Unlocking our Domestic LNG Potential Act of 2025

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up

House Resolution 879 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 in which to revise and extend their remarks.

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

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

Yesterday, the Rules Committee met and produced a rule, H. Res. 879, providing for the House's consideration of eight separate measures.

The rule provides closed rules for consideration of S.J. Res. 80, H.J. Res. 130, H.J. Res. 131 with 1 hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Natural Resources, or their respective designees, for each joint resolution. The rule provides each such joint resolution one motion to recommit.

Further, the rule provides closed rules for the consideration of H.R. 1949 and H.R. 3109 with 1 hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, or their respective designees, for each bill. The rule provides each bill with a motion to recommit.

Additionally, the rule provides for consideration of H. Con. Res. 58 under a closed rule with 1 hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Financial Services, or their respective designees.

The rule also provides for consideration of H.R. 5214 and H.R. 5107 under closed rules with 1 hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, or their respective designees, on each bill. The rule provides for one motion to recommit for each bill.

Finally, the rule tables H. Res. 581 upon the transmission of a message to the Senate that the House has passed H.R. 4405.

Mr. Speaker, after over 40 days of the Democrat government shutdown, the House has returned to regular order, and this majority is continuing to push forward with the America First agenda, the American people's agenda.

All of these pieces of legislation we are considering today are in alignment with the American people's demand and President Trump's executive orders that we maintain a robust posture of American energy dominance.

You know, Mr. Speaker, our Democrat colleagues have developed a strong proclivity to thumb their noses at the development of energy that comes from American soil. One must wonder why they choose to do that. They pay lipservice to environmental protections and reducing greenhouse gas emissions, but it is just a fact that American oil and American natural gas are cleaner and more environmentally friendly than any from our global competitors.

Why would they cede our dominance on the global stage in favor of hostile actors who lack even the most basic environmental protections?

We are blessed as a nation to have vast repositories of natural resources that we can draw from and utilize accordingly. When we ignore the opportunities to harness these resources for our benefit, we deny ourselves the opportunity to grow more self-sufficient.

H.R. 5214 and H.R. 5107, two measures reported from the Oversight and Government Reform Committee, focus on restoring law and order in our Nation's Capital City, a city that ought to be a model for the rest of the Nation to follow.

H.R. 5214 would revoke cashless bail in the District of Columbia and would require mandatory pretrial and postconviction detention for crimes of violence and other dangerous crimes.

H.R. 5107 would repeal the Comprehensive Policing and Justice Reform Amendment Act of 2022 enacted by the District of Columbia Council. This act targeted police officers in D.C. for simply doing their duties, and it led to over 1,600 officers being removed from the city's force.

Thanks to President Trump's efforts, the streets in D.C. are safer, and we have the opportunity through these two measures to add to that progress.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, we have H. Con. Res. 58, a resolution denouncing the horrors of socialism. Most of us here in this body recognize how dangerous the plague of socialism really is. We understand its history of failure and oppression. Throughout history, this ideology has collapsed into the most brutal of dictatorships, communist regimes, and outright totalitarian rule.

Many are quick to avert their eyes and cover their ears when presented with facts about the horrors of socialism, how many individuals across the world have suffered and died because of it. This resolution will put everyone in this body on record. The American people will see who espouses this caustic ideology and those who reject it.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, while it is true there have been 80 closed measures, this number needs context. Twelve of the closed rules were in the rules package, which passed 2 weeks before the 119th Rules Committee even organized to begin meeting. Additionally, 25 measures were CRAs. They don't allow for an amendment. Sixteen were bills that received no amendments, meaning 41 measures were closed by definition. It is also important that four of the closed rules are duplicates from a previous failed rule. In reality, only 27 measures have been closed by discretion of the Committee.

Additionally, the Rules Committee under Republican control has simply been more productive, producing more total rules than our colleagues ever did. For example, during the most recent Democratic-controlled Congresses, the Rules Committee produced 127 total rules in the 116th Congress and 163 in the 117th Congress. Contrast this to the 200 total rules in the Republican-led 118th Congress. For the 119th, we are on pace to once again produce nearly 200 rules for the Congress.

Mr. Speaker, we are doing our job. We are not closing out debate. We are having plenty of debate. There are plenty of opportunities for our colleagues to offer amendments. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Utah (Mr. Owens).

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

Mr. Speaker, let's be clear: Republicans don't oppose the full transparency of the Epstein files. We embrace the Oversight Committee's task of doing just that. We embrace Representative Massie's legislation here today by putting it up for a vote under suspension. I will be voting for it.

