extreme calling all the shots. They are moving this place in the wrong direction. These are the people cheering for a government shutdown. These are the people who don't care how much they hurt the American people with across-the-board, mindless cuts in programs like Head Start and WIC and medical research and LIHEAP, cutting it by 65 percent.

I come from a State up north, Massachusetts. Tell my constituents, who depend on LIHEAP to heat their homes, the thinking behind gutting LIHEAP by 65 percent.

Talk about cruel. There are consequences to your actions. There are consequences to your words, the downgrading of our credit. If you succeed in getting some of these cuts, people are going to lose benefits that they not only rely on to do things like heat their homes, they need them to survive.

Enough of the nonsense. Let's come together and let's stop wasting time bringing another extreme CR to the House Rules Committee to bring on this floor that makes the crummy bill you brought the other night look like it is reasonable. Come on. We are running out of time.

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

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

I am not going to engage in the frivolous part of what this rule provides. I think Mr. Cole and I were having a serious debate about things that really matter here in terms of our economy and whether or not we can fund our government. I am not going to waste time talking about a nonbinding resolution that is nothing more than a press release.

Mr. Speaker, let's be honest with each other. We are only a few days away from a shutdown, and we are in chaos because the Republican Party is in the middle of a civil war. That is just a fact.

Speaker McCarthy cut a deal on spending levels back in May. That is what the Senate has acted on in a bipartisan way. The only people not holding up the bargain are House Republicans.

Speaker McCarthy is breaking his word, and I get it. I mean, he handed over the gavel to the most extreme in his party. He put the patients in charge of the hospital, and now he is getting blackmailed. Good luck to him getting out of the mess that he has made.

The American people deserve better, and they deserve to know that there is a difference here, a very clear difference. We may not always agree on every single issue, but Democrats come to this place every single day and we worry. We worry about making sure that people get better jobs. We worry because we want people to have better healthcare and we want people to have higher wages. We worry because we

want to make sure that people have clean air and water and great schools where we know our kids will make it home from school that day, they will be safe, and we want to make sure that everybody has access to affordable housing.

Republicans worry, too, but it seems that this Republican majority worries mostly about their own power. They worry about fighting with each other, trying to shut down the government, impeach the President, and remove their own Speaker.

The Republican majority in this House is a joke. They wasted weeks talking about gas stoves, weeks arguing about book bans, weeks telling kids what soccer team they can play on, and now we are on the eve of a shutdown and they are doing nothing to stop it. In fact, they are moving in the wrong direction.

We have Members on the other side of the aisle who go on network news and say ``shut it down,'' telling people that it is 100 percent certain that there will be a government shutdown. Who cares, they say.

Really?

Earlier, I talked about a seance. After looking at what is happening on the other side of the aisle, I think what this place needs is an exorcism. The Republican Party has gone to war with itself, and it doesn't matter which side wins because either way, they are not worried about anybody but themselves.

This is a serious consequential moment for this Congress. There are real impacts if there is a government shutdown. There are impacts to our credit rating. There are impacts to job creation. There are impacts to a whole bunch of things. Most importantly, Mr. Speaker, there are negative impacts for the people of this country. We have seen this movie before. It doesn't have a good ending.

In these last few days that we have, rather than fighting amongst yourselves, why don't you try something radical, and that is sitting down in a bipartisan way and coming to a deal that will get a majority of votes in this House. It requires the Speaker of the House to stand up to the extremists. It requires him to demonstrate some leadership. That is what is needed.

The Speaker of the House must lead. It is the obligation of everybody in this Chamber to, at a minimum, keep the lights on. This is the moment where we need some leadership, where the Speaker needs to stand up and tell the extremists no.

I said before, it is like the clowns are running the circus, and there is no ringmaster. Enough of this. This is a bad movie.

By the way, it is not just Democrats who are expressing concern about what is going on, and it is not just independents as well that are expressing concern, but I hear it from Members of their own Conference who have been on TV basically sounding the alarm bells saying, this is dysfunction, this is an unmitigated disaster. These are the words of Republican Members who are warning your leadership to get their act together.

