Restoring American Energy Dominance Act

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 7023.

This bill significantly restricts the oversight and regulatory authorities of the EPA and Corps of Engineers under the Clean Water Act.

The Clean Water Act, enacted over 50 years ago, is the Nation's bedrock environmental law for restoring and maintaining the ``chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the Nation's waters'' and water resources.

However, the changes in H.R. 7023 defy the act's overarching intent and gut the independent authority of both agencies to ensure that projects and activities are carried out with only minimal impacts to water resources.

This partisan bill weakens clean water protections while providing exemptions, legal shields, and limited oversight to special interest polluters and large-scale projects that demand higher scrutiny.

The bill disregards congressional intent in establishing EPA's independent oversight authority over clean water permits, undermines permitting requirements, eliminates judicial review and public engagement, rolls back oversight of mining companies and industrial polluters, inadvertently slows down permit processing with increased bureaucracy, and complicates State-determined decisions.

Mr. Chairman, this bill would also significantly reduce remaining Clean Water Act protections over critical rivers, streams, lakes, and wetlands that survived last year's Supreme Court ruling.

Not satisfied with the Court's Sackett decision that eliminated protections for more than 50 percent of the wetlands and up to 70 percent of the streams, this package of anti-clean water proposals would further hamstring the EPA's and Corps' abilities to operate independently to protect our Nation's waterways.

These proposals go in the wrong direction by giving even more to polluters and sacrificing the needs of communities that depend on clean water.

After Sackett, Congress should be working to restore the protections of the Clean Water Act that worked for over 50 years and to move H.R. 5983, the Clean Water Act of 2023, a bill that I have cosponsored with over 130 of my colleagues, to restore clean water protections over our waters, many of which serve as irreplaceable sources of water for families, our communities, our farms, our businesses, our industries, and our quality of life.

We have made too much progress in cleaning up the rivers and streams for Congress to give up now. Mr. Chairman, that is why I am opposed to the proposed changes in H.R. 7023 that weaken bedrock Clean Water Act protections.

The bill will add additional hurdles to EPA's ability to issue water quality standards. It will reduce, if not eliminate, opportunities for the public to seek redress when they are harmed by violations of the Clean Water Act. It would effectively eliminate EPA's ability to oversee and block dangerous projects.

Communities will not benefit from these changes, but mining companies, the oil and gas industry, and other toxic polluters will.

My colleagues would like to approve projects faster, but we need to ensure that projects are built with full consideration of the impacts to human health and the environment. I support the EPA and the Corps working with local communities, Tribes, and States to make these important decisions.

Mr. Chairman, I include in the Record a copy of the minority views to H.R. 7023 that were cosigned by myself, Ranking Member Larsen, and an overwhelming majority of Democrats on the committee.

Minority Views

Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues on both sides to vote ``no'' on this bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I include in the Record a copy of the Statement of Administration Policy in opposition to H.R. 7023, which states that this legislation will ``weaken the Clean Water Act, remove protections for waterways that are vital to the well-being of American families, and undermine ongoing, bipartisan efforts to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of infrastructure permitting processes.''

Statement of Administration Policy

H.R. 7023--Creating Confidence in Clean Water Permitting Act--Rep.

Rouzer, R-NC

The Administration strongly opposes H.R. 7023, which would

weaken the Clean Water Act, remove protections for waterways

that are vital to the well-being of American families, and

undermine ongoing, bipartisan efforts to improve the

efficiency and effectiveness of infrastructure permitting

processes. The Administration is making historic investments

and taking unprecedented action to modernize and accelerate

permitting to ensure that infrastructure projects get

designed and built swiftly and in a way that reflects

community input and protects clean air, clean water, and

public health. H.R. 7023 would create uncertainty, confusion,

and conflict in permitting processes by: restricting

community input and environmental analysis and information

that is needed to inform Federal decisions to protect the

public; curtailing the Environmental Protection Agency's

ability to keep pollutants out of water supplies upon which

communities rely; and, weakening bedrock environmental

protections. H.R. 7023 is out of step with the type of

bipartisan permitting reforms that the Administration

supports and that Congress should pass.

