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, the production of nuclear power in our country is an awesome responsibility. Put in the hands of the wrong people, it can be deadly.

Those who operate nuclear facilities must be highly trained and honorable. Recall Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, and Fukushima? They all teach us nuclear power in the hands of careless and, indeed, corrupt people can be deadly to thousands of innocent people.

This morning, let us turn to Ohio's two financially strapped nuclear plants, both located in northern Ohio, adjacent to our people's freshwater kingdom, Lake Erie.

In Ohio, the largest corruption crimes in America's commercial plant nuclear history are being litigated. These crimes are also the largest public corruption trials in Ohio's history.

Last week, a Federal grand jury in Cincinnati indicted former chair of Ohio's Public Utilities Commission, Sam Randazzo, on bribery and embezzlement for his role in receiving $4.3 million in kickbacks for what has been labeled the biggest political bribery scandal in Ohio's history.

The nuclear power company, FirstEnergy, ultimately paid more than $60 million in 2018 and 2019 to bribe public officials like the Speaker of the Ohio House, who has now been sentenced to 20 years in prison.

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record an article entitled ``Sam Randazzo, Ohio's former top utilities regulator, charged with bribery, embezzlement crimes.''

[From the Plain Dealer Cleveland, Dec. 5, 2023]

Sam Randazzo, Ohio's Former Top Utilities Regulator, Charged With

Bribery, Embezzlement Crimes

(By Jeremy Pelzer, Andrew J. Tobias, and Jake Zuckerman, Zuckerman)

Columbus, OH.--A federal grand jury has indicted Sam Randazzo, the former chair of the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio, on 11 counts

related to bribery and embezzlement, U.S. Attorney Kenneth Parker's

office announced Monday.

The indictment states that Randazzo accepted a $4.3 million

bribe in exchange for helping FirstEnergy, an Akron-based

electric utility, secure its policy priorities, including

helping with House Bill 6, the 2019 energy law at the center

of a federal bribery probe. FirstEnergy admitted to bribing

Randazzo in 2021, but he wasn't charged until now.

If convicted, Randazzo could face up to 20 years in prison.

The 74-year-old Columbus resident self-surrendered on

Monday morning at U.S. District Court in Cincinnati,

according to a release. He appeared in federal court that

afternoon, cuffed at the wrists and ankles, before Chief

Magistrate Judge Karen Litkovitz at Cincinnati's federal

courthouse. He pleaded not guilty and was released on a bond

of his own recognizance.

The 11 counts against Randazzo include: one count of

conspiring to commit travel act bribery and honest services

wire fraud, two counts of travel act bribery, two counts of

honest services wire fraud, one count of wire fraud and five

counts of making illegal monetary transactions, according to

the release.

As chairman of the PUCO from April 2019 until he resigned

in November 2020, Randazzo reviewed requests from gas and

electric companies seeking to levy new costs on customers. He

accepted $4.3 million soon after meeting with then-

FirstEnergy executives Chuck Jones and Mike Dowling in

December 2018, as Randazzo was applying to become PUCO chair.

In November 2019, Randazzo pushed to cancel a 2024 rate

review case that the company believed would hurt its bottom

line by forcing it to reduce the rates it charged customers,

as well as open its books to regulators, which they saw as

problematic.

Randazzo also played a key role in getting lawmakers,

including Ohio Senate Finance Committee Chair Matt Dolan, to

include language in the 2019 state budget that loosened state

limits on FirstEnergy, and other utilities' ability to make

``significantly excessive'' profits, according to the

indictment.

Dolan, a Chagrin Falls Republican now running for the U.S.

Senate, previously acknowledged speaking to Dowling, who

convinced him of the need to place the amendment in the state

budget. The Plain Dealer/cleveland.com reached out to Dolan

on Monday for comment.

The indictment states that Randazzo routed the bribe money

through his consulting business, Sustainability Funding

Alliance of Ohio. He also used that business to funnel to

himself at least $1 million meant for Industrial Energy

Users-Ohio, a consortium of large-scale energy buyers who he

represented in PUCO cases as an attorney.

``Public officials--whether elected or appointed--are

tasked with upholding the highest level of integrity in their

duties and responsibilities. Such service to the public must

be selfless, not selfish,'' the U.S. Attorney said in a

statement. ``Through the indictment unsealed today, we seek

to hold Randazzo accountable for his alleged illegal

activities.''

Roger Sugarman, an attorney representing Randazzo in

criminal and civil lawsuits, declined to comment Monday.

Randazzo did not respond to questions posed by reporters.

