Providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Department of Energy relating to "Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards for Consumer Gas-fired Instantaneous Water Heaters".

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, this morning, I will take a little more than the usual time because I want to review what happened, over the past 8 days, with Trump's tariff tax so that it can be preserved in the Record and so that we as a nation can try to process the reckless, unnecessary damage President Trump has created.

The past 8 days have been an absolute embarrassment for President Trump and for everyone who truly cares about this country. During these 8 days, the world saw the President of the United States reveal his total lack of understanding of international trade, macro- and microeconomics, and foreign relations. The world saw the American President issue a tariff ultimatum so ill-conceived and so flawed that it was mocked from here to the Heard and McDonald Islands.

This whole episode is so ridiculous that even the writers of ``Veep'' and ``House of Cards'' would have shredded their drafts. Yet it was real. It had real effects, lasting effects on real people.

Donald Trump's tariff fiasco caused real damage to the confidence other nations have in America. It had real effects on the uncertainty we feel every day that Donald Trump sits in the Oval Office. It had real effects on people's retirements.

Let's start with his announcement on April 2 that that would be ``Liberation Day,'' a day of massive worldwide tariffs. Rather than providing a coherent explanation for such a substantial policy change, the stated justification for this massive tariff application varied, depending on the moment or who the administration spokesperson was. Depending on the day, President Trump claimed that tariffs would either balance the budget, enable the elimination of the income tax, or bring manufacturing jobs back to the United States.

While Peter Navarro gave full-throated support to all three of those goals, most of the rest of the administration ignored the first two goals and focused on bringing manufacturing jobs back to the United States--a worthy goal; one the Democrats, including myself, have been advocating for decades.

However, even administration officials couldn't get on the same page. While Navarro and Secretary Bessent were talking about the return of jobs, Secretary Lutnick was espousing that manufacturing would be coming back but that it would be automated, he said. So are we bringing manufacturing jobs back or displacing them with machines?

It is clear, Mr. President, as April 2 approached, no one--not even the most devoted Trump apologist, except maybe only Ron Vara--believed the President had an actual plan. Nevertheless, he persisted, and on April 2, President Trump, against all semblance of common sense, announced tariffs beyond what even the most isolationist Republican could have envisioned.

The President made some outlandish claims, and he held up a chart with a lot of numbers on it. And his claims and those numbers were a surprise to pretty much everyone--everyone--who understands the language, the theory, and the mathematics of trade.

Putting aside the idiotic tariffs applied to penguins who produce nothing but guano and baby penguins and consume little more than krill and fish and putting aside tariffs on countries that make products Americans crave but lack the purchasing power to buy our products in return, we all quickly realized that the numbers on Donald Trump's chart were so nonsensical that it took some of the world's greatest economic minds to reverse engineer it to determine the formula. And yet, in perfect Trumpian fashion, his administration released the ``actual'' formula and the assumptions behind the chart.

Again, it quickly became clear that he based his entire tariff scheme on a formula so flawed, so economically incoherent that he had to insert some random Greek letters and assign them phony values just to make it look like something out of ``A Beautiful Mind.'' But instead of a stroke of genius, what we got was gibberish--not genius but gibberish.

Remember back in 2019, when Hurricane Dorian was approaching Florida and President Trump used a Sharpie to alter a NOAA map to try and cover for his mistake? Well, this phony formula is the 2025 reincarnation of Sharpiegate, except the economic consequences of this fraud will affect millions and millions of Americans.

I won't stand up here and say I oppose all tariffs. I don't. I appreciate my supporters on Twitter reminding everyone that I have long championed tough trade policies on China, going back to my early days in the Senate.

But I and the American people oppose a whimsical, nonsensical approach to international trade, especially one that so clearly will increase costs on American families. It is one thing to target tariffs on bad actors like China; that makes sense.

But to raise tariffs on allies such as Canada and Israel? Everyone knows that makes no sense.

To raise tariffs on random islands as the Falklands, Heard and McDonald, and Svalbard? Everyone knows that makes no sense.

To raise tariffs on countries like Madagascar that import little from us but produce products wanted by millions of Americans? Everyone knows that makes no sense.

And yet he persisted. Trump persisted, and the world's financial markets melted down on Thursday and Friday.

Now, that meltdown may not have mattered to President Trump, but it certainly mattered to millions of

Americans. While the big financial players can hedge against an ignorant, erratic President, everyday Americans who have their hard- earned nest eggs in pension funds, IRAs, and 529 accounts to help pay for their kids' college tuition don't have that luxury. While the President and his family can create new meme coins and sell cheap made- in-China swag, so that bad actors and sycophants can funnel the money, most Americans don't have that luxury.

No, Mr. President, most Americans are living paycheck to paycheck. If they are lucky, they put a little away each month for retirement or college savings. Some of them keep that money in interest-bearing accounts for the stability. Their savings are probably doing OK, but costs are going up, so that they may have to dip into those savings. The President let them down.

Some Americans put that money in mutual funds that depend on stability and predictability. The President let them down as well.

Of course, some Americans have no exposure to the stock market. Their only hope for retirement is Social Security, which congressional Republicans want to gut, and Elon Musk calls a Ponzi scheme. But the President also let them down because they may not be exposed, but their employer probably is, as are their neighborhood grocer and hardware store, and they will be affected if any prices rise.

When the financial markets closed on Friday with one of the biggest drops in history, President Trump was golfing and dining with his Saudi friends. On Saturday, while the Nation was stressing over their financial instability, the official White House Press Office gleefully announced that the President would, on Sunday, compete in his club's golf championship. This was the Trump version of ``Let them eat cake''--``Let them eat cake.''

Then on Sunday, after a week of uncertainty, a weekend of stress, while small business owners, retirees, and young families across the country were sitting at their kitchen tables trying to figure out how they were going to handle this dramatic increase in costs, what was the President doing? He was, of course, still golfing. And to the surprise of no one, except for maybe the actual tournament winner, President Trump tied for his own club championship, a remarkable achievement, to be sure. In fact, so great is that achievement that, if the President would make public his scorecard, I would gladly enter it into the Congressional Record and ask for its preservation at the National Archives, though I am sure his caddy would be reluctant to testify under oath. I know the President likes to talk about his handicap.

Over the weekend, his administration tried to cover up for his indifference by claiming that ``more than 50 countries'' had reached out to start negotiations. That claim may have temporarily calmed the futures market, but its unbelievability certainly harmed the White House economic adviser Kevin Hassett's credibility.

Adding to the uncertainty and lack of faith was the incoherence within the administration that was in full public effect over the weekend.

In between golf swings, the President found time to post:

WE WILL WIN. HANG TOUGH, it won't be easy.

Meanwhile, America's de facto President, Elon Musk, told a globalist conference in Italy he wanted a ``zero-tariff situation'' between the United States and Europe. That aspiration was quickly and directly rebutted by the tariff architect, Peter Navarro, which led to a public spat the likes of which the Presidency has rarely seen.

On Monday, the markets started low but quickly skyrocketed because some ``verified'' Trump Twitter account announced that an administration official said Trump would pause tariffs for 90 days. The world and the markets rejoiced, but the administration quickly refuted that assertion, and the markets fluctuated downward.

Tuesday started with great optimism and a quick market rise, but China's retaliation and the rumors of a European equivalent turned the rally bearish, which brings us to yesterday, Wednesday, April 9.

Mr. President, history will likely record this day as America's actual ``Liberation Day'' because it is the day that President Trump backed down--backed down. Of course, as with anything Trump does, his backing down created a few private winners and several public losers. We may never discern who the private winners are, but we do know that, at 9:37 a.m., President Trump posted, in all capital letters:

Mr. President, on July 16, 2007--a while back--I hired a legislative assistant to handle our healthcare and education policy.

I didn't know it then, but this new member of my team, this native of Hawaii who came to work for a Senator from New York--she did live in New York for a while and went to high school there. I always tease her about the high school she went to, Brearley--would, in time, become my legislative director.

She would stay with my team not just for years but for almost two decades--two decades. She would become one of the most talented, most effective, and most trusted advisers I ever, ever had--and I have had a lot of good ones--this person, of course, who is sitting next to me right here, Meghan Taira, the best legislative guru I could have ever asked for, the best legislative director in the business. That says a lot because there have been a lot of good ones there too.

Tomorrow, after 18 wonderful years, Meghan will move on from her time in the Senate. She sat in this chair many times directing me, helping the Senate move forward. This will be her last time sitting in that chair, and we are the lesser for it because she is so great.

We won't dwell on the goodbyes--that is too bittersweet--and instead we will all say thank you to Meghan Taira.

Thank you for 18 wonderful years--18, wow, amazing.

Now, Meghan, one thing I will say, and you will shake your head in agreement, thank you for putting up with me--not so easy--every day, all day, on the phone. I will call Meghan at 6 in the morning. I will call her at 11 at night, after she had put her beautiful boy to bed, again and again and again.

Thank you, Meghan, for being the field general of our team, the field general we needed all those years.

Meghan likes astrology. She is a Leo. Like all great Leos, she is a natural leader, fiercely loyal, not just to me but to everyone in her office. She exuded confidence every single day, no matter what problem lay before us. I would see these problems, and I would say: Oh, my God, how are we ever going to solve that? She would walk in, have her solution, and poof, it was solved.

She was by my side in some of the most pivotal moments of my time in this Chamber. Meghan counseled me and my whole team as we worked to pass the Affordable Care Act in 2009. It wouldn't have been as good of a law as it was without Meghan Taira.

Seven years later, she was at my side again defending the ACA from repeal, leading our caucus to hold the line. No one thought we would, but we did. It wouldn't have happened without Meghan Taira.

Meghan, if the rest of the world could see you in action like I have, from the way you set the tone each morning to the way you walked all of us through the bills, taking this complicated legislative language and putting it into normal language that we can understand, the way you talk about each vote, each floor fight, the way you are able to predict--how do I shut this off? This is something Meghan is used to, being interrupted by my cell phone at every moment. Somehow I can't shut the thing off.

Anyway, everyone would think what I think if they could watch you, and that is, thank God there is a Meghan Taira around.

I know there are lots of ``Schumerland'' alumni watching right now, our great staff team, running along the whole top place there, many more are watching on TV--hello, Schumerland. You are a big, wide group, but almost every one of you have been trained and been made a better staffer by Meghan Taira, and all of Schumerland thinks the same. Maybe they think I am not being superlative enough because on a good day, getting things done in the Senate, they know--our staff knows--it is hard. On hard days, getting things done seems nearly impossible. And then you have the strange days, like we just went through with vote- aramas.

How many vote-aramas have you been through, Meghan? Have you counted?

Thirteen, a lucky number, in this case, for us.

It takes a special talent, a bit of a mad genius to keep nearly 50 U.S. Senators facing in the right direction at 3 a.m. during an amendment vote. But that is typical. We had every Democrat unified on all--what was it, 27 amendments? Maybe more, but at least 27 amendments.

But that is what Meghan has been doing all these years, a compass pointing us in the right direction, the animating spirit of my leadership and legislative team.

Most importantly, it takes a really special person to dedicate so many years of their life--nights, weekends, holidays, life events--to work in the Senate. She and her husband Gerry--they met on my staff; they were a Schumer marriage--are so dedicated to their boy George. It is such a beautiful thing watching him grow up. She was always both busy with George and paying attention to legislation at the same time. I would hear George in the background on many of our calls. One day, maybe he will be a great legislative leader as well. But it takes a special person to dedicate so many nights, so many weekends, so many holidays, and so many life events to work in the Senate.

So, Meghan, you have made your mark on the Senate, on the State of New York, on the United States of America, and even the world. There are, undoubtedly, people living happier and healthier lives on all the continents because Meghan Taira sat in this chair and the chair at her desk in her office for so many years.

Without Meghan, none of our greatest accomplishments of the last 18 years would have been possible: no infrastructure bill, no Chips and Science, no IRA, no gun safety, no marriage equality, and so much more.

Without her, pandemic relief would have been half as strong, half as generous, half as sweeping as it was when America needed the whole thing; it needed boldness. There would be no paid family leave for Federal workers. New York hospitals wouldn't have gotten their lifeline to stay afloat during COVID. Hundreds of thousands of people owe their jobs to Meghan because they would have closed down if we hadn't done that during COVID.

Under Meghan's tenure, we negotiated the first bipartisan budget deal, in 2017, where we finally raised domestic spending to parity with defense. She was 8 months pregnant when she negotiated that bill-- superlady, superwoman, superperson, super everything.

Meghan helped orchestrate 13 vote-aramas. I had asked her that before. She saw 2,000 bills--2,000 bills--become law and helped me write and introduce no less than 260 pieces of legislation.

She has done it all. She has seen it all. And I am just so lucky that she did it all as a member of my team.

So, Meghan, you have checked out perhaps more books than anybody from the Library of Congress or more than any staffer I know, but now you will get to check out books that you want to read, not that your job requires you to read, because I know you love to read. And I am happy that George and Gerry will get to see mom around the house more.

Though you are going to move on to greener pastures, Meghan, a piece of you will always dwell in these Chambers, in these halls, in this great institution, and in my heart. We love you, Meghan.

Am I allowed to stand up and hug you on the floor of the Senate? Well, I will.

The great Meghan Taira, America. She served you well.

I yield the floor.

(Applause.)

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Indiana (Mrs. Houchin) for yielding me the customary 30 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, before I get into my statement, let me begin by saying that I keep on hearing from the other side that this is just a budget resolution and that it doesn't have any actual policies in it. Yet, the gentlewoman referred to all the tax cuts.

Can she point me to where the resolution says anything about tax cuts? Of course, the answer is that it doesn't.

What it does is simply instruct our tax-writing committees to write legislation to spend $4.5 trillion, just as it instructs our SNAP committee to cut $290 billion and our Medicaid committee to cut $880 billion.

Republicans cannot have it both ways and pretend that the harms aren't real while the tax cuts are, but we know the harms are real. We know what is planned, and we have seen the leaked document.

Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, it looks like facts and truth have absolutely no place in this administration or in this Republican Party. We already knew that this administration lies like a rug.

First, we heard that the United States was sending $50 million worth of condoms to Hamas, which was a lie.

Then we heard it was Ukraine that started the war, not Russia, which is another lie.

Then we heard that the terrible plane crash here in Washington happened because of diversity programs, which was also a lie.

Mr. Speaker, the gentlewoman from Indiana (Mrs. Houchin) wants us to believe that not a single thing in the budget she is arguing for is going to hurt anyone at all and that there isn't a single tax giveaway to billionaires in their budget.

Guess what, Mr. Speaker. It is simply not accurate.

We all saw this coming. We did. Last month, at Trump's inauguration, who was in the front row? It wasn't people on Medicaid. It wasn't factory workers. It wasn't nurses or teachers or firefighters. It wasn't even his own Cabinet. It was the richest people in the world, and that is who this Republican budget helps.

It steals from taxpayers and funnels the money to those at the very top. Imagine stealing from school meals for kids so that billionaires could get another tax giveaway.

Last night, in the Rules Committee, the gentlewoman claimed: No, no, no. Democrats can't prove there are any cuts in this budget. Except, Mr. Speaker, we can. We can. Let me lay it out as simply as I can for people.

The Republican budget cuts, for example, $330 billion from programs related to education, and the same Representative who wrote this budget, the chair of the Budget Committee, Mr. Arrington, also wrote this document right here, Mr. Speaker, which I have in front of me. It says in black and white that those education cuts include $12 billion from school meals. How dare my colleagues on the other side of the aisle.

Mr. Speaker, I am sorry that the gentlewoman doesn't like these facts, but they are facts.

School meals are just one example. This budget makes deep, deep cuts to Medicaid, including long-term care; deep cuts to food assistance for hungry families; and deep cuts to Pell grants. These cuts are going to hurt people.

I ask the gentlewoman a simple question: Whose side is she on? Does she want to stand with the school kids in her district who rely on school meals to get through the day, or does she side with the billionaires who are getting another tax giveaway in this budget?

Does she stand with the 178,119 constituents in her district who are on Medicaid? Does she stand with the thousands and thousands of kids in her district who rely on school meals, or does she stand with the greedy corporations who are price gouging struggling families?

I know where I stand, Mr. Speaker, and we are going to fight like hell to oppose this awful Republican budget because we know whose side we are on. We are going to fight like our constituents' lives depend on it because they do.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, there are just a couple of points I will make.

I am still waiting for the gentlewoman from Indiana to tell me where the tax cuts are in this budget. My colleagues can't have it both ways. They can't say there are all these tax cuts in this budget, yet there are no cuts. The reality is, there are cuts in this budget.

To the gentleman who just spoke from South Carolina, he may need a reminder. Maybe he could do a townhall in his district. He might get an earful. Mr. Speaker, 74,000 of his constituents received coverage under the Affordable Care Act.

By supporting this resolution, he is betraying the 148,948 constituents in his district who depend on Medicaid for their essential care and the 85,000 constituents in the Fifth District who rely on SNAP to put food on the table.

Maybe do a townhall and listen to constituents rather than just big donors.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/4\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Wasserman Schultz).

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

Mr. Speaker, the gentlewoman is talking about what was said in the Rules Committee last night. I will take a couple of minutes to talk about how people voted in the Rules Committee last night.

We gave Republicans a chance last night in the Rules Committee. We said if they really don't believe that this budget cuts funding for school meals, if they really believe what they are saying, then they can vote to ensure the American people that they are not going to steal school meals from kids in order to give tax breaks for millionaires. Every Republican voted no, every single one of them.