Mr. Chair, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Larsen).

Mr. Chair, I include in the Record letters in opposition to H.R. 7023, including a letter from 49 organizations expressing concern that legislation containing several misguided attacks on clean water in the Clean Water Act puts polluter profits ahead of public health and would jeopardize the water that our families, communities, businesses, and wildlife depend on.

March 18, 2024.

Re Oppose H.R. 7023, an attack on our clean water

protections.

Dear Representative: On behalf of our members and

supporters, the undersigned organizations urge you to oppose

H.R. 7023, the misleadingly named ``Creating Confidence in

Clean Water Permitting Act.'' This bill contains several

misguided attacks on clean water and the Clean Water Act,

puts polluter profits ahead of public health, and would

jeopardize the waters that our families, communities, and

wildlife depend on.

Numerous provisions of H.R. 7023 shield industrial

dischargers that would pollute or destroy our streams, lakes,

wetlands, and other waters from responsibility, thereby

imposing on downstream communities the burden of increased

pollution and flooding, to say nothing of the costs of

remedying those threats. In particular:

Section 2 would give polluters new ways to slow down the

Environmental Protection Agency's process for updating water

quality criteria. Criteria reflect EPA's assessment of the

scientific evidence about how pollutants in our waterways

adversely affect human health and aquatic life, and include

non-binding recommendations for water quality standards that

states can adopt to prevent those harmful effects. By

subjecting EPA's issuance of criteria to additional

administrative processes and opening them up to industry

lawsuits, this bill could delay improved protections

reflective of scientific developments--which is particularly

concerning for emerging contaminants.

Section 3 would authorize EPA to issue ``general'' permits

under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System

program for industrial and municipal polluters. This new

authority lacks safeguards that Congress included in the

parallel general permitting program for ``dredge and fill''

activities, namely that the activities must have minimal

adverse environmental impacts. It also would greatly limit

EPA's ability to terminate such a permit if the agency

determined it was causing unacceptable harm to the

environment.

Section 4 would make it easier for industrial operations to

dump PFAS, also known as ``forever chemicals,'' and other

emerging contaminants into the nation's waters without

accountability. Specifically, the bill would shield

dischargers from Clean Water Act liability even if they are

aware of certain pollutants in their waste streams but do not

disclose it to pollution control officials who do not have

reason to expect such contaminants.

Section 5 would virtually eliminate EPA's ability to stop

mammoth polluting projects like the Pebble Mine in Alaska's

Bristol Bay watershed. This rarely-used authority (invoked

only 14 times in the Act's history) is crucial to prevent the

most egregious projects from destroying precious fisheries,

drinking water supplies, and other resources.

Section 6 would require the Army Corps of Engineers to

permanently retain a fast-track permit for highly destructive

and polluting oil and gas pipelines and greatly weaken the

Corps' nationwide permitting program--a program that is

already far too lax in preventing and mitigating the harm

caused by projects that fill in the nation's waters. The bill

would double the duration of general permits, such that

advancements in best practices for the dozens of activities

covered by such permits would not be required promptly. And

it would excuse the Army Corps of Engineers from considering

the full environmental consequences of permitted activities,

as well as the effects of such activities on endangered

species.

Section 7 would prevent effective judicial review of

projects that fill in and destroy wetlands, streams, and

other waters. The bill would impose an impractically short

statute of limitations on court review of ``dredge and fill''

permits, which would likely force concerned citizens to file

suit on more permits in order to preserve their rights, in

many instances before the impacts of the permitted project

are fully understood. The bill would also severely hamstring

courts' authority to provide a remedy for illegal permits

because permits found unlawful would ordinarily remain in

effect and allow continued harm to water resources while the

Army Corps of Engineers reexamines them.

