Reserved for the Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 260 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), my good friend and the ranking member on 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

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

Mr. Speaker, last night, the Rules Committee met and reported out a rule, House Resolution 260, providing for consideration of H.R. 1, the Lower Energy Costs Act.

The rule provides for consideration of H.R. 1 under a structured rule. It provides 7 hours of general debate, with 3 hours equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce or their designees. Additionally, the rule provides for 3 hours equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Natural Resources or their designees, and 1 hour equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure or their designees.

Further, this rule makes in order 37 amendments and provides 1 motion to recommit.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this rule and in support of the underlying legislation. H.R. 1 unleashes American energy, and it immediately will lower costs for families by resuming lease sales on Federal lands and waters. It will repeal fee increases on energy production, and it will end the moratorium on coal leasing.

Additionally, H.R. 1 strengthens America's critical mineral supply, prohibits a moratorium on hydraulic fracking, and streamlines the permitting process.

Let's remember, on day number one of his Presidency, President Biden launched a war on American energy. He canceled the Keystone XL pipeline, also, by the way, killing tens of thousands of union jobs, and he paused new and oil gas leases on Federal lands. That was day number one.

Under President Trump, we had independence with U.S. energy, but, now, President Biden has drained our Strategic Petroleum Reserve to the lowest level since 1983. That is the lowest level since I have been alive.

Meanwhile, the administration is increasing regulations on domestic energy production by easing regulations and incentivizing energy production in foreign, communist, and authoritarian states like Venezuela.

In the words of President Biden, climate change is the existential threat to humanity. Apparently, that only applies when the U.S. is the one producing the oil and gas, not when nations like Venezuela produce the natural gas.

President Trump, by contrast, opened 100 million acres of public land and water to exploration. But Biden has leased fewer acres of Federal land for oil and gas drilling than any President since the end of World War II. The results have directly impacted all Americans.

On the day Joe Biden took office, the average price for a gallon of gasoline was $2.39. Today, the national average is $3.47. That is a 44 percent increase. And let's not forget June's highest rate of $5 a gallon.

Due to inflation, the average American family is now paying $10,000 more in household costs under President Biden.

By leaving our resources in the ground and turning to places like Russia, Iran, and Venezuela for help, Democrats are choosing to increase energy costs and risk the national security of American families.

Why? All to appease far-left, radical activists, since they, the Democrats, lack the moral clarity to do what is right for our citizens.

However, instead of focusing on lower energy costs, this administration thinks the most pressing energy issue is--wait for it-- banning our gas stoves. That is their priority. Don't take my word for it. While the administration is now gaslighting the American people,

saying they don't stand for this, in places like New York, they have already taken the lead by announcing just yesterday they will ban gas stoves in new buildings.

Americans shouldn't have to choose between driving to work, paying their electric bills, or putting food on the table. We have to lower energy costs for Americans. We have to do it now.

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

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

Just in rebuttal, my friend and Chairman Bruce Westerman put it best. He said when the Democrats talk about polluters over people, what they are actually referring to is not this bill. It is actually a reference to where we are now, thanks to Democratic reckless and radical policies.

Right now, China is actually the largest emitter of CO2. Russian gas is much dirtier than gas from other places around the world, especially the United States where we have cheap, reliable, and clean natural gas. But instead of taking advantage of our God-given resources, Democrats and their reckless, radical policies make us more dependent on these forms of energy that are much dirtier.

My good friend from Massachusetts said this bill will drag us back decades. Well, I do want this bill to take us back, not decades, but just to a few years ago when we had a Republican in the White House. Let us not forget that the United States, again, we currently lead the world in CO2 emission reduction, but between 2018 and 2019, the total reported greenhouse gas emissions from large facilities fell nearly 5 percent. Yeah, let's go back. Let's go back to that time.

I find the talk about costs somewhat interesting because only in Washington, D.C., only in a place that lacks logic and accountability like Washington, D.C., can future revenue be considered a cost. Think about that. It is considered a cost. The math does not make sense.

It is also quite fascinating that my friends across the aisle are now talking about deficits, which in the last 4 years they voted for over $4 trillion of increases to spending.

Before I yield to my good friend from Texas, Dr. Burgess, I will point out a real-life example of what happens when we follow far-left, Democratic environmental policies.