We already have a House investigation that carries the full force of law, and there is no opposition to respecting the majority's wishes to get this codified into law. Let's get to it. Let's get to the vote and end these false debates, straw man arguments, and non sequiturs.

We tried to pass this bill last week, but Democrats wouldn't agree to doing so. Let's vote now. Democrats should stop, listen, and take yes for an answer.

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

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

At the top of this page, I have written: ``Democrat hypocrisy on Epstein.'' Mr. Speaker, that is what we are hearing today.

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to be a member of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee. I am proud to have supported the full investigation into the Epstein files on that committee.

Furthermore, I am proud to have supported formalizing that investigation by taking the decisive step in directing that investigation by a special rule provided by the Rules Committee. This gave the Oversight Committee's investigation the full weight of the House of Representatives behind the committee's existing subpoena power. It is very important in this debate.

Mr. Speaker, let's get things straight here. In just a matter of hours, we will vote on the Massie bill. That won't preclude the existing House Oversight and Government Reform Committee's investigation in any way. That is a great thing because that investigation is yielding results.

We now know that one of Jeffrey Epstein's closest confidantes was apparently Larry Summers, a Cabinet member in the Clinton administration. We now know that a Democrat Member in this body, Stacey Plaskett, was colluding with Jeffrey Epstein in real time during a hearing. The subject matter was how to take down President Trump. We can't make this stuff up.

We now know that Epstein himself hated President Trump. It is in black and white. We now know that one of the chief Epstein victims stated that President Trump never acted inappropriately.

Don't forget that oversight investigations specifically subpoenaed Bill and Hillary Clinton for their ties to Jeffrey Epstein. They haven't been quick to step into the breach and exonerate themselves, have they?

The truth will continue to come out, as it has, because of Republicans and a current Republican-led House Oversight and Government Reform Committee investigation, one that already carries the full force of law. Let's see where that leads.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, we need to get facts straight here. President Trump's Department of Justice in his first term arrested and prosecuted Jeffrey Epstein. We, on our side, want justice to prevail in this case and in every case.

Speaker Johnson has always been clear that if the discharge petition reached the necessary signatures, then the House would consider the legislation, and that is what we are providing for in our rule today.

In fact, as soon as the petition hit 218 votes last Wednesday, House Republicans offered a unanimous consent request to pass the legislation then.

However, the Democratic leader would not give consent to do that last week.

Why?

It is because they are not really interested in this. They are interested in some other things.

Mr. Speaker, I have to correct the Record.

Mr. Massie did not request time from me. I am the person who controls the time on the Republican side. He did not request time from me. I would have given him time.

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

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

Our colleagues want Americans to believe that this discharge petition and underlying legislation are the be-all and end-all in this investigation. However, it is House Republicans who have worked tirelessly to achieve true justice for victims.

To date, the significant information that has come out has come from the Oversight and Government Reform Committee as a result of it issuing 13 subpoenas. We have released 65,000 pages of documents from the Department of Justice; the Epstein estate, which was not mentioned in the underlying legislation; the former U.S. attorney; and others.

Let me say it again. The unanimous-consent request to pass the legislation immediately last week was blocked by the minority leader, full stop. If Democrats truly cared about finding justice immediately for victims, this legislation would have been passed last week. Instead, they want political theater to capitalize on.

House Republicans, on the other hand, remain focused on truth, accountability, and delivering real justice for Epstein's victims, not political points.

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, those of us who did not sign the discharge petition are just as concerned about the victims or, as some are calling them, survivors as our colleagues who signed the discharge petition.

We share contempt for anyone who abused anyone else. I have stood on this floor many times, Mr. Speaker, to speak out for victims and survivors of people who have been abused and against anyone who breaks the law or takes advantage of an innocent person.

We will not be characterized as insensitive to that, but House Republicans

who didn't sign the discharge petition remain focused on truth, accountability, and delivering real justice for Epstein victims.

Again, I will point out that it was under President Trump's Department of Justice that Jeffrey Epstein was arrested and tried. We have not tried to avoid this situation. We want things done the right way. We want maximum justice for these victims and survivors.

Our rule today simply expedites consideration of the Massie-Khanna legislation. As I said, we would have liked to have seen it pass last week when we gave an opportunity for it, but it was blocked by the Democratic minority leader.

Mr. Speaker, I ask for support for this rule and the underlying legislation. I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the previous question and ``yes'' on the rule.

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this bill. This bill would allow unlimited amounts of our liquefied natural gas, or LNG, to be sent abroad to any designation in the world including to our adversaries like China.