In contrast to these provisions, polling continues to show

that people actually want stronger federal protections for

our nation's waters. Too many communities, especially

Indigenous communities, communities of color, and low wealth

communities, still lack clean water. Congress should be

focused on putting people before polluters and working to

ensure everyone, no matter their race, zip code, or income,

has access to clean water, rather than attempting to

undermine our critical clean water protections.

Again, we urge you to VOTE NO on H.R. 7023, an attack on

our clean water safeguards that would endanger the waters our

families and communities depend on and work against the Clean

Water Act's objective ``to restore and maintain the chemical,

physical, and biological integrity of the Nation's waters.''

Sincerely,

Alabama Rivers Alliance; Alliance for the Great Lakes;

American Rivers; Amigos Bravos; Appalachian Trail

Conservancy; Bayou

City Waterkeeper; Center for Biological Diversity; Center for

Food Safety; Children's Environmental Health Network; Clean

Water Action; Clean Wisconsin; Committee on the Middle Fork

Vermiliom River; Community Water Center; Earthjustice;

Environmental Justice Health Alliance; Environment America.

Environmental Law & Policy Center; Environmental Protection

Network; Food & Water Watch; For Love of Water (FLOW);

Freshwater Future; GreenLatinos; Izaak Walton League of

America; Kentucky Waterways Alliance; Latino Farmers &

Ranchers International, Inc.; Lawyers for Good Government;

League of Conservation Voters; Maryland Pesticide Education

Network; Massachusetts Pollinator Network; Massachusetts

Rivers Alliance; Mississippi River Collaborative; National

Audubon Society.

National Wildlife Federation; National Resources Defense

Council; New Mexico Wild; Northwest Center for Alternatives

to Pesticides; Ohio River Foundation; People and Pollinators

Action Network; PolicyLink; River Network; Sierra Club;

Southern Environmental Law Center; Surfrider Foundation; The

Water Collaborative of Greater New Orleans; Toxic Free North

Carolina; Waterkeeper Alliance; Waterkeepers Chesapeake; WE

ACT for Environmental Justice; We the People of Detroit.

Mr. Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Mrs. Sykes).

Mr. Chair, I include in the Record two letters expressing opposition to H.R. 7023 and its efforts to reopen Federal protections of pristine salmon habitat within and around Bristol Bay, Alaska, including a letter from the Bristol Bay Defense Fund and the United Tribes of Bristol Bay.

January 30, 2024.

Re Oppose Anti-404(c) Clean Water Act Legislation

Hon. Sam Graves,

Chairman of the House Committee on Transportation and

Infrastructure, U.S. House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Hon. Rick Larsen,

Ranking Member of the House Committee on Transportation and

Infrastructure, U.S. House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

To the Honorable Members of the House Transportation and

Infrastructure Committee: On behalf of the Bristol Bay

Defense Fund, we write in opposition to the ``Reducing

Permitting Uncertainty'' language amending Section 404(c) of

the Clean Water Act, which would eviscerate the Environmental

Protection Agency's (EPA) authority to prohibit, restrict,

deny, or withdraw permits for destructive projects that would

pollute our nation's water resources. These changes to

Section 404(c) are a direct attack on the nation's clean

water, Clean Water Act, and the EPA. While purporting to

streamline the permitting process for development projects,

these changes to Section 404(c) would threaten the very

foundation of environmental protection for our nation's

wetlands and aquatic ecosystems, compromising their

ecological integrity and ultimately impacting water quality,

public health, and economic stability.

The provisions of H.R. 7206, Amendment to H.R. 7023, or any

similar anti-404(c) language would gut the EPA's ability

under Section 404(c) of the Clean Water Act to stop giant

polluting projects that would have an unacceptable adverse

effect on municipal water supplies, fisheries, wildlife, and

recreational areas like the proposed Pebble Mine in Bristol

Bay, Alaska. By limiting the EPA to as little as 30 days to

invoke its 404(c) authority, H.R. 7206 would eliminate any

meaningful opportunity for review by the public (including

the project proponent) and would preclude the EPA from

conducting the type of careful analyses that have supported

previous 404(c) determinations. H.R. 7023 would similarly

eviscerate the EPA's authority.