Often I wish that we had a real-life example that we could talk about in terms of policy, and here we do. It is called Sri Lanka. Sri Lanka, trying to search for a great ESG score to--I don't know, appease globalists, appease the ruling elite, appease woke Wall Street investors--they went for this ESG score and right now they are almost a failed state. Sri Lanka's green new deal, to be clear, was a human disaster. It is an ill-advised national experiment.

Let me explain it. They went to organic farming. Organic farming yielded nothing but starvation, poverty, and chaos. President Rajapaksa, with no warning, with no attempt to teach farmers how to cope with change, announced a ban on all synthetic fertilizers and pesticides. Again, he was after that ESG score.

Ninety percent of Sri Lankan farmers relied on synthetic fertilizers. After the ban, 85 percent of farmers experienced crop loss. The damage done by this organic order was so extensive that the former President had to reverse himself less than 7 months later.

Now, let's just bring this to political reality, the goals of the United States,

where only 20 percent of electricity is powered by renewable energy, 20 percent renewable, and less than 10 percent of American families own an electric vehicle. By the way, those that own electric vehicles are overwhelmingly people who make over six figures a year. It is not your average Americans who are driving around in Teslas. Yet, the left seeks to unilaterally ban all hydrocarbons and instill these pipe dreams that the U.S. will generate all of its energy through wind and solar.

All you have to do is look at California to see what comes next. Last August, Governor Newsom announced that they will ban the sale of gasoline cars by 2035. Just 1 week later, after that announcement, the electric grid was overwhelmed in California, and the State had to ask EV owners to limit when they plugged in their vehicles to charge.

So if you ask yourself: Where does the policy of the left lead us? Look no further than to the idiocy of the policy in California and look no further than to the almost failed state of Sri Lanka. That is where these reckless, radical policies will lead the U.S. economy.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Burgess), the good doctor, my good friend, and fellow Rules Committee member.

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

Mr. Speaker, if we want to help senior citizens and if we want to help the working class, we can make sure that the working class and seniors on a fixed income can actually pay their heating bills.

According to Ipsos polling, one in three Americans have reported trouble affording gas in Biden's energy crisis. Almost 35 percent of Americans, over 40 million, use a gas stove. The Democrats want to ban the gas stove.

Let's talk about the economic pain that is coming to all Americans. Electricity prices are expected to rise over 11 percent this winter. Natural gas prices are expected to rise as much as 25 percent since last winter. About 47 percent of households use natural gas to heat their homes, by the way.

Heating home oil prices are expected to rise as much as 45 percent since last winter. Over 80 percent of homes in the northeast use heating oil. Regions that heavily depend on home heating oil, such as, may I dare say, Massachusetts, they will pay an average bill of $2,354 extra due to the draconian measures on energy, the reckless and radical policies of the left on energy production.

If we want to actually help these individuals, like Republicans want to do, we can pass H.R. 1. I also want to focus on the comment: Who do we trust? We heard that refrain over and over from my good friend from Massachusetts. I can tell you who we shouldn't trust. We shouldn't trust the so-called experts that the Democrats are infatuated with.

Let's talk about some of the statements we have heard, some of the predictions from these so-called experts. Al Gore in 2006 said: ``If you look at the 10 hottest years ever measured . . . they have all occurred in the last 14 years. The hottest of all was in 2005.''

``Within the decade there will be no more snows of Kilimanjaro.''

He said that in 2006. Last time I checked, it was 2023 and we still had snow on Mt. Kilimanjaro.

Al Gore also said:

The North Pole will be ice-free in the summer by 2013

because of manmade global warming.

That was 2013. It is 2023. Another prediction that has not come true.

John Kerry, the climate czar, in 2009 said:

You have sea ice, which is melting at a rate that the

Arctic Ocean is now increasingly exposed to. In 5 years,

scientists predict we will have the first ice-free Arctic

summer. . . .

That was 2009. It is 2023. Last time I checked, there was still ice in the Arctic.

Let's talk about Barack Obama and his predictions. In 2015, he said:

No challenge poses a greater threat to the future

generations than climate change.

When he left office, let's not forget that this man bought beachfront property in Martha's Vineyard, while having the audacity to tell us that we are facing rising sea levels due to climate change. Again, he bought a beachside mansion in Martha's Vineyard, so spare me.

In talking about the greatest threat, notice there was no mention of the CCP, notice there was no mention of Russia, which in debate with Republicans--when Republicans were pointing to the threat posed by Russia, Barack Obama said the 1980s want their foreign policy back.

Let's talk about another so-called expert that the left loves to talk about, Greta Thunberg. In 2018, she tweeted: ``A top climate scientist is warning that climate change will wipe out all of humanity unless we stop using fossil fuels over the next 5 years.''

