Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 1) to lower energy costs by increasing American energy production, exports, infrastructure, and critical minerals processing, by promoting transparency, accountability, permitting, and production of American resources, and by improving water quality certification and energy projects, and for other purposes.

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. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 1. The Republicans call it the Lower Energy Costs Act. In fact, it does the opposite, and it puts polluters over people, so we call it the polluters over people act. That is justified because that is exactly what it does.

This bill is nothing more than a grab bag of Big Oil giveaways and loopholes that endanger the health, safety, and security of Americans. It does absolutely nothing to lower energy costs for American families. In fact, it will actually drive up costs while doubling down on costly fossil fuels.

Now, does the GOP really believe that Big Oil cares about Americans?

During the COVID crisis in the last 3 years, we had a hearing where we brought in some of the large oil companies. It was quite clear that they wanted to keep prices high. It was quite clear that they were benefiting from OPEC and the fact that Russia had invaded Ukraine and that oil supplies had become more limited because of that invasion of Ukraine and that as a result, prices for oil and gasoline were going up. They didn't care. They liked it.

We actually asked them at the hearing whether or not they would increase

production because they have so many leases on Federal lands that they don't use, and they said no. They said maybe eventually they would do that, but they haven't gotten around to it yet. I don't think they have gotten around to it still.

So this notion that somehow by benefiting Big Oil, the major American so-called oil companies, that this is going to help the American people, that is not their goal.

Last year, Big Oil's profits in 2022 were $451 billion, a record high. The dividends they gave out and the stock buyouts amounted to $163 billion. They only care about the stockholders. They don't care about the price of gasoline. They want it to stay high. They don't care whether Americans can afford gasoline.

Chairwoman Rodgers, who I really respect a lot, talked about LNG. One of the things in the bill is it removes the requirement--and I am going to talk about other things it does--but it removes the requirement that liquified natural gas exports be determined to be in the public interest before being sent overseas.

That is going to lead to more American LNG being sent to our adversaries, including China. This helps China. This doesn't hurt China. This helps China. We know that there was a time a few years ago when LNG exports were limited because of--I forget what caused it--and during that period of time, the evidence shows the price for American gasoline or American crude was actually going down.

When you send LNG overseas, it is not available here in the United States. That actually lowers gas prices when you have more gasoline available or more refineries available to process gasoline here in the United States.

I debunk this idea that somehow this bill is going to lower prices here, that somehow benefiting Big Oil benefits Americans, that somehow exporting more LNG hurts China. These things simply are not the case. The evidence proves very much to the contrary.

This bill, H.R. 1, I will call it the polluters over people act, rescinds several transformational climate programs that the Democrats enacted as part of the Inflation Reduction Act last year. What I am trying to get across today is that at the same time that they are helping Big Oil, not driving down prices, and helping China, the Republicans are also tearing down all of the environmental laws that we have had for the last 50 years and putting all the emphasis on fossil fuels rather than clean energy.

The bottom line is, the only way that we are going to lower costs is by encouraging clean energy. Yes, I agree with Chairwoman Rodgers that the United States has to be a bigger energy producer, but the future for that is with clean energy, not with pumping more oil and gas. It is by encouraging clean energy because that is where we can be the big producer. That is where the future is. That is where we can outcompete the rest of the world.

What does this bill do?

It foolishly repeals the $27 billion Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund, which invests in high-impact projects that reduce pollution, creates good-paying clean energy jobs, and improves public health. They obviously do not want to do anything for clean energy.

It also repeals the methane emissions reduction program, which protects the health of our communities and ensures that polluters, not taxpayers or customers, pay for wasted methane. Let me use that as an example. I want everyone to understand that when we passed the Inflation Reduction Act and we were trying to cut back on greenhouse gases which lead to global climate problems and the increase in global warming, we worked hard to deal with those industries here that could be affected. The Methane Emissions Reduction Act is a perfect example that we worked with the independent oil producers because they said, well, if you cause the methane that is wasted now and goes into the atmosphere and causes this increased number of greenhouse gases, if you work with us, we can accomplish capturing this methane and then it can be recycled, but we need some money to accomplish that.

We provided them with a fund so they could make that transition. We also said that if it took them time to get a permit to capture the gas and provide a recycling program for the methane, that they would not be penalized by doing that.

This has been characterized by the GOP as some sort of tax or fee on the industry. It is really a penalty if they don't do what is necessary to capture methane and avoid it going into the atmosphere. The same is true for almost every provision that they seek to repeal here.

These are provisions that try to protect the public health, reduce greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, but at the same time don't have a negative impact on those industries that are hiring people and that create jobs. At the same time, try to move toward new clean energy things like wind, solar, and more hydropower, and other things that actually do create more jobs, as we have proven that they have.

There are so many other things that repeal--I won't go through all of them because I know that we have other speakers. The bill also repeals the popular home electrification rebates that are specifically designed to lower energy bills for American families. These are popular incentives that will save families money and are urgently needed to help us fight the climate crisis.

Republicans are rejecting all these things that help people save money, help reduce greenhouse gases so they can double-down on the old pro-polluter policies that they have had for years. This bill also does nothing to meaningfully address permitting reform.

Its vision of permitting consists of letting polluters do whatever they want, and instead, the bill becomes a sweetheart deal. The bill, for example, doesn't include any changes to the transmission policy necessary to ensure that clean energy can reach all corners of the country.

Let me also give you a couple of other examples. The biggest thing that they do to basically endanger all of our environmental protections is they exempt so-called critical energy resources from the Clean Air Act and hazardous waste permitting requirements.

They say if we label a refinery or if we label a utility as a critical energy resource, then they don't have to follow the Clean Air Act, they don't have to follow the Clean Water Act, and they don't have to follow the Hazardous Waste Act. It is a roundabout way of saying that we are just going to let all these industries do whatever they want, even though it undercuts public health protections.

They do the same thing with toxic chemicals. We had a major toxic chemical bill to try to cut back on toxic chemicals that needlessly expose families and children to health risks. They basically get rid of that by saying, oh, those facilities don't have to worry about releasing toxic chemicals.

Mr. Chair, I end by saying this. Democrats understand that the transition to clean energy is important. In fact, projects already underway are valued at tens of billions of dollars and have already created more than 100,000 good-paying jobs.

Our Inflation Reduction Act is estimated to create 9 million new jobs over the coming decade and reduce energy costs by an average of $1,800 per year.

What we have done in the last few years as Democrats is to try to move toward clean energy, understanding that you still have to have fossil fuels and nuclear and other things, but understanding that the future in terms of the U.S. being a major energy producer is in clean energy, not in fossil fuels.

To just wreck and put a bulldozer through all our environmental protections in order to encourage fossil fuels is just a huge mistake. It is not going to lower energy costs. It is going to make it much more difficult for us to reduce greenhouse gases and all the negative impacts of climate change.

There is nothing in here. In my opinion, this bill is also going to hurt us from a national security point of view because it does actually help China and help our adversaries rather than making it more difficult for them to compete with us.

Mr. Chair, I would urge opposition to the bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Tonko), who is the ranking member of our Environment Subcommittee.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Mrs. Fletcher), who is a member of the Energy and Commerce Committee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from Texas.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Scanlon).

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

Madam Chair, I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentlewoman.

Madam Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Carbajal).

Madam Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Minnesota (Ms. Craig), a member of the Energy and Commerce Committee.

Madam Chair, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from Minnesota.

Madam Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Cardenas), a member of our committee.

Madam Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Matsui), who is the ranking member of our Communications and Technology Subcommittee.

Madam Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Higgins).

Madam Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Salinas).

Madam Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New Mexico (Ms. Leger Fernandez).

Madam Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Dean).

Madam Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New Jersey (Mrs. Watson Coleman).

Madam Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Sarbanes), a member of our committee.

Madam Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Sorensen).

Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell).

Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).

Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Hayes).

Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Garcia).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Massachusetts (Mrs. Trahan), a member of our committee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Massachusetts (Ms. Clark).

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 1.

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

Mr. Chair, I rise today in support of H.R. 1, the Lower Energy Costs Act.

As an engineer, I have learned that no issue is too difficult for American innovation and ingenuity to solve when we honestly identify the problem, develop a sound plan to solve it, and do the hard work to get the results we desire.

The truth we all know is America has an energy crisis. Energy is foundational to everything we do, and for the sake of our future, we must solve this problem.

Energy prices, in general, have gone up nearly 40 percent in a little over 2 years. High energy costs translate throughout the economy, causing inflated prices for every necessity of life, from the food we eat to the clothes we wear to the roof over our heads.

President Biden has said he is working to lower these costs. But his actions are drowning out his words. He has waged war on American producers, shutting down oil and gas leasing, banning mining development in certain areas, and insisting on keeping our Federal regulations permanently stuck in the past.

What are we getting in return?

We are getting more dependence on the worst polluters in the world while we wreck our own economy sending our wealth and jobs overseas.

Our current energy policies favor Putin, the Chinese Communist Party, and despots around the globe over the American people and freedom. Why would our friends across the aisle continue to put the worst polluters, human rights violators, and those who wish us harm above the American people?

No more. H.R. 1 is designed to solve our energy crisis. House Republicans are ready to show the world that American energy--not Saudi Arabian, not Venezuelan, not Chinese, or Russian energy--American energy is our future. American mining, American innovation, American processing and refining,

American manufacturing, and American infrastructure will lead us out of this energy crisis.

H.R. 1 outlines this through a variety of measures. First, it rolls back the Biden administration's oil and gas leasing moratoriums, giving producers certainty to produce resources safely and responsibly right here at home.

Next, given the importance of minerals to our national security, clean energy technology, and a host of everyday uses, H.R. 1 shores up domestic supply chains for commodities like copper, lithium, and cobalt, and allows us to make our energy infrastructure where it should be made--right here at home in the United States.

Every ounce we produce here is an ounce less we and our allies are forced to purchase from Chinese-controlled mines with deplorable labor and environmental standards. And, of course, none of this is possible without modernizing the Federal regulations that delay the projects we desperately need.

If you don't believe permitting reform is needed, maybe you will believe President Biden's senior adviser, John Podesta, who recently said: ``We can move faster by setting tighter deadlines for agencies to complete environmental reviews. We can move smarter by making it easier to approve projects with low environmental impact . . . But Congress needs to do its job . . . So it is time to get back to work and pass permitting reform legislation.''

We are called to be good stewards of our resources and leave them better than we found them. That is the definition of conservation. We cannot say our global resources are better off today under Democratic policies. China is building coal plants at a rapid pace, using slave labor to construct solar panels and develop critical minerals, while Russia is not only one of the worst environmental catastrophes on the planet, but they are also using their energy revenues to fund their war in Ukraine.

We cannot continue to turn a blind eye to these injustices and say, ``not in my backyard.'' America drills, mines, builds, and innovates cleaner, safer, and more responsibly than anywhere else in the world.

Before American innovators and workers can solve our energy problems, we need a plan. H.R. 1 is the plan to solve our energy crisis.

For these and many more reasons, I am proud to be a cosponsor of the Lower Energy Costs Act. H.R. 1 is the blueprint to ease the burden of this self-inflicted energy crisis on American families.

H.R. 1, when executed, will make the United States more secure and competitive on the global stage. Ultimately, H.R. 1 will improve the health and longevity of our natural resources, create a better climate, and spur economic growth and jobs--these are results we should all get behind.

Mr. Chair, you don't have to be an engineer to solve this energy problem. I urge all of my colleagues to join with me and vote a resounding ``yes'' in support of H.R. 1.

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

House of Representatives,

Committee on the Budget,

Washington, DC, March 20, 2023.

Hon. Bruce Westerman,

Chairman, Committee on Natural Resources,

Washington, DC.

Dear Chairman Westerman: I am writing regarding H.R. 1335,

the Transparency, Accountability, Permitting, and Production

of American Resources Act, which was ordered reported by the

Committee on Natural Resources on March 9, 2023.

The bill contains provisions that fall within the

jurisdiction of the Committee on the Budget. In order to

expedite House consideration of H.R. 1335, the Committee on

the Budget will forgo action on this bill. This is being done

with the understanding that it does not waive any

jurisdiction over the subject matter contained in H.R. 1335

or similar legislation and that the Committee will be

appropriately consulted and involved as this bill or similar

legislation moves forward so that the Committee may address

any remaining issues that fall within its jurisdiction. The

Committee on the Budget also reserves the right to seek

appointment of an appropriate number of conferees to any

House-Senate conference involving this or similar legislation

and requests your support of any such request.

I would appreciate a response to this letter confirming

this understanding with respect to H.R. 1335 and would ask

that a copy of our exchange of letters on this matter be

included in your committee report and in the Congressional

Record during floor consideration of H.R. 1335.

Sincerely,

Jodey C. Arrington,

Chairman, Committee on the Budget.

Mr. Chair, this utopian idea of having our cake and eating it too, the ``not in my backyard'' mentality, it just won't work for the economy or the environment. That is why we need change.

Mr. Chair, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Thompson), the chairman of the Agriculture Committee, someone who knows the importance of energy to production agriculture.

Mr. Chairman, the rhetoric is just not matching the reality. The reality is that current energy policies are forcing us to buy energy and minerals from the worst polluters on the Earth. Not only are they the worst polluters; they are the worst human rights violators.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Idaho (Mr. Fulcher), who serves on the Committee on Natural Resources.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wittman), who is another member of the Natural Resources Committee.

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

Madam Chair, I heard the word ``rich'' mentioned a few times. I will tell you what is rich is when our colleagues across the aisle project their energy policies onto our plan. Again, the only polluters who are being put over the people are China, Russia, and Saudi Arabia.

Talk about big oil company profits, I read where Aramco, a Saudi company, had record profits last year, $161 billion in profits. I believe that is the country that President Biden went to and asked them to increase production because we weren't making enough at home.

Madam Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Stauber), the chair of the Energy and Mineral Resources Subcommittee.

Madam Chair, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman from Minnesota.

Madam Chair, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Lamborn), the senior Republican on the Committee on Natural Resources.

Madam Chair, the Inflation Reduction Act that has been referenced here, it did invest in energy companies: energy companies in Saudi Arabia, energy companies in China, and energy companies in places like Russia and Venezuela and Iran at the cost of the American people.

The bill also referred to--outside of the House Chambers--is the climate bill, referred to by my colleagues across the aisle. It did one thing to inflation, it drove inflation up at the cost to the American taxpayer.

Madam Chair, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. McClintock).

Madam Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Puerto Rico (Mrs. Gonzalez-Colon), another Member of the House Natural Resources Committee.

Madam Chair, I thank the gentlewoman for her input on the bill and for her great ideas.

Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I find it ironic that a Member from Pennsylvania, where one of the largest deposits of natural gas in the world resides, would call the producers in Pennsylvania the polluters versus the ones in Russia and Saudi Arabia.

Madam Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California, (Mr. McCarthy), the Speaker of the House.

Madam Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Gosar), another member of the House Natural Resources Committee.

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

The ideas of the Republican Party will do more to reduce global carbon emissions than anything that the Democrats have proposed, especially the legislation they passed in the last Congress that is actually incentivizing foreign production of energy.

I remember distinctly President Biden going over and fist-bumping the Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia. Then, this year, guess what? Saudi Arabia's state-owned oil company reported the highest profits ever-- $161 billion, for an oil company.

They are the plans that we are putting in place, H.R. 1, that will help the planet. It is not the continued misguided principles that are putting the real polluters, the global polluters, ahead of the people.

It is ironic that a Member from Texas would think that producers in Saudi Arabia and Russia and Venezuela are polluting less than the oil producers and the energy producers in the State of Texas.

Madam Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Montana (Mr. Rosendale).

Madam Chair, I thank the chairwoman for her leadership on this bill. The Lower Energy Costs Act is a product of countless hours of discussion between leadership, stakeholders, and our constituents, who are tired of higher costs for less reliable energy.

The United States has an incredible energy potential. We have vast resources of oil, natural gas, and other critical minerals essential for energy dominance.

Only a few years ago, we were a global leader in both oil and gas production. This was achieved through American innovation, domestic energy production, and investment from the private sector in developing our critical energy infrastructure.

Unfortunately, the Biden administration vowed to wage war on American energy. Starting on his very first day in office with the help of the Democrats here in Congress, the Biden administration has pursued radical rush-to-green energy policies that made energy less secure, less reliable, and more expensive for our constituents.

This has led to increased costs of energy and goods, hitting the most vulnerable the hardest. We should be about increasing the standard of living for Americans versus diminishing the standard of living that these anti-American energy policies actually do.

Energy is the foundation of everything in American life. When the cost of energy goes up, everything else does, as well. H.R. 1 should help America and will help America produce more, deliver more to our communities, and give us the ability to export and help our allies around the world.

The American people recognize this, and they are sick of choosing between paying their energy bills and putting food on the table, which is why they gave us the majority, to stop this radical energy agenda.

I am proud that my bill, Protecting American Energy Production Act, was included in this package. This provision will protect energy security and affordability by prohibiting the President from imposing a ban on hydraulic fracturing.

The discovery of natural gas through the shale revolution has made the United States a leader in energy production as well as emissions reduction and has allowed the United States of America, not our adversaries, to set the price of energy.

We are approaching the breaking point in our energy infrastructure. The so-called rush-to-green agenda has prevented the buildout of natural gas and other essential energy infrastructure, which is now reaching capacity. Many States, like my own State of South Carolina, are now at risk of approaching an energy deficit in the next few years if we don't immediately change our current regulatory framework.

Fortunately, H.R. 1 addresses these concerns by requiring States to raise legitimate water quality concerns for interstate pipelines and LNG export facilities through FERC's NEPA process instead of weaponizing section 401 of the Clean Water Act to block pipelines.

This change is critical to prevent the political agenda of States abusing section 401 to veto projects of national significance while preserving the ability of States to raise legitimate water quality concerns. New England States could finally get gas from the Marcellus shale instead of importing natural gas from Russia, Iran, Venezuela, and a lot of our other adversaries around the globe.

We have the resources here not only to meet our domestic demand but also to be a leading exporter globally.

Representative DeGette mentioned earlier about capacity and U.S. production and how that would limit available gas for American domestic energy production. The Progressive Policy Institute, which is far from a conservative think tank, put out an article, ``The Climate Case for Expanding U.S. Natural Gas Exports,'' which talks about using that domestically. I would ask you to read it.

This package also sets a framework to export our domestic resources so our allies will no longer have to rely on Vladimir Putin's energy oligarchy. The Democrats keep calling this the polluters over people act. That couldn't be further from the truth.

The reality is that their energy policies put Russia, China, OPEC+, and radical Green New Deal interests over the interests of the American people. The greatest beneficiaries of their policies are the CCP and Vladimir Putin.

Green New Deal policies leave us totally dependent on China for critical minerals that make all of our devices work. Even the green energy devices, wind and solar, need those critical minerals.

We have them here. We harvest them cleaner, more environmentally friendly than anywhere in the world. Let's produce them here. That is what H.R. 1 allows us to do.

H.R. 1 puts the American people first by unleashing American energy and securing our supply chains. It will increase American energy production and restore American energy leadership in the world. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Madam Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Latta).

Madam Chair, let me just say it is great to see the American people in the gallery for once listening to a debate on energy. It is so important to them.

Madam Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Idaho (Mr. Fulcher).

Madam Chair, I am glad the people at home are watching this on TV or here in person because they are learning that H.R. 1 is going to lower their energy costs.

Madam Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Weber), who is a valuable member of the Energy and Commerce Committee and whose State is a huge energy producer for our Nation.

Madam Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Dunn), a new member on the Energy and Commerce Committee.

Madam Chair, I am glad we have got so many members of the Energy and Commerce Committee to come down and show the American people how we are going to lower their energy costs.

I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Walberg), a real leader on the Energy and Commerce Committee.

Madam Chair, the rush to disaster is this rush to green energy policies without thinking about the replacement source of power generation that can be provided by American-produced natural gas, delivered to where it needs to be to produce the power and help lower carbon emissions for America.

I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Rose).

Madam Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Cammack), who is a valuable member of the Energy and Commerce Committee.

Madam Chair, it is funny. I see polluters over people act. We are talking about increasing natural gas production and delivery in this country. According to EIA data, switching to natural gas has accounted for as much as 61 percent of U.S. emissions reductions from 2005 to 2020.

More natural gas--cleaner burning, American-produced natural gas-- delivered to where it needs to go will help

us lower carbon emissions and make America more energy secure.

Madam Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Allen).

Madam Chair, it is my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Bucshon), whose State is at the crossroads of America.

Madam Chair, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Meuser), whose State includes the Marcellus shale, which has an immeasurable amount of natural gas.

Madam Chair, exporting U.S.-produced, cleaner-burning natural gas to places like Vietnam and China, which allows them to take their coal-fired power plants offline, actually lowers carbon emissions globally.

Democrats say they care about carbon emissions globally. Exporting clean-burning natural gas will help do that.

Madam Chair, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Palmer).

Mr. Chair, I applaud leadership for allowing this bill to go through regular order. It went through three committees, 21 bills, hearings, markups, amendments offered, and here we are today.

Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Joyce), who is from a huge area of Marcellus shale, producing so much natural gas for our Nation.

Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Obernolte), a new member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce.

Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Balderson), who is a new member on the Energy and Commerce Committee, and whose State has the Marcellus shale. They are a big producer in oil, coal, hydro, nuclear, and a lot of other things.

Mr. Chair, I am glad to have the author of the bill on the floor, Mr. Scalise.

Mr. Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from West Virginia (Mrs. Miller), my guardian angel.

Mr. Chair, I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentlewoman from West Virginia.

Mr. Chair, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from West Virginia.

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

Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Curtis), the vice chairman of the Energy, Climate, and Grid Security Subcommittee.