Randazzo's arraignment on Monday advanced a stunning fall

from grace from a once respected utility lawyer and lobbyist

with notorious influence at the Statehouse. He is often

credited with pushing for what would become state laws

constricting the growth of wind, solar, and energy efficiency

programs in Ohio. State lobbying records reflect years of

lobbying work on behalf of the Ohio Gas Company, Vectren

Energy and IEU. Now-state Sen. Shane Wilkin once told

Randazzo in an email that ``we already know you run the

energy world.'' He was a mainstay at IEU's regular ``Ohio

Energy Management Conference.''

Gov. Mike DeWine, who appointed Randazzo, had dinner with

Jones and Dowling the same night as the latter pair's meeting

with Randazzo. DeWine spokesman Dan Tierney said Monday that

while the governor's office wasn't privy to the indictment

and was still reviewing it, ``the indictment alleges very

serious acts. Our office has full faith in the criminal

justice system to adjudicate these serious allegations in an

appropriate manner.''

Many of the emails and text messages referenced in the

indictment to and from the former FirstEnergy executives and

Randazzo have previously been made public. However, the

indictment's details about his embezzlement charge are new,

according to Dave DeVillers, Parker's predecessor as U.S.

attorney.

Randazzo resigned as PUCO chair in November 2020, days

after the FBI raided his Columbus townhouse. In the years

that followed, prosecutors were silent about Randazzo,

leading to questions about why they were taking so long to

decide whether to file charges.

Ashley Brown, a former PUCO commissioner, said the delay

has cost the state's electricity customers, given that the

PUCO has paused its own investigations into the HB6 scandal

at Parker's request to wait for the federal corruption

investigation to wrap up.

In the meantime, electricity customers have continued to

pay a fee contained in HB6 that subsidizes a pair of coal

plants owned by FirstEnergy and several other utilities.

``It's hard to imagine why he wasn't indicted earlier,''

said Brown, who also questioned why no current or former

FirstEnergy officials have been charged so far.

Asked about the length of time it took for charges to be

brought, DeVillers said, ``They could have been negotiating

with the defense attorney, they could have been talking to

him and it fell apart. And then it could be they dug into

this count [the embezzlement charge], which seems to be

completely different, and needed to ferret that out to find

out what that was all about.''

Randazzo is already a defendant in a civil lawsuit filed in

2021 by Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost. As part of that

case, a Franklin County judge ordered the seizure of up to $8

million worth of Randazzo's assets, though that decision is

still being appealed.

Randazzo's indictment comes several months after ex-Ohio

House Speaker Larry Householder was sentenced to 20 years in

prison for leading a $60 million bribery scheme using

FirstEnergy money to help pass House Bill 6, which included a

$1 billion-plus ratepayer bailout for two nuclear power

plants then owned by a FirstEnergy subsidiary. Former Ohio

Republican Party Chair Matt Borges received 5 years in prison

for his role in the scandal; two others connected to the

bribery scheme have pleaded guilty and are awaiting

sentencing.

FirstEnergy officials previously admitted that Randazzo

helped them to develop strategy and legal language for HB6.

After HB6 passed, emails made public last year showed

Randazzo, as PUCO chair, worked behind the scenes to hinder

attempts to fully repeal the law, and he only grudgingly

called for state regulators to take limited action--asking

FirstEnergy to investigate itself over whether it misspent

any customer money--in response to negative press.

To date, no current or former FirstEnergy officials, have

been charged in connection with the HB6 scandal or any of

Randazzo's alleged crimes.

Mr. Speaker, FirstEnergy's plot was to foist its billion- dollar-plus corporate losses on the consumers of Ohio due to its pitiful management of its two nuclear power plants in northern Ohio. These are crimes.

While Randazzo was being indicted, the Federal Government moved to claim an additional $6.5 million from FirstEnergy for this crime. We should all be deeply disturbed that inherently dangerous nuclear assets have been in the hands of criminals.

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record an editorial titled: ``Finally, 11 counts against ex-PUCO chief Sam Randazzo but why still none against then-FirstEnergy officials whose fingerprints are all over the case?''

[From The Plain Dealer Cleveland, Dec. 6, 2023]

Finally, 11 Counts Against Ex-PUCO Chief Sam Randazzo But Why Still None Against Then-FirstEnergy Officials Whose Fingerprints Are All Over

the Case?

(By Editorial Board)

Monday's unsealing of an 11-count federal conspiracy,

bribery, wire fraud and embezzlement indictment against

former Public Utilities Commission of Ohio chief Samuel

Randazzo was a welcome sign of prosecutorial progress in the

FirstEnergy/House Bill 6 corruption case--but it's like the

first footfall in a long-delayed reckoning with some of the

key officials at the heart of the asserted conspiracy.