We will see how things work out this weekend, but if the reports that we are reading are true, we are going to see a CR come to the Rules Committee that is even more extreme than the extreme CR that we dealt with and that was pulled the other day.

I mean, at the end of the day, I think people need to know that, when you cut some of these programs, when you cut LIHEAP, that means there are people who will not be able to heat their homes in the wintertime.

When you cut Head Start, that means there are countless kids who will not have an opportunity to succeed in the future.

When you cut programs like WIC, it means that there are pregnant mothers and newborn babies that will not have access to good nutrition.

When you cut medical research, you are not only putting farther off the day where we find a cure to some of these dreaded diseases that kill people, but you are also making it certain that the costs of healthcare will continue to rise.

None of this makes any sense. I know that there are adults on the other side of the aisle that want to do the right thing. Again, I plead with my colleagues. We will go through this, whatever we are going to do, a bill that is nonbinding that means nothing, an LNG bill that we have done twice before that is going nowhere fast, and then we will do this Defense appropriations bill, again, that represents the kitchen sink of MAGA culture wars.

We will go through all of that, but, while we are doing that, I hope that people are sitting down and getting serious to avoid a government shutdown, and then let's get together and do what the American people elected us to do.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I urge a strong ``no'' vote on this rule.

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 7176. This bill is nothing more than a handout to Big Oil and Gas that will enrich our adversaries, including China, and force American families to pay the price with higher energy bills.

It removes a requirement that the Department of Energy first determine liquefied natural gas exports should be in the public interest before approving export applications.

This defies logic. The Republican bill assumes that all LNG exports are automatically in the public interest. This is utterly absurd considering there is widespread consensus among researchers and economists that increasing LNG exports directly leads to higher natural gas prices here at home.

Americans know this reality all too well because they have felt it firsthand. Our LNG exports quadrupled over the last 5 years. During that same time, in 2022, natural gas prices more than tripled.

Make no mistake: If this bill ever becomes law, Americans will pay more for the gas that heats their homes and keeps their lights on.

It is an affront to middle-class families who can't afford to deal with more fossil fuel price volatility. They are tired of our energy prices being manipulated by our adversaries simply because Republicans are in a mad rush to send it all abroad.

Now Republicans also claim to be tough on China. I hear this every day in the Energy and Commerce Committee. We have to be tough on China.

This bill is a gift to China. In 2021, China was the second-largest recipient of American LNG, and Chinese LNG purchasers have continued to snap up any long-term deal they can from American exporters.

By removing the requirement that our exports be in America's best interests, this bill would allow China and other adversaries to purchase even more of our energy to use against us.

Thankfully, the Biden administration is taking a different approach, one that prioritizes the needs of the American people rather than Big Oil and Gas.

Last month, the administration announced a temporary pause on new LNG export authorizations while the Department of Energy confirms that they are in Americans' interests.

This is just common sense. Before we send our energy resources abroad, it is only right that we first confirm that doing so will benefit Americans.

Anyone who says this pause is a ban on LNG exports is also peddling in blatant disinformation. The temporary pause does not affect current exports and does not affect exports from facilities that are under construction. It doesn't even affect exports from facilities that haven't begun construction but are fully permitted.

If the Department of Energy never approved another permit, our LNG exports are still on track to triple from now until the end of the decade, more than enough to ensure Europe gets all the gas that it needs.

I note how ridiculous it is to have the same Republicans who refuse to support aid for Ukraine lecture us on being good allies.

House Democrats are demanding that the House vote on legislation that has now passed the Senate that would provide funding to ensure Ukraine can continue to protect its democracy from Russia's unprovoked war of aggression.

In stark contrast, House Speaker Johnson is shamefully blocking this urgent national security funding, siding with pro-Putin extreme Republicans.

If House Republicans want to be good allies, they should join us in demanding a vote on that critical national security funding.

Mr. Speaker, ensuring that LNG exports are in the American people's best interest is something we should all want. Instead, we are here considering a bill that does the opposite for a third time because Republicans are fresh out of ideas and resorting to bringing up old, tired bills that stand no chance of ever becoming law.