Then, Democrats offered an amendment to protect Medicaid. Medicaid, as you know, Mr. Speaker, covers 41 percent of all births in the United States, nearly half of children with special healthcare needs, and five in eight nursing home residents. We asked them not to cut Medicaid in order to fund tax breaks for billionaires. Every Republican voted no.

Then, Democrats offered an amendment to extend tax cuts for people making under $400,000 while ensuring that corporations and billionaires pay their fair share. We asked Republicans to continue tax cuts for only those who need it the most because those are the tax cuts they let expire while their tax cuts for greedy corporations were made permanent. We asked them to prioritize working families over greedy corporations. Every Republican voted no.

Then, Democrats offered an amendment preventing tax giveaways for people earning over $1 million a year. Every Republican voted no.

We wanted to see if there was anyone so rich that Republicans don't think they deserve a tax giveaway, so we asked them to vote against tax breaks for people earning over $100 million per year. We asked them to side with factory workers and firefighters over hedge fund managers and billionaire bankers. Every Republican voted no.

We even offered an amendment preventing tax cuts for people with a net worth of over--get this--$1 billion. Every Republican voted no.

They betrayed their constituents. They voted to steal from the American people in order to protect tax breaks for billionaires.

Again, this is about whose side you are on. Republicans showed us last night with their votes whose side they are on, and it is not the working people of this country.

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

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

We are here talking about billions of dollars of cuts to Medicaid, school meals, and food for children, and this guy is talking about tankless water heaters. I mean, read the room.

I should just say that by supporting this budget resolution, he is betraying

125,952 constituents in his district that depend on Medicaid for their essential care.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/4\ minutes to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Magaziner).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Costa).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Minnesota (Ms. Morrison).

Mr. Speaker, I notice there are not a lot of people on the other side wanting to defend this budget.

I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Gomez).

Mr. Speaker, I don't know if the gentlewoman wants to give us some of her time because we have a lot of speakers over here. I guess not.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Hawaii (Ms. Tokuda).

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

Let me just say, by the way, Mr. Speaker, how is that mandate going for you guys now that voters are realizing that you betrayed them?

Let's look at some newspapers from around the country: ``Georgia Congressman confronted by angry crowd over support for Trump's agenda.''

This is from The Atlanta Journal-Constitution: ``U.S. Rep. Rich McCormick was peppered with boos and catcalls throughout a townhall meeting in Roswell late Thursday, as hundreds of critics jeered the Republican for backing President Donald Trump's agenda during his first month in office.''

There is another one. ``U.S. Rep. Glenn Grothman faces hostile crowd in Oshkosh townhall meeting.'' That is in Oshkosh, Wisconsin.

``Protesters urge Rep. Scott Perry to say no to Medicaid cuts.'' That is in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania.

``Outside Congressman's office, protesters make noise over potential Medicaid cuts.'' That is from Representative Ryan Mackenzie's district in Salisbury Township in Pennsylvania.

I could spend an hour reading these into the Record, Mr. Speaker. Republicans are getting chewed out at all of

their townhalls. Something is happening in this country right now, and you can feel it. People are waking up to the betrayal, and they are angry. They have a right to be angry.

My Republican colleagues need to remember that when they vote for this budget, they are on record. They have made it clear that they serve the billionaires and not their voters.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Sorensen).

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

Mr. Speaker, I note the gentlewoman doesn't seem to have any other speakers. I was wondering whether she might want to lend us some of her time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), the Speaker Emerita, a powerful leader in the Democratic Caucus and for the country.

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

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to include in the Record an article from the Economic Policy Institute titled: ``The House Republicans' plan to cut Medicaid to pay for tax cuts for the rich would slash incomes for the bottom 40 percent.''

Mr. Speaker, this article details how these cuts would hurt working families more than any tax relief that they might receive.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from New Mexico (Ms. Stansbury).

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to include in the Record a letter to Speaker Johnson, signed by eight Republicans, titled: ``Protecting American Communities in the Budget Reconciliation Process.''

Madam Speaker, this letter makes clear that they know that Medicaid, Pell grants, and SNAP will face harmful cuts if this budget passes.

Madam Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to provide for consideration of an amendment to the budget resolution which prevents tax cuts for billionaires if Medicaid is cut by a single cent.

Madam Speaker, 72 million Americans, including 30 million children, rely on Medicaid for critical healthcare and other lifesaving services. With this budget resolution, House Republicans are betraying the most vulnerable Americans to give tax breaks to billionaires.

Representative Gray submitted an amendment that would prevent Republicans from betraying Medicaid recipients in order to give billionaires tax breaks. It shouldn't be controversial.

I offered that amendment last night in the Rules Committee and, to my shock, every single one of my Republican colleagues voted against it, standing with billionaires over Medicaid recipients.

I am now giving every House Republican a chance to go on the record. Voting ``yes'' on the previous question means my colleagues want to cut taxes for billionaires, even at the expense of vital Medicaid coverage. Voting ``no'' gives my colleagues an opportunity to ensure that Medicaid is protected. It is that simple.

Madam 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.

Madam Speaker, to discuss our proposal, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Gray), the sponsor of this legislation.

Madam Speaker, I say to the gentlewoman that Republican Members are raising concerns about these cuts. Maybe we can share some of those press clippings with her.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Cohen).

Madam Speaker, I say to the gentlewoman the facts do matter. Her Members are complaining about the cuts in the Republican budget. Read them.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute in the gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Dexter).

Madam Speaker, may I inquire of the gentlewoman how many more speakers she has? I can't remember the last time she had one.

Madam Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time is remaining.

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

Madam Speaker, a majority of Americans now say that Donald Trump is doing a bad job at handling the economy. I don't blame them. Prices are going up on everything in large part because of Trump's tariffs. Meanwhile, wages for workers have not kept pace with inflation for decades. Home ownership is slipping out of reach for more and more people.

I will end this debate where we began. Whose side are my Republican colleagues on? Talk is cheap, Madam Speaker. This place runs on hot air from corrupt politicians whose only care in the world is where their next campaign check comes from.

Last night in the Rules Committee, Democrats gave Republicans a chance to show whose side they are on. Every single one of them voted against protecting Medicaid so they could give tax breaks to billionaires. That is how they voted.

Every single one of them voted against protecting the child tax credit so they could give tax cuts to billionaires. Every single one of them voted against protecting food assistance for hungry families so they could give tax breaks to billionaires.

The gentlewoman can claim whatever she wants. The truth is this budget betrays the middle class in favor of tax giveaways for billionaires. It gives trillions in handouts to the ultrawealthy, billionaires, and greedy corporations to the tune of $314,266 each every year for the top 0.1 percent.

That is an average. Some of them will get millions.

That is a bigger giveaway to the ultrarich than most people make in a year. To pay for it, they are stealing from the American people. They are stealing from Americans. They are betraying the people who voted for them. This is the betrayal on a scale I don't think we have ever seen before.

Madam Speaker, I am going to fight to expose it and to stop it. I have said this over and over again. We need tax relief for workers, not the ultrarich. We need to preserve Social Security and Medicare, not gut them to pay for corporate handouts. We should protect Medicaid and food benefits for working families because we know these are programs that people rely on and need when times get tough.

Madam Speaker, you can shut me up but you can't silence the voice of the American people.

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

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 161 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), 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, I rise in support of this rule and in support of the underlying legislation.

Last night, the Rules Committee met and produced a rule, House Resolution 161, providing for the House's consideration of several pieces of legislation, including a closed rule for H. Con. Res. 14, the budget resolution.

The rule provides for 2 hours of debate for the Committee on the Budget or their respective designees to debate the congressional budget and an additional hour equally divided and controlled by Representative Schweikert of Arizona and Representative Beyer of Virginia or their respective designees to debate economic goals and policies.

The rule further permits the chair of the Committee on the Budget to offer amendments in the House to achieve mathematical consistency and provides that the concurrent resolution shall not be subject to a demand for division of the question at its adoption.

Additionally, the rule provides for consideration of H.J. Res. 20, a CRA relating to the DOE's water heater rule, under a closed rule. The rule provides for 1 hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce or their respective designees and provides for one motion to recommit.

Finally, the rule provides for consideration of H.J. Res. 35, a CRA relating to EPA's methane tax, under a closed rule. The rule provides for 1 hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce or their respective designees and provides for one motion to recommit.

Mr. Speaker, notable among the bills this rule provides for is the House budget resolution, H. Con. Res. 14. This budget resolution marks the first step for House Republicans to advance President Trump's America First agenda.

We have heard plenty of fear-mongering and flatout dishonesty from Democrats and their liberal media allies about what is included in this resolution. To be clear, this resolution unlocks the path forward to deliver on our promises to the American people.

Over the next hour, Members are going to hear all of the identity groups

the Democrats want my colleagues to believe this bill hurts. Members will hear them say that Republicans are abandoning the middle class and cutting benefits. None of that is true.

The truth is, there is not one single cut in this bill to any specific program or benefit. The truth is the Democratic Party abandoned the middle class for the liberal elite class a long time ago. The election last November should have been a wake-up call that the American people don't believe them anymore, nor should they.

The Democrats are desperate for attention and for power. Don't give it to them.

Let's set the record straight about what this budget resolution actually accomplishes.

It will provide funding for border security, provide for our national defense, and restore American energy independence. It will provide tax relief for working families.

On border security, Biden's open-border policies resulted in over 8.5 million encounters at the southern border since 2021, a 500 percent increase in illegal crossings, and over $115 billion in costs to State and local governments. Most tragically, Biden's border crisis allowed unprecedented amounts of deadly fentanyl into our communities, killing over 100,000 Americans.

Next, this bill enables us to permanently protect tax relief. President Trump's Tax Cuts and Jobs Act provided critical relief to middle-class families and small businesses. Americans are still experiencing high prices because we are still recovering from Bidenomics.

Prices are up 21 percent. Real wages have declined by more than 3 percent. Mortgage rates have skyrocketed. Credit card delinquencies have risen by over 50 percent. Bidenomics cost American families more than $11,000 every year for the last 4 years.

Next, this budget resolution prioritizes energy independence. Under President Trump's first administration, the United States was energy independent for the first time in 40 years. That stopped the day Joe Biden took office, and American families have been hurting ever since.

Under President Biden, the American energy production was severely restricted. Federal lands were blocked from responsible energy development, and the Strategic Petroleum Reserve was drained.

Simply put, again, the budget resolution is a framework that will allow us to deliver on the demands of the American people to secure the border, eliminate wasteful spending, revitalize Biden's broken economy, and safeguard our economic prosperity by providing permanent tax relief for working families. I hope our Democratic colleagues will join us in those efforts.

This budget resolution kicks off the reconciliation process and allows our work to begin. Once adopted, our committees and the entire House will begin detailed work to achieve these important goals for the American people.

Mr. Speaker, this rule also provides for consideration of two Congressional Review Act measures: H.J. Res. 20 and H.J. Res. 35.

H.J. Res. 20 provides for congressional disapproval of the rule submitted by the Department of Energy relating to energy conservation standards for consumer gas-fired instantaneous water heaters.

The rule we seek to overturn with this legislation effectively bans certain natural gas water heaters from the market, placing unnecessary financial burdens on consumers, especially seniors and low-income households.

H.J. Res. 35 provides for congressional disapproval of the rule submitted by the Environmental Protection Agency relating to natural gas facilities. The EPA's rule imposes a significant fee on methane emissions from oil and natural gas facilities. The fee is essentially a pass-through cost to consumers that will raise prices, harm domestic energy production, and increase our reliance on other countries to meet our own energy needs.

Mr. Speaker, I look forward to the consideration of these important pieces of legislation. I urge the passage of this rule, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I commend the other side for finally saying that some of these things that they have been harping on for the last several hours and 24-

hour segments is not true. There is nothing in this budget resolution that presumes cuts to specific programs. Our Democratic colleagues admitted this much themselves last night.