Conveniently, Greta Thunberg deleted that tweet this month. Why? Because that was said in 2018. It is now 2023, 5 years later, and humanity is still around.

It is easy to say that the experts have just been wrong in the last few years, since the early 2000s. The so-called experts have been wrong on this topic since the 1960s.

In 1969, The New York Times published a piece from Paul Ehrlich, and he said--the so-called expert, by the way: ``We must realize that unless we are extremely lucky, everybody will disappear in a cloud of blue steam in 20 years.'' Again, that was 1969. That didn't happen. Yet, in 2023, Paul Ehrlich--I think he is 90 years old--this man is still being published and still being held up as an expert on climate change, and appearing on 60 Minutes telling us that we are all going to die. Spare me.

I have got more quotes. I could go on, but it is very clear who you should trust. The Republicans are the party of science. The Democrats are the party of political science. The Republicans are the party of chemistry. The Democrats are the party of alchemy. We are the party of astronomy. They are the party of astrology. The science is with us.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Roy), my good friend and fellow Rules Committee member.

Mr. Speaker, spare me the gaslighting on gas stoves. We know that, just yesterday, New York banned all gas stoves in new buildings. We are talking about New York.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Langworthy), who is my good friend on the Rules Committee.

Mr. Speaker, spare me the pearl-clutching about this amendment process. Let me remind my friends across the aisle that last Congress, their H.R. 1 was a closed rule. Zero amendments from either side were allowed.

We have Democrat and Republican amendments on this bill, so, again, spare me. Also, spare me that we don't want to debate this. Spare me that we don't want to have this debated and other viewpoints heard.

White House climate adviser Gina McCarthy recently called for Big Tech censorship of Americans who dared to speak out against the Biden administration's radical, far-left Green New Deal agenda. I think it is very clear who wants censorship. I think it is very clear who is afraid of ideas that don't fit their narrative. It is the Democratic Party.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Alford), who is my good friend.

Mr. Speaker, I admit I misspoke, it wasn't H.R. 1 in the 117th. It was--wait for it--H.R. 5, the Equality Act; H.R. 6, the American Dream and Promise Act; and H.R. 4, the John R. Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act. Three of the low-numbered bills that my friends across the aisle ran last Congress, their so-called priority bills, were run with closed rules. Just to be clear on that, it wasn't H.R. 1, but it was the three other ones that they ran as a priority.

Mr. Speaker, I have no further speakers, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, my friend across the aisle wants to say follow the money so we can see where people's priorities are.

Let's just follow the Strategic Petroleum Reserve release. President Biden shipped 5 million barrels of this emergency fuel overseas to countries, including China. If you want to see where the priorities lie, don't follow the money, follow where the Strategic Petroleum Reserve is going, and that is going to China.

Also, quotes on climate change, I will provide my friend across the aisle with all my quotes regarding climate change. I have got pages and pages of them. What you might find very interesting are all the ones from the 1980s where the so-called experts were calling for the next ice age, so I would direct you to that just for the fun of it.

It is interesting to see how wrong these so-called experts are and somewhat ironic that we are still being told that the experts are right after literally decades of getting almost everything wrong.

The U.S. produces more oil and natural gas than any other country in the world. As a global energy power, we can provide lower energy prices, we can create steady jobs, and we can secure America and our allies with cheaper gas that is cleaner.

Just imagine if the U.S. were supplying LNG from the great Commonwealth of Pennsylvania to our allies in Europe. Think about that instead of our allies in Europe being dependent on Russian gas, which is 41 percent dirtier.

However, the left's goal is to eliminate fossil fuels. They want to make the United States dependent, unstable, poorer, needier, and weaker because they refuse to allow us to exploit our natural resources.

If you want to think about what lies ahead in the future if we allow the Democrats to get their energy plan in place, just look at Sri Lanka. I have already talked about it. Sri Lanka has a great ESG score. They also have an almost-failed state.

Don't think that this is just some misguided plan or misguided misinformation from the Democrats. This is their plan. They want to make hydrocarbons more expensive because their base, the liberal elites that sit at home on Zoom all day, they don't have to put gas in their tank, they work from home. It is the guys who are working, who shower after work that have to put gas in their trucks and cars. That is why it is necessary to pass H.R. 1.

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.

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

Mr. Speaker, we are here today to consider a rule for H.R. 1, a bill that might as well be called the polluters over people act. It is yet another example of how this majority, instead of helping everyday Americans, is doing the bidding of their deep-pocketed friends.