This is all about China. The President gets up on a regular basis and says we need to export more LNG to China. My Republican colleagues say they worry about Beijing and what Beijing is doing to challenge us. Yet, they are going to allow with this bill unlimited exports to Communist China.

By sending more American LNG abroad, this bill would reduce our energy resources at home, raising our constituents' utility bills at a time when they can least afford it. It just makes common sense that if we send liquefied natural gas abroad, it is going to raise the price here because there will be less here. It is just Economics 101, in my opinion.

Americans are already being crushed by the rising cost of living. Now Republicans are making matters worse by pushing legislation that will only drive up monthly power bills even further. It is quite the departure from President Trump's campaign promise to cut American power bills in half. He said that during the course of the campaign that in the first year he would cut power bills in half. Instead, they keep climbing.

Right now, thanks to the congressional Republicans' backward energy policies, electricity prices are climbing more than twice as fast as inflation. More than 80 million Americans are struggling to pay their utility bills, with many having to make the impossible choice of either paying for medicine and food or keeping their lights on. I think it is a disgrace that, instead of offering up solutions to this affordability crisis, Republicans are here today to just make it worse.

Let's be clear, Mr. Speaker. It is a well-established fact that unlimited LNG exports would increase prices here at home. If my colleagues don't believe me, last year the Secretary of Energy noted: ``Unfettered exports of LNG would increase wholesale domestic natural gas prices by over 30 percent.''

Mr. Speaker, if you are a Republican who perhaps didn't trust the Democratic Department of Energy, I would certainly assume you could trust your own current Department of Energy.

Just last week, the Energy Information Administration noted that it expects natural gas prices to increase by 16 percent next year due largely to increased exports of LNG. Mr. Speaker, 16 percent is on top of the 15 percent increase in natural gas costs that Americans already suffered this year. It is all due to the LNG export approvals that President Trump made in his first term.

All this bill does is make that problem worse by ensuring there are zero restrictions on how much of our own LNG we are shipping out to other countries. The only ones who stand to benefit are fossil fuel companies, proving that Republicans care more about padding the profits of their rich fossil fuel friends than they do about lowering costs for the average American.

Mr. Speaker, I want to stress the China part again. China is one of the top recipients of American LNG, and not only the President but LNG companies are openly bragging about how they can sell to Chinese buyers. This bill completely removes any review of whether exporting more of our LNG to China is in the public interest.

The chairman said that that is a presumption that the public interest has met. I argue it is more than a presumption. There is no longer any review of the public interest. When I talk about the public interest, I am talking about price. I am talking about national security. I am talking about impact on the environment, the air, and whatever people breathe.

This bill completely removes any review of what is in the public interest before we export to China or anyone else. To me, it is the very reversal. The President talks about America First. This is putting America last in my opinion.

Mr. Speaker, I don't know what to say. We have seen this story before. Mr. Speaker, 10 years ago, Congress removed the ban on exporting American crude oil. I already mentioned that. Before that, we were only sending China 420,000 barrels of oil each year. We now send China more than 160 million barrels of oil a year.

Clearly, Republicans have learned nothing from that, despite constantly proclaiming the importance of beating China in the AI race and so many other things. Republicans consistently say that losing the AI race to China would be like losing the Cold War to Russia. The bill they are proposing today is like selling rocket fuel to the Soviets during the space race. It defies all logic.

Finally, I want to point out a basic fact. We have already approved enough permits to triple our LNG exports by the end of the decade, and that is on top of the more than quadrupling of LNG exports we have already seen over the last 6 years. When my colleagues on the other side talk about Europe and our allies, there is no way that at this point with the permits that have already been approved that the Europeans or any of our allies have to worry about not getting enough LNG from us.

Mr. Speaker, I think it makes sense to ask the Department of Energy to keep an eye on this to ensure that all these exports are actually a good thing and are in our public interest: For our economy, for our national security, and for the communities that we here represent.

All this bill does is get rid of all of that and say we don't care and we should export whatever we want to China or whoever else. The American people are tired of these antics. They don't have time for them. They need us to get serious about addressing the skyrocketing cost of living. Today they will see that Republicans are making it worse, while Democrats are fighting to make it better to try to reduce prices.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Castor), who is the ranking member of the Energy Subcommittee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentlewoman.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Ruiz), a member of our committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez), a member of the committee.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Maryland (Ms. Elfreth).

Mr. Speaker, I will mention to my colleagues on the other side that the Biden administration did not ban LNG exports.

There was a pause because they were concerned about the public interest, in particular, because the price was increasing for power, for natural gas, and so many other things.

