A joint resolution providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule submitted by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service relating to "Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Lesser Prairie-Chicken; Threatened Status with Section 4(d) Rule for the Northern Distinct Population Segment and Endangered Status for the Southern Distinct Population Segment".

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 614 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Neguse) pending which time 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 ask unanimous consent that the resolution be amended by striking the last sentence in the first section of the resolution and insert ``All points of order against provisions in the bill are waived.''.

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

House Resolution 614 provides for consideration of three measures: H.R. 4366, S.J. Res. 9, and S.J. Res. 24.

The rule provides for H.R. 4366, the Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act of 2024 to be considered under a structured rule with 1 hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member on the Committee on Appropriations or their respective designees, and provides one motion to recommit.

The rule makes in order 41 amendments.

Additionally, the rule provides for consideration S.J. Res. 9, a resolution of congressional disapproval related to the lesser prairie- chicken 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 designees, and provides one motion to commit.

Finally, the resolution provides for consideration of S.J. Res. 24, a resolution of congressional disapproval related to the northern long- eared bat 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 designees, and provides one motion to commit.

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 4366 fulfills our commitment to America's veterans by fully funding their healthcare programs and benefits, providing robust funding for mental health services, and rejecting the Biden administration's efforts to insert far-left policies into the VA.

As a Navy veteran, I am proud that this bill improves the quality of life for servicemembers by investing more than $17.6 billion in military construction and family housing for our heroes.

This includes critical investments in childcare development centers, upgrades to barrack housing, and billions to counter China in the Indo- Pacific.

Additionally, H.R. 4366 includes a provision prohibiting the closure of Naval Station Guantanamo Bay, Cuba and also prohibiting the use of funds to build detainee facilities on U.S. soil.

As a veteran of the global war on terror and someone who prosecuted terrorists in the Iraqi court system, I saw firsthand the destruction and chaos caused by these radical extremists. Bringing these terrorists to U.S. soil is unthinkable to me, and many of these terrorists were directly involved in the September 11 terrorist attacks.

Mr. Speaker, the underlying legislation also provides important congressional oversight of the Biden administration.

S.J. Res. 9 and S.J. Res. 24 utilize the Congressional Review Act to nullify the Department of the Interior's rules related to the lesser prairie-chicken and the northern long-eared bat.

In both instances, bureaucrats from the Biden administration are placing red tape on economic development and private land use, and without warrant. These rules expose farmers to litigation and lawsuits for routine farming activities, shut down existing conservation efforts from private industry, and impose new restrictions on farmers and ranchers.

This is just another example, another instance, of far-left, extreme Democrats in Washington, D.C., making it more costly for Americans to make a living, put food on the table, and develop our rural communities.

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.

Let's just go back and look at what has been said over the last few months. For the last few months, the administration and extreme congressional Democrats have been spreading lies that House Republicans were cutting veterans benefits. These lies were merely designed to score cheap political points at the expense of our veterans.

Let's go through a few of the quotes from extreme Democrats.

President Biden stated in May: ``Republicans in Congress proposed budget cuts that would threaten veterans housing services, medical care, and mental health care.''

It didn't stop there. Ranking Member Takano stated, on April 26, they are holding veterans benefits ``hostage, again pointing to concerns about fiscal responsibility.''

In the Senate, Senate Majority Leader Schumer stated, on March 1: ``Republican proposals would narrow healthcare eligibility for veterans and cut VA mandatory funding.''

Now we get to this week, when House Republicans will pass a bill that will fully fund veterans benefits, fully fund veterans healthcare, and fully fund all other veterans programs. This bill provides the VA $16.4 billion over the fiscal year 2023 enacted level and matches the President's budget request for fiscal year 2024.

There is no question who was and who was not misleading the American people. There is no question that our actions today support veterans. Just watch to see how many of those Democrats will vote ``no'' tomorrow.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Langworthy), my good friend and a member of the House Rules Committee.

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

Mr. Speaker, since we are discussing the Department of the Interior's out-of-touch rulemaking decisions this week, let's talk about last week with the Department of the Interior. The Department proposed a new rule adding barriers to the future of energy production. This decision will drastically impact oil and gas investments and will raise energy costs for hardworking Americans.

Let's not forget that under the Trump administration, our Nation was energy independent, and this rulemaking will only deepen our reliance on foreign adversaries for energy.

According to a recent Morning Consult poll, 88 percent of Americans believe we should produce oil and gas here in the United States, and 85 percent agree domestic energy production counters China and Russia. Again, that is 85 percent. In addition, 88 percent believe that domestic energy production will help lower costs for families. That is 88 percent. These seem to me like pretty overwhelming numbers.

However, we have a bunch of unelected, career bureaucrats who are accountable to no one who are making these decisions. It is clear that Biden's Department of the Interior rulemaking continues to hurt our national security, our economy, and our energy independence, not to mention how wildly out of step this administration is with the American people. It is time that extreme Democrats stop the war on American energy.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, it is amazing, I guess if you say something to knock people, you just assume they are going to think it is true.

Let's talk about the facts. Let's talk about the numbers. This bill provides the VA $16.4 billion above FY23 levels. We are over the levels the Democrats passed last year. We are actually at the levels that the President wanted, that he put in his budget request for FY24. We are fully funding the VA.

My crystal ball is broken today, but I am willing to bet that every single Democrat will vote ``no'' on this bill which, again, fully funds the VA and all the programs that they are talking about. Let's just see where they vote tomorrow. It is quite amazing.

The talk about DEI in the military, under the Biden administration DEI created a recruiting and retention crisis without any reason for doing this, and that has weakened our military readiness. I was in the Navy. I lived through this.

I can tell you that DEI and CRT are plummeting our recruitment numbers. For what? From 2015 to 2020, the Army went on a witch hunt. The Army reported 21 of roughly a million soldiers were subject to disciplinary actions due to participation in extremist organizations. That was in 2020, they said a million soldiers were involved in this.

In 2021, the DOD did a study on that, and it reported that less than 100 of the over 2 million servicemembers actually participated in prohibited activity. For those of you without a calculator, that is roughly 0.00005 percent. That is what we are fighting over here.

The underlying legislation we are talking about actually eliminates wasteful spending for DEI and CRT, and puts it where we need it, in veterans' programs and military construction. It also does a lot to reverse the negative impact on military readiness and what is driving down our recruitment--just one of the many things that is driving down our recruitment.

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

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

We can sit here and talk about the numbers all day because the Republicans, we have actually increased military construction $800 million over what President Biden requested in his budget. We are $800 million over what the President wanted.

Where are we using that money? Well, we are using it in places like the South Pacific. Today, China is the global leader in human rights abuses.

In 2021, the Trump administration determined that the CCP is committing genocide against the Uyghurs. In the South China Sea, China is militarizing disputed territory and growing their malign influence.

In 2020, let's not forget that China ended Hong Kong's longstanding autonomy and a democracy came crashing down.

In 2019, a manmade virus escaped from a Chinese lab in Wuhan, killing tens of millions around the world. In the near future, the CCP plans to invade our ally, the free and independent democracy of Taiwan.

That is why I support the underlying legislation which focuses investment in the Pacific theater by providing $1.425 billion for infrastructure related to the Pacific Deterrence Initiative and $131 million for U.S. INDOPACOM. That is the Indo-Pacific Command.

Again, think about those numbers. Think about combating China and their malign influences. When the Democrats sit here and say they are going to vote against this bill, they are voting against strengthening our Pacific theater against the malign influence of the CCP.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have no further speakers at this time, and I am prepared to close.

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

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

I thank my good friend from Colorado for the spirited debate. I always enjoy it.

We are here today because the Biden administration wants to tell the American people what they can do, how they can live. They want to tell you what kind of car you have to drive. They want to tell you what kind of stove that you can buy. They want to tell you what kind of energy you can use to heat your home.