We had another mass shooting yesterday, but Republicans won't lift a finger because of the gun lobby. We had another train derailment this week, but Republicans won't lift a finger because of the polluters. Our planet is on fire, but Republicans won't lift a finger because of Big Oil.

Banks are going under, but Republicans want to deregulate more to help their friends on Wall Street. They want to protect kids from what teachers teach in the classroom but not against lead pipes in schools. They say they want to stop inflation but won't go after the billionaire corporations who aren't paying any taxes while they rip people off.

Time after time after time, Republicans continue to put politics over people, and it shows. Anyone who spends 2 seconds reading this bill can see that it is a dirty energy, pro-polluter plan that would drag our economy back decades. This bill puts polluters over people. It makes it easier for companies to strip public lands of their resources and harder to hold corporate polluters accountable for the mess they make. It gives more handouts to Big Oil, as if the industry's CEOs and shareholders haven't already raked in enough money with record profits over the last few years. It guts half a century of environmental protections that ensure the air we breathe and the water we drink is clean, and it sets our country back as the rest of the world moves toward a clean energy future.

There will be plenty of time for us to talk about all the damage the polluters over people act could do to our country and communities, but let me just highlight a few of the worst.

First, it increases the national deficit by half a billion dollars. Considering how much we hear from our colleagues across the aisle about the deficit and the deficit and the deficit, it is fascinating that their most important bill blows a hole in the deficit. So much for their commitment to fiscal discipline. Don't take my word for it, just consult the CBO. It is a little bit ironic on a day that they are asking that there be dramatic cuts in all kinds of programs that help people in this country, they come up with this bill and add close to a half a billion dollars to our deficit.

Second, it is a job killer. This bill will kill jobs. Over the last few years, Democrats have invested in building a homegrown, clean energy system so we don't have to rely on foreign cartels like OPEC and greedy Big Oil companies for our energy. Investing in these clean energy projects meant we created millions of clean energy jobs. The polluters over people act would kill these jobs and pull our country off course from our path toward a cleaner, cheaper energy future.

Third, it makes it easier to pollute, and it makes it easier for companies to get away with polluting. Just yesterday, a local grandfather in East Palestine, Ohio, detailed the pain caused by the terrible toxic spill there. He said he has ``never cried this much in his life.'' His young granddaughters developed blotches all over their bodies, and their eyes were burning.

This bill would mean more billionaire corporations getting away with polluting without being held accountable, more wells with toxic chemicals, more days where windows are shut because the air is not safe to breathe, more kids diagnosed with asthma because the air quality is so poor.

The worst part is that the Republicans do not care. Their bill literally puts polluters over the people we are here to serve. It forces American taxpayers to foot the bill for cleanup while billionaire corporations dump their toxic waste on our communities. This is sick.

Look at what is happening to our planet, Mr. Speaker. Year after year, the warmest ever recorded; species going extinct at rates not seen in millions of years; sea levels rising and coastal communities feeling the impact; farmers struggling to cope with changing seasons, unprecedented droughts, and crop failures. The answer from my Republican friends is more fossil fuels, more pollution, more drilling, more toxic waste dumped into our communities, more giveaways for Big Oil, and nothing, not a single thing, to lower energy prices.

This bill might as well put ExxonMobil and Chevron in charge of our response to climate change. It might as well put Norfolk Southern in charge of chemical safety. It is a terrible bill that will shackle us to dirty fossil fuels for generations to come.

Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote on the rule and the underlying legislation, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, my colleagues seem to want to debate energy policy in China and in Sri Lanka. That may be a fascinating topic, but that is not what we are here debating. We are here debating energy policy in the United States of America.

I don't want us to go down the path of more fossil fuels and reliance on more energy sources that are going to contribute to climate change. I want us to lead the world toward a greener and cleaner energy future. I guess the question really here is: Who do you trust?

My colleagues on the other side of the aisle, their argument is basically: Trust the big oil companies. Give them unfettered access. Give them more money and they will lower your prices. Really?

They have the capacity to produce more now, but they are not, and they are gouging people at the pump. Does anybody believe that the CEOs of these big oil companies making record profits give a damn about average people in this country, about your constituents or my constituents? Give me a break. All they care about is profits. That is the question that people have to answer: Who do you trust? Do you trust the big oil companies?

I certainly don't after the way they have behaved--not just recently, but over time. They gouge people all the time.