Time and again they have proven completely dysfunctional and incapable of governing, and, in fact, they are making us vote on this same bill for a third time. Certainly, that is a testament to their inability to get things done. With nothing else to bring to the floor, they want to distract from reality that they have achieved nothing to improve the lives of the American people.

This is just another Republican bill that puts polluters over people, and I, therefore, encourage my colleagues to oppose it.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Huffman).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New Jersey (Mrs. Watson Coleman), my wonderful colleague.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Castor), the ranking member of our Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Casten).

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentleman from Illinois.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Colorado (Ms. DeGette), the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Energy, Climate, and Grid Security.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Barragan), who is a member of our committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Frost).

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to the amount of time that remains.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have to correct the record, not only about my colleague, Mr. Scalise, who I very much respect, but also some of the other comments that have been made.

There was a reference to President Joe Biden. The bottom line is that President Biden, like myself, believes in an all-of-the-above energy policy. In fact, there has been record production of oil during President Biden's administration. More oil has been produced domestically here in the United States during his administration than any other President that we have had.

The point is that we would like to move toward clean energy. Yes, we would like to have cleaner oil production, as well, but it doesn't mean that we are not in favor of more production. In fact, there is more production.

Now, many of my Republican colleagues have referred to President Biden's recent action to pause LNG exports as a ban, and that is simply not true. The Natural Gas Act requires the President to determine whether or not new LNG exports are in the public interest. If the President and his administration feel like they do not have sufficient information to make that determination, then it is their responsibility and duty under the law to take time and gather that information.

Even Politico highlighted the Republican misinformation machine in an article this week. They said:

Other Republicans have settled on a more blunt strategy,

falsely portraying the pause on new permits as a ban on

exports. Thanks to already issued permits, exports are

expected to increase rapidly in the coming years.

Once again, the Republicans are peddling in misinformation to prop up their polluters-over-people agenda.

The Biden administration pause makes sense. It is common sense. The last time the economic impacts of LNG exports were examined was in 2018, when LNG export volumes were one-quarter of what they currently are.

The last time the greenhouse gas impacts of LNG exports were examined was in 2019. We know so much more now about emissions from gas leakage in the transportation, liquefaction, and regasification process.

It would be foolish to review 2024 LNG exports now without looking at 2024 analysis and data, which we do not have. Therefore, frankly, it would have been massively irresponsible for President Biden to approve further exports without reexamining how the Department of Energy was making its determination. I thank the President for taking the action he did, and I look forward to the results of this review.

I want to correct one more thing. Many of my colleagues have referred to radical environmentalists. I don't think it is radical to ask what is going on in people's ability to breathe.

When the Clean Air Act was passed, it basically was passed because we wanted to make sure that people would be able to breathe clean air. It is not radical for me to try to correct air quality and, if there is pollution out there, to try to correct it so people can breathe when the list of all the health impacts of not being able to breathe clean air is so long.

Again, all we are asking--all that this administration has asked and all the Democrats have asked--is that we continue to clean up our air so that we can breathe. That is it. That is all we are asking for here today.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman from Illinois.

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

Mr. Speaker, again, this bill is a massive valentine to the Communist Party of China. It would send untold amounts of American LNG to China to help continue to fuel its industrial rise, without ever allowing for a review as to whether these exports are actually in the public interest.

Now, what is going on here? Why on Earth are Republicans eager to sell LNG to China when they know that LNG exports increase domestic natural gas prices for Americans? I will tell you why: Because the cost to American families means nothing as long as oil and gas companies profit.

Numerous studies show that LNG exports result in increased costs to Americans. If we pass this bill, already volatile natural gas prices will be shaped by forces completely out of our control.

It doesn't make any sense to me. Republicans are acting against American interests here. I wish my colleagues across the aisle would focus on what is important and not just on stalling tactics that pad the pockets of polluters.

Mr. Speaker, Republicans claim that this bill helps our European allies.

What a joke that is. The reality is that they don't care about our European allies who are currently going to the mat for democracy and facing down Vladimir Putin in Ukraine.