Mr. Speaker, this legislation simply provides flexible spending targets for authorizing committees to best determine what is feasible within their jurisdiction.

I remind my Democratic colleagues that this resolution is the first step in a process to let reconciliation begin, when the real work will happen in the committees. If my colleagues have concerns about potential cuts being proposed once the authorizing committees begin their work, there will be ample opportunity to debate, provide amendment, and find opportunities in the reconciliation instructions for common ground.

Unlike my friends on the other side, we don't view the Rules Committee as the first stop in the legislative process, but, rather, the last. We should let the committees do their work and not prejudge the outcomes or make baseless accusations and presumptions.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 2 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Foxx), chairwoman of the Rules Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Jack).

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

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

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

Madam Speaker, the ranking member has discussed a number of votes taken at the Rules Committee markup last night. Once again, the budget is the first step in the process, not the last. Many of these amendments will have the opportunity to be debated thoughtfully and ad nauseam, I have no doubt, in the authorizing committees.

The Democrats are speaking fear, not facts. Saying something that is false over and over again does not make it true. These amendments can be given consideration in the committees of jurisdiction. That is the process of regular order.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I will reiterate that saying something false over and over again doesn't make it true.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I am prepared to close.

Madam Speaker, despite what Democrats may claim, the American people know the Biden-Harris administration caused enormous damage to our economy, weakened our national security, allowed millions of illegal immigrants and deadly fentanyl to flood across our southern border, and crippled American energy independence. That is exactly why voters rejected their failed leadership in the last election.

Once again, this resolution does not cut a single specific program or benefit. The Democrats are speaking fear, not facts, and saying something over and over again that is false does not make it true. Democrats have told these lies before and were proven wrong.

The Democrats want to continue 4 more years of Bidenomics. We want to put us on a path to prosperity. These are the same people claiming that there is no waste, fraud, or abuse in Washington.

This resolution will begin a process that sets a fiscal framework to meet the agenda the American people demanded in November.

Let's talk about some of their claims, that this is a handout to billionaires. It is their party that abandoned the middle class by spending like crazy. Not extending the 2017 Trump tax cuts would be the ultimate betrayal of the middle class. The average taxpayer in my district, in the Ninth District of Indiana, would see a 26 percent tax hike if the tax cuts the Democrats oppose expire.

A family of four making $67,000, the median income in my district, would be a $1,289 tax increase. More than 6 million people were lifted out of poverty under Republican tax reform, dropping the poverty rate to 10.5 percent, the lowest in U.S. history.

They claim this budget slashes food assistance. This resolution makes no changes to current law, no cuts in benefits, zero.

They claim costs will go up. We will reverse Biden's spending spree and bend the curve on mandatory spending that is driving our debt.

Inflation skyrocketed 21 percent under the Biden administration. That is why 77 million Americans voted for President Trump, to fix the economy and rein in Washington's waste, fraud, abuse, and reckless spending.

Let's go with facts, not fear. This resolution doesn't say the words ``SNAP'' or ``Medicaid'' or ``school lunch'' once.

We are cutting waste, fraud, and abuse for people who are here legally. The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act helped people get off SNAP, which is a good thing. A GAO report last year showed improper payments could be costing the Federal Government more than $500 billion annually.

I am not here to fight with my colleagues on the other side of the aisle. I am here to fight on behalf of the American people, and that is exactly what we are going to continue to do.

In the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, my friends want to scare the American people into thinking that this is a tax cut for billionaires to detract from the fact that the 2017 tax cuts under the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act have been extremely successful.

Let's look at what has made it a success. By every conceivable measure, American workers and the economy were better off. Americans earned bigger paychecks, unemployment for every group was at a historic low, and poverty dropped to its lowest level in history.

The 2017 Trump tax cuts lowered tax rates for all Americans. In fact, the lowest earning individuals gained the most benefit. The bottom 20 percent of earners, those with incomes up to $26,000, saw their Federal tax rate fall to the lowest point in 40 years.

Earnings under $100,000 received an average cut of 16 percent, while the share of taxes paid by the top 1 percent increased. This is not simply a tax cut for the rich.

Finally, if these tax cuts expire, it will devastate our Nation's families, workers, and small business owners. The average taxpayer would see a 22 percent tax hike, meaning on average they will pay $1,695 more in taxes; 40 million families will see their child tax credit cut in half; and 26 million small businesses would be hit with a 43.4 percent top tax rate. This is over 20 points higher than what businesses pay in Communist China.

Because of House Republicans and President Trump, American workers enjoyed the fastest wage growth in a decade. This spread to Americans across the income distribution with lower-wage workers experiencing 50 percent higher wage growth than high-income workers. Higher wages led to a rapid growth in household income. Just 2 years after enactment of the tax cuts, real median household income rose by over $5,000.

In total, the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act's pro-growth policies helped contribute to 3 percent growth in 2018 and 2.6 percent growth in 2019, well above CBO's pre-Tax Cuts and Jobs Act projections of 2.2 percent and 1.7 percent respectively.

Meanwhile, we have seen what Bidenflation has cost American families.

Again, this budget resolution does not cut a single specific program or benefit. The budget resolution sets a framework. It is a first step toward delivering on the America First agenda and getting our country back on track.

We will secure our border. We will rebuild the American economy. We will unleash American energy and safeguard our financial future.

Madam Speaker, 77 million Americans voted for this agenda, and it is our job to deliver on those promises.

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.J. Res. 20, the second Republican resolution in just 2 days that will raise energy prices on Americans. This harmful resolution guts a Department of Energy efficiency rule on gas instantaneous, or tankless, water heaters.

Energy efficiency standards, like the one Republicans are going after today, are a popular, commonsense tool to save Americans money on their energy bills. President Trump ran on a promise to cut energy costs in half his first year, but now Republicans and their billionaire friends are only making themselves richer while sending Americans' utility bills through the roof.

Unfortunately, I guess it should not come as a surprise considering that earlier this week Republicans moved forward with a budget that includes devastating cuts to Medicaid and food assistance for our kids, our seniors, and our veterans, all so Republicans can give tax breaks to their millionaire buddies.