The other stuff is fascinating, but we can talk about Sri Lanka at some other time. I would rather talk about the United States of America.

Mr. Speaker, I urge that we defeat the previous question. If we do, I will offer an amendment to the rule to provide for consideration of a resolution that affirms the House's unwavering commitment to protect and strengthen Social Security and Medicare, and states that it is the position of the House of Representatives to reject any cuts to these programs.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my amendment into the Record along with extraneous material immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Mr. Speaker, Social Security and Medicare are the cornerstone of our Nation's social safety net. These vital programs are under threat as my Republican colleagues continue to demand reckless cuts in exchange for paying our Nation's bills.

Some Republicans have recently claimed that they won't cut Social Security or Medicare benefits. Mr. Speaker, that empty rhetoric has not been reassuring to the American people who continue to fear that these programs will be slashed by my Republican friends.

Today, once again, Democrats are giving Republicans a chance to back up their claims with action by providing them with a chance to reassure the American people, not just with their words, but with their votes. Today, they can vote unequivocally that they will not cut these vital programs. Anything short is an empty promise.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Vermont (Ms. Balint), to discuss our proposal.

Mr. Speaker, the gentleman says that this building is powered by natural gas. I think it is probably more accurate to say it is powered by hot air.

Mr. Speaker, the bottom line is that this bill is a giveaway to the oil companies. The gentleman says he doesn't trust Big Oil, but this is a bill that gives them everything they want--their wish list.

Trust the markets? I don't know that the market can clean up a toxic waste dump or the market can clean up an oil spill or the market can monitor clean air.

The bottom line is this bill goes after all of those protections and actually endangers the American people.

To the gentleman from Pennsylvania, who I hope will read more quotes because I think it is making it clear--which is shocking in the year 2023--he is making the case that climate change doesn't exist going all the way back to Al Gore, who actually was right when he said that climate change was a problem, and selectively taking these quotes from way back when.

Does anybody believe that climate change isn't real?

Come to Massachusetts. I will introduce you to my farmers who complain about the impacts of climate change on their ability to make a livelihood. Maple syrup producers wonder whether they will be able to get maple syrup out of trees in Massachusetts because of climate change. I could go on and on about the impacts of climate change on our local farmers.

Much of this discussion, Mr. Speaker, can be tied back to Republicans' affinity for culture wars. They just claimed a little while ago that President Biden and Democrats were planning to come after Americans' gas stoves. It couldn't be further from the truth. No one is taking your stove.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to include in the Record a Vox article titled: ``Five myths about gas stoves, the latest culture war clash.''

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Castor).

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

Mr. Speaker, the way everybody is yelling and screaming over there, you would think that they want to have a debate on ideas, but this rule actually blocks over three-quarters of all the amendments submitted.

Democrats offered 95 amendments. Mr. Speaker, do you know how many they made in order? Seven.

That is not just an interesting statistic, Mr. Speaker. It means that real and important ideas are completely blocked from even being debated on this House floor on their signature piece of legislation. Many of these amendments would protect public health and safety and our environment.

Take, for example, an amendment by Ms. Kamlager-Dove, No. 37, that requires permits prepared under the NEPA process to include an analysis of health and safety impacts. That is it. It seems like a good idea to me.

The amendment sponsored by Mrs. Sykes, No. 118, takes into account drinking water quality when approving permits. I don't think clean drinking water ought to be a radical idea, but maybe it is on the Republican side of the aisle. We should debate it.

Another amendment submitted by Mrs. Dingell, No. 15, would require the United States to actually reduce its emissions before repealing a section of the law, the greenhouse gas reduction fund, set up to spur clean energy projects and reduce air pollution.

I offered three amendments, and they were all blocked. One of them, No. 94, struck language in this bill providing blanket immunity to polluters who violate our country's bedrock environmental laws.

Really? Do you think that is objectionable? We can't even debate it here? We can do 7 hours of general debate, but we can't take 10 minutes to discuss whether companies should get a blank check to pollute. Whose side are you on?

Back in January, Speaker McCarthy actually promised both sides ``more openness, more opportunity for ideas to win at the end of the day.'' Mr. Speaker, that promise has been broken. This Republican majority knows their

bills fail to address real problems, so they continue to block our good ideas from even coming to the floor rather than debating them. They are scared to let Americans hear our ideas, and that tells you everything you need to know.