Now, under these Department of the Interior rules, Biden bureaucrats want to place further burdens on our farmers and ranchers, our rural communities, and economic development and on public and private land.

Instead of focusing on the lesser prairie-chicken and the long-eared bat, maybe the Department should focus on securing our domestic energy supply chains and supporting American energy independence. Maybe that is the real purpose of why we are here talking about these issues, to force this Department to actually focus on what matters to American security and the American economy.

I urge my colleagues to send that message to the Biden administration and support the underlying legislation.

Additionally, as a Navy veteran, I support the underlying legislation that fulfills our commitments to America's veterans, our servicemembers, and their families.

Let's not forget that this MILCON-VA bill is $800 million for military construction over what President Biden requested in his budget request for FY24. It is also at the President's requested level of FY24. Maybe instead of attacking these numbers, my Democratic colleagues should be attacking their far-left Democratic President who wanted numbers below what the Republicans wrote for these numbers, and, again, we are fully funding Biden's requested VA numbers.

It is simple that a ``no'' vote on this is a vote against our veterans, and that is absolutely horrifying. Our country has sent generations of heroes around the globe to defend our freedoms and the freedoms of others. It is essential that we now take care of those who took care of us.

For those reasons, 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.

The previous question was ordered.

Madam President, it is an honor to join my colleagues of both parties on the floor today to read one of the greatest pieces of writing of the 20th century, Dr. King's letter from the Birmingham jail.

I thank Senators Warnock, Tillis, Casey, Capito, Boozman, and Rosen for joining me.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that after I speak briefly, you will recognize, in this order, Senators Warnock, Tillis, Casey, then me, then Capito, then Boozman, then Rosen.

Mr. President, our former colleague, Doug Jones from Alabama, began this bipartisan tradition. It happened in his State, and it is an honor to carry it.

Today, we recommit to Dr. King's mission--equal rights for all--to ensuring that every voice is heard and to the dignity of work.

On Friday, we marked Workers Memorial Day, when we honor workers killed on the job over the past year and throughout our history. People don't talk enough about what Dr. King was doing when he was assassinated. He was killed in Memphis while fighting for sanitation workers, AFSCME Local 1633, some of the most exploited workers in our country.

He traveled there following the death of two sanitation workers on the job. Not only was it a segregated neighborhood in Memphis, but, of course, even the garbage truck was segregated. Two White workers worked in the cab, and two Black workers worked in the back of the truck. They were killed when the truck malfunctioned and crushed them.

Dr. King understood the deep connection between workers' rights and civil rights. Speaking to those workers, he said:

[W]henever you are engaged in work that serves humanity and

is for the building of

humanity, it has dignity and it has worth. . . . All labor

has dignity.

Until we have equal rights for all and dignity for all workers, our work here remains unfinished. We have a long road left to travel. It is up to us to push our country further along the road. That is the message to me in Dr. King's words in the letter we read today.

Just a quick preface of what this letter was about and then we will turn to Reverend Warnock. In April 1963, Dr. King was held in a Birmingham, AL, jail for the supposed crime of leading a series of peaceful protests and boycotts. The goal was to pressure the business community to end discrimination in their hiring for local jobs.

Some White ministers from Alabama had taken issue with the boycotts. They told him: Dr. King, slow down. We are supporting you. We are for voting rights, too, but slow down. Don't move too fast. Don't demand too much all at once.

Dr. King rejected that premise.

It is up to all of us--as citizens, as leaders, as members of our churches in our communities--to get to work to demand justice and equality now, not at some hazy, far-off point in the future that never seems to get here.

Dr. King made that point more eloquently and persuasively than any of us ever could. So I will turn to my colleague, the Reverend Senator Warnock.

Mr. President, I will continue.

I must make two honest confessions to you, my Christian and

Jewish brothers. First, I must confess that over the past few

years I have been gravely disappointed with the white

moderate.

I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the

Negro's great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is

not the White Citizen's Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but

the white moderate, who is more devoted to ``order'' than to

justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of

tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice;

who constantly says: ``I agree with you in the goal you seek,

but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action''; who

paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for

another man's freedom; who lives by a mythical concept of

time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait for a

``more convenient season.'' Shallow understanding from people

of good will is more frustrating than absolute

misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance

is much more bewildering than outright rejection.

I had hoped that the white moderate would understand that

law and order exist for the purpose of establishing justice

and that when they fail in this purpose they become the

dangerously structured dams that block the flow of social

progress.

I had hoped that the white moderate would understand that

the present tension in the South is a necessary phase of the

transition from an obnoxious negative peace, in which the

Negro passively accepted his unjust plight, to a substantive

and positive peace, in which all men will respect the dignity

and worth of human personality. Actually, we who engage in

nonviolent direct action are not the creators of tension.

We merely bring to the surface the hidden tension that is

already alive. We bring it out in the open, where it can

be seen and dealt with. Like a boil that can never be

cured so long as it is covered up but must be opened with

all its ugliness to the natural medicines of air and

light, injustice must be exposed, with all the tension its

exposure creates, to the light of human conscience and the

air of national opinion before it can be cured.

In your statement you assert that our actions, even though

peaceful, must be condemned because they precipitate

violence. But is this a logical assertion? Isn't this like

condemning a robbed man because his possession of money

precipitated the evil act of robbery? Isn't this like

condemning Socrates because his unswerving commitment to

truth and his philosophical inquiries precipitated the act by

the misguided populace in which they made him drink hemlock?

Isn't this like condemning Jesus because his unique God

consciousness and never ceasing devotion to God's will

precipitated the evil act of crucifixion? We must come to see

that, as the federal courts have consistently affirmed, it is

wrong to urge an individual to cease his efforts to gain his

basic constitutional rights because the quest may precipitate

violence. Society must protect the robbed and punish the

robber. I had also hoped that the white moderate would reject

the myth concerning time in relation to the struggle for

freedom. I have just received a letter from a white brother

in Texas. He writes: ``All Christians know that the colored

people will receive equal rights eventually, but it is

possible that you are in too great a religious hurry. It has

taken Christianity almost two thousand years to accomplish

what it has. The teachings of Christ take time to come to

earth.'' Such an attitude stems from a tragic misconception

of time, from the strangely irrational notion that there is

something in the very flow of time that will inevitably cure

all ills. Actually, time itself is neutral; it can be used

either destructively or constructively. More and more I feel

that the people of ill will have used time much more

effectively than have the people of good will. We will have

to repent in this generation not merely for the hateful words

and actions of the bad people but for the appalling silence

of the good people. Human progress never rolls in on wheels

of inevitability; it comes through the tireless efforts of

men willing to be coworkers with God, and without this hard

work, time itself becomes an ally of the forces of social

stagnation. We must use time creatively, in the knowledge

that the time is always ripe to do right. Now is the time to

make real the promise of democracy and transform our pending

national elegy into a creative psalm of brotherhood. Now is

the time to lift our national policy from the quicksand of

racial injustice to the solid rock of human dignity.

You speak of our activity in Birmingham as extreme. At

first I was rather disappointed that fellow clergymen would

see my nonviolent efforts as those of an extremist. I began

thinking about the fact that I stand in the middle of two

opposing forces in the Negro community. One is a force of

complacency, made up in part of Negroes who, as a result of

long years of oppression, are so drained of self respect and

a sense of ``somebodiness'' that they have adjusted to

segregation; and in part of a few middle-class Negroes who,

because of a degree of academic and economic security and

because in some ways they profit by segregation, have become

insensitive to the problems of the masses. The other force is

one of bitterness and hatred, and it comes perilously close

to advocating violence. It is expressed in the various black

nationalist groups that are springing up across the nation,

the largest and best known being Elijah Muhammad's Muslim

movement. Nourished by the Negro's frustration over the

continued existence of racial discrimination, this movement

is made up of people who have lost faith in America, who have

absolutely repudiated Christianity, and who have concluded

that the white man is an incorrigible ``devil.''

I have tried to stand between these two forces, saying that

we need emulate neither the ``do nothingism'' of the

complacent nor the hatred and despair of the black

nationalist. For there is the more excellent way of love and

nonviolent protest. I am grateful to God that, through the

influence of the Negro church, the way of nonviolence became

an integral part of our struggle. If this philosophy had not

emerged, by now many streets of the South would, I am

convinced, be flowing with blood. And I am further convinced

that if our white brothers dismiss as ``rabble rousers'' and

``outside agitators'' those of us who employ nonviolent

direct action, and if they refuse to support our nonviolent

efforts, millions of Negroes will, out of frustration and

despair, seek solace and security in black nationalist

ideologies--a development that would inevitably lead to a

frightening racial nightmare.

Thank you, Senator Rosen.

Thank you to my colleagues who joined us today to read these powerful words: Senators Warnock, Tillis, Casey, Capito, Boozman, and Rosen.

This is a diverse group on the floor today whose States reflect the vibrant

and wonderful diversity of our great Nation, from the Deep South to the Mountain West, to the Industrial Midwest. We represent different places. We may disagree on many things, but we love this country. We know we can do better for the people who make it work.

Dr. King and the civil rights leaders of his generation did more than just about anyone to push this country to live up to our founding ideals and to make the dream of America real for everyone. Protesting, working for change, organizing, demanding our country do better--those are some of the most patriotic things all of us can do. That is Dr. King's charge in this letter.

My favorite single line certainly in this letter and maybe in all of Dr. King's preachings and teachings and writings: ``Progress never rolls in on [the] wheels of inevitability.''

``Progress never rolls in on [the] wheels of inevitability.'' It rolls in because we make it so. That is our charge.

Think about that campaign Dr. King was waging when he was martyred in Memphis. Think about who he was talking to--a union, Sanitation Workers Local 1613, AFSCME. Think of the circumstances. This was a very segregated Memphis. He was in a segregated, White neighborhood. Even the sanitation trucks where these workers were working were segregated. The cab of the truck was two White workers; the back of the truck was doing the actual lifting and picking up garbage--two Black workers.

In February, before Dr. King first visited, the garbage truck--there was a torrential downpour in this White, segregated neighborhood. There was nowhere for these Black sanitation workers to go. They crawled in the back of the truck. It malfunctioned and crushed these two workers. That is why Dr. King was in Memphis the first time and the second time.

As he wove together worker rights and civil rights and labor rights, he told these workers:

What does it profit a man to be able to eat at an

integrated lunch counter if he doesn't earn enough money to

buy a hamburger and a cup of coffee?

Those workers were vital to their community. They worked hard to provide for their families. They were denied fair pay, denied political rights, denied basic safety on the job.

Now, the Presiding Officer today is Senator Cortez Masto from Nevada, who has joined in so many efforts on the Senate floor to fight for workers, to fight for the dignity of work, to fight for safety and civil rights and worker rights. It is not a coincidence that the workers who are so often the most exploited are low-income workers, especially Black workers.

Until all workers have the dignity they have earned, Dr. King's work will remain unfinished. It means paying all workers a living wage. It means giving them power over their schedules. It means providing good benefits and safety on the job. It means letting them, if they so choose, organize a union. It is about the dignity of work. All workers get a fair share of the wealth they create. When we empower workers, we bring us closer to the society Dr. King envisioned where all labor has dignity.

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

Mr. Speaker, as the gentleman said, today's rule provides for consideration of three bills. The first of those bills is H.R. 4366, the Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2024.

Mr. Speaker, this is typically a bipartisan bill, one of the most bipartisan bills that we consider in the United States Congress. That is not the case this year. Why? Because House Republicans decided to inject into this bill extreme policy riders that threaten the freedoms of each and every American. They have kicked off appropriations season by doubling down on funding bills that endanger essential services.

Just to speak frankly, neither this bill nor any of the others that they will bring to the floor on the appropriations

side have any chance of becoming law. My colleagues across the aisle know that.

Today, they come to the floor to proudly tout a bill that would slash $1.3 billion--not my number; their number--from military construction programs that support quality-of-life services for members of the Armed Forces and their families.

Democrats fight against cuts to vital programs that help the American people. Unfortunately, House Republicans are doing the opposite.

We saw this cycle many times, Mr. Speaker. Throughout the last 7 months, it has been hard to understand what my colleagues across the aisle truly want.

At the beginning of this Congress, the other side of the aisle voted for a House rules package that promised an open rules process for amendments. Yet, here we are, debating another rule structured by Speaker McCarthy and Republican leadership.

Now, House Republicans threaten to shut down the government in order to fulfill an unpopular agenda full of far-right policy riders that undermine equal opportunity, restrict access to abortion, and more.

We are going to hear a lot from my colleague, my friend on the other side of the aisle, about what he claims this bill will do. It is important for the American people to understand three simple things.

It cuts military construction by $1.3 billion. Think about the impact that will have, Mr. Speaker, on servicemembers across the country.

It funds no infrastructure backlog for the Department of Defense. Mr. Speaker, we have a $100 billion infrastructure backlog in the Department of Defense for installations across the world, across the country, and in our districts. The President asked for $2 billion to start to address that backlog. House Republicans said no. How much did they give? Zero.

Finally, the bill does nothing to address toxic PFAS contamination-- not a thing. Last year, House Democrats, under President Biden's leadership, appropriated $200 million toward PFAS remediation to address the toxic chemicals that are literally killing people across the country. This bill appropriates how much? None.

Those are the facts.

If that weren't enough, as the gentleman said, we are considering two other bills today. The American people watching this might think that perhaps House Republicans would decide to bring a bill to the floor to lower costs, address inflation, try to reduce the cost of healthcare, grow the middle class, build safer communities, or address school safety. No. House Republicans have declined to put any of those bills on the floor. Instead, what are we left with? Hearings and bills on gas stoves and, today, bills on the lesser prairie-chicken and the northern long-eared bat. That is what we are here to debate, Mr. Speaker.

I think the American people would be deeply disappointed at the choice of priorities that House Republicans are pursuing. Let's get back to the core issues at hand. Let's negotiate in good faith. Let's do the people's business.

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

Mr. Speaker, let me just say that only in Washington can politicians demand recognition after being shamed into doing the right thing. That is what we just heard.

We all know that the default on America act that House Republicans pursued was primed to cut veterans benefits. House Democrats, President Biden, and Senate Democrats led the charge to convince our colleagues to come back from the brink, and now they have the audacity to demand that we thank them for it.

By the way, Mr. Speaker, this comes from the same party that overwhelmingly voted against the Honoring our PACT Act, the most comprehensive healthcare legislation for veterans in my lifetime, the proudest vote I have taken since I was sworn into the United States Congress.

Mr. Speaker, 174 of them voted against it, including the gentleman from Pennsylvania. Now they have the audacity to claim that they are fighting for veterans?

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Clyburn), the distinguished assistant Democratic leader.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New Mexico (Ms. Leger Fernandez), a distinguished member of the Rules Committee.

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

Mr. Speaker, I understand it is a little empty on the other side of the aisle. There are perhaps not many Members who want to come to the floor to defend the propriety of this bill that cuts military construction funding, and I don't blame them.

The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Reschenthaler), whom I respect, has the unenviable task of trying to make the case for a bill that cuts military construction funding, does nothing to address the infrastructure backlog, and cuts PFAS toxic exposure remediation, to say nothing of the many other ills within the legislation.

We heard a lot earlier about the supposed work that House Republicans are doing on the appropriations front. Of course, this is the first appropriations bill that has come to the floor. However, we still can't get House Republicans to commit to protecting Social Security and Medicare, as House Democrats have championed. Of course, we know why. It is because they have been unabashed about their efforts to cut both vital programs.

Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment that we have offered before to the rule to provide for consideration of a resolution which unambiguously states that it is the House's duty to keep our solemn promise to American workers and seniors to protect and preserve Social Security and Medicare and reject any cuts to these critical programs.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Michigan (Ms. Scholten) to discuss our very important proposal.

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from Michigan.

Mr. Speaker, the gentleman talked about facts. Again, these are not my numbers. These are their numbers. This year in this bill, House Republicans appropriate $17.5 billion for military construction. That is $1.5 billion less than the current level. In other words, it is a decrease. It is a cut of $1.5 billion to military construction, which is used for housing for our servicemembers.

Under current levels, there is $200 million dedicated to PFAS remediation. In this bill, there is none.

President Biden requested $2 billion to address the infrastructure backlog in our military. Under this bill, there is none.

These are not my numbers. These are their numbers.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to include in the Record an article from The Hill today titled: ``Senate GOP fears House actions could lead to shutdown: It's going to be a problem.''

Mr. Speaker, that article is quoting a Republican Senator from the gentleman's region, his neighbor, Senator Shelley Moore Capito.

When House Republicans shut down the government in 66 days, which they seem committed to doing, the American people will be right to ask the question, they will be justified to ask the question of why House Republicans decided to focus their time on the northern long-eared bat and the lesser prairie-chicken. It is a fair question for the American people to ask.

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

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

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

Again it feels like Ground Hog Day. Again, I have great respect for my friend from Pennsylvania, but I don't understand what numbers he is looking at.

Does he deny that in statute we appropriated last year $19 billion for military construction?

He is an appropriator. I am happy to engage in a colloquy with him to the extent that he wishes to clarify that.

Last year, military construction was funded at $19 billion. This year, it is funded at $17.5 billion. Not complicated, and, of course, the gentleman knows that because half of his caucus is bragging about the fact that they have cut military construction and a variety of other programs, juxtaposed against the levels that were set by Congressional Democrats.

This is not disputed anywhere but apparently during this particular debate. They are cutting military construction. They are not funding military infrastructure backlog needs that the President has requested of this Congress; and they have zeroed out any dedicated funding for PFAS remediation. Those are the facts.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. McGarvey).

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time remains on both sides.

Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to close, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Again, I thank my friend and colleague from Pennsylvania for the respectful debate. I understand that we don't see eye to eye on the bills that this House will unfortunately be considering this week but, nonetheless, I appreciate his courtesy.

Mr. Speaker, today marks 200 days since House Republicans gaveled us into this 118th Session of the United States Congress; 200 days that they have been in control; 200 days that they have had the gavels here in Washington, D.C.

The American people would be justified in asking how have House Republicans spent those 200 days. Any bills to address inflation, to lower costs for working families, any bills to grow the middle class, to build safer communities? The answer is none.

Instead, they have pursued extreme policy after extreme policy, and this MILCON appropriation bill is no exception. Gas stoves, the northern long-eared bat, the lesser prairie-chicken, and whatever other issue House Republicans conjure up when we are back in session, that is how they have chosen to spend their time and taxpayer dollars.

When House Democrats were in control, working with President Biden and our colleagues in the upper Chamber, we focused on issues that mattered to the American people:

A bipartisan infrastructure law that, unfortunately, most of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle in this Chamber voted against that is rebuilding bridges and roads and highways across this country from Pennsylvania to Colorado, ensuring folks have clean water to drink and clean air to breathe;

The PACT Act, the most comprehensive veterans' healthcare legislation enacted in my lifetime, that 174 Republicans in this Chamber voted against;

The Inflation Reduction Act, capping insulin costs at $35 for seniors participating in Medicare across the country. That is how we spent our time.

As I said earlier, we know that in 66 days, House Republicans will shut down the government. They are telegraphing that. Many of their Members have said publicly that they want to shut down the government; that, in their view, a shutdown of the government is the desired outcome; 66 days.

Mr. Speaker, in 72 hours, Republicans will gavel this Chamber out of session. They will adjourn this Chamber for a 45-day recess.

Mr. Speaker, 66 days until the government runs out of funding, 45-day recess, 72 hours until that recess, and we are here debating the lesser prairie-chicken and the northern long-eared bat.

It is deeply disappointing, and it does not comport with how the American public expects us to operate here in Washington, D.C. We can do better, and I would challenge my Republican colleagues to come back from the brink that I described earlier, work with us in good faith. Help us deliver for the American people.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this rule, and to vote ``no'' on the underlying bills. If you support cutting military construction, if you support not addressing military infrastructure backlog, if you support zeroing out PFAS remediation then, by all means, vote for the MILCON bill. But if you oppose those draconian cuts, as I do, then I hope you will vote ``no.''

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

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

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

General Leave

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

were offered, making the rule closed by definition.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Madam President, I am so delighted that the Presiding Officer is in the Chair--the Senator from Nevada--who has led this fight on the floor against this incredibly counterproductive measure that the Senator from Florida has brought here--incredibly, in the name, somehow, of being tough on China.

I have seen lots of things on this floor that didn't make sense. I have seen lots of things where I have wondered about the judgment of people who were pursuing something allegedly in the interests of the American people, allegedly in the interests of American jobs, allegedly in the interests of manufacturing, allegedly because we are competing with China.

I have never seen something as counterproductive as this, and I want to thank the Presiding Officer for her leadership because she comes from Nevada and I come from Colorado, and we know the jobs that are at stake here--tens of thousands of jobs that could go away--a billion dollars of tariffs, of taxes that our solar industry would have to pay as they are going out of business because of what the Senator from Florida is trying to do in the name of being tough on the Chinese.

So let's talk about that for a second. Let's think about who is actually being tough on the Chinese. One of the benefits of the way the Chinese are organized--well, they see it as a benefit; I don't see it as a benefit, but they do--is that they don't live in a democracy; they live in a totalitarian society. In that totalitarian society, they can make 5-year plans; they can make 10-year plans. Xi can say: This is what we are going to do for the next 5 years. This is what we are going to do for the next 10 years.

And I would argue that, for the 20 years that we were spending fighting those two wars in the Middle East that we probably shouldn't have been fighting for those 20 years, the Chinese were marching along and marching along and marching along, stealing our intellectual property and developing new industries and new technologies. We had our eye off the ball.

One of the things that is hard about democracy is that sometimes we can't really plan much longer than between two elections--or one election, if we are really being pathetic. But, recently, there has been a different approach here. Recently, there has been a different approach in the infrastructure bill that we passed a couple of years ago that was bipartisan. It was the first infrastructure bill of any significance since Eisenhower was our President.

We finally said: Do you know what? We need to start investing in our country again.

And all over Nevada, all over Colorado, Americans are working on our

roads and bridges--long overdue--as a result of bipartisan work, Republicans and Democrats working together.

There was another bill that we passed that was the semiconductor legislation, the so-called CHIPS Act. Some people remember--I certainly do--when I was in college, Ronald Reagan was the President of the United States. And back then, Madam President, for some reason, everybody thought that it was a good idea to ship everything to Southeast Asia to get it made there, that it would be a good idea to ship it to China and have it made there. That is kind of what Ronald Reagan's view of the world was.

And I regret the fact that we went down that road for decades. Now that CHIPS bill--that semiconductor bill--that is the first piece of legislation since Ronald Reagan was President that said: Stop it. We are going to bring an industry back to the United States. We are going to bring the semiconductor industry back here.

And, by the way, I hope that is not the last. I hope that is only the first. But it sure made sense to start with semiconductors because 90 percent of the most important semiconductors in our fighter jets are made in Taiwan, 110 miles off the coast of China. Ninety percent of the semiconductors in our surface ships and in our submarines are made in Taiwan, 110 miles off the coast of China. What could possibly go wrong? Yet Democrats and Republicans working together said: We are going to bring that back.

Well, we had another bill, Madam President, that I regret didn't get any Republican votes. I wish that it had. I really do wish that it had because that bill had two pieces. One was healthcare, and one was energy.

In the healthcare piece, we cut drug prices for seniors. We said we are going to cap them at $2,000. We said Medicare is going to negotiate drug prices on behalf of the American people for the first time. We capped insulin at 35 bucks a month--pretty amazing. And I am sorry some people didn't vote for that, and I don't know exactly why.

But the other part was an energy part, and, here, we were saying: We are going to compete with China. And here we were saying: We are going to lead the world in the transition that we are going to make from the fossil fuel economy that we have today to a clean energy economy; and that no country in the world is better situated to do that than the United States.

Does that mean we can turn fossil fuels off tomorrow? No. Can we turn them off yesterday? No.

I, for one, believe it is going to be really important for this country to export LNG, or liquefied natural gas, over to Europe to help keep Europe in the fight against Putin and to help replace Chinese coal. I think that is going to help us with emissions. Not everybody agrees with me on that. I believe strongly.

And I don't think there is a country in the world that is better situated--because of our abundant fossil fuels that we have today, because of our commitment to the rule of law, because of our commitment to innovation, because we are not as corrupt as a lot of the countries that we are dealing with, and because we have passed the Inflation Reduction Act, which had $270 billion of tax credits in it to drive innovation in the American economy. Because of all those things taken together, I am so happy to live in this country because we can lead that transition, and we can compete with China. We can outcompete China.

But into this sunny picture came the Biden administration, an administration that I generally support. But they, a few months ago, decided that they were going to begin an investigation into where certain solar panels came from. And the Presiding Officer and I and some others said: Hold on a second. We haven't made the transition yet. We haven't done it yet. It is going to take us 2 to 3 years to set up these manufacturing plants to build solar panels here, to make them here so we can compete with China. And, in the meantime, we have got tens of thousands of people who are swinging hammers in Nevada and Colorado and all across this country, who are climbing ladders and getting up on roofs to install solar panels to make sure that we are driving away from our reliance on fossil fuels and into a world where we are relying on wind and the Sun.

And the minute that the Biden administration did this, companies in Colorado started to say: We are going to go out of business. Companies in Nevada and New Mexico said: We are going out of business. The capital that was investing in them went away.

This isn't hypothetical. This was happening. They were saying to me and I know they were saying to the Presiding Officer: We are going to go bankrupt as a result of this policy.

We are going bankrupt as a result of this policy. We can't sell enough solar panels here in America. We can't install enough solar panels. We can't hire enough people. And now our own country is saying we are going to bring this to an end.

We went to the White House, and we said: We can't do this to tens of thousands of people all across our country. We can't do this if you are committed to fighting climate change. We can't do this if you are committed to the union workers who are installing all of those panels all over the United States.

I remember a phone call with the Presiding Officer, with the White House, where I said: This is a matter of days, not months.

To their credit, they came back, and they said: You guys were right. We need to put a moratorium in place. We need to have 2 years where we can have a transition to, you know, give us the chance to start manufacturing these panels here in America.

It is amazing to have people that strategic in our democracy, to be able to say: You know what, we passed a law--the Inflation Reduction Act--that is going to put us in the position of being able to manufacture these solar panels here, which Ronald Reagan and all those people should never have sent to China to begin with. So we are going to bring them back, but it is going to take us a little time.

In the meantime, we are going to adopt a set of policies that are going to allow the small businesses that are installing solar all over Nevada, all over Colorado, all over this country--we are going to not just allow them, we are going to celebrate the fact that they are there, and we are going the support them and give them notice.

We are going to act strategically with respect to our competition with China. And that is what we did. The combination of that moratorium and the Inflation Reduction Act--that is probably the most strategic we have been around here in decades--in decades. And now comes the Senator from Florida, who says: I am going to blow this up. I am going to compete with China by destroying the solar industry in the United States. I am going to compete with China by putting tens of thousands of people who are now working on the unemployment roll. I am going to compete with China, the Senator of Florida says, by putting a $1 billion retroactive tax on the solar industry in Nevada, in Colorado, and all across the United States of America.

That doesn't sound like competing to China. That sounds like surrender, to me. That sounds like waving the white flag, to me.

In all the history of self-inflicted wounds around here, that is just the latest example. And don't get me started on that, although I will just say parenthetically, why anybody in this Chamber or in that Chamber would think this is the moment in American history to raise interest rates on the American people, on home buyers, and on people who have car loans and people who are paying student debt, I don't know. But that is not the topic we are here for today. But it is almost nuts, especially when the status quo is going to be so great for America because the status quo is, we are going to spend the next 2 years continuing to install solar panels. We are going to spend the next 2 years standing up manufacturing all across the United States of America. I hope a bunch of that is going to be in Colorado so we are building and manufacturing these solar panels here.

So what I would say is, if you are voting with the Senator from Florida, don't do it because you are competing somehow with the Chinese. You are surrendering to the Chinese. If you are doing it because you think that we got taken to the cleaners by the Chinese in terms of the manufacturing of solar panels to begin with, I acknowledge that, but that wasn't the Biden administration's fault. They are the ones who are trying to bring it back. They are the ones who are bringing it back, just like we were the ones who brought the semiconductor industry back.

We have an incredible opportunity to go forward here, to grow the industry that we have, and to lead the world, as I said, in this transition from fossil fuels to clean energy.

There is no country in the world that is better situated than the United States of America to lead that transition because of who we are, because of the natural resources we have, and because of the bill the Presiding Officer and I voted for. We shouldn't upset that. We shouldn't change that.

So I would encourage every single Senator in this Chamber, whether Democrat or Republican, to vote down this bill in the name of the competition we are in with China; to vote down this bill in the name of working people in this country; to vote down this bill in the name of our kids and grandkids, who hopefully are going to benefit from our leadership and the strategy we have been pursuing to make this transition. Let's agree together that we can find much more constructive ways to compete with our adversaries around the world.

Thank you, Madam President. Thank you for your leadership on this issue, and thank you for giving me a few minutes to talk today.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, I rise today to talk on a subject that is of great importance to me and of great importance to employers, workers, consumers, and--really--everyone across this country; and that is, the need for substantive reform of our country's Federal environmental review and permitting process.

Now, this is a subject I have talked about a lot. I have championed efforts to make sure that our environment and economy benefit from a functional Federal environmental review and permitting process, and I am now and once again leading environmental review and permitting reform efforts through the Environment and Public Works Committee, and I am working with my fellow Republican Senator, who is the ranking member over on Energy and Natural Resources, Senator Barrasso from Wyoming, and we are working across the aisle with our counterparts.

Permitting reform is much more than just legislative text. It is more than just updates to laws that have been on the books for years or about replacing counterproductive measures implemented by the Biden administration. It is an essential element in giving our Nation what we need to be successful in the future.

Without permitting reform, American energy will continue to be stalled, jeopardizing our security here at home as well as for our allies abroad. Without permitting reform, communities across America will struggle as they are denied access to the good-paying jobs that they need and are capable of doing.

Without permitting reform, America will not build at all. The same country that mined the coal, that made the steel, and that built the democracy and led the way for industry across the world will be held back by endless review processes, continuous and continuing court challenges, and crippling regulations that limit our ability to be the world leader that we know we are.

