Denouncing the harmful, anti-American energy policies of the Biden administration, and for other purposes.

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. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. Langworthy) for yielding the customary 30 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, Republicans called us into an emergency meeting to consider today's rules several weeks ago.

Several weeks ago, it is an emergency. Actually, America does have some emergencies that need to be addressed.

Our national security is at risk. Putin, the dictator, may win his war against our ally if we don't surge aid to Ukraine.

Putin wants World War III, and Putin-protecting Republicans don't want to address that emergency. Remember, Putin's war caused our energy crisis to rise.

I call on responsible Republicans to address our national security emergency. I call on them to address the overwhelmingly bipartisan bill that passed the Senate.

America has another emergency. In 5 legislative days--count them. It is a single hand. In 5 legislative days, our Federal Government won't have money to pay its workers, to pay its contracts, to do our jobs.

Today should be a day to govern, a day to address America's emergencies. Instead, we are taking up one of the most precious resources we have in Congress, and that is floor time, for an election ploy to help certain New York Republicans win their next election.

Last night, New Yorkers told America they were tired of Republicans' failure to govern, didn't they? Now Republicans are using floor time to save the fragile reelection campaigns of some other New York Republicans, but don't let them fool you.

H.R. 7160 is simply a Band-Aid for a problem that the twice- impeached, four times-indicted former President Trump and Republican congressional folks caused in the first place.

They created this problem that they now want to put a Band-Aid on. They capped the SALT deduction in their tax bill to give tax breaks to the wealthiest corporations and CEOs.

As we know, Republicans and Trump seem to care more about the richest Americans. There are real emergencies that all Americans want this Congress to address.

The Federal Government could shut down in just 2 weeks, an absolute disaster that these bills don't even mention. That should be our priority.

Yet, we have another week of chaos and dysfunction, of dealing with things that are not priorities for the American people.

It is another week that Republicans allow small sections of their party to dictate what we see on the floor, based on their reelection priorities.

It is another week that extreme MAGA Republicans push partisan political stunts. The other bill in this rule is another one of those stunts.

H. Res. 987 is a nonbinding, politically motivated resolution that does nothing, nada, nothing, to lower energy costs or provide effective energy solutions.

Like so much of what Republicans do in the House, it is a distraction from the real bipartisan work Congress must do.

From the first paragraph, it is wrong. Just yesterday, we got a new Consumer Price Index report which shows energy prices fell last month. They have fallen 4.6 percent in the last year.

The United States is producing more oil than ever before, more than any time during the Trump administration.

More importantly, energy is not just oil and gas. The Inflation Reduction Act that Democrats passed and President Biden signed into law last Congress created more than 170,000 clean energy jobs in the U.S. so far.

Wind, solar, geothermal--these are important elements of our American energy portfolio. The Inflation Reduction Act provided $369 billion in investments for clean energy and for reducing greenhouse gas pollution.

This resolution that does nothing is just wrong. It is a do-nothing Congress. It is yet another day in our do-nothing Congress.

Let's not take our word for it. In the first session of the 117th Congress, 81 bills were enacted into law; in the first session of the Republican-led 118th Congress, 34 bills. That is all--just 34 bills.

It is one of the most unproductive Congresses in modern history. The American people deserve more. They want more. They want us to do our work.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the rule, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, let's go back to who caused this problem in the first place. It was those Republicans with their Republican tax cut.

The Trump tax cut is the one that caused this problem. Let's not forget why we are facing this. Let's not forget, and, hopefully, New Yorkers won't forget as to why they are facing this problem in the first place.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Crow), my esteemed colleague.

Mr. Speaker, I remind everybody here that Democrats offered an amendment in the Rules Committee so that we could have fixed the SALT problem not just for tax year 2023, which is when you pay your taxes now in 2024, but fixed it for 2 years. If Republicans were really interested in solving this problem, they would have made sure that it got fixed for the 2 years.