This is important, I think, for my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to know. My friends across the aisle blocked all six amendments from the gentleman from Pennsylvania, the co-chair of the Problem Solvers Caucus, Mr. Fitzpatrick, who happens to be a Republican. They blocked all six.

Mr. Fitzpatrick's amendments would have opposed drilling in the Delaware River Basin, ensured the act doesn't preempt a State constitution, established an infrastructure and environmental innovation trust fund, preserved the greenhouse gas reduction fund, prohibited energy exploration activities on any protected public land, and added a sense of Congress that U.S. citizens have a right to clean air and clean water.

I get it. My friends are pushing this polluters over people bill, but our colleague, a Republican who is the co-chair of the Problem Solvers Caucus, was denied all six of these amendments.

What are you afraid of? Why don't you debate these?

It is unfortunate that those ideas apparently were just too radical to even be debated on the House floor.

I truly hope that Mr. Fitzpatrick, after witnessing his own majority block all of his amendments, even the ones the gentleman watered down with a revision, I hope he will not support this rule. Supporting this rule would mean the gentleman would be voting to block his own amendments.

In fact, I ask all Republican members of the Problem Solvers Caucus to vote ``no'' on this rule because if you don't, this will be the pattern.

Mr. Speaker, I rhetorically ask the Problem Solvers Caucus how they plan to solve any problems if their Republican leadership won't even let them offer their ideas and won't even give them a fair fight on this floor.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Pennsylvania just said that when we introduced H.R. 1, our H.R. 1 was a closed rule. I would urge him to go back and look at the statistics because our H.R. 1 in the 117th Congress had a structured rule with 56 amendments in order, more than the 36 on this bill. In the previous Congress, our H.R. 1 had even more amendments in order.

If the gentleman can't even be kind of factual about that, what else should we wonder whether it is based on fact or not?

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from New Mexico (Ms. Leger Fernandez), a distinguished member of the Rules Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for admitting his error and admitting that he was wrong when he said H.R. 1 was a closed rule we brought up. I think perhaps the gentleman might want to go back and consult some of his research because I think he would also find out that some of the things he said about climate change would be proven factually wrong.

I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Correa).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Neguse), a distinguished member of the Rules Committee.

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

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to include in the Record a letter from nearly 100 energy and environment groups including the Natural Resources Defense Council, the Sierra Club, The Wilderness Society, and Oceana.

Mr. Speaker, my colleagues are saying that this bill doesn't put polluters over people. This letter I include states: ``H.R. 1 would encourage new fossil fuel production and infrastructure, locking us into increased extraction, high and volatile energy prices, and even greater profits for fossil fuel companies. It would undermine bedrock environmental laws through a short-circuiting of government accountability, meaningful public input, and review. It would put the interests of industry ahead of the public.''

Mr. Speaker, let me just say, H.R. 1 puts polluters over people. It does nothing to lower energy costs. Their bill makes it easier for companies to contaminate our water and spew pollution and God knows what else into the air. It will make us pay for corporations' messes while they leave behind a toxic trail of disaster.

The polluters over people act is a massive giveaway that ensures the GOP's industry friends make more money. I would say to those who are watching this, follow the money. Look at who the oil companies are giving their money to.

It jeopardizes American jobs. It worsens the climate crisis, and it takes monumental steps back from achieving a clean energy future.

Mr. Speaker, we can do so much better. This is such a blatant giveaway to polluters. This is such a blatant giveaway to big corporate interests. This is such a blatant giveaway to Big Oil. It is offensive.

I urge a strong ``no'' vote on this rule. I urge a ``no'' vote on the previous question. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the underlying bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 1160, I call up the bill (H.R. 8034) making emergency supplemental appropriations to respond to the situation in Israel and for related expenses for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2024, and for other purposes, 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 the measure under consideration.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to offer H.R. 8034, the Israel Security Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2024.

This bill provides $26.38 billion to fortify America's support of Israeli allies and defend our troops in the region.

It is part of a larger package of three security supplemental appropriations acts before us for Israel, Ukraine, and the Indo- Pacific. All three are essential to deter our adversaries.

There are moments when our actions are optional, a convenience but not a necessity, a choice. This is not one of those moments.

The world is in chaos. Americans have been killed, and our allies and partners are dying on the front lines every day.

Ukraine is entering its third year of a war to repel Russia's invasion while forced to conserve their munitions and choose which areas to defend. Israel is avenging its innocent civilians who were murdered, raped, brutalized, and taken hostage by Hamas while defending its country from a barrage of Iranian missiles. Indo-Pacific nations face China daily with strength and resolve, knowing they are likely next.