On Tuesday evening in the Rules Committee, we heard over and over again from our Republican colleagues that LNG is crucial for our allies in Europe. Unfortunately, these same Republicans have made it clear they have no interest in actually providing aid to Ukraine. They use the war on Ukraine to argue for LNG exports and push the arguments of their oil and gas friends. But when it comes down to actually helping allies, they are at best silent, and at worst vocally against it.

Last year, 21 radical House Republicans signed on to a letter opposing all supplemental funding requests for Ukraine in its struggle against Russian oppression.

Weeks later, a majority of House Republicans voted against a bill offering a paltry amount of aid to Ukraine. Now, after the Senate has done its part, they totally refuse to bring a bill to the floor that would easily command a majority in the House.

The behavior is unbelievable. I want to be clear: It will lead to the unnecessary deaths of Ukrainian soldiers and civilians.

Mr. Speaker, I would simply ask my Republican colleagues: Which is it? Do they actually care about assisting Europe? Do they think current LNG volumes in Europe are insufficient? Do they think tripling LNG volumes to Europe without issuing another permit is insufficient, or do they really just want to protect the ability of Big Oil and Gas to price gouge Americans here at home?

If they were serious about supporting our European allies, they would be supporting a bill on the floor that would spend money to do just that, not wasting time on this bill for the third time this Congress.

If Republicans were serious about supporting our European allies, they would push back on Donald Trump's dangerous invitation to Russia to ``do whatever the hell they want'' if Europe doesn't spend more on its own defense.

Is this what helping our democratic allies looks like? Are Republicans unable to see what is wrong here? How their inaction threatens European peace and security, and our own national security?

House Republicans are unwilling to spend a single dollar to defend democracy in Europe but are happy to sit here and argue again and again about a bill that will drive up costs for everyday Americans while lining the pockets of their Big Oil and Gas friends. It is just unbelievable to me, Mr. Speaker, even for Washington.

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

Madam Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 1009, I call up the bill (H.R. 7176) to repeal restrictions on the export and import of natural gas, 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. 7176.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 7176, the Unlocking our Domestic LNG Potential Act of 2024. I am a proud cosponsor of this legislation, which my friend and colleague from Texas (Mr. Pfluger), has introduced.

Since day one, President Biden has issued executive orders and given direction to the Federal agencies across the government to shut down American energy production, even at the expense of jobs, economic development, national security, and the climate. President Biden's decision to ban LNG exports in an election year is putting politics over people.

Let's be clear. The Biden administration does not appear to be against all

oil and gas production--just American energy.

They begged OPEC to increase production, and they are turning a blind eye to Russia. Russia is exporting 40 percent more LNG to Europe today than it was before the invasion of Ukraine. Russia's energy exports are funding its war against Ukraine, padding the pockets of Vladimir Putin.

The reality is that global demand for natural gas is expected to increase 46 percent by 2050, and our European and Asian allies who want to do business with the United States of America now have to look to Qatar or to Russia or even to Iran to meet their growing energy needs.

LNG exports strengthen America's energy security, create jobs, and decrease energy prices here at home through American production.

U.S. LNG exports could support up to 452,000 additional American jobs and add up to $73 billion in the U.S. economy by 2040.

This bill will help deliver affordable, reliable, and cleaner burning American energy to Americans, create jobs, and strengthen our global leadership.

Let's vote to unlock our domestic LNG potential.

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

Mr. Speaker, the third time is the charm. Let's get it done.

House Republicans on the Energy and Commerce Committee have focused on four main components: produce, deliver, utilize, and export.

Produce the abundant resources we have in this country.

Deliver those resources through pipelines, the need for pipeline permitting reform and buildout infrastructure.

Utilize resources to provide reliable, affordable, and clean energy for Americans.

Export to help our friends and allies around the globe to lower their carbon emissions and meet their energy needs, especially in Europe where they faced the invasion from Vladimir Putin into Ukraine.

They had a reality check on energy. They looked west to the United States to export more. We can do it, and we need to do it through LNG exports.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Washington (Mrs. Rodgers), the chairwoman of the Energy and Commerce Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to gentleman from Texas (Mr. Pfluger), the author of this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Guthrie), who chairs the Health Subcommittee on Energy and Commerce.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Bucshon).