Our editorial board had repeatedly urged the U.S. Attorney

for Southern Ohio, Ken Parker, to explain publicly why such a

long delay in a case whose first arrests--of five Statehouse

figures, including now-convicted former House Speaker Larry

Householder and former Ohio Republican Party chair Matt

Borges--came more than three years ago.

And where is the second footfall--charges against any of

the FirstEnergy Corp. executives whose roles in paying out

the bribes and soliciting the corrupt actions by Randazzo and

others have been detailed in this and prior indictments?

The Randazzo indictment refers to now-departed Executives 1

and 2 at Akron-based FirstEnergy--former CEO Chuck Jones and

former Senior Vice President for External Affairs Michael

Dowling--as those with the primary contacts with Randazzo

over the $4,333,333 bribe FirstEnergy Corp. previously

admitted paying Randazzo in a 2021 deferred prosecution

agreement.

But they're clearly not the only FirstEnergy officials

privy to the laundry list of regulatory and legislative

favors Randazzo was helping the company secure, including a

lucrative decoupling accounting provision that PUCO staff

opposed, modifications to the state's ``significantly

excessive earnings test'' (SEET) that were added to the two-

year state budget, and ``burning'' of

a critical PUCO audit about FirstEnergy's distribution

modernization rider (DMR).

According to the Randazzo indictment, ``On or about March

4, 2020, Executive 1 messaged another Company A executive:

``He [Randazzo] will get it done for us but cannot just

jettison all process. Says the combination of over ruling

Staff and other Commissioners on decoupling, getting rid of

SEET and burning the DMR final report has a lot of talk going

on in the halls of PUCO about does he work there or for us?

He'll move it as fast as he can. Better come up with a short

term work around.''

An indictment to shed light on the full scope of corruption

entailed in FirstEnergy's actions is needed.

It's possible Parker's delay in indicting Randazzo over

bribes long since acknowledged by FirstEnergy and favors that

have come into clearer light in civil cases was because he

hoped to turn others into cooperating witnesses--or Randazzo

into one himself.

Then there's the unexpected embezzlement charge against

Randazzo in the indictment, accusing him of defrauding

another client, the Industrial Energy Users-Ohio, a group of

big energy customers, of $1,104,598.

David DeVillers, the former U.S. Attorney for Southern Ohio

under whose leadership the corruption case was first

investigated and prosecuted, told cleveland.com's Jeremy

Pelzer, Andrew J. Tobias and Jake Zuckerman that the

embezzlement charge might have been the whammy in the mix,

taking time to sort out. ``It could be they dug into this

count, which seems to be completely different, and needed to

ferret that out to find out what that was all about,''

DeVillers told the reporters.

Either way, it is to be hoped that the indictment of

Randazzo will finally cause Parker to lift his effective hold

on important PUCO and other state-level investigations into

how both the PUCO and its processes, and the legislative

process separately, were so distorted and corrupted, so

reforms can be made. That's especially urgent given that

unrepealed parts of fatally tainted House Bill 6 right now

require electricity customers in Ohio to subsidize--to the

tune of more than $200 million so far, according to the Ohio

Office of Consumers' Counsel--two money-losing coal plants,

one in Indiana. Shining the full disinfectant of transparent

investigations on how all this came to be is a critical first

step to reform.

Mr. Speaker, since the Davis-Besse plant came online in 1977, its corporate leadership has never understood nuclear power or its dangers. It is only the unionized workers that have saved our lives. The plant shares an old Babcock-and-Wilcox design with the Three Mile Island reactor that partially melted down in 1979. Another plant with the design, the Rancho Seco plant in Sacramento, California, permanently closed in 1989.

Davis-Besse itself is now nearly 50 years old and has a dismal reputation within the industry and a history of too many close calls. In 1985, the plant suffered a loss of the main and backup supplies of cooling water because of a series of system failures, and this should have been a wake-up call, but it went unheeded.

In 2002, we faced the worst nuclear safety incident since Three Mile Island when a major hole was discovered in Davis-Besse's reactor head, endangering the lives of millions of Ohioans and the purity of Lake Erie. The plant's unionized workers again saved us all.

The Davis-Besse nuclear power plant, with its history of safety violations and close calls, is a clear example of how corporate culture can influence safety culture for the worst, and the industry around our country never held them accountable.

The fines and penalties imposed on FirstEnergy have done little to deter misconduct. It is time for us to take bold action and provide our region with safe, advanced, modern power in a platform akin to the Tennessee Valley Authority.

So much more needs to be done to make our communities safe and whole from FirstEnergy's fraud, starting with making sure that the Benton- Carroll-Salem school system where Davis-Besse is located can be made whole. The value of property in the region has gone down 90 percent, which means the school system is going to be nearly $6 million short on what it needs to teach the next generation.

I urge judges in the case to take the grid under FirstEnergy's ownership under safe public conservatorship until a reliable operator can be stood up.