It made sense to take a review and see what that meant for price, what that meant for national security, what that meant for the environment and climate.

The reality is that the amount of natural gas permits and LNG permits continue to rise and rise every day. This idea that somehow they banned it is simply not the case.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Casten).

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I hear my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, the Republicans, talk about the demand for LNG in Europe and how we are not giving Europe or other allies enough LNG. The fact of the matter is that we are sending more LNG to our European allies and our other allies than ever before.

DOE, the Department of Energy, has issued enough permits to triple our export capacity from what it is today, even if they never issued another permit. That will take us into the early 2030s, when European policy is set to reduce natural gas consumption. We have approved so many terminals that

most forecasters are seeing a massive glut of LNG on the market starting next year and running well into the 2030s.

If this bill never becomes law, our European allies, our allies--I think South Korea or Japan was mentioned--will be well supplied.

What is really happening here with this bill is helping China. That is what this is about, Beijing, Communist China.

In 2024 alone, the United States exported over 200 billion cubic feet of gas to China. At a time when Americans are struggling to pay their heating bills and our power grids are facing unprecedented demand, President Trump and his Republican Party care more about subsidizing China's economic development and basically lining the pockets of their fossil fuel friends.

Republicans claim to be obsessed with beating China in the AI race. Why are they trying to advance a bill that makes it easier to send American LNG to China to fuel their data centers and AI tools? Why are they putting the profits of Chinese technology companies over the well- being of American families and the success of our American companies?

I have said this before, but it bears repeating. Republicans on the Committee on Energy and Commerce have compared winning the AI race with China to the importance of winning the Cold War. If that is true, then why are we sending more energy and trying to send even more and more energy to China? It makes absolutely no sense.

H.R. 1949 will enrich Big Oil and the Chinese technology companies that rely on LNG to fuel their data centers, all while worsening the energy affordability crisis that Americans are experiencing. The only Americans who benefit from this deal are the rich fossil fuel executives.

H.R. 1949 squarely puts China first and America last. The President and the Republicans keep talking about putting America first. How does this bill do that? This bill does the opposite.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I respect the chairman of our committee so much. The last time he spoke, he said that we need the world energy price to come down. What about the price here in the United States? The price is higher in the rest of the world than it is here, and that is why the rest of the world wants more of our LNG, because it is cheaper for them.

What about us, though? Shouldn't we be primarily concerned about Americans and the price here?

This bill, in my opinion, is just a giant handout to Big Oil and Gas that enriches our adversaries, primarily China, and forces middle-class families to pay the price with higher home energy bills. The bill removes the requirement that the Department of Energy determine LNG exports to be in the public interest before approving any export applications.

The bill assumes that all exports of LNG are automatically in the public interest. I think this is absurd, considering multiple analyses have found that increased LNG exports directly lead to higher natural gas prices here in America.

Last year, the Department of Energy's own review was clear: Unfettered gas exports will hurt the American economy. It found that energy costs would go up by more than $100 per year for every individual. At the same time, that is on top of the costs imposed by Republicans' big beautiful or ugly bill.

The Department of Energy also found that natural gas prices would increase by over 30 percent, so we are essentially, in this bill, removing crucial safeguards. What you are going to have instead is a Wild West, allowing all adversaries like China to purchase even more of our energy, essentially, to use against us.

This is the same playbook that Republicans ran when they repealed the crude oil export ban in 2015. After that repeal went through, oil exports to China increased from 420,000 barrels per year to over 160 million barrels per year in 2023. Last year, the United States sent 213 billion cubic feet of LNG to China, but Trump says he wants to send even more. He says that all the time.

All I am saying is if beating China is really as important as Republicans and President Trump claim, we shouldn't be raising our own energy prices just to fuel Chinese data centers. That is what this bill does.

I ask my colleagues to vote ``no,'' and I yield back the balance of my time, Mr. Speaker.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from North Carolina for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, Americans are working more and more for less and less.

Almost every day, I speak with young people who can't afford to start a family, can't buy a house, and can't get ahead. I hear it from seniors who are struggling to survive on fixed incomes. I see it with my own eyes. Moms and dads are putting items back on the shelves in the grocery store because they can't afford them. Parents can't go back to work because they can't afford childcare. People's health insurance premiums are doubling and tripling because this majority has failed to act.

During election season, we heard from Trump and Republicans who swore up and down they would bring down prices. They promised the American people they would reverse inflation and focus like a laser on affordability. They have broken that promise. They have betrayed the American people.

If you want more evidence of that, look at the bills on the floor today: more garbage, more culture war crap, