Providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Environmental Protection Agency relating to "Waste Emissions Charge for Petroleum and Natural Gas Systems: Procedures for Facilitating Compliance, Including Netting and Exemptions".

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, I am here today in opposition to the measure that we are about to vote on, which would undo a rule that regulates the release of methane into the atmosphere.

Let's just start with the most basic simple proposition that methane is dangerous, it is poisonous, it is explosive. And for those reasons alone, it is something that the fossil fuel industry should not be leaking. The fossil fuel industry should be responsible about taking care of its leaks of a gas that is dangerous, poisonous, and explosive.

But in addition to that immediate danger, methane is also a really, really potent greenhouse gas. If you look at the effect over a 20-year period, methane in the atmosphere is 80 times--8-0--times more dangerous than carbon dioxide. So we talk all the time about carbon emissions, carbon limits, carbon pollution. Methane is actually 80 times more dangerous.

So there are two reasons why the fossil fuel industry should not be leaking large amounts of methane. First, it is dangerous, poisonous, and explosive. And, second, it is an 80 times worse greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide over a 20-year period.

So how much methane is industry leaking, and why did we do this measure in the first place?

Well, industry told the EPA for years that it was leaking about 8 million tons--8 million tons--of methane, which all by itself is a pretty big number, but it turned out that the industry was not telling the EPA the truth.

It turns out that once independent sources got a chance to spot methane leaks using, for instance, satellites--this is a satellite image of a methane plume that is being released from a leak site--when they could find that--and satellites can now do that so we are beginning to know how much methane is actually being leaked and particularly when you backstop the satellite information with information from aircraft where the readings can be more sensitive than from a satellite--it turns out that what they were actually leaking was more like 32 million tons. They were only disclosing a quarter of what they were leaking, and even that 8 million that they disclosed was a pretty bad number. When you go to 32 million tons, that is a great deal of leakage of a gas that is dangerous, poisonous, explosive, and 80 times more powerful a greenhouse gas over a 20-year period than carbon dioxide.

Now, you would think that, as an attribute of basic human decency, these companies that are leaking methane would go and clean it up. It is the decent thing to do, but they didn't, obviously. They didn't even disclose truthfully and accurately what they were leaking. So, when we were confronted with a 32-million-ton annual leak of poisonous, dangerous, explosive methane, and its greenhouse effects on top of that, we tried to do something about it.

So what did we do?

Well, we did two things: a little bit of carrot, a little bit of stick.

The carrot was $1.5 billion--1.5 billion taxpayer dollars--in flatout corporate welfare to the leaking oil and gas companies so that they could use taxpayer money to clean up the mess they were making to deal with the pipes and the valves and the wells that they weren't properly maintaining and that were leaking, it turned out, 32 million tons of methane.

Now, one could argue that that was a pretty poor use of taxpayer money; that a basic tenet of corporate responsibility should be: You clean up your own mess. You take care of your own equipment. That is a basic tenet of human responsibility. I don't know why it shouldn't be a basic tenet of corporate responsibility, but the measurement of 32 million tons of leakage shows that, obviously, those companies were not meeting that basic corporate tenet of responsibility.

So along comes the $1.5 billion of free taxpayer money--corporate welfare--to polluters and leakers for taxpayers to pay them to clean up the problem that they were causing. I didn't love that, to tell you the truth, but it came with an incentive as well, and the incentive was, if you are still leaking methane after a certain period and if you are still leaking methane above a certain level--you had to be a big leaker yourself. It had to be a big leak, like 300 tons per leak, and you had to be in the worst sector of the oil and gas industry. If those things were true--if you had big leaks and you were a big leaker and you were in the worst performing sector of your industry--then you would be assessed a fee for the leakage, which would be an incentive, in addition to the free $1.5 billion the industry got to go out there and fix the darned pipes and valves and wells and stop the leaking.

What we are doing today is saying to this industry: You can keep the $1.5 billion. We gave you that whether you used it to clean up or not. I don't know that. I don't think the jury is back on that, but they did get the $1.5 billion. But the part where you have to pay if you are still polluting, after all of this, beyond industry standards--that is what we are stripping out today. This Congressional Review Act measure specifically helps the segment of the oil and gas industry that is not even meeting oil and gas industry standards for controlling leaks.

I think it is a pretty reasonable test to impose on industry leakers that they at least meet their own industry standard for leaking. This isn't some arbitrary standard that government has imposed. This isn't something that came out of the Green New Deal. This is the industry's own standard for responsibility about leaks, and you pay this fee if you don't meet your own industry standard for taking care of your equipment properly and avoiding leaks of a dangerous, explosive, poisonous

greenhouse gas 80 times more dangerous than carbon dioxide.