Do you know what the Republican vote was? Unanimous. Every single one of my Republican colleagues on the Rules Committee said, no, we don't want a fix that would actually fix it for 2 years. We just want to get past this next election. We want to make sure that when people file their taxes now, as April 15 is coming up, that this is fixed. One year--they could have had it for 2. Every single one of them, even our New York colleague, voted ``no.''

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell).

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 15 seconds to the gentleman from New Jersey.

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

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Pascrell made a really important point, and that is that this problem arose and impacted middle-class Americans. That happened because Republicans and the Trump tax cuts didn't really much care about middle-class Americans. They didn't much care about working- class Americans.

In fact, as we know, the Trump tax cuts mostly benefited the wealthy. The Trump tax cuts highlight the priorities that we see in this Chamber between Republicans and Democrats because they imposed the SALT deduction cap for a reason.

They wanted to make sure that they could pass these tax cuts that, as you can see, benefited the richest Americans so much more than they did middle-class Americans. The magnitude is astounding.

Their goal of what they tried to do and what they did do back then worked. The top 0.1 percent had an average tax cut of $193,000. What kind of cut did middle-income Americans receive? A paltry $930. If you earned $3 million or more a year, you got to keep an extra $193,000. People who earned $1 billion got to keep even more.

Do those millionaires and billionaires really need that help? Do you know who really needed that help? The middle class, which got $930, that is barely $77 a month.

These were their priorities. These remain their priorities, except for the fact that there are some election problems happening over there in New York, and they acknowledged it. A few of the New York Republicans helped them get their majority, so this is

what they are getting back for 1 year and 1 year only because they didn't want to vote for a 2-year fix.

Imagine what a middle-class family would have been able to do if they had gotten thousands of dollars of tax cuts. They would have been able to do some of the things we are talking about: buy a house, send their kids to college, go on a vacation, make sure that they didn't have to worry about the bills. Mr. Speaker, they could have bought 20 years' worth of groceries if we just allowed them to get what the rich got. But that didn't happen.

Democrat priorities are that we are always standing with the working class and not the wealthiest corporations and CEOs. We want to lower costs and grow the middle class.

H.R. 7160, you know, it is not solving the problem. It is not a permanent fix. It is not even a 2-year fix. When you guys get up and complain that this should not be a problem for us, we wanted to fix it for 2 years. You said no.

They just don't want to let us vote on things that are important. They don't want to let us vote on a 2-year fix. They don't want to let us vote on Ukraine funding, on emergency security issues that are about protecting our troops.

Let us vote on these issues. Let the House Members have a say.

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

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

We have seen the Republicans kill a lot of their own rules. A record number of Republican rules have been killed on the floor of the House. I think it is a little too early to crow about getting this done when you don't know if you are going to get your Republican colleagues to vote for your own rule.

There is something else that is in this rule, and that is H. Res. 987. My colleagues like complaining a lot. They have a politics of grievance, but they don't actually solve the problem. They go on and on about various issues, like energy, immigration, other things, but they do not solve the problems. They don't actually pass laws. They don't take up the bills that actually would solve the problem.

That is what we are seeing today in H. Res. 987. It is just a bill of complaint. It is also not very accurate. They are complaining about President Biden's energy policies. Let's look at those energy policies.

The United States is producing a record 13.2 million barrels of crude oil per day, more than Russia or Saudi Arabia, more than any time during the Trump administration. We are also producing record amounts of natural gas.

H.R. 987 itself even notes that the U.S. became a global leader in LNG exports for the first time in 2023, which was under President Biden.

Moreover, oil and gas companies are reaping the benefits. In the last 2 years, we have seen record profits, $196 billion one year and $123 billion the next.

What we see a lot in this other resolution is complaining but not a good recitation of facts on the ground. The resolution also complains that there isn't enough domestic production of reliable and affordable energy.

Let's talk about affordable energy. When Democrats were in control last Congress, we and President Biden took historic action to spur clean energy development right here at home.

We know that clean energy helps stabilize prices because we are not subject to international price fluctuations. As we talked about earlier, as Representative Crow mentioned, one of the reasons we saw the surge in gas prices was because of Putin's war, yet we are not taking up the bipartisan security package that passed overwhelmingly in the Senate. If we want to look at ways of making sure that our international markets don't go crazy, let's address Putin's war.

They don't want to do that.

What we are doing at home is looking at that renewable energy because when we produce renewable energy here at home, we are not dependent on Saudi Arabia, and we are not dependent on Russia.

President Biden knows the importance of energy independence, and we are creating independence by weaning ourselves off of those international markets.

Let me tell you, we are doing that in New Mexico, because when we build in New Mexico, we bring down costs.

What are we doing in New Mexico? Last year, the Inflation Reduction Act created more than 170,000 clean energy jobs and provided $369 billion in investments. Some of that went to New Mexico. I am going to give you a couple of examples from my own beautiful State.

It spurred $1.4 billion in funding for clean energy projects to create at least 2,105 jobs.

In New Mexico, these clean energy jobs are also bringing to our State manufacturing jobs, like in Belen where we will be building wind towers. For the first time, we are creating manufacturing jobs in the United States.

Wind power and solar power are actually the cheapest electricity we can invest in. Our big companies know that, and they are investing in wind and solar.

Indeed, I recently met with Chevron representatives, and they told me excitedly about the plans they have to invest in clean energy, to invest in wind and solar.

Rather than pass a resolution that doesn't do anything but complain, I invite my Republican colleagues to work with Democrats to pass bills that bring down our energy costs while we invest in America's clean energy future here at home.

Help us build on progress we made last Congress so that we can grow the

middle class and lower costs for the American people. We can achieve both goals when you put people over politics.

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

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

Give me a break, really. Republicans caused this problem. When Republicans were in complete control, they created the problem that that chart just highlighted. Everybody is paying for that. They created a problem where the middle class--I don't use that kind of language, but you know what I would have said--where the middle class really did not benefit, because they were prioritizing the rich. Now they are scolding us? You have to be kidding.

In 2019, when Democrats took control of the House, what did they do? They passed a fix to the SALT problem. It went over to the Senate, and Mitch McConnell killed it. The Senate, remember, was 50/50, so we needed 10 Republican votes to get things across. We needed 9 Republican votes. We needed Republican votes to get things over. Republicans were not willing to fix things over there.

Our priorities have always been the middle class. Their priorities were the rich, and that is why we have this problem in the first place.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to include in the Record a 2023 Center for American Progress report titled: ``Biden Tax Proposals Would Correct Inequities Created by Trump Tax Cuts and Raise Additional Revenues.''

Mr. Speaker, this report details the massive tax breaks that the Trump and Republican 2018 tax bill primarily benefited the wealthiest Americans, and we constantly hear them want to make it permanent. We constantly hear them say: Oh, those were the greatest things, except for when they need to have a couple of their Members get reelected. We are looking for a repeat of what we saw yesterday.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, the Republicans' fix needs a fix. Really. They are proposing that instead of actually fixing the SALT problem, they keep trying to say: Oh, it is all right for us to do just a teeny, tiny, little bit just as long as we can get reelected, because if they really wanted to fix it, then they would have at least taken it up and raised it in committee, had a good debate, and brought it to the floor with a robust fix that actually makes a difference not just for an election year.

I might remind everybody, again, that in the Rules Committee, Joe Neguse, a member of the Rules Committee, proposed that this SALT fix actually go for 2 years so that it would be consistent with the other tax cuts that Trump did. They didn't want that.

The other thing that the amendment does was strike $20,000 and half $30,000. They didn't want that either. Every single Republican voted against it. Every single Republican voted against having this goal for 2 years.

Why?

It was because that wasn't part of the deal. They don't need it after November, I guess. They only need it for this November.

Is that it?

Once November goes by, their constituents don't need another year of tax relief with regard to this deduction?

Why would they vote against that?

I have no idea why they would not let the Members on the floor of the House decide whether this bill should go for 2 years.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, we just have to keep saying it over and over again: How dare the majority scold us for not fixing a problem that they created. How dare they scold us, and how dare they actually even think about it when they don't want to fix the problem.

The majority's fix needs fixing. Let's move on.

I was flabbergasted when I heard my colleagues say that the Trump tax cuts, which benefited the wealthy, the superwealthy, the millionaires, and the billionaires, were the greatest stimulus ever. They were actually not.

Mr. Speaker, I call Members' attention to a report titled: ``The Biden Tax Proposals Would Correct Inequities Created By Trump Tax Cuts and Raise Additional Revenues.''

Mr. Speaker, what this report shows is that it wasn't the greatest stimulus, indeed, that with the Trump tax cuts, revenue plummeted from the expected.

Those Trump tax cuts are the reason we have the deficits, which is what they always usually complain about.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, it is clear that today's legislative calendar highlights the very distinct differences in priorities and values between Democrats and Republicans.

Democrats are committed to putting people over politics. We are dedicated to lowering costs for everyday Americans, to raising the middle class, to growing that middle class, and to investing in our communities.

On the other hand, the Republicans don't have much of an agenda other than chaos and trying to win the next election.

The SALT Marriage Penalty Elimination Act is a Band-Aid on a wound Republicans inflicted on the American people when they passed the Trump tax cuts. It is not the kind of emergency that should be taking up our time when we don't have a budget, when we can't pay our bills in a couple of weeks, and when we have Putin possibly winning the war in Ukraine.

Be that as it may, here we are taking that up and taking up a nonbinding resolution about the President's energy policies that ignore how much we have invested in clean energy, how many jobs we have created in the energy sector, and how we are lowering prices.

That is putting people and our planet first.

Their nonbinding resolution does nothing. Republicans keep taking up our time doing nothing on this House floor. We should be on the House floor this week talking about funding the government.

The American people deserve more than the political stunts and the partisan gridlock that comes out of this wonderful, beautiful people's House. It was in this people's House last Congress that we got so much done.

We invested in our infrastructure, we invested in our communities, and we saved America from the economic catastrophe that we were facing coming out of a pandemic. We did so much then, and we have done so little now. What a contrast.

Be that as it may, in the face of chaos and dysfunction, I and everybody in my Democratic Caucus remain steadfast in our commitment to progress and prosperity for all Americans.

The bills that we will be taking up if this rule passes--if this rule passes, they keep defeating their rules--they won't be doing that. This is a teeny, tiny, little Band-Aid on a big, open wound. This rule is all about politics and not about people.

Let's reject the rule and put people over politics.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose the previous question and the rule, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the subject of this Special Order.

Mr. Speaker, it is a sad day to see an administration choose party over country, radical views over the common good, and leftwing environmentalists over the American people. However, that is what happened a week and a half ago when President Biden halted permitting additional liquefied natural gas export facilities.

Let's be clear, this is not a pause. It is the first step of a process to ban outright any future export of LNG. This was a political decision to pander to the far left that will increase energy prices for American households. It will abandon our allies in their time of energy need. It will harm family-sustaining jobs, and it will relinquish American global energy leadership.

We will hear tonight from my colleagues of the many ways LNG exports strengthen our economic well-being and how this ban will weaken American security around the world.

First, before we get ahead of ourselves, let's quickly discuss the LNG industry, what it is, and why it is so important. LNG stands for liquefied natural gas. In a process where natural gas is cooled to a temperature of minus 260 degrees Fahrenheit, the gas becomes a liquid with a volume of one-six hundredth of its original size. This decrease in volume is what creates the possibility for LNG to be shipped around the world.

The exportation of LNG is only possible because of two incredible American technological achievements. The first took place in 1959 when an American proved that you could successfully and safely ship liquefied natural gas. The second was the shale revolution of the 2000s, and suddenly States like Pennsylvania, Texas, North Dakota, and Louisiana were able to produce huge amounts of natural gas.

This production dropped energy costs for Americans and led to our Nation being a net exporter of energy for the first time in 60 years. It was the technological innovation of extracting natural gas from shale that dramatically increased production. That, paired with our ability to liquefy natural gas and ship it, has allowed all of this to happen.

The American people have benefited significantly from these advances. The ability to export natural gas has driven investment to continue increasing natural gas production. This means more jobs in districts like mine in Pennsylvania and across rural America. It means more jobs in the pipeline industry, as companies invest in infrastructure to get the resources from the gas fields to the processing facility. It means more jobs on the coasts, where LNG export facilities are being operated and new ones are being built.

Important for all Americans, more production means more supply in the market, so natural gas prices have stayed lower and less volatile for American families. Finally, and ironically, given LNG's environmental detractors, it is better for the environment. American LNG is one of the cleanest baseload power fuel sources on the planet. President Biden's own Department of Energy trumpets the fact that U.S. LNG exports are 41 percent cleaner than competing Russian natural gas.

In summary, if exporting LNG leads to lower prices, more family- sustaining American jobs, and lower emissions, why would President Biden attempt to ban it? That is the question that we are struggling with tonight.

This action reeks of shortsighted election year politics that will have harsh, long-term effects on America. Along with all of my colleagues this evening, I urge President Biden to reverse this decision.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. James).

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Michigan for his remarks.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Louisiana for his passionate presentation.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to my colleague from Pennsylvania (Mr. Meuser).

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania for his comments.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Walberg), my colleague on the Energy and Commerce Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Michigan for his remarks.

Mr. Speaker, our Nation has been blessed with abundant natural gas reserves, and thanks to the shale revolution, the resources under the feet of my constituents have been unlocked. The boom in natural gas production has brought jobs and hope back to small towns throughout Pennsylvania.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from the great State of Ohio (Mr. Balderson).

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Ohio.

Mr. Speaker, the graph beside me tells an incredible story. It talks about the volatility that occurs in natural gas prices. We see the spikes, but those spikes have diminished because of the shale revolution.

The access to natural gas has actually leveled off the price. This allows families to sit at their kitchen table and make budget plans because they know that next month they are not going to pay double or triple the cost of natural gas.

The shale revolution, the ability to utilize the resources that are under the feet of so many Americans, has allowed American financial stability to occur for American families.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Kelly).

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his passionate presentation.

Mr. Speaker, as we discuss this issue, it is important to recognize that liquefied natural gas actually has a positive impact on emissions rather than a negative one. Because of the clean power that natural gas provides, the United States continues to lead the world in carbon emission reductions.

In the last 20 years, natural gas has led to a 32 percent reduction in carbon emissions right here in the United States. As I said before, President Biden's own Department of Energy trumpets the fact that U.S. liquefied natural gas exports are 41 percent cleaner than Russian natural gas.

Our continued innovation, our continued development has helped lead to new technologies that have made our energy sources cleaner and more affordable.

As we look around the world, no other Nation has matched our work in this area. If the Biden administration is truly serious about reducing carbon emissions, then a ban on LNG exports is truly a massive mistake.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Pence).

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Indiana.

Mr. Speaker, I think there is a point that cannot be missed today: That we have Members of Congress from North, South, East, and West, from all corners of the U.S., questioning the Biden administration's reckless ban on the export of liquefied natural gas.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Bilirakis), my colleague and another member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his remarks.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is important to remember that every shipment of LNG that does not come from the United States has to come from somewhere else. Often that means that gas is being sold by our adversaries, including Russia and Iran.

At a time when Iranian-backed terrorists are killing American troops, the Biden administration is voluntarily opening up avenues for the Iranian Government to profit on the sale of liquefied natural gas.

Sadly, this is business as usual for an administration that fails time and time again to understand how its decisions can impact our national security.

We saw this when President Biden telegraphed his plan to withdraw from Afghanistan ahead of the 20th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks, emboldening the Taliban.

We saw this last week when the President failed to respond quickly to strikes carried out by Iranian-backed terrorists. We are seeing President Biden's failed foreign policy on display once again with this decision to withhold American liquefied natural gas from our friends and from our allies who need it.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Cammack).

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Florida for her words.

Mr. Speaker, from my home State of Pennsylvania to the Gulf Coast, natural gas creates family-sustaining jobs that are vital for our communities. From 2005 to 2019, more than 1.4 million manufacturing jobs were created in the natural gas industry.

When President Biden stops the flow of LNG, he is sending a message to American families that are supported by these jobs. Biden is sending a message that his political welfare is more important than American families' livelihoods. Biden is sending a message that keeping his far- left base happy is more important than American families' financial stability. It is shameful. It is shameful for the President to pretend to care about the American workers and then make decisions that directly harm them.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New Jersey for his comments.

Mr. Speaker, one of the reasons that our allies rely so heavily on American-made liquefied natural gas is because of its reliability.

In recent years, we have seen billions of tax dollars used to prop up failing energy producers like wind turbines and solar farms. While wind and solar should certainly be available, the fact is they are unable to sustain major electric grids. Without battery technology to store the energy collected by renewable energy sources, the United States and our friends and our allies will continue to rely on natural gas.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Allen).

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his words.

Mr. Speaker, from New Jersey to Florida, from Pennsylvania to California, liquefied natural gas, its production and export, has a positive effect on so many Americans.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Idaho (Mr. Fulcher).

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Idaho, a fellow member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, for his insight and comments.

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

Mr. Speaker, as we have stated, the impact of stopping the export of liquefied natural gas affects all Americans.

We have had individuals from all over, Representatives, who know the impact financially to their constituents. They know the impact on jobs to each one of the Americans who are in the natural gas industry. We understand, and this is not lost on us.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. LaMalfa).

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California for his remarks.

Mr. Speaker, I thank all of the Members who have joined us this evening to hold this Special Order to address President Biden's policy failure on liquefied natural gas. Since his first day in office, President Biden has worked to dismantle our Nation's energy production, revoking permits, stonewalling new development, and using red tape to harass our energy producers.

The decision to halt the permitting of LNG exportation facilities is the next step in an agenda that puts Green New Deal policies ahead of American families.

The Biden administration has continually passed the buck for high prices by blaming domestic energy producers. Biden's regulatory assaults destroy any incentive for domestic energy producers to invest in building our natural gas infrastructure.

Now, most recently, President Biden announced that his administration would no longer hold court-ordered offshore oil and gas lease sales in the Gulf of Mexico and Alaska.

Liquefied natural gas is safe, affordable, and easy to transport. That is why this week 150 of my colleagues and I were led by E&C Chair Rodgers and Speaker of the House Mike Johnson to demand that President Biden overturn this terrible decision. We know that this energy source, which is underneath the feet of my constituents, will help power our allies, it will help create American jobs, and it will help reduce emissions.

Instead of embracing this technology, President Biden has caved to his far-left base who refuse to recognize the benefits that LNG has for America. A single shipment of LNG can power an entire city, and, yet, the Biden administration has refused to allow these shipments.

Tonight, we have heard about the dangerous impacts that the cutting of LNG exports have from raising prices here at home to funding our adversaries by forcing European nations to rely on energy from Russia and from Iran.

Let's be clear. President Biden is choosing to cut American jobs and fund our enemies. When it comes to our energy security, appeasing liberal activists can have long-lasting and very dangerous consequences. We all must continue to urge the Biden administration to reverse this disastrous decision and allow liquefied natural gas exports to continue and to power communities around the world.

It is time to return to American energy dominance, and it is time to stop using our energy security as a pawn in political games.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, this resolution is a ridiculous waste of our time. It will do nothing to lower costs for the American people. It will do nothing to grow our economy. It will do nothing to help us continue our goal of leading the world in the clean energy transition. It will do nothing to combat the worsening climate crisis.

This resolution does absolutely nothing. It is nothing more than a long list of fabricated grievances against the Biden administration and against the important work that congressional Democrats have accomplished over the last few years.

It reads as if Republicans just fed their same old dirty energy talking points into ChatGPT and asked it to spit out a resolution.

Instead of focusing on real solutions to bring down energy costs for Americans, House Republicans are working to pass this meaningless resolution that falsely claims the Biden administration is anti- American energy, that that is what their policy is.

Let's look at the facts. The United States is currently producing more energy than ever before in its history. That includes energy from all sources--solar, wind, and, yes, more oil and gas than ever before.

While we are doing this, we are also making incredible progress in addressing carbon emissions and air pollution. Last year, emissions in the United States fell by 2 percent, even as the GDP grew by 2.4 percent.

Why are Republicans complaining? Why are they upset about the fact that we found a way to pursue energy security while also lowering energy costs for American families, boosting our economy, and tackling the worsening climate crisis, all at the same time?

I am going to tell you why--because Republicans don't want anything to stand in the way of their oil and gas friends. They refuse to deviate from their polluters over people agenda, and they are wasting floor time on meaningless resolutions and bills that won't go anywhere because they are simply not capable of governing.

This Republican Congress is the least productive of any Congress since the Great Depression. They don't have any new ideas or solutions. Instead, they just continue to gravitate to their comfort zone, which is doing the bidding of the oil and gas industry.

President Biden and congressional Democrats have taken a drastically different approach. In stark contrast to Republicans' polluters over people agenda, Democrats are fighting to lower American energy bills, grow our middle class with new, good-paying clean energy jobs, and combat the worsening climate crisis.

Through the bipartisan infrastructure law and the Inflation Reduction Act, we have seen clean energy projects growing all over the country. New manufacturing facilities are making EVs, batteries, and other clean energy technologies, and they are all booming because of crucial investments from these two bills.

This leads to emission reductions, energy production, and, of course, important new jobs. It is revitalizing communities across the country, with more than 271,000 clean energy jobs created since the passage of the Inflation Reduction Act.

In fact, the sponsor of this resolution will get to witness the power of these investments in his own district in Washington State. Two companies backed by bipartisan infrastructure law investments of $100 million are building next-generation EV battery plants in Washington State, in his district, and are expected to create hundreds of new jobs.

It is not just the State of Washington that is benefiting. Over half of the Inflation Reduction Act's projects are located in congressional districts represented by Republicans, totaling more than 144,000 new jobs and over $262 billion in investments.

We are growing the economies in their districts, yet Republicans continue to complain.

Republicans often talk about the Biden administration's so-called war on energy. They mentioned it today. I honestly have no idea what they are talking about. American energy production is breaking records. Gas prices have remained stable over the last year. The Energy Information Administration has forecasted that Americans are paying less for heating costs this year than they did last year.

Other countries--and often our competitors--are investing rapidly in clean energy. If we pause our important work, we will fall behind.

If Republicans have their way, we will stop competing, stop investing in the booming clean energy economy, and simply recommit to expensive, polluting fossil fuels as the way forward.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote against this do-nothing resolution, and I urge my colleagues across the aisle to come up with better things for all of us to do with our time, not waste our time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Crockett).

Madam Speaker, I yield the gentlewoman an additional 2 minutes.

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

I heard the sponsor of this resolution, the gentleman from Washington State, mention and make reference to Ukraine and then to LNG exports. Let me say, the only thing that is holding up aid to Ukraine is the Republican leadership.

The Speaker at any time could bring up a bill providing funding for military purposes and supplies in Ukraine, and it would pass this House overwhelmingly. I don't know why he isn't doing it. However, for them to suggest on the other side of the aisle that somehow we are not helping Ukraine, that is their fault because they refuse to bring up the spending bill that will allow that to happen. It is not happening this week. Then we are going to go on a 2-week break, and it is still not happening. They are running out of ammunition in Ukraine to defend themselves against Putin.

I will also mention the gentleman's reference to LNG exports. Again, Republicans are ignoring the facts that don't conform with their narrative.

The U.S. has become the number one exporter of LNG worldwide in just a few short years, and there is enough already approved liquefied natural gas export permits for us to triple our export capacity without issuing a single additional permit.

This level of production, according to a letter sent by over 60 European Union lawmakers, will meet the energy needs of our allies in Europe for years to come. We are supporting our allies. It is those on the other side of the aisle, the Republicans, who are not supporting our allies by not allowing legislation to come to the floor that will help Ukraine.

The White House has issued an LNG pause that serves as an opportunity to evaluate how the recent boom in LNG is contributing to greenhouse gas emissions, environmental pollution, and domestic energy price increases.

What we are saying here today--and this is what the Republicans ignore--is that this administration, the Biden administration, is increasing production, increasing production of oil and natural gas, addressing renewables, getting more solar out there, getting more wind out there, but at the same time making sure that our economy grows, that gas prices don't increase, and addressing the climate crisis.

The White House has this LNG pause because one study found that the rise in U.S. LNG exports over the past 3 years is contributing to higher energy bills for American families.

We also shouldn't ignore the public health impacts of unfettered fossil fuel development along our Gulf Coast. Study after study demonstrates a link between fossil fuel plants and adverse health outcomes. Louisiana's so-called Cancer Alley experiences low birth weights of three times the national average and preterm births at twice the national average.

I want to commend the administration for pausing new LNG permitting to examine these potential impacts. Again, the LNG exports are increasing. They are at a high. The European Union is benefiting from them.

Unfortunately, Ukraine is not benefiting at all because the House Republican leadership refuses to bring up legislation that would help Ukraine defend themselves.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Mrs. Fletcher), a member of the Energy and Commerce Committee.

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

Madam Speaker, this resolution claims that the Biden administration has hampered the domestic production of energy and made the United States more reliant on other countries for its energy needs.

This could not be further from the truth. I want to be crystal clear to get this into the record: Under the Biden administration, the United States is producing more energy than it has at any other point in its history.

In fact, throughout the entirety of President Biden's term in office, the U.S. has produced more energy than it has consumed. He is the only President to have achieved that in my lifetime.

Last year, the United States added a record 33 gigawatts of solar capacity, fueled by the Inflation Reduction Act, which is lowering costs for Americans every day. We should be thanking President Biden for unleashing American energy.

Republicans can say whatever they want, but the facts don't lie. President Biden's energy policies are strengthening energy security and positioning us to compete globally all while reducing emissions. Please, I urge everyone to vote against the resolution.

Let me just say, this resolution is really flat out absurd in its attempt by extreme Republicans to mislead the American public.

The data shows that we are producing more energy. It is not just oil and gas. It is solar, it is more wind turbines, and it is exporting more gas and liquid fuels than ever before. Meanwhile, the administration is making significant progress in its effort to drive down planet warming air pollution.

Last year, U.S. emissions fell, as I said, by 2 percent even as the economy roared and GDP grew by 2.34 percent. These numbers are a clear indication that we can achieve a safer climate while bolstering energy security and job growth at the same time.

In the face of this climate crisis, the U.S. must continue to be a global leader in the clean energy transition and help our communities prevent further extreme weather and other climate impacts.

What we are seeing before us today with this resolution is the Republicans' polluters over people agenda. That is the reality. It is a policy that is outlined in this resolution that risks derailing the immense progress that President Biden has made since taking office.

In conclusion, Madam Speaker, I can't emphasize enough that what we are seeing with this President and this administration is an effort to increase energy production across the board and at the same time become a global leader on addressing the climate crisis.

Let us continue with that. Let us build on that. Don't take us back. That is what this resolution would do. It would take us back.

Madam Speaker, I encourage everyone to vote against this resolution, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam 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.