These anti-404(c) provisions ignore the EPA's rare and

judicious use of Section 404(c), invoked only 14 times in the

Clean Water Act's 52-year history. They represent a blatant

attempt to green light and fast track even the most egregious

projects that would destroy our Nation's water resources.

The Clean Water Act stands as a testament to our Nation's

commitment to protecting our precious water resources.

Weakening Section 404(c) would be a detrimental step

backward, compromising environmental health, public well-

being, and economic stability. We urge you to oppose these

provisions or any similar language that would hobble the

EPA's ability under Section 404(c) to limit the most

devastating projects from destroying our nation's fisheries,

drinking water, and other natural resources.

Thank you for your time and consideration. We look forward

to working with you to safeguard our precious water resources

for the benefit of all Americans.

Sincerely,

Bristol Bay Defense Fund.

United Tribes of Bristol Bay.

Commercial Fishermen for Bristol Bay.

Businesses for Bristol Bay.

SalmonState.

Wild Salmon Center.

Native American Rights Fund.

Natural Resources Defense Council.

Mr. Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Michigan (Ms. Scholten).

Mr. Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Huffman), the ranking member of the Natural Resources Subcommittee on Water, Wildlife and Fisheries.

Mr. Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Lee).

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

Mr. Chairman, clean water was not always a partisan issue, and no issue has more support among American families than the protection of our Nation's waters.

Now is the worst time to lower our guard on protecting clean water, as recent years have shown major water challenges across the U.S. such as drought in the West, floods in the East, and water contamination in many States.

We need to be doing everything to ensure our cities, our businesses, and our farmers have sufficient, safe, and sustainable supplies of water to meet our economic and agricultural needs, our quality-of-life needs, and our day-to-day survival. I have dedicated much of my time in Congress to protecting our critical water supplies and making sure we capture, use, and reuse every available drop of water in our communities, and I do not plan to stop now.

Recent public surveys in the West have found that residents are more concerned than ever about inadequate water supplies. Almost 9 in 10 Westerners say that inadequate water supply is a serious problem in their State.

This is especially true in my home State of California. As the Metropolitan Water District commented to our subcommittee 1 year ago, a strong and clear Clean Water Act is important to the day-to-day operations of water agencies and source water protection efforts.

Congress should be reinstating protections to the Clean Water Act that the Supreme Court removed to continue to protect our streams and wetlands that have been protected since the inception of the act.

Streams, rivers, and wetlands are critical to capturing and storing rain and snowmelt to ensure a long-term supply of water and to recharge our underground aquifers; yet, this bill limits or eliminates protections over waters that provide the source of drinking water to over 117 million Americans.

Yes, there is a cost to protecting our communities, our sources of drinking water, and our environment. However, that cost should be borne by those seeking to pollute our waterways or fill our wetlands for their own personal gain, rather than transferring that cost to Americans or to downstream States.

This bill would increase levels of pollution in our water bodies, increase risk of downstream flooding, and increase certainty that communities like mine cannot maintain sustainable sources of drinking water.

Worst of all, hardworking American families would have to pay for the pollution caused by others.

Mr. Chairman, I oppose H.R. 7023, I urge my colleagues to vote against it, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition, even though I am not opposed to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, this amendment clarifies that nothing in this act affects the existing ban on oil and gas drilling in the Great Lakes.

Legislation banning the issuing of new drilling permits in the Great Lakes was passed in 2005 with support from both parties.

While legislation before us does undermine Clean Water Act protections, it does not affect the existing ban on drilling in the Great Lakes.

Republicans would like to call this week energy week, so let's look at the state of American energy today. Despite what you hear on the other side of the aisle, we are experiencing a record oil boom in the United States--a record oil boom.

There is no war on oil. The United States is the largest crude oil producer in the world, outpacing Russia, Saudi Arabia, and other OPEC countries.

Last fall, President Biden had approved more permits for oil and gas drilling on public lands than the previous President had at the same point in his Presidency.

Through passage of the bipartisan infrastructure law and the Inflation Reduction Act, President Biden and House Democrats are addressing both the immediate needs for affordable gas prices for consumers as well as the long-term investments in a clean energy future that will also tackle the climate crisis.

Already since the Inflation Reduction Act's passage, 292 major clean energy projects have been announced that would create over 100,000 jobs across the country.

Just like America can dominate both oil production and clean energy deployment, we can promote American energy while also ensuring protection of our environment.

I have no objection to the amendment or its adoption.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition, though I am not opposed.

Mr. Chairman, I support the amendment offered by the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. James).

Communities across the Nation have learned firsthand of the human health risks associated with forever chemicals such as PFAS, a pollutant that is found in wastewater of municipal treatment works as well as in industrial discharges.

EPA is actively addressing PFAS concerns both by pushing to identify and limit large-scale industrial discharges of PFAS to treatment systems as well as developing an enforcement discretion policy for municipalities that may simply have PFAS chemicals in their sewage through no fault of their own.

While I share the gentleman's concern about the health risks of PFAS, I would point out that the underlying bill may create greater incentives for discharges to underreport or look the other way when it comes to PFAS discharges.

Since 1994, EPA has had in place a ``permit shield'' policy that provides dischargers with legal protection if they are applied for in good faith, and with honest disclosures of all pollutants potentially contained in the discharge.

However, the underlying bill codifies an expanded version of the permit shield, applicable to any discharger, whether a municipal treatment plant, a mining site, or industrial discharger regardless of whether they have made good-faith disclosures of all pollutants.

EPA has indicated that this expanded permit shield creates a disincentive for permittees to identify pollutants that are part of their waste stream during the development of their permit, including

Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment offered by the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Moolenaar).

Mr. Chair, for over 50 years, the Federal-State partnership created by the Clean Water Act has allowed communities to enjoy clean water and has given businesses the certainty they need to create jobs and spur economic growth.

Yet, if this amendment becomes law, both EPA and every State who has taken on responsibility for implementing the Clean Water Act would have to deny clean water permits for any--I underscore any--facility or activity associated with a foreign government of concern.

That means that any U.S. subsidiary of a company with economic ties to China, Russia, or any other foreign country of concern would, by statute, be denied the ability to operate and expand in this country if their activities trigger Clean Water Act review.

I know Representative Moolenaar is concerned about the announced $2.3 billion investment in the State of Michigan that is likely to create an additional 2,350 good-paying jobs, and that Michigan Governor Whitman has called `` . . . the biggest ever economic development project in northern Michigan. . . . ''

However, this amendment is not limited to Michigan. How many other U.S. subsidiaries of foreign companies will also be caught up in this amendment?

How will the General Electric appliance manufacturing plants in Kentucky, Georgia, Alabama, Tennessee, and South Carolina continue to operate if this amendment is adopted? GE Appliances is a subsidiary of a Chinese-owned company.

How will this amendment affect Smithfield Foods' operations in Maryland and Virginia if these facilities are

forever denied clean water permits because of their association with a Chinese owner?

Motorola is one of the world's leading manufacturers of smartphones; however, this Chinese-owned company has numerous offices and manufacturing facilities throughout the U.S., including a new 136,000- square-foot facility in Richardson, Texas.

Will the Moolenaar amendment make it logistically impossible for Motorola to continue to operate in the U.S.?

House Democrats have been leading the charge to ensure that the Clean Water Act continues to accomplish both goals--clean water and job creation.

House Democrats will continue to build a strong record of sustainable job creation and support of domestic manufacturing.

Prohibiting the issuance of Clean Water Act permits for projects that have investment from certain foreign entities is likely to be unimplement able, will increase the potential for litigation and delay, and ultimately only threatens clean water.