So that is where we are, and that is where we are at today. Today's vote only protects those worst industry performers who have not cleaned up their act and met their own industry standards. If there were ever an undeserving group for Congress's solicitude, that is the group. They are not even meeting their own industry standards. They are comfortable with dangerous levels of leakage beyond what even their own industry recommends as a standard, and on they go.

This is just a little bit of a piece with the recent designation by the Trump administration of what ``energy'' is. The Trump administration just put out a definition of ``energy'' that doesn't include solar or wind. Most of what came online and is slated to come online in 2025 has been solar and wind. It is the booming part of our energy economy. It is where the growth is and the jobs are and the innovation is. It is also a leading energy source in red States. If you look at who is best on solar and who is best on wind, you see States like Texas; you see Iowa; you see Wyoming. They have considerable investments in solar and wind, but the Trump administration won't even call solar and wind energy.

So we are in this bizarre circumstance in which the fossil fuel industry, which drives so much behavior in this body after $100 million spent on the Trump campaign that we know of--probably hundreds of millions more secretly--has gained two big things: one, a completely false definition of ``solar energy'' and ``wind energy'' as not being energy despite the fact that it is fully operational, producing electrons, and was the largest source of new additions to the grid for 2025, and they just decree: This is not energy.

Why the fossil fuel industry would want that is a pretty strong signal of how low that industry will go in using its power over Congress. They will basically press the Trump administration to claim that solar energy and wind energy aren't even energy. It is a spectacularly foolish and false proposition, but bending the knee to the wishes of the fossil fuel industry appears to have no limits.

This vote is the second expression of that subservience to fossil fuel because of all the things that you could do, of all the things that would help grow America's energy markets, of all the things you could do to help take care of people who live near energy facilities or people who are being subjected to harm from climate change--of all the things you could do, probably the worst one would be to take the worst performers at leaking, which shouldn't happen in the first place, who leak so badly they don't even meet their own industry standards, who for years have been falsely saying that they leaked only a quarter of what they have actually been leaking, and they are the people whom we are going to come to the rescue of.

They had two choices here so that they didn't have to pay the fee for being among the worst leakers and not meeting their own industry standards. One is, clean up your darned equipment. Fix your pipes. Fix your valves. Fix your wells. Stop the leaking or at least reduce it to your own industry standard. If you do that, you don't pay this fee--or come to Congress. Use your power, the force of your dark money, of your influence, of your super PACs, of your political control, and get that requirement removed so that you can continue to leak, continue to leak methane--a dangerous, explosive, and poisonous substance--into your communities, continue to add this far more dangerous greenhouse gas to the atmosphere, and continue to meet no reasonable standard of corporate responsibility for taking care of your own gear and quitting the leaking.

And you know what they chose; they chose to come here and get a free pass--a hall pass from Republicans in Congress, a hall pass from the Trump administration--so that they can continue to leak to their hearts content, never mind their culpability of not meeting their own industry standards, never mind the harm that it causes.

This is an industry that lives off a pollute-for-free business model. If this industry were not allowed to pollute for free--if it had to compete, head-to-head, with hydro, geothermal, solar, wind, without the free right to pollute--we would have a very different energy mix, and they know that. So they insist on protecting their right to pollute for free, but of all the little quadrants of the industry whose pollution- for-free we should be coming to the floor to defend, those worst leakers who aren't taking care of their own equipment even to industry standards are at the bottom of any reasonable person's priority list, and yet they are the ones we are here to serve today.

The backdrop to this is, of course, ``climate change,'' a term that the fossil fuel industry has so ingratiated itself with the Trump administration that it is able to excise the term--a language attack-- excise the term from official documents, a little bit like saying that ``energy'' is everything except solar and wind. That is obviously false--provably false, in fact, and a preposterous assertion--but when serving the fossil fuel industry, that is the stuff they make you do, and here you go with saying that climate change isn't real when Exxon scientists talked about its being real 30 years ago. We are driving down a path of polluter-funded falsehood that ends in very dangerous places.

We have a pretty good idea of where it ends because scientists have been telling us where this goes for decades now, scientists in our major universities. I do not believe that there is a single State university, a State university with the name of the State in its name-- University of Rhode Island, for instance. I don't think there is a single State university in this country that does not teach climate change. That is how well-established climate change is as a factual proposition, and what it is going to do has been known for a long, long time.

The predictions are astonishingly accurate. Here in the Senate, we heard all those predictions. The first hearing on those warnings was actually by Republican Senator John Chafee of Rhode Island in his role then as chairman of the Environmental Public Works Committee. He had a senior scientist from NASA, John Hanson, come over and describe what the science was, what we knew about what was going on.

So there is a long, clear, indisputable scientific record warning us of what is coming--preview of coming attractions.

But then it came here, and, here, the fossil fuel industry butted in with enormous political force, turbocharged after the Citizens United decision allowed that industry to spend unlimited amounts of money. And in the enforcement--or nonenforcement--of that decision, allowed that industry to spend those unlimited amounts of money secretly from behind front groups and through Super PACs and from other devices where the public was denied the knowledge of who was trying to influence them. The basic right of citizenship is to know who is doing what to whom on the field of politics American citizens are supposed to police with their votes. That knowledge was denied them, and that flood of industry pressure came into this Chamber. And before you knew it, climate change was suddenly a partisan issue. If you wanted to be a Republican, you had to deny climate change. It was pretty much as simple as that.

Ask Bob Inglis from the House of Representatives what happened if you tried to break that grip of the fossil fuel industry on the House leadership, the fossil fuel industry grip on the House leadership on the Republican side.

So the science was right all along. We failed at the politics because of improper fossil fuel industry influence, probably the most maligned and large-scale political influence campaign in American history. We yielded to it. We allowed ourselves to not heed the warnings and take the steps that would have put us on a pathway to safety.

Now, having heard the scientific warnings, having failed at taking appropriate safety steps, we are now entering the third era, the era of consequences, when the stuff starts to hit the fan. And the warnings are coming from all over.

Just about 2 weeks ago, the chair of the Federal Reserve testified to the Senate Banking Committee that in 10 to 15 years, it will be impossible to get a mortgage in entire regions of the country. How does that relate to climate change? That relates to climate change because climate change is creating changes in weather patterns that

make it impossible for the insurance industry to predict risk. That is why insurance rates are quadruple the national average in Florida, which is first and worst into this insurance crisis because of its storm and flooding risk, because it is on the path of so many hurricanes, because the Gulf of Mexico is warming so fast that it is powering worse storms, more heavily ladened storms, with rain onto Florida's coasts. And when you can't get insurance on your home, and you go to sell it, you have got a problem because the buyer can't get a mortgage if your home is uninsurable.

What the chief economists of Freddie Mac warned, the mortgage giant, is that the climate risk creates an insurance crisis, which rolls over into a mortgage crisis, which drives down property values so badly that it creates a 2008-style national economic crisis.

Those aren't the only warnings. Reinsurers look at this climate mess as a business proposition. The insurance industry has to get the future right in order to do its business, and it knows that what the fossil fuel industry is saying about what is going to happen in the future is a whole pack of lies. So they are raising their rates. The reinsurance companies are looking and saying, wow, this is getting way more dangerous. We are not going to reinsure without getting a lot more money.

Reinsurance rates have more than doubled since 2017. They were up as much as 40 percent in 2023 alone in some markets.

So it is not just the voice of the Fed; it is not just the voice of the chief economists of Freddie Mac; it is the reinsurance industry.

Go below the reinsurance industry to the insurance industry and look at the first and worst place, Florida. All the major insurers are out-- pulled the plug. Gone. Done. Pop-up insurers have come to fill the gap. Twelve to fifteen of them have gone bankrupt already. And when they go bankrupt, they don't pay claims, and Floridians are left stuck behind an insurer that was not solvent.

Florida has had to stand up its own homeowners insurance company, which now has a huge share of the market and an even bigger share of the risk because they have allowed the other insurers to come in and cherry-pick out the lowest risk properties. So Florida is carrying a liability right now on homeowner's insurance that is greater than its entire State debt.

If you want to look at the solvency of a State, look at what Florida's risk is for its property insurance companies, citizens' property insurance, and its backup fund that comes in when the pop-up insurance companies go bust and somebody else has to come in and pay the claims.

The insurance industry, which has to look accurately at the future is also telling us this is deadly, deadly serious.

There is an international Financial Stability Board whose job is to look at the world banking industry, the world banking sector, and warn of risks to the banking sector. They just put out a comprehensive report on the danger that climate change poses to the banking sector.

It comes in a couple of ways. One is the one I just described. When banks can't issue mortgages, they lose a huge revenue proposition. So they get hurt in the ``insurance to mortgage to market value to economic crash'' cascade.