The United States is not on the sidelines in these conflicts. Our servicemembers are under daily attack in the Red Sea, standing watch along NATO's eastern flank and being routinely challenged in the Indo- Pacific. Mr. Speaker, five American flag-draped coffins have returned home in the past 6 months.

When we go to war, we go to war with what we have. There is no time to forge new alliances, no ability to reconstruct abandoned production lines, and no hidden reserve of fully trained and ready troops.

This is the situation our allies and partners in Israel, Ukraine, Taiwan, and other Indo-Pacific nations face today. It is a situation we ourselves may face sooner than we think.

Xi, Putin, Khamenei, and terrorist leaders will not back down unless met with a strong and resolute America, standing shoulder to shoulder with our constellation of allies and partners. These bills provide the funding necessary to defeat and deter our enemies.

While the bills carry the names of other countries, there is one Nation that I care about above all others. That is ours. These conflicts have exposed the fragility of our defense industrial base and the dire need to invest in factories, shipyards, and assembly lines that manufacture the instruments of our national defense.

In recognition of this fact, over $59 billion across these bills go into our defense industrial base, including $3.3 billion to supercharge our submarine industrial base; $29.5 billion to replenish our stocks of U.S. defense systems and services provided to Israel, Ukraine, and Taiwan; and $1.13 billion to expand procurement and development of artillery and critical munitions.

Each conflict has its unique needs addressed in these bills, including: $5.2 billion to replenish Israel's Iron Dome and David's Sling and procure Iron Beam missile defense systems; $542 million for unfunded priorities expressly requested by the USINDOPACOM commander; and $13.8 billion directly to procure U.S. capabilities for Ukraine.

Our servicemen and servicewomen across the globe are being tasked to operate at a wartime tempo to track, respond, and engage emerging threats. These bills provide the resources necessary to support their operations with $11.3 billion for current U.S. operations in Europe and $2.4 billion for our forces in the Middle East who are under daily attack.

Mr. Speaker, we have been complacent far too long as our allies and partners and our own servicemembers have been under attack. This Congress has a solemn obligation to our military to provide them with the resources they need to deter and win our Nation's wars.

Douglas MacArthur once said: ``The history of the failure of war can almost be summed up in two words: too late.''

When conflict occurs, we will fight with what we have and who is with us.

Mr. Speaker, I encourage my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on these bills to ensure our military readiness and reinvigorate the American defense industry.

I encourage them to vote ``yes'' to reinforce our Israeli, Ukrainian, Taiwanese, and Indo-Pacific allies and partners.

I encourage them to vote ``yes'' so that future generations may write of what we did here today: They weren't too late.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Clyde), a member of the Appropriations Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. McClintock).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Lawler).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Kean).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Fitzpatrick).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Wilson).

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire how much time is remaining.

Mr. Speaker, in closing, this is a day we are going to act. I urge all my colleagues to support these critical national security bills. They provide the resources necessary to bolster our military, reassure our allies and partners, and commit to stand against tyranny.

The world is waiting, watching, and wanting America to lead. This is our moment.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the Israel Security Supplemental Appropriations Act, which will provide Israel with desperately needed aid to respond to the horrific October 7 attacks and protect itself from Iran and its proxies.

What happened in Israel on October 7 was horrifying. On a recent trip to Israel, I saw firsthand the remnants of the violence that innocent people were subjected to, including the site of the Supernova Sukkot Gathering music festival that Hamas attacked, Kibbutz Be'eri and the homes where so many were massacred, and Hostage Square where I met with families of those taken hostage by Hamas.

The United States has not forgotten October 7. Today, we are providing the aid Israel has needed since the day Hamas terrorists killed innocent Israeli civilians in the worst attack on Jewish people since the Holocaust.

Just last weekend, Israel was openly and directly attacked by Iran. I applaud the role of the United States in providing Israel with support in its defense against that attack.

While we must ensure Israel can stand strong in the face of adversaries like Iran that seek its annihilation, we must also ensure that every step possible is taken to protect innocent life in Gaza and elsewhere.

On my trip, we also went to Khirbet Zanutah, a Palestinian village in the West Bank where settlers destroyed homes and a school. On the trip, we were also briefed from Gaza by humanitarian organizations, including UNRWA, which have lost hundreds of staff to the violence.

To that end, I have called for an immediate cease-fire of at least 6 weeks to facilitate the safe delivery of aid to civilians in Gaza. We must protect aid workers. We must open additional crossings to bring in at least 500 trucks a day and ensure that food is never used as a weapon of war.