Mr. Speaker, thank goodness for the policies of the last administration. This administration seems to be touting that it has increased production. That came about because of policies of the Trump administration, when, on day one, the Biden administration shut down oil and gas leases, stopped American energy production, shut down pipeline projects, and thwarted the American energy sector.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Walberg).

Mr. Speaker, the fear-mongering from the Democrats is ludicrous. Spot prices for natural gas in December 2023 were only 53 cents higher than they were in 2016. We can export American natural gas, produce more natural gas in this country, and help Americans and help our allies and friends around the world with their energy security, with their quality of life, and with their standard of living.

Dr. Joyce from Pennsylvania knows it well because he represents the Marcellus shale.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Joyce).

Mr. Speaker, Vladimir Putin is selling 40 percent more natural gas to Europe now than he did before the Ukraine war. By not selling Europe American LNG, the administration is putting money in Vladimir Putin's pockets for him to fund the war.

Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Texas knows about energy.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Weber).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Carter), who is the new chair of the Energy and Commerce Environment, Manufacturing, and Critical Materials Subcommittee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Scalise). We are glad the majority leader of the House is back in Congress.

Mr. Speaker, I love to hear the Democrats talk about increased production and the levels of

production now. These projects don't happen overnight. They started during the Trump administration with their policies.

Go back to the Obama administration, where oil and gas production increased on State and private land, not Federal land, because the Obama administration was against that. Then, President Trump opened up more Federal land.

However, on day one, President Biden signed executive orders to stop oil and gas leasing on Federal land. He shut down the Keystone pipeline.

My Democratic colleagues have thwarted energy projects over and over. This is another attempt to stop LNG export, and it hurts our friends and allies across the globe.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Balderson).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Cammack).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Allen).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Stauber).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Pence).

Mr. Speaker, after we lifted the crude oil export ban, Americans know what they were paying at the pump before the Biden administration. They were paying lower gas prices. They are paying much higher gas prices, commodity prices. Everything has gone up due to the Biden inflation.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Westerman), who understands natural resources. He chairs the Natural Resources Committee.

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to the time remaining.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, the United States of America is blessed with abundant natural resources. Unfortunately, we are cursed with liberal politicians who don't want American companies and American investors and entrepreneurs to go after the resources to help Americans.

When we had a spike in energy prices during the Biden administration, President Biden didn't fly to Midland, Texas; he didn't fly to North Dakota; he didn't fly to Louisiana and beg those producers to produce more. Where did he fly? He flew to Saudi Arabia to beg the OPEC cartel to produce more so that we could import it--political stunt there--to help lower prices for Americans versus using American resources and American companies and American jobs.

This indefinite pause on LNG exports is misguided, but Americans need to know this wasn't an executive order that had no input from the public. It wasn't a piece of legislation that passed. He did it by a press release, directing an agency to pause LNG exports.

Let's talk about Ukraine today. We have heard a lot of that. Vladimir Putin and his energy oligarchs are exporting to Europe 40 percent more than they did before the war in Ukraine. That is more money flowing right into the pocket of Vladimir Putin to fund his war effort in Ukraine.

I would rather that money flow into the pockets of American energy producers and tax bases and to communities all around this country that produce energy by exporting more to help our friends and allies. America has never used the spigot of energy exported to influence policy in any country, but Vladimir Putin has turned the spigot on and off many times to influence policy in Europe.

Let's pass this legislation. Let's continue to export cleaner burning, American-produced natural gas. Let's produce more, deliver more, utilize more, and export more to help our friends and allies around the world improve their quality of life and improve their energy security.

Mr. Speaker, this is right for America. I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes,'' and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, there is a really simple question before us today: Is it in the U.S. national interest to look out for U.S. energy consumers or for U.S. energy producers?

Let's look at the facts. According to the most recent DOE data over the last decade, U.S. gas consumption is up by about 26 percent; U.S. gas production is up by about 50 percent; and U.S. gas exports are up 326 percent.

Ten years ago, just 6 percent of all gas produced in the U.S. was for export. Today, more than 20 percent is for export. That is not because the industry is succeeding. They can't compete against cheaper renewable energy, so they are trying to export overseas, and y'all are helping them out.

Those export volumes are going to triple again just based on the stuff that is already permitted in the pipeline--nothing to do with what is going on today.

I remind my Republican colleagues, because sometimes we need to remind on this, even in this body where we write the laws, you cannot change the laws of supply and demand. When U.S. natural gas is exported overseas, it reduces domestic supply and increases the price. We know this from recent experience because when the Freeport LNG terminal had that explosion, according to the Department of Energy, domestic prices for natural gas fell by nearly a third. Exporters were very sad that they lost money. Do you know who had more money in their pocket? American consumers. Gas was cheaper.

Y'all hate inflation, right? That was wonderful. Thank you for doing that. Who are you rooting for, though?

Mr. Speaker, there was a reason why the Natural Gas Act does not require us to determine whether domestic production of energy for domestic use is in the national interest, because we rightly assume that domestic energy security is in our national interest. That is not the question posed by this bill. This bill would insist that exports are always in the national interest, and that is, as a technical term, total poppycock.

Should we drill on public lands? Should we use eminent domain to seize private property? Should we increase the price of energy in the United States? Should we increase global warming?

Mr. Speaker, should we increase global warming? Should we do all of that just so that the natural gas

industry can make more money selling U.S. resources to Asia--not to Europe, because that is where the margin is going. Or should we maintain the current law that simply asks us to determine whether that is in the public interest before permitting a new facility?

To paraphrase a great political scientist by the name of Jeff Foxworthy: If you think that is a hard question, you might be a Republican.

It is not a hard question. This is a bad bill for the climate. It is a bad bill for the economy. It is a bad bill for the U.S. consumer. Vote ``no.'' If you can't, at least be honest about who you are working for.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, this debate makes me sad. Energy policy is really important. Energy consumers are really important. The environment is really important. So much of this debate is completely untethered from truth.

There isn't enough time to rebut everything, but I want to clarify two points. One is where LNG exports are going right now, and the second is about the environmental impact.

It is true today that the majority of U.S. LNG exports, the largest volume, is going to Europe. It is also true that that really did help our European allies wean themselves off of Russian gas. Now, that is not because the U.S. gas industry was suddenly imbued with patriotism. It is because they were paying more, which is fine.

However, all the additional exports we are talking about are contracted out. Right now, they are going to Asia. Therefore, this is not a question right now about helping Europe. This is a question of whether they will make more money going to Asia.

Now, why are they going to go to Asia? Well, that brings me to the second point. There is an assertion that LNG is inherently clean because it displaces coal. Let's be clear. No one buys natural gas so that it will be more expensive for them to make energy. It will displace coal if it is cheaper than coal.

My colleagues are to have us believe that the United States is going to export gas to Asia so that countries like China can have cheaper energy and make their businesses more competitive on the global stage and that they are doing that because they are so committed to environmental protection.

Look, natural gas is methane, for the most part. Methane is 80 times as potent a greenhouse gas as CO2, which means that if you have more than 2 percent leakage from the wellhead to the burner tip, it is worse than coal.

In the United States, that means that the wellheads, the collection facilities, the distribution pipelines, the combustion facilities, which we all in this body regulate, maybe we can get it down below that level, and maybe in the United States, it is less. However, we are not talking about that. We are talking about exports.

What is the leak rate on the ships? What are the leak rates on the regasification facilities overseas? What are the leak rates on the distribution facilities in those countries? Do we trust Chinese economic data so much that if they say it is not leaking, we will say: That is awesome. I am glad you are so competitive. I am glad you are outcompeting U.S. businesses.

I am glad we made you more competitive. I trust your data, and we are just going to tell folks at home that because we were so patriotic and environmentally minded.

Like I said in my last remarks, this is a really good bill if you want to make money exporting natural gas. It is not a good bill for anybody else. Let's just be honest with the American people about this.