But, also, as those values fall--let's say you went from carrying a $4,000 carrying cost for your property insurance to a $20,000 carrying cost. The present value of $20,000 every year into the future as long as you are going to own that home, diminishes the value of that home. It doesn't just diminish it for you and for the next buyer, it diminishes it for the bank that holds your mortgage. It is really important to banks that they have enough collateral to back their loan. Their loan-to-value ratio is what helps determine their solvency. So the International Financial Stability Board is warning banks around the world: Look out. The climate crisis is coming at you and for your solvency.

This was, perhaps, said best by The Economist magazine in April, which led with a cover article warning of the next housing disaster and saying that ``the severe weather brought about by greenhouse-gas emissions is shaking the foundations of the world's most important asset class''--real estate.

The number that they put to that risk that is shaking the foundations of the world's largest asset class is $25 trillion. A $25 trillion hit to the world's largest asset class.

In the United States, a new report by First Street, which is a technical firm that looks at flooding risk for a whole variety of corporate clients but also publishes as well--they just published a report that climate change could erase $1.4 trillion in real estate value by 2055--i.e., in the 30-year mortgage period--a $1.4 trillion hit to real estate values here in the United States. While $25 trillion dollars was The Economist's global number; First Street's is $1.4 trillion here in the United States.

Trillions are big, big numbers. And when it is hitting people in their most prized and valuable family asset--their homes--it is a very, very dangerous proposition.

Here is what The Economist said:

The impending bill--

For climate harms--

is so huge, in fact, it will have grim implications not

just for personal prosperity--

i.e., the homeowner--

but also for the financial system.

Hence the report from the International Financial Stability Board about the need to shore up the international financial system.

Here is how it goes down, they say:

If the size of the risk suddenly sinks in, and borrowers

and lenders alike realize the collateral underpinning so many

transactions is not worth as much as they thought, a wave of

repricing will reverberate through financial markets.

Punch line:

Climate change, in short, could prompt the next global

property crash.

Instead of dealing with this--even as Americans are already seeing their property insurance prices rise and double, are getting more and more nonrenewal notices to get them off the company--what are we doing? We are helping out the absolutely worst offenders at climate leakage.

Here is Deloitte. I will close with this. Deloitte is a corporate consultancy. This is not Green New Deal. This is a corporate consultancy:

If we allow climate change to go unchecked, it will ravage

our global economy. For the United States, the damages to

2070--

Which was their prediction date--

are projected to reach $14.5 trillion, a lifetime loss of

nearly $70,000 for each working American.

And we are not even talking about that seriously. We are here, instead, to let off the hook that segment of the oil and gas industry that is the worst polluters, that doesn't even meet their own industry standards, and that can get away from the fee that we will be voting down now by simply meeting industry standards. This is a shameful moment for the Senate.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.J. Res. 35, a resolution that will drive up energy prices in the United States. It is a radical measure that will gut one of the Inflation Reduction Act's most critical programs: the Methane Emissions Reduction Program.

With this resolution, Republicans are doubling down on their commitment to lining the pockets of their special interest corporate polluter friends at Americans' expense.

Of course, we shouldn't be surprised that the House Republicans continue to prioritize billionaires and big corporations over everyday Americans. Just last night, Republicans moved forward with a budget that includes devastating, life-altering cuts to Medicaid and food assistance for our kids, our seniors, and our veterans, all so Republicans can give tax breaks to their billionaire buddies.

Mr. Speaker, H.J. Res. 35 is just another giveaway that saddles Americans with higher energy bills, plain and simple, all to help Republicans' corporate polluter friends. What is more, repealing the Environmental Protection Agency's methane polluter fee slashes revenue for the government, meaning this bill will cost American taxpayers a whopping $7.2 billion.

This is really shameful and a massive waste of money and resources because the reality is that, without the methane polluter fee, it is cheaper for the oil and gas industry to waste valuable methane rather than install or upgrade equipment to control that pollution.

Currently, oil and gas companies waste enough natural gas from leaks, venting, and flaring to meet the energy demand of 14 million households every year. In other words, the oil and gas industry is throwing $2 billion worth of American energy down the drain every year, which Americans then have to pay for.

That wasted methane has grave consequences for our environment and for public health. Methane is an extremely dangerous greenhouse gas that accounts for nearly a third of today's global warming and is a key contributor to smog.

That is why key pollution control programs, such as the Methane Emissions Reduction Program, are so pivotal. The program includes a suite of incentives to drive down excess methane pollution, including $1.5 billion to help industry reduce methane emissions.

Mr. Speaker, at the heart of this program is the methane polluter fee, which is targeted by the resolution before us today. This fee is meant to correct the market failure that makes it cheaper for operators to waste methane rather than capture and sell it. It ensures that polluters pay for their own wasted energy and the harm that it causes, not American consumers.