Mr. Chair, I oppose the amendment and encourage my colleagues to oppose the amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I oppose the amendment offered by the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Bean).

Mr. Chair, the Clean Water Act was specifically enacted as a Federal-State partnership.

Today, EPA has approved 47 States to implement the point source discharge program under section 402 of the Clean Water Act. Their status as coregulators makes comprehensive implementation of the programs possible.

However, far fewer States have sought approval to regulate the discharge of dredge and fill materials under section 404 of the act, with only New Jersey and Michigan currently approved to implement this authority.

This amendment is directly related to whether Florida followed the rules in seeking approval of its own section 404 program.

Recently, a Federal district court struck down the previous administration's approval of Florida's 404 permit authority on the grounds that both State and Federal agencies failed to follow the rules in approving the State's program.

I am not opposed to the State of Florida or any State seeking to manage 404 authority within its border. However, this amendment seeks to legislatively mandate approval of a program, without changes, that was adopted without proper oversight and review.

The State of Florida can pursue implementing a 404 program, but through the proper approval process, and Congress should not mandate a program that has been deemed deficient by the courts.

Mr. Chair, I oppose the amendment and encourage my colleagues to oppose the amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chair, House Democrats support including local input in the development of large-scale infrastructure projects directly affecting local communities. During committee consideration of this bill, we opposed attempts to curtail local input.

This amendment is another example of curtailing local input to push through large-scale projects. However, this amendment picks winners and losers for what types of projects get to be jammed through the process.

I proudly supported the investments in our infrastructure and clean energy future contained in the bipartisan infrastructure law, the Chips and Science Act, and the Inflation Reduction Act last Congress. These critical bills were about creating jobs, advancing infrastructure investments, and accelerating the economy of the future.

House Democrats are committed to improving the quality of life for all Americans by building the economy from the middle out and bottom up. However, this amendment gives a fast lane for Clean Water Act permits to fossil fuel-related linear infrastructure projects.

It purposefully excludes renewable energy projects, including solar and wind, and other clean energy alternatives that benefited from the Inflation Reduction Act. It also excludes efforts to bolster energy reliability and resilience and nationwide efforts to upgrade the Nation's energy grid. I suspect this is why several energy companies, including the American Clean Power Association, Edison Electric, and the Chamber of Commerce are also opposed to this amendment.

Again, I remain concerned that under H.R. 7023, local voices are excluded from the development of linear projects generally. Adding Mr. Graves' amendment, which doubles down on the fast-tracking of fossil fuel-related energy infrastructure, only strengthens my opposition to the underlying bill.

Mr. Chair, I oppose the amendment and urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment, as well. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Let me just give you a couple of examples.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

General Leave

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

were offered, making the rule closed by definition.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 1085, I call up the bill (H.R. 6009) to require the Director of the Bureau of Land Management to withdraw the proposed rule relating to fluid mineral leases and leasing process, 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 H.R. 6009.

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

I rise today in support of H.R. 6009, the Restoring American Energy Dominance Act.

H.R. 6009, introduced by Congresswoman Boebert, would nullify the Bureau of Land Management's proposed onshore oil and gas leasing regulations.

While on the campaign trail, then-candidate Joe Biden said during a primary debate: ``No more drilling on Federal lands.'' That was candidate Biden.

The BLM's proposed regulations attempt to accomplish President Biden's campaign promise by limiting onshore leasing, reducing flexibility, and increasing fees.

The regulations propose eliminating nationwide bonds while increasing individual bonding requirements 15-fold and statewide bonding requirements 20-fold. The BLM's stated rationale for doing this is to protect taxpayers from having to clean up orphaned wells.

One would think that there is an orphaned well crisis on BLM lands, given the significant cost increases the rule proposes. However, the opposite is true, Mr. Speaker. According to the Department of the Interior, there are only 37 orphaned wells on BLM lands, and the Department has used bonds to plug wells on Federal lands just 40 times over this last decade.