May we find the wisdom and courage to confront these nuclear challenges head-on to usher in a new era of clean and responsible energy for the consumers and people of northern Ohio who have been bilked so royally over the last nearly half century.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Pennsylvania. I couldn't help but notice my colleagues on the other side of the aisle going, yet again, to one of their pages in their playbook that they love to bring out every single time we have a debate--oh, who can you trust?

You can't trust corporate America. Guess what? I don't trust corporate America. I don't trust Big Oil. I don't. I don't trust them any more than I trust any of the big government bureaucrats that decide what is best for me. I do trust the market.

I do trust people being able to go out and use their capital to go out and produce the best energy for the American people. This administration and my Democratic colleagues don't want to do that, as exemplified by the fact that the President of the United States dumped 300 million barrels out of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve last year heading into an election.

Mr. Speaker, 300 million barrels. They cut the Strategic Petroleum Reserve in half in order to bail out their election because their policies were so bad. Even Goldman Sachs is saying that the so-called Inflation Reduction Act, which massively expands unreliable energy, would cost $1.2 trillion. That is the truth.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule for this bill. I think it is critically important that we take a massive step forward to try to ensure that we open up exploration on lands, repeal the methane tax, and overall permitting.

It is only a simple step because the step that has to be taken is to free up the market from the ungodly amount of subsidies coming from Washington, subsidizing unreliable energy at the expense of capital being able to flow into the development of oil and natural gas and nuclear power to ensure that we have the power to live our lives.

When you have a cloudy, windless day, you have to have power. This building is powered by natural gas. Hospitals across the country stay open because of natural gas. The fact of the matter is, you cannot power the world right now with wind and solar power.

My colleagues on the other side of the aisle live in unicorn land with fairy dust, completely ignoring the reality of what happens to real Americans when the cost of their goods and services go up; when they have inflation skyrocketing and raising up; when it is destroying their way of life because people want to feel good about themselves hopping in their Tesla and rolling around pretending there is a magic energy tree. There isn't.

People's lives are at stake. My colleagues on the other side of the aisle want the American people to lack the energy that they need to live their lives productively and affordably. You want to know why inflation is going up?

Because this body has spent money it doesn't have. The Fed has printed money and jacked up the extent to which we have massive easy money out in the supply money. We have spent money we don't have. We have regulated the oil and gas industry to death,

such that we don't have the ability to actually back up their magic fairy dust energy supplies with wind and solar.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule, which provides consideration of legislation to bring relief to Americans and unleash the power of American energy.

Forty percent--that is the spike in heating costs borne by many of my constituents in New York State during a bitter, life-threatening winter. For a family on a budget and a retiree on a fixed income, that 40 percent hike is a painful one. It means doing without certain items from the grocery store or carefully rationing when and how you keep the heat on in your home despite bitterly cold temperatures.

Mr. Speaker, these are the terrible choices that my constituents must make due to the Biden-Hochul energy agenda. This is life for many Americans in the unaffordable, inflation-ridden Biden economy.

Let's not be fooled by the President's rhetoric about a Putin price hike at the pump. The regulatory machine imposed on American energy has been built for one objective in mind: to destroy our Nation's energy sector as we know it.

In New York State, our Governor, Kathy Hochul, has made it a top priority to force our State's farmers, the guarantors of our Nation's food security and leaders in conservation, into a future of expensive and unreliable electric vehicles and equipment.

That technology doesn't even exist yet. We know that current EV technology is inferior to diesel machinery. We know that a future with more EV batteries and EV motors means greater dependence on China. God forbid we let those inconvenient truths get in the way of the left's radical and out-of-touch Green New Deal religion.

The southern tier of New York sits atop one of our country's greatest natural resource endowments, the Marcellus shale. Just across the border from my district in neighboring Pennsylvania, hydraulic fracturing has created an economic miracle and newfound prosperity. It has transformed their economy while counties in my district in the southern tier are some of the poorest in our State.

Yet Governor Hochul, who is taking her cues from Democrats here in Washington, has made it her mission to ensure those same opportunities, that dream of prosperity and economic revival, are denied to New Yorkers in the southern tier.

Democrats in Albany and Washington have locked away the promise of natural gas production. They have blocked the construction of oil and gas pipelines. They are now leading the way in banning natural gas to our homes.

Mr. Speaker, Americans are desperate for relief and an end to the left's destructive anti-energy agenda. H.R. 1 promises to unleash the power of our Nation's energy sector once again. It will create countless new jobs and bring investment and economic rebirth into communities across this great country. It will allow Americans once again to live in a world where they can afford to farm their farms, drive their cars, put food on their tables, and heat their homes. I support this rule.