Innocent families are in danger, children are starving, and civilian casualties are mounting, not just in Gaza but in conflict zones all around the world. The more than $9 billion in humanitarian support in this bill would make sure that we are not leaving Gazans, the Ukrainians, the Sudanese, the Haitians, or the Rohingya behind.

We must pass this bill and ensure Israel has the resources it needs to defend itself and that much-needed humanitarian aid can flow to millions of vulnerable people around the world.

Mr. Speaker, I urge your support, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Financial Services and General Government.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Wasserman Schultz), the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Lois Frankel), who is a member of the Appropriations Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Pocan), who is a member of the Appropriations Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Sherman).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Manning).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).

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

This bill provides urgently needed humanitarian aid for millions of civilians who have been caught in the crossfire across many theaters, whether it is Ukraine against Russian aggression; Israel in its war against Iran and its proxies like Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Houthis; or our Indo-Pacific partners against an adversarial China.

Innocent families are in danger today. Children are starving, and civilian casualties are mounting in conflict zones all around the world. The humanitarian support in this bill would make sure that we are not leaving these people behind.

It is, again, so critically important that the United States demonstrate its support for its allies, and its leadership when it comes to humanitarian assistance, wherever it is needed.

We come here to govern. We come here to take our responsibilities seriously, and I believe that the majority of people here do take responsibilities seriously.

Today, we have the ability to help to make a difference. In this piece of legislation, in addition to our support for our ally, Israel, we have the moral responsibility to provide humanitarian assistance. The United States cannot stand by and watch people starve to death and be caught in crossfires without our standing up and saying: ``No.''

I urge my colleagues to vote for this bill. As I said at another meeting this week, the moment has met us. We need to meet that moment

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

Mr. Speaker, Israel suffered a tragic loss on October 7, 2023. The people of Israel are in mourning. The lives of innocent civilian Israeli men, women, and especially children matter. They must be protected. This includes the hostages, all of whom must be immediately returned in tandem with a lasting ceasefire as the genesis of a two-state solution.

After the horrific human rights violations committed by Hamas on October 7, 2023, the Netanyahu administration had just cause catalyzing a de jure right to pursue justice as it did by declaring war on Hamas, not hundreds of thousands of innocent civilian Palestinian men, women, and especially children.

To the contrary, and shamefully, Prime Minister Netanyahu has engaged in an unjust, revengeful, might-makes-right offense, creating more enemies than have been killed. He has engaged in lethal atrocities wherein the ends of destroying Hamas justifies:

Killing thousands of innocent civilian Palestinian children;

Collectively harming thousands upon thousands of innocent civilian Palestinian men, women, and especially children;

Failing to properly aid hundreds of thousands of food-deprived Palestinians; and

Committing domicide by destroying approximately 62 percent of Palestinian homes in Gaza, as well as damaging at least 84 percent of Gaza's health facilities, together with over 275 schools.

It has become intuitively and painfully obvious to me that Prime Minister Netanyahu's definition of ``the right to defend'' embraces an invidious ends-justifies-the-means strategy. This imprudent and unjust strategy of domicide, collective harm, and failure to feed the hungry, in tandem with the killing of thousands of innocent Palestinian children, cannot in good conscience receive a blind eye.

No one, no political entity, no country can commit such atrocious injustices in the name of justice and expect the blessings of people of good will. Injustice in the name of justice is still an injustice. Israel's de jure right (in the hands of Prime Minister Netanyahu) to defend itself in the name of justice has metamorphosed into unconscionable de facto human rights violations that offend the conscience and grievously tarnishes Israel's global image. In truth, Prime Minister Netanyahu's might-makes-right, by any means necessary-- war--is making Israel an existential threat to Palestinians living in Gaza.

I cannot in good conscience oppose the above-cited atrocious transgressions and contemporaneously provide the munitions which can beget more of these God-awful inhumanities. Sadly, but righteously, I cannot vote to send the pending billions of supplemental funds to the opprobrious administration of Prime Minister Netanyahu. To do so would allow those funds, or free up other funds in their treasury, to purchase the lethality to kill more innocent civilian Palestinian men, women, and especially children, which I oppose.

Palestinians (like Israelis) are in mourning, and the lives of innocent civilian Palestinian men, women, and especially children matter. They too must be protected.

For the reasons enumerated above, I will vote no on The Israel Security Supplemental Appropriations Act of 2024.