The proposed regulations would also be extremely harmful to small businesses. Tom Kropatsch, the Wyoming State oil and gas supervisor, said: ``The bonding provisions will impact hundreds of small businesses in Wyoming, resulting in lost royalties, taxes, and other revenues to local and State government, and likely will create orphaned wells, not protect against them.''

While he is speaking of his home State of Wyoming, the impacts would be the same in energy-producing regions nationwide.

The regulations also introduce new and vague preference criteria for evaluating onshore oil and gas leasing. The

criteria seemingly intended to avoid conflict in areas with ``sensitive cultural, wildlife, and recreation resources.''

Don't be fooled. The criteria, which could be applied to any parcel of land, are meant to lock up lands from resource development and shut down future oil and gas production. President Biden is once again proactively taking steps to increase energy prices, reduce American energy production, and ultimately diminish our national security.

To continue using Wyoming as a case study, in 2022 and 2023, the Wyoming BLM had initially offered to sell 830 parcels covering 954,281 acres. However, through successive rounds of an environmental review that incorporated considerations of these preference criteria, the Wyoming BLM deferred 462 parcels encompassing 586,000 acres. That is 61 percent of the acreage that should have otherwise been available that was ultimately deferred due to these new criteria--and the regulations aren't even final yet.

BLM's proposed onshore oil and gas leasing regulations are an attack on domestic energy production that will further lock up our Federal lands and eliminate access to our natural resources. We will not stand idly by as the Biden administration increases our reliance on foreign adversarial nations. It diminishes our national security and inflates already unaffordable energy prices.

H.R. 6009 acknowledges the BLM statutory mission of managing our Federal lands for multiple use, including energy and mineral development. It will keep our country safe by ensuring continued domestic energy production. It will benefit American families, American communities, American jobs, and our small businesses.

Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in supporting this bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, my good friend and colleague talked about making a mess. Joe Biden and his administration have made a mess for American energy--higher energy prices throughout our country. The middle class is getting squeezed because of his energy policies and, dare I say, his anti-mining agenda. We will clean up this mess.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 10 minutes to the gentlewoman from Colorado (Ms. Boebert), the sponsor of this bill.

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

The Biden administration told Congress just last summer that there are only 37 orphaned wells on BLM lands, and they have called in bonds only four times per year over the last decade. This number is low because the BLM has a process for dealing with at-risk wells.

There are very few, if any, Federal leases that don't have multiple companies with multiple record title interests and working interests. Multiple companies may have equities in the leases and will sell those equities to other companies that want to develop at different depths, for example.

BLM maintains the full chain of ownership. If BLM identifies a well on a lease at risk for abandonment, the agency will go to the companies in that chain of ownership and require them to take care of the well.

Increasing bonds at these levels will also have a disproportionate impact on the small producers and the small businesses and therefore could actually result in more bankruptcies and thus more orphaned wells. Crushing small businesses and limiting production on Federal lands, which is what this regulation would do, would simply reduce

production, driving up prices for American families and driving down revenues paid to the States and the Federal Government.

Federal onshore oil and gas production brought in roughly $7.7 billion in revenue in fiscal year 2023 alone. That is almost six times more than the BLM's entire fiscal year budget.

We have the opportunity to help the American people who are struggling under this administration's policies and procedures. The time is now. The American people are hurting with energy prices. Inflation is still on the rise. The CPI is almost 20 percent. This is real for blue-collar, working Americans.

The energy policies, Mr. Speaker, of this President have been devastating to the middle and lower class. I have the privilege of representing Minnesota's Eighth Congressional District. It is the oldest and poorest congressional district in our great State. I hear it every single day about the cost of energy. We can change it, and this is our opportunity.

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

Mr. Speaker, my friends and colleagues on the other side of the aisle brought up the Inflation Reduction Act. The fact is, that is law, and 90 percent of that money goes to billion-dollar companies in subsidies.

This bill we are talking about today is about small businesses. Under this administration, the average American household is paying $11,400 per year under these policies and these regulations. That is a lot of money.

Mr. Speaker, that may not be a lot of money for a President who has spent 53 years of his life in Washington, D.C. Just maybe he has forgotten what it is like to struggle in our Midwestern States. Mr. Speaker, $11,400 is the average, and I just stated that I represent the oldest and the poorest Congressional District in the State of Minnesota. That is a lot of money for my constituents and almost every American.

Fifty-three years President Biden has been bloviating on Capitol Hill trying to change things and make it better.

On his energy policies and his mining policies, he has failed the American people, and we all know it. We all know it. We feel it. We see it. Our pocketbooks are shrinking, and our paychecks aren't rising as fast as we want them to, and they are not keeping up with inflation.

This is about small businesses. This is about not letting the unelected bureaucrats in Washington, D.C., dictate production of our natural resources. We, in Congress, have a responsibility to write legislation that will benefit all Americans. Today we are talking about legislation, Mr. Speaker, about energy prices. There is nobody in this country who feels as if this administration has reduced the cost of energy for them.

Mr. Speaker, $11,400, that is a lot of money for this retired police officer. That is a lot of money for my wife who served 24 years in the military and is an Iraq war veteran. That is a lot of money for her, for me, and for many other Americans who are trying to just feed their families, keep up, and try and live the American Dream.

Mr. Speaker, this President has failed the American people on his energy policies.

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

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, this is an easy concept for us all to understand. This really isn't about the left or the right, Democrat or Republican. We move either forward or backward.

My colleagues on the other side of the aisle just talked about the Inflation Reduction Act. It was voted and put into law almost 2 years ago, so I ask the American people: Has it increased your energy prices, or has it lowered your energy prices? The American people know that their energy prices have skyrocketed.

We have many great energy producing States, including the great State of Alaska. This administration has put 54 sanctions on energy production in Alaska. That is more sanctions than this administration has put on Iran. That is unconscionable.

Mr. Speaker, earlier, at a Federal Lands Subcommittee hearing, there was a witness exchange. Representative Tiffany chairs it. They talked about where they are going to source their electric vehicles, their critical minerals for the vehicles, and they were talking about child slave labor. The Democrat witness said that it is unfortunate that people are exploited around the world, but it is a reality. He said that is a controversial issue.

Child slave labor should never be controversial. We should never allow that, and this administration has gone with memorandums of understanding with Congo, where 15 of the 19 industrial mines use child slave labor.

Mr. Speaker, that is a fact, and this administration doesn't want to admit it. They want to ignore the human rights atrocities to get to their so-called green agenda. That is not acceptable, Mr. Speaker, when we have the mineral resources here in the United States of America.

As I said earlier, we are blessed with an abundance of natural resources that we can extract using the best environmental labor standards. Again, we can move either backward or forward. I submit to you that the Republicans want to move forward on energy production.

Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time. I am prepared to close, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, the American people just have to ask themselves whether they are paying more or less for energy and groceries under this administration. It is clear the American people are suffering under the Biden policies.

The Biden administration's proposed rule would eliminate the opportunity for exploration of newly discovered energy producing areas and shrink future oil and gas production, even on sites where it already exists, all while drastically driving up costs for Americans.

We will not stand by idly as this administration locks up our Federal lands and prohibits Americans from accessing their abundant natural resources. We will support American families, jobs, communities, our economy, and our national security through safe, clean, and efficient domestic energy production.

Mr. Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to join me in support of H.R. 6009, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Scanlon), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

General Leave

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The rule also provides for consideration of H. Con. Res. 86, expressing the sense of Congress that a carbon tax would be detrimental to the United States economy, that being under a closed rule, with 1 hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Ways and Means or their respective designees.

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

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

The rule makes in order eight amendments.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What does this mean?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

These actions are hurting American families and American workers, and

local communities are being harmed in States like Pennsylvania.

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

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

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

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

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

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