It is not a tax. It is not at all. Unlike a tax, the methane polluter fee only applies to wasted methane above specific thresholds. These achievable thresholds are based on the oil and gas industry's own climate commitments and methane reduction targets. I have to stress that we worked with the industry when we were putting this together as part of the Inflation Reduction Act.

EPA then applies a fee for wasted methane that exceeds these thresholds, and the best part is that companies could avoid the fee altogether by simply not wasting methane. Members should understand that they don't even pay the fee if they don't waste the methane, and we actually have a fund to help them upgrade their equipment so that they do not waste the methane and actually improve the situation.

Many industry leaders are already meeting these thresholds that H.J. Res. 35 is trying to get rid of. Essentially, what my colleagues are seeing here is that the good actors are actually doing the right thing. They are not wasting methane anymore. Some of them have gotten help in order to upgrade their equipment, and then they don't pay any fee.

It is the bad actors, the dirtiest oil and gas companies and producers, I should say, that this helps because they don't want to have to upgrade. They don't care. They just want to pollute. That is really the unfortunate part of all of this. Instead of encouraging the good actors, we encourage the bad actors.

Mr. Speaker, addressing methane pollution can yield tremendous financial, climate, and public health benefits across the country. By incentivizing companies to capture lost revenue, the Methane Emissions Reduction Program and the methane polluter fee spur American innovation, strengthen businesses, and boost local economies.

In fact, in the 10 years between 2014 and 2024, there was an 88 percent increase in manufacturing firms in the methane mitigation industry, so this mitigation spurs industry and growth in the economy.

This sector employs thousands of Americans across the Nation with high-quality, good-paying jobs. Yet, in my opinion, this Republican resolution threatens those jobs and undermines American innovation.

It also not only blocks the EPA from implementing the program's waste emissions charge, also known as the methane polluter fee, but also prevents the EPA from ever taking similar action in the future.

Controlling methane pollution is a win-win for all Americans. It is unfortunate that my Republican colleagues are willing to throw all of this away in order to line the pockets of their corporate polluter friends, raising costs on hardworking Americans and the middle class in the process.

Make no mistake: President Trump, Elon Musk, and congressional Republicans have no intention of doing anything to lower energy bills for Americans, and H.J. Res. 35 is just the latest proof of that.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Tonko), the ranking member of our Environment Subcommittee.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask about this parliamentary inquiry. I yield myself such time if I can that there was a ruling on.

Well, the problem that I have, Mr. Speaker, unless I misunderstood--yes, it would be a parliamentary inquiry. Unless I misunderstood, Mr. Griffith was criticizing Mr. Tonko because he mentioned Elon Musk in the context of this debate.

I was in the back room before this debate started and the President had his first Cabinet meeting and Elon Musk was in charge of the Cabinet meeting, talking about every topic in the Federal Government.

As you know, he has used his position with DOGE to fire people at the

My question is, could you repeat that ruling and what it was about? Was it about Elon Musk?

All right. I don't have an--

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

Again, I am a little confused. If the gentleman--if Mr. Griffith's comment was about the fact that we cannot bring up Elon Musk, who is essentially in charge of so many government programs, including everything at the EPA--again, I was in the back room. He was addressing the Cabinet. No one was saying anything. He was talking about every government policy. He has fired people at the EPA. He has commented on every government policy, including EPA policy.

Again, I don't understand what the ruling was. I don't want to get into it again, but we certainly will continue to talk about Elon Musk and the negative impact of DOGE on the EPA, on methane, on everything else. That is what we are going to do.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Peters), a member of the Energy and Commerce Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from Virginia (Ms. McClellan), a member of our committee.

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time remains on each side.

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

As I mentioned, I am very much opposed to this resolution, and a big part of it is because I think it will cost the American taxpayers and the Federal Government more money.

The CBO has a preliminary cost estimate for this resolution, and it is a whopper. The CBO estimates that this resolution would cost American taxpayers $7.2 billion over the next 10 years.

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record an email from CBO regarding this.

H.J. Res. 35 would disapprove a final rule published by the

Environmental Protection Agency in November 2024 that

implemented a requirement in the 2022 reconciliation act

(Public Law 117-169). The rule detailed how the agency would

collect fees from certain energy-related facilities whose

methane emissions exceed a threshold specified by law.

Estimated revenue effects of H.J. Res. 35, a joint

resolution providing for Congressional disapproval under

chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule

submitted by the Environmental Protection Agency relating to

``Waste Emissions Charge for Petroleum and Natural Gas

Systems: Procedures for Facilitating Compliance, Including

Netting and Exemptions''.