Let me start off by dispelling a few myths about the water heater standards targeted by this resolution.

First, these standards do not ban water heaters. Regardless of what the rightwing media and fossil fuel groups say, DOE cannot ban appliances based on their fuel type.

Second, these standards do not remove consumer choice. American families can still walk into a store, pick out a gas tankless water heater, and have it installed in their homes. In fact, these standards preserve consumer choice. They ensure that all products on the market meet a certain level of energy efficiency so consumers can shop with confidence.

The standards impact less than 10 percent of the gas water heater market, and right now, 60 percent of all models on the market already meet these standards. This isn't an effort to pull products from shelves. Instead, it is an effort to raise the quality of the products on the shelves. That is what we are trying to do with the standards.

Third, and most importantly, these standards do not increase costs for consumers. They reduce total costs over the life of a water heater and save $3.31 billion for consumers over 30 years. They are also projected to reduce carbon dioxide emissions by 32 million metric tons over 30 years.

To summarize, these standards allow gas tankless water heaters to stay on the market, they preserve consumer choice, they lower costs for Americans, and they reduce emissions. So it is no wonder that these efficiency standards are supported by consumer advocates and American manufacturers--I stress American manufacturers--who want to preserve the standards.

The Republican resolution before us today completely nullifies these energy efficiency standards. It steals, essentially, $3.1 billion in savings from Americans. Because it is a Congressional Review Act resolution, it goes one step further and prevents DOE from issuing substantially similar standards in the future.

Now, why are Republicans pursuing something that is bad for consumers?

It is because it is good for the gas industry. The American Gas Association and foreign manufacturers are on the side of this Republican resolution that will terminate the standards.

Why?

It is because inefficient appliances mean that gas companies sell more gas.

Now, Mr. Speaker, if you look at where the manufacturers stand on this, three out of four major water heater manufacturers are in favor of the standards and are opposed to this resolution. All three of the manufacturers that support the efficiency standards are American manufacturers, and they have factories in many Republican districts across the country.

Foreign manufacturers, however, are lobbying against these standards because they don't want to spend a comparatively small amount of money to retool their factories to produce more efficient water heaters.

I understand that companies are reluctant to spend money, but what I don't understand is why Republicans are willing to rob Americans of $3.1 billion in savings, all to help multibillion dollar foreign companies save a few million dollars.

Republicans have made their choice. They have basically sided--and I guess that is not surprising--with their oil and gas friends, and they have sided also in this case with foreign manufacturers.

So, Mr. Speaker, for the sake of American families, American manufacturers, and our climate, I urge my colleagues to oppose this resolution, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Castor) who is the ranking member of our subcommittee.

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

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Palmer), who I greatly respect. When he talks about prices, since President Trump was inaugurated, prices have gone through the roof. Grocery prices, egg prices, meat prices, fish prices, and poultry prices are all up even more than ever. Electricity costs are way up, along with housing prices.

Mr. Speaker, the gentleman mentions American jobs. As I mentioned earlier, I think it needs to be reiterated that American manufacturers support these water heater standards. Three out of four major water heater manufacturers are against today's resolution, and all three are American companies.

The manufacturers that are in favor of this resolution and against the standards are foreign manufacturers.

If this resolution is successful, Republicans are giving foreign manufacturers an advantage over domestic manufacturers. Foreign manufacturers are against the standards because they don't want to spend a bit of money on retrofits to their factories in order to switch their production over to products that meet the standards.

Republicans have decided that it is more important to save foreign manufacturers some money than it is to save $3.1 billion for American families. My colleagues on the other side of the aisle have decided to listen to the lobbying efforts of foreign companies over domestic companies, many of whom have factories in Republican districts.

Madam Speaker, it just doesn't make any sense to me. The Trump administration is all about America first, but the words are meaningless when it comes down to it. Republicans aren't here to stand up for American families and American companies. It is very much the opposite. My colleagues are here to attack regulations and help out their Big Oil and Gas friends.

Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to stand with American companies and families and to vote against this resolution, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Madam Speaker, I respect the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Jack) for looking out for his district, but this plant that he is talking about in his district is the Japanese company. This is the one non-American manufacturing company.

All of the other companies that manufacture these products are American, and they are the ones that support these energy efficiencies because they have made the investments and created more jobs when they retrofitted their companies for this product.

Madam Speaker, this company is a multibillion-dollar Japanese company in Georgia. It is estimated that it would cost them about $10 million to retrofit their plant so that they could produce more efficient tanks, and they don't want to do it. They don't want to make that investment, which would create more jobs.

Madam Speaker, I understand where my friend, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Jack), is coming from, but we have to look at this as the total picture.

Most of these tanks are manufactured in the United States by American companies, and they are in a lot of the red States. They are in Tennessee, for example. They are saying: This is fine. We want the more efficient standards. We want to save Americans money. We are the good actors, not the bad actors.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Virginia (Ms. McClellan), a member of the Energy and Commerce Committee.

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

Madam Speaker, I will call out some of the problems that I see on the Republican side in terms of their arguments that we have heard this morning.

Over the last 2 years, Republicans have claimed that they care about energy costs. On the campaign trail, they repeatedly promised to lower costs and lower inflation, but, again, none of their actions line up with their promises.

If you are paying attention to energy load growth in this country, you know that, in addition to increasing generation, we have to incorporate ways of reducing energy demand. Energy conservation standards are one of the tools that help lower costs and help reduce demand.

The previous administration's efficiency standards are estimated to save consumers $1 trillion over 30 years. That is a trillion dollars. The water heater standards alone would save $3.1 billion--that is, if Republicans don't kill the standards right here today, which is what they are doing.

Republicans don't want Americans to realize those savings. They want Americans to be stuck with older, energy-guzzling appliances that cost more money every time you turn them on. I think that is ridiculous and so should everyone else in this Chamber.

Republicans claim they are concerned about the higher upfront costs of these appliances, but 2\1/2\ years ago, when we voted on the Inflation Reduction Act, which contained $9 billion in rebates and other investments in lowering the costs of energy-efficient appliances, Republicans all voted no.

Madam Speaker, let's review. They don't want to make positive economic investments because they are concerned about the upfront costs, but then they also refuse to take action to lower those costs. If you brought that mentality to the private sector, you would be fired in a heartbeat, but that is the orthodoxy in today's Trump-Musk Republican Party.

Lowering energy costs for consumers via efficiency gains used to be a bipartisan issue. We made real progress on this in 1992 and again in 2005, but somewhere along the way, Republicans decided to become the party of higher energy costs rather than the ones fighting for the American homeowner. That is a real shame.

For that reason, Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this resolution, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member for yielding the time.

Mr. Speaker, here we are at the end of February, 2 months into the new congressional session, and House Republicans haven't offered one bill to lower the cost of living for our neighbors back home. Instead, they bring this silly bill to the floor, a bill to force to working families to spend more money, to use more energy, and to sell out American manufacturers.

Meanwhile, Republicans in Congress have stood idly by while there has been an illegal shutdown of grants and loans to our local communities and nonprofits that help people save money and help families.

Plus, House Republicans didn't raise any concern when the new President illegally fired Inspectors General and prosecutors who are charged with rooting out waste, fraud, and abuse, and that includes in the Department of Energy.

It gets worse because Republicans now are barreling toward a massive tax giveaway to billionaires paid for on the backs of American families, children, our neighbors with disabilities, our older neighbors, and grandparents in nursing homes.

This is not business as usual. I know Republicans bring a bill here and they say: Okay. This is just like what we have always done.

This is not business as usual.

Where is the House Republicans' outrage that everything they have worked on congressionally mandated through appropriations is just illegally frozen?

It is not business as usual.

This resolution is the latest of a whole lot of nonsense. It is hard to explain, except when we realize that oil and gas companies often have their way here in Washington, D.C.

We wasted hours and hours over the past couple of years trying to demonize energy efficient appliances. These kinds of appliances are popular. There has been a law in place for decades that says that every few years we update these appliance standards. Manufacturers work on it, advocates work on it, and they come together and update it.

This actual residential water heater standard hasn't been updated since 2010. Here we are in 2025, and the standard we are discussing today effects less than 10 percent of all water heater sales and most, over 100, of these models already meet this standard.

Meanwhile, Mr. Speaker, if you want to talk about cost savings, it was Democrats who put in place tax credits and rebates to help everyday Americans lower the cost of their energy bill on appliances.

This is one of the reasons why we are so angry.

Part of the illegal freeze on government initiatives also impacts the money that should be going into the pockets of our neighbors back home. This includes the home energy rebates. Those are the rebates that help consumers save money on select home improvement projects that can lower energy bills by providing up to $14,000 a year for homeowners as they update their homes.

Mr. Speaker, you had better believe this is important to my neighbors in Florida recovering from hurricanes Helene and Milton. They would love to be able to get these funds to help them repair their homes. Right now, frozen in Florida is $346 million that could be helping everyday Floridians recover from the storms as they repair their homes.

That is not the only one. Weatherization assistance, very smart, has often been bipartisan in the past. Elon Musk and this new administration have frozen it. They have frozen billions of dollars that go to working-class households to improve the energy efficiency of their homes. In Florida alone, $94 million that should be flowing to my neighbors to help them weatherize their homes and save money is frozen.

So what Republicans are doing by freezing this and by trying to roll back energy appliance standards is contributing to the rising cost of energy for families and businesses. It is a dereliction of duty. They are turning a blind eye to the peoples' pocketbook. Democrats are going to fight for the peoples' pocketbook.

Meanwhile, an unelected billionaire who has made his vast fortune on government contracts should not be able to unilaterally stop and take money out of the pockets of American families, of the Americans who need it most.

Here is the warning, because this major tax giveaway that House Republicans are hammering out says to our committee: Find $880 billion.

Republicans say: Oh, okay. Maybe there is enough waste, fraud, and abuse--even though they have taken the Inspectors General off the playing field to root out waste, fraud, and abuse. There is no way that you can say improper payments total up to $880 billion.

Republicans shouldn't gaslight us and Americans if the majority is concerned about a major tax giveaway so that billionaires can have more money and Americans are going to have less healthcare for their grandparents and their children. It is not right, and we are not going to stand for it.

Mr. Speaker, who really benefits here on these tankless gas water heaters? Let me pull the curtain back. As they build homes, big corporate housing developers often install a slightly cheaper, less- efficient model, and they pass on the costs of higher energy bills to that new homeowner for the next 20 years.

Foreign manufacturers are going to benefit here. The American manufacturers who have participated in these energy efficiency standards aren't going to benefit. It is the foreign manufacturers who will get to sell their inferior, less-efficient appliances and take away sales from U.S. manufacturers.

It is the American Gas Association who will get to sell more polluting fossil gas to power inefficient appliances and pass the costs on to working families.

Once my colleagues take a closer look, Members will see this resolution really doesn't hold water. It does nothing to lower costs for working families. It does nothing to support American companies. It does nothing to address the real challenges facing our families back home.

It is a warning. It is a warning shot across the bow that this is not business as usual. It is a hold-on-to-your-wallet moment because the unelected billionaires who are calling the shots, who are reaching into citizens' wallets, and who are going to take away our healthcare want to rule the day.

House Democrats are not going to stand for it. We are going to continue to hold Republicans accountable. We are going to hold this administration accountable. We are going to fight for our constituents' wallets and pocketbooks, and we are going to make sure that Republicans are not going to be able to say that this kind of ridiculous stuff is business as usual here in the House of Representatives.

It is not. We believe in checks and balances. We believe in the hardworking Americans. We do not countenance unfairness and trying to steal from our kids, loading them up with massive debt and saying that their health doesn't matter in this country. It does.

Mr. Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this resolution. It is not business as usual, and people need to know it.