In my State of West Virginia, which is synonymous with energy generation, we have long seen the negative effects created by a permitting process that is designed to stall rather than to produce or create. There are multiple real-world examples of how our broken environmental review and permitting process is holding up my State of West Virginia's ability to move forward, and it is impacting multiple sectors important not only to the people of my State but also to our national economy.

In the transportation sector in West Virginia there is Corridor H. Corridor H is a critically important highway that West Virginia needs to help commerce flow and to jump-start the economy in the central part of our State and to encourage our growing tourism industry.

In the manufacturing sector, there is Nucor Steel, an innovative, cutting-edge steel and steel products company that can't, as yet, build their plant as quickly as the Biden administration keeps creating new emissions guidelines.

And, in the energy sector, there is the Mountain Valley Pipeline, a 304-mile-long natural gas pipeline that is on the brink of completion-- over 90 percent completed. Yet it is unable to deliver its needed contribution to American energy independence due to the regulatory burdens and endless legal challenges that have gone on longer than the actual construction of the pipeline itself.

These are just three examples in the State of West Virginia. Think about the national impact created by outdated permitting processes, the damage inflicted on our communities and our economy, and the opportunities we are losing because of an administration that champions redtape, feeds frivolous lawsuits, and whose Agencies celebrate delays that lead to the total abandonment of critical--critical--projects.

It just doesn't make sense, quite simply. Even the renewable energy projects and manufacturing efforts central to the Biden administration's Agencies are being held up in permitting purgatory.

President Biden has long pledged that he will build our country back better. Well, news flash, Mr. President. You can't ``build back better'' if you can't build at all.

The fallout created by a broken environmental review and permitting process further strains our sputtering economy, drives up energy prices for consumers, negates good-paying jobs for hard-working Americans, and, really, jeopardizes our ability to build into the future.

Now, as my constituents in West Virginia would say, well, what are you going to do about it?

Well, from conversations we have already started in the EPW Committee, I will soon be introducing legislation, in tandem with my colleague Senator Barrasso, that delivers on the environmental review and permitting process reform that our country needs. This legislation will benefit all projects--renewable, conventional, surface transportation, manufacturing, all of the above.

This legislation will mandate enforceable timelines with clear time limits and predictable schedules for environmental review and consequences when Agencies fail to reach these decisions in a timely fashion.

This legislation will fashion guidelines that process and decide legal challenges to projects expeditiously, instead of creating a sea of endless litigation.

The legislation will actually amend the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, and NEPA, and fix the obstacles holding our country back from the prosperity we deserve, while maintaining--of course, maintaining--environmental protections.

I will emphasize, as I have many times in the past, that any tangible, lasting environmental review and permitting solutions must be accomplished through regular order.

Backroom deals will not cut it. In fact, they will only lead to confusion among the American public and buyer's remorse among the participants.

We have forged the blueprint for bipartisan compromise through the EPW Committee time and time again, and this process should be no different.

I encourage my colleagues in both Chambers, on both sides of the aisle, as well as President Biden, to heed the calls from communities across the country on the urgent need for environmental review and permitting reform and to join in our efforts to deliver the modifications that America's employers, workers, and consumers need.

I look forward to the continued debate on environmental review and permitting reform, while always maintaining our shared goal of moving America forward.

With that, I yield the floor, and I see my colleague--who has been very instrumental in all of this, as we worked together with our colleagues--Senator Barrasso.

Oppressed people cannot remain oppressed forever. The

yearning for freedom eventually manifests itself, and that is

what has happened to the American Negro. Something within has

reminded him of his birthright of freedom, and something

without has reminded him that it can be gained. Consciously

or unconsciously, he has been caught up by the Zeitgeist, and

with his black brothers of Africa and his brown and yellow

brothers of Asia, South America and the Caribbean, the United

States Negro is moving with a sense of great urgency toward

the promised land of racial justice. If one recognizes this

vital urge that has engulfed the Negro community, one should

readily understand why public demonstrations are taking

place. The Negro has many pent up resentments and latent

frustrations, and he must release them. So let him march; let

him make prayer pilgrimages to the city hall; let him go on

freedom rides--and try to understand why he must do so. If

his repressed emotions are not released in nonviolent ways,

they will seek expression through violence; this is not a

threat but a fact of history. So I have not said to my

people: ``Get rid of your discontent.'' Rather, I have tried

to say that this normal and healthy discontent can be

channeled into the creative outlet of nonviolent direct

action. And now this approach is being termed extremist. But

though I was initially disappointed at being categorized as

an extremist, as I continued to think about the matter I

gradually gained a measure of satisfaction from the label.

Was not Jesus an extremist for love: ``Love your enemies,

bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and

pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute

you.'' Was not Amos an extremist for justice: ``Let justice

roll down like waters and righteousness like an ever flowing

stream.'' Was not Paul an extremist for the Christian gospel:

``I bear in my body the marks of the Lord Jesus.'' Was not

Martin Luther an extremist: ``Here I stand; I cannot do

otherwise, so help me God.'' And John Bunyan: ``I will stay

in jail to the end of my days before I make a butchery of my

conscience.'' And Abraham Lincoln: ``This nation cannot

survive half slave and half free.'' And Thomas Jefferson:

``We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are

created equal . . . `` So the question is not whether we will

be extremists, but what kind of extremists we will be. Will

we be extremists for hate or for love? Will we be extremists

for the preservation of injustice or for the extension of

justice? In that dramatic scene on Calvary's hill three men

were crucified. We must never forget that all three were

crucified for the same crime--the crime of extremism. Two

were extremists for immorality, and thus fell below their

environment. The other, Jesus Christ, was an extremist for

love, truth and goodness, and thereby rose above his

environment. Perhaps the South, the nation and the world are

in dire need of creative extremists.

I had hoped that the white moderate would see this need.

Perhaps I was too optimistic; perhaps I expected too much. I

suppose I should have realized that few members of the

oppressor race can understand the deep groans and passionate

yearnings of the oppressed race, and still fewer have the

vision to see that injustice must be rooted out by strong,

persistent and determined action. I am thankful, however,

that some of our white brothers in the South have grasped the

meaning of this social revolution and committed themselves to

it. They are still all too few in quantity, but they are big

in quality. Some--such as Ralph McGill, Lillian Smith, Harry

Golden, James McBride Dabbs, Ann Braden and Sarah Patton

Boyle--have written about our struggle in eloquent and

prophetic terms. Others have marched with us down nameless

streets of the South. They have languished in filthy, roach

infested jails, suffering the abuse and brutality of

policemen who view them as ``dirty nigger-lovers.'' Unlike so

many of their moderate brothers and sisters, they have

recognized the urgency of the moment and sensed the need for

powerful ``action'' antidotes to combat the disease of

segregation. Let me take note of my other major

disappointment. I have been so greatly disappointed with the

white church and its leadership. Of course, there are some

notable exceptions. I am not unmindful of the fact that each

of you has taken some significant stands on this issue. I

commend you, Reverend Stallings, for your Christian stand on

this past Sunday, in welcoming Negroes to your worship

service on a nonsegregated basis. I commend the Catholic

leaders of this state for integrating Spring Hill College

several years ago.

But despite these notable exceptions, I must honestly

reiterate that I have been disappointed with the church. I do

not say this as one of those negative critics who can always

find something wrong with the church. I say this as a

minister of the gospel, who loves the church; who was

nurtured in its bosom; who has been sustained by its

spiritual blessings and who will remain true to it as long as

the cord of life shall lengthen.

Madam President, as you have heard from my colleagues before me, there are serious concerns about the job-killing resolution that we will be voting on this evening and the effects it will have on our solar industry and American workers.

For years, solar has been a growing source of clean, low-cost energy and economic development in States all across our Nation. And it is a source of jobs--good-paying, union jobs--right here in the United States.