As posted by the House Committee on Rules on February 24,

2025.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

By fiscal year, millions of dollars--

Mr. Speaker, again, $7.2 billion to have dirtier air, a more unstable climate, and waste more gas. I mean, it is really unbelievable.

Republicans have spent years getting mad about the deficit, but as we saw yesterday, the first chance they got, they plan to increase the deficit by trillions of dollars in their budget resolution to give tax breaks to billionaires.

This bill is more of the same. They are encouraging oil and gas companies to let their products go to waste to the tune of $7.2 billion rather than put them to work for American families just to line the pockets of their oil and gas allies.

I listened to the gentleman from Alaska, and we are all in favor of developing our natural resources. There was more oil and gas pumped under President Biden than any other President since I have been here. We want to develop our resources but in a way that helps Americans save dollars.

I heard Dr. Joyce on our committee talk about our allies. I mean, I have got to be honest with you. When I listen to Trump, he makes it sound like our allies are our adversaries, and our adversaries like Russia are our allies. He talks about investing in Russian resources and oil and gas.

Again, I don't know what this administration is doing. I know that what the Republicans are doing today is definitely not a good thing for the American people. It is not good for our deficit. It is going to essentially cost Americans more, and it is only going to result in more pollution. When, in fact, this is working and this methane fee is actually getting the oil and gas industry to correct this problem and recycle the methane and not waste it.

We are just trying to do what makes sense from every point of view here. The Methane Emissions Reduction Program is a win-win for everybody, and this resolution is a lose-lose for everybody, in my opinion.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Dexter).

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

Mr. Speaker, I spoke before about how the Methane Emissions Reduction Program is a win-win and how this resolution is a lose-lose. The bottom line is that curbing methane waste is an opportunity for the oil and gas industry itself. The industry really wants to waste less methane.

It is simple logic. Each molecule of methane saved is one they can sell to people. Oil and gas operators emit the equivalent of about $2 billion worth of wasted natural gas every year, and there is money to be made in that. On the other hand, repealing this program, which is what this resolution does, will cost us $7.2 billion and at the same time pollutes our air. It is a lose-lose scenario.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I really stress that the Republicans keep talking about how this Methane Emissions Reduction Program harms the industry. Nothing could be further from the truth.

There are a whole bunch of incentives in this program to drive down excess methane pollution and remediate the effects of pollution that do occur, but the program provides over $1.5 billion to assist the industry with reducing current and legacy methane emissions, including $700 million of incentives for small producers.

The methane charge, or fee, only applies to wasted methane above specific thresholds based on the oil and gas industry's own climate commitments and methane reduction targets. We worked with the industry to put this together. They are cooperating with us. It is the opposite of the idea that somehow they are harmed. They are benefiting. They are actually making money from it.

Overall, the Methane Emissions Reduction Program recognizes the cleanest performers, holds companies responsible for their own leaks and wasted methane, drives innovation, and creates a lot of jobs. The whole idea is to get them to do the right thing. We even give them money in order to accomplish that with their equipment, and it is working. This idea that it is harmful is just nonsense.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I have a lot of respect for the gentleman from Texas, and he described once for me his district, Midland, and the oil and gas production there.

I must stress, I actually did spend a lot of time talking to the industry when we were putting this methane emissions program together. I can speak firsthand that I spoke to the industry. The main thing they were concerned about is they did not want this program to be punitive. They said: We want to correct this problem. We don't want to waste methane, but you have to give us some sort of incentive to do this.

That is what we did. Rather than have a punitive program, we have $1.5 billion to assist industry with reducing current and legacy methane emissions. Mr. Speaker, $700 million of that is specifically set aside for small producers, which I know there are a lot of those in the district of the gentleman from Texas.

Unfortunately, much of that $700 million to help the small producers has been stalled by President Trump with his funding freeze. That harms the small producers who are counting on those critical funds.

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

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

I just want to stress, Mr. Speaker, that the methane polluter fee corrects a market failure that currently makes it cheaper for owners and operators to waste methane instead of installing or upgrading their equipment to prevent leaks and flaring.

In other words, what we want them to do is to upgrade their equipment, prevent the leaks and the flaring. If they do that, we give them money, including a set-aside for small producers so that this happens and they don't pay the fee.

Leaked or intentionally wasted natural gas never makes its way to customers, but they are nevertheless stuck with the bill. They have to pay for that.

The Methane Emissions Reduction Program will ensure that American consumers no longer pay for wasted energy or the harm that these emissions can cause.

The bottom line is that wasted methane is bad for business. It is bad for consumers. It is bad for the climate. The problem with H.J. Res. 35 is it will allow this waste to continue unchecked.

This is a program that is working. Don't kill it with this resolution. You are going to kill jobs. You are going to kill our efforts to try to reduce methane in the environment, and you are not helping anybody in the industry.

For all these reasons, Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``no'' on H.J. Res. 35, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

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. President, when Donald Trump and DOGE began their work, they kept saying the same thing. Donald Trump, Elon Musk, and DOGE said: This is about cutting waste; it is about efficiency; it is about meritocracy. Unfortunately, the truth has not been as advertised. It has been utter chaos.

Yesterday, the Department of Veterans Affairs said they were reversing course on canceling billions of dollars in contract work because, as it turns out, slashing billions in funding that helps veterans is extremely harmful for veterans. These VA cuts were lauded by DOGE as an example of eliminating waste. The VA Secretary claimed these contracts were for consultants ``to make PowerPoint slides and write meeting minutes.'' That is not even close to the truth.

Let me read some examples of what DOGE was actually prepared to cut: Funding for chemotherapy and imaging services, those were going to be cut--hardly make-work, hardly writing meeting minutes. Funding for veterans with disabilities--cut--even funding to help veterans suffering from toxic exposure in burn pits. One contract would help over 20,000 veterans track down their military service records from DOD in order to prove their toxic exposure, as is required. Without these records, getting affordable treatment would not likely be possible, and DOGE said: Let's cut that, too.

Even if the VA reverses course, canceling these contracts and firing VA staff is still immediately damaging--very damaging. There is the risk that you can't rehire workers back in time because they have moved on to other jobs or contracts aren't available because they took their business elsewhere, and, by then, the damage is

done. Vital services and operations that serve veterans can't continue as before. It could take months--maybe even years--to build this back, which had been built up carefully to help veterans over the years, and many of us in Congress worked for those things; so to cut these services and then say ``never mind'' still ends up being very destructive. Sadly, this is only one example.

Yesterday, Elon Musk led his first Cabinet meeting of this administration. He admitted that DOGE's approach has led to many erroneous cuts to staff and programs that are not wasteful but, on the contrary, vital.

For example, he said:

With USAID, one of the things we accidentally cancelled

very briefly was Ebola prevention.

Those are his words.

Are you kidding me? Cutting funds to stop one of the deadliest diseases in the world is reckless, especially when there is an Ebola outbreak in Uganda as we speak, and flights leave Kampala every day and go all over the world. When epidemics hit America, they oftentimes begin abroad, and U.S. funding is essential to prevent those diseases from reaching us here at all.

I should also note that the claims that Ebola funding is back online are false. Reports are out from last night that 95 percent of all USAID funding is now being cut. So we are not sure where it all is.

What DOGE is doing is not what efficiency looks like. If DOGE actually cares about efficiency and meritocracy, then it is failing, in many ways, its own test. It would be better to look at these programs, see which might be wasteful, see which are needed, and then make the cuts to the wasteful programs, not take a meat-ax or a blowtorch--call it what you will--cut everything, and then say we will restore some of the things that we shouldn't have cut, because once you make those cuts, it is very hard to put the pieces back together.

Taxes

Mr. President, on Republican taxes, last month, consumer confidence took its biggest nosedive in 4 years--the biggest nosedive in 4 years. This is how confident consumers, average Americans, feel about the economy. Inflation is trending back up. The price of eggs is sky high. The threat of a trade war looms over our country, and Americans are fearful that things are not going to get any better anytime soon. And what are Republicans doing about all of this? They are trying to cut taxes for billionaires--trying to cut taxes for billionaires--and make the American people pay for it.

The Republican agenda is quickly taking shape. Under Donald Trump's Republican Party, billionaires win; American families lose.

It doesn't matter if Republicans go with 1 bill or 2 bills or 50 bills. That is what they are debating right now. Their endgame--House and Senate Republicans--has always been cutting taxes for billionaires and forcing American families to pick up the tab.

Of course, Senate Republicans know that cutting Medicaid by over $800 billion to lower taxes for billionaires is wildly unpopular. They know that increasing the deficit by up to $5 trillion to help the ultrarich contradicts everything the so-called party of fiscal responsibility stands for. They say they have to cut all this stuff to reduce the deficit, and then, with their tax breaks for billionaires, they increase the deficit, no matter what sleight-of-hand accounting method they use.

What are Republicans doing about fiscal responsibility? Are they admitting that their plans would be a disaster for the deficit? No. Instead, Senate Republicans are engaged in budgetary hocus-pocus to hide the true cost of their tax cuts for the ultrarich, and there may be signs that House Republicans are going along.

Instead of admitting the truth about the consequences of their plans, they are pursuing a gimmick called ``current policy baseline''--a gimmick, if there ever was one--which is essentially an attempt to magically turn $5 trillion of deficit spending into zero dollars of deficit spending. Well, that can't happen and doesn't happen, and the economy will realize it doesn't happen. Any junior high school math student could tell you this is a bunch of bunk. You can't pass $5 trillion to cut taxes for the rich and pretend like it doesn't affect the deficit.

The issue isn't complicated. Republicans are trying to hide the true cost of their billionaire tax cuts from the American people. Meanwhile, they are getting ready to eviscerate funding for healthcare that serves over 80 million Americans--kids, seniors, rural communities. These cuts to Medicaid will dramatically hurt rural America, people with disabilities, and more.

The only people who seem to be opposing this is the hard-right Freedom Caucus, because they seem to really care about the deficit. Let's hope they stay strong for the sake of the economy and this country.

Of course, the American people are not going to take these Medicaid cuts lying down.

Last night, I got on a Zoom. Over 3,000 New Yorkers, worried about the attacks from Republicans on healthcare, got on the Zoom, many more than we expected. These were rank-and-file folks, healthcare advocates, union members, and concerned citizens from all walks of life. They were all upset about the cuts to Medicaid and putting those cuts in place in order to give tax breaks for billionaires.

It was a great call. It was an energizing call. I urge my colleagues to do the same, as many of them are. It is a stark reminder of what is at stake but also a reminder that the American people don't like these cuts.

We heard from New Yorkers who are in danger of having their Medicaid coverage taken away if Republicans proceed with their actions, on this Zoom of over 3,000 people. But we also talked about taking action.

I urged participants to call their Members of Congress. I urged them to mobilize online and to organize in their communities. We urged everyone to make their voices heard, like we are seeing in the townhall meetings.

I reminded folks that organizing is not easy, but it works. It changes things, and it is going to make a difference in making sure Medicaid is protected.

Nomination of Linda McMahon

Mr. President, on our Education Secretary nominee, today, the Senate will vote on whether to advance the nomination of Linda McMahon as Secretary of Education.

Mrs. McMahon's nomination comes as President Trump has been clear about cutting funding for education and abolishing the Department of Education entirely.

Is Mrs. McMahon going to go along? I hope not.

Cutting education is not what the American people want. The American people don't want a radical, out-of-touch billionaire slashing funding for public schools. When you slash Federal funding for education, guess what happens. Since so many of our school districts--urban, suburban, rural--depend on this Federal money, it leads to higher property taxes for people back home.

If you eliminate the Department of Education as a whole, that means local communities are forced to pick up the tab to fund the schools. It means that families in these communities will pay in the form of higher property taxes to make up the loss of Federal funding. But communities will also be forced to slash other programs to make room for funding for schools.

Again, this is not what the American people want. This is not what they voted for.

Mrs. McMahon, in my judgment, is not qualified to lead America's public education. She seems not to care very much about it. But that is precisely why President Trump nominated her. She is the perfect choice to bring our public education system burning to the ground.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for a little more than a minute.

Mr. President, every American should be paying close attention to what is about to happen on the floor. In just a few moments, the Senate will vote on a Republican resolution that is straight from the wish list of Big Oil and Big Gas.

Instead of spending floor time pushing legislation that will lower costs for American families, Republicans are bowing to Big Oil and Gas billionaires by trying to reverse the methane waste emissions charge which Democrats passed in the Inflation Reduction Act. Donald Trump and DOGE claim to care about efficiency, but Republicans are undoing a measure to reduce oil and gas waste and are making prices for the consumer go up--prices going up--when they are saying they want prices to go down. The rule we passed has been one of our most important tools to lower energy prices, to hold Big Oil and Big Gas accountable, to keep excessive and harmful levels of methane

out of our atmosphere, which my friend Mr. Whitehouse, who has done such a good job on this issue, tells me is 80 times as poisonous as CO2. Without this safeguard, Big Oil and Gas can waste as much natural gas as they like and then pass the cost on to consumers.

Why are Republicans doing this? Well, it is simple. They are putting the needs of Big Oil and Gas companies over the needs of the American people, over the health of the American people and the health of our environment, our climate, our globe. And the consequences for the American people, for their health and their energy bills, are going to be very harmful.

I urge my colleagues to think carefully, one last time, before voting to overturn it.