America's domestic solar industry is made up of more than 10,000 businesses--large and small--located in every single State, employing over 250,000 Americans. I will repeat that: employing over 250,000 Americans. In fact, my State of Nevada has the most solar jobs per capita of any other State in this great Nation.

When we talk about the solar industry, we are talking about an industry that is generating hundreds of thousands of American jobs and supporting American workers, while at the same time helping us to transition to clean renewable energy.

Thanks to historic investments we secured in the bipartisan infrastructure law and the Inflation Reduction Act, the American solar industry is experiencing an unprecedented boom.

Last year, a new solar project was installed in the United States every 44 seconds and, in fact, the demand is only expected to increase. This is only going to create more jobs and help make us more energy independent.

For example, the average solar installer in Reno, NV, makes about $80,000 a year. It is a good job. That is a job that lets a family pay their rent, buy groceries, put something away for their kids' college and for their own retirement. These are the kinds of jobs we should be creating, and we are, thanks to these historic investments.

That is why I have been a champion of our domestic solar industry and have been fighting back against attacks on it from my colleagues--well, frankly--on both sides of the aisle. That is why I led a bipartisan group of Senators last year to push President Biden to pause additional retroactive solar tariffs after a Commerce Department investigation. Well, they threatened to destroy our domestic solar industry and kill tens of thousands of American jobs.

But at this moment--this moment--our American solar workers are at risk. My workers in Nevada are at risk. Those $80,000-a-year jobs are at risk. And all of the progress we have made to transition to clean energy, all the good-paying jobs that we have created, and all of the solar projects that are lowering energy costs for families--well, they are all at risk, too.

Last week, the House of Representatives passed a Congressional Review Act. This resolution rolls back the 2-year pause on these additional solar tariffs. If enacted, this resolution will decimate our American solar industry. So let me be crystal clear: Enacting additional retroactive tariffs on imported solar panels themselves will kill--will absolutely kill--the American solar industry, and it will kill any chance we have to meet our climate goals. It will kill the current American solar jobs.

I know that some of my colleagues have said that supporting this resolution is being pro-worker. Well, I am just going to say that that is wrong. No one can say they are pro-worker while at the same time voting to kill good-paying American jobs. And that is exactly what this resolution will do.

I don't even know why this is on the table. Are we seriously going to tell that solar installer that he is out of a job? Are we going to put his family on unemployment just for politics?

I am going to repeat it: Supporting this resolution and killing American jobs, it hurts workers and their families. Period.

Opposing this resolution means being on the side of American workers. It means being on the side of unions like IBEW, the laborers, the operating engineers, the carpenters union, who are all urging a ``no'' vote today.

All of us here in this Chamber agree that we have to strengthen domestic manufacturing; we all agree we have to be competitive with China; and we all agree that we have to be energy independent.

That is what this current pause on additional tariffs--that is what this current pause helps us to do because, right now, solar panel manufacturers in the United States can only meet about 15 percent of the demand for American solar projects.

So thanks to the investments made by the Inflation Reduction Act, we are going to greatly ramp up our domestic solar manufacturing, creating jobs, making us energy independent right here at home.

But it is going to take time. It will take time to ramp up domestic solar manufacturing so it can provide more than 15 percent of U.S. demand. Our current solar industry's best success depends on the steady supply of solar panels to install. We can't cut off supply of important solar panels by enacting massive retroactive tariffs that will just kill solar projects; it will kill American jobs; and it will hurt American workers.

So what can we do?

Well, what we can do is have a bridge that allows us to do both: keep our domestic solar industry alive while we invest and bolster our domestic manufacturing so that we can be competitive with China. That is exactly what this pause helps us to achieve.

Enacting retroactive tariffs will even directly harm U.S. solar panel manufacturing businesses by cutting off their major source of solar cells--a key component in the panels--making it that much harder for them and us to compete with China. That is why I am leading the effort to block this resolution and to keep the pause in place.

So I urge my fellow colleagues to join me and be on the side of workers by protecting good-paying American union jobs, to join me in fighting to meet our climate goals, and to join me in making our Nation more competitive with China by voting against this job-killing resolution and saving America's solar future. Hundreds of thousands of American solar workers, their families, and our communities--well, they are counting on us.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I would like to continue finishing the letter from the Birmingham jail:

Abused and scorned though we may be, our destiny is tied up

with America's destiny. Before the pilgrims landed at

Plymouth, we were here. Before the pen of Jefferson etched

the majestic words of the Declaration of Independence across

the pages of history, we were here. For more than two

centuries our forebears labored in this country without

wages; they made cotton king; they built the homes of their

masters while suffering gross injustice and shameful

humiliation--and yet out of a bottomless vitality they

continued to thrive and develop. If the inexpressible

cruelties of slavery could not stop us, the opposition we now

face will surely fail. We will win our freedom because the

sacred heritage of our nation and the eternal will of God are

embodied in our echoing demands. Before closing I feel

impelled to mention one other point in your statement that

has troubled me profoundly. You warmly commended the

Birmingham police force for keeping ``order'' and

``preventing violence.'' I doubt that you would have so

warmly commended the police force if you had seen its dogs

sinking their teeth into unarmed, nonviolent Negroes. I doubt

that you would so quickly commend the policemen if you were

to observe their ugly and inhumane treatment of Negroes here

in the city jail; if you were to watch them push and curse

old Negro women and young Negro girls; if you were to see

them slap and kick old Negro men and young boys; if you were

to observe them, as they did on two occasions, refuse to give

us food because we wanted to sing our grace together. I

cannot join you in your praise of the Birmingham police

department.

It is true that the police have exercised a degree of

discipline in handling the demonstrators. In this sense they

have conducted themselves rather ``nonviolently'' in public.

But for what purpose? To preserve the evil system of

segregation. Over the past few years I have consistently

preached that nonviolence demands that the means we use must

be as pure as the ends we seek. I have tried to make clear

that it is wrong to use immoral means to attain moral ends.

But now I must affirm that it is just as wrong, or perhaps

even more so, to use moral means to preserve immoral ends.

Perhaps Mr. Connor and his policemen have been rather

nonviolent in public, as was Chief Pritchett in Albany,

Georgia, but they have used the moral means of nonviolence to

maintain the immoral end of racial injustice. As T. S. Eliot

has said: ``The last temptation is the greatest treason: To

do the right deed for the wrong reason.''

I wish you had commended the Negro sit inners and

demonstrators of Birmingham for their sublime courage, their

willingness to suffer and their amazing discipline in the

midst of great provocation. One day the South will recognize

its real heroes. They will be the James Merediths, with the

noble sense of purpose that enables them to face jeering and

hostile mobs, and with the agonizing loneliness that

characterizes the life of the pioneer. They will be old,

oppressed, battered Negro women, symbolized in a seventy two

year old woman in Montgomery, Alabama, who rose up with a

sense of dignity and with her people decided not to ride

segregated buses, and who responded with ungrammatical

profundity to one who inquired about her weariness: ``My

feets is tired, but my soul is at rest.'' They will be the

young high school and college students, the young ministers

of the gospel and a host of their elders, courageously and

nonviolently sitting in at lunch counters and willingly going

to jail for conscience' sake. One day the South will know

that when these disinherited children of God sat down at

lunch counters, they were in reality standing up for what is

best in the American dream and for the most sacred values in

our Judaeo Christian heritage, thereby bringing our nation

back to those great wells of democracy which were dug deep

by the founding fathers in their formulation of the

Constitution and the Declaration of Independence.

Never before have I written so long a letter. I'm afraid it

is much too long to take your precious time. I can assure you

that it would have been much shorter if I had been writing

from a comfortable desk, but what else can one do when he is

alone in a narrow jail cell, other than write long letters,

think long thoughts and pray long prayers?

If I have said anything in this letter that overstates the

truth and indicates an unreasonable impatience, I beg you to

forgive me. If I have said anything that understates the

truth and indicates my having a patience that allows me to

settle for anything less than brotherhood, I beg God to

forgive me.

I hope this letter finds you strong in the faith. I also

hope that circumstances will soon make it possible for me to

meet each of you, not as an integrationist or a civil-rights

leader but as a fellow clergyman and a Christian brother. Let

us all hope that the dark clouds of racial prejudice will

soon pass away and the deep fog of misunderstanding will be

lifted from our fear drenched communities, and in some not

too distant tomorrow the radiant stars of love and

brotherhood will shine over our great nation with all their

scintillating beauty.

Yours for the cause of Peace and Brotherhood,

Martin Luther King, Jr.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

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

Mr. Speaker, today, I rise in opposition to this resolution. There was a lot I could say and thought about saying about this resolution and the one that we will see after it. I could talk about

how badly these two measures undermine conservation efforts for species that are endangered and threatened across our Nation and across the globe.

I could talk about how these resolutions give industry and not science the upper hand in making decisions about our endangered species.

I could talk about how this latest offering from team extreme takes the GOP's vendetta against the Endangered Species Act to a level that should offend us all.

Nevertheless, as I thought about it, I realized that what is more offensive than these resolutions themselves is the fact that these resolutions are on the floor right now today.

We are about to leave the House for 6 weeks. By the time we come back, summer will be nearly over. If the current temperatures stay on track, it will have been one of the most brutal summers in this country's recorded history.

In my home State of Arizona, Phoenix has now broken records with what is now a 27-day streak of more than 110-degree heat. In Florida, the ocean heat wave has warmed the waters to 5 to 7 degrees above normal. That level of heat is a disaster for corals, marine life, and all the local businesses and economies that depend on them.

Tragically, last month a heat wave in Texas was so oppressive it claimed 13 lives. That also happened to be the same month that was awarded the grim honor of being the hottest June ever on record. July isn't looking any different.

Climate change isn't about some distant warning about melting ice caps in the far-off future. The climate crisis is here. It is now. People are suffering, and people are dying, and the GOP isn't doing anything about it.

This year, in the Natural Resources Committee, the Republican majority has had zero hearings on climate change. They have introduced zero bills to seriously address climate change. They have introduced zero bills to help communities being hurt by climate change, and they have accepted zero Democratic amendments to include climate change in any of their legislation.

Today, Republicans have decided that the most important thing they could do before we leave for 6 weeks would be a couple of resolutions to kill off the lesser prairie-chicken and the northern long-eared bat.

We are about to go back to our districts where our constituents will have questions about what we are doing to protect their homes, their businesses, and their livelihoods from the increasing threat of climate change.

I have to wonder if my Republican colleagues think that bullying chickens and bats would be a sufficient answer. I don't agree, and I am certain our constituents won't agree either.

Fortunately for Democrats, we can assure our constituents that we passed the country's biggest ever investment in climate and clean energy through the Inflation Reduction Act last year and that the Biden administration is working to get that funding out the door as quickly and as equitably as possible against ongoing efforts in appropriations to defund those initiatives and to dismantle, as we see today, existing environmental protections.

Unfortunately, the Big Gas and Big Oil industry in this country is making Americans more and more dependent on fossil fuels as their source of energy and thus increasing the climate crisis that we are experiencing now.

Common sense says that the new party in charge of the House would want to keep that historic momentum going, but sometimes common sense ain't that common.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this resolution. I urge my Republican colleagues to come back in September with a better plan to help the American people than a couple of go-nowhere resolutions that beat up on bats and chickens, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, during the markup of this particular bill, the chair of the Natural Resources Committee agreed with the Democrats that these CRA resolutions are extreme. He said:

The CRA process is an extreme process because it does take

that ability away from a Federal agency, and if we enact this

resolution, the agency can't take those steps again.

That was repeated right now by my colleague who spoke.

I ask my colleagues on the other side of the aisle who are taking this extreme step what their plan is. When the lesser prairie-chicken or the northern long-eared bat slips closer to extinction, what is the backup?

There is no backup. The CRA is permanent, and extinction then becomes the only avenue and the only probability.

Mr. Speaker, I suggest that 99 percent of the species that have been listed on the Endangered Species Act continue to exist. That is the track record that should be highlighted, and that is the track record, on this 50-year anniversary of the Endangered Species Act, that we should all be proud of.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, oil and gas companies raked in record profits last year, but it appears that House Republicans aren't done trying to give them handout after handout.

This week, they are trying to give them a free pass to avoid conserving the lesser prairie-chicken and the Endangered Species Act in and of itself.

H.R. 1, their top priority, the polluters over people act, lays out a blueprint on exactly how to reward the industry, how to make those handouts permanent, how to undermine and dismantle protections and laws that have been put in place for 50-plus years in reaction to the need to conserve species and, more importantly, to protect the American people and their health.

Going forward, we have to understand that while these two resolutions we are dealing with today are part of it, there is a bigger agenda, a bigger blueprint, that talks about turning over the public policy and legislative arm of Congress to the oil and gas companies, to the big corporate interests that are raking in profits, ensuring that we continue to be dependent on their source of energy and not develop the renewable and clean energy the American people need and want and that is cheaper and will create jobs. That is what is on the agenda, as well.

As we debate these two particular resolutions, let's not forget or ignore the underlying reality of what we are talking about in terms of energy policy, period, in this country.

Let's not forget that, during the hostage taking on the debt ceiling, the principal point and the principal attack was against those fundamental environmental laws, again moving us in a direction that increases dependence on polluting industries and lessens our ability to respond to what the American people need, and that is a safe, secure environment for themselves and their families.

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

Mr. Speaker, 1 million species globally are at risk of extinction, and one of the main drivers is climate change. Let's stop picking on these species and instead start addressing the real issue of climate change.

E.O. Wilson, the father of modern biodiversity, estimated the world is losing three species per hour. We have a biodiversity crisis on our hands, and we have a climate crisis on our hands, but House Republicans decided this week is a good time to legislate the extinction of a couple of species.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Beyer), my good friend.

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

Mr. Speaker, with regard to rural America and the important role that they play in this great Nation of ours, I am patiently waiting with, I hope, good expectations that if the agriculture appropriations bill ever gets done that it will reflect that commitment to rural America, that electric co-ops will continue to function, that nutrition will continue to be important in this America, that women and children will receive the nutrition that they need, and that the loan program for rural America's small farmers continues to be intact. Let's see. Sometimes pronouncements that are not followed with action are just that, political banter.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding that this resolution and the other resolution to follow will be the last items, as was predicted, that this Congress does before it goes on recess for 6 weeks.

The agriculture appropriations legislation is not done yet, and so rural America can hold its breath until the Republican majority satisfies an extreme agenda on the part of their Members, and we all wait.

However, we are going to vote on these two resolutions, resolutions that are not necessary, minor, almost petty, while the American people wait for some real solutions and some real actions on the part of the Republican majority.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time to close. To be clear, I agree that the lesser prairie-chicken is important. All threatened and endangered species are important. We are in the midst of a biodiversity crisis, as we speak.

What I find patently unimportant is this resolution that doesn't respect the science, doesn't respect our imperative to protect biodiversity and slow down climate change, and certainly doesn't respect the important things that the American people have sent us here to do that are not being done.

This resolution is a polluter-requested, partisan attack that my Republican colleagues seem to be able to defend only with opinions, anecdotes, and industry talking points. I will remind us all; it will go nowhere. Good policy is not built solely on opinions. It is built on science, facts, and the needs of the American people.

The fact is that climate change, not the chicken, is killing Americans and costing us hundreds of billions of dollars each year. I urge my colleagues to oppose S.J. Res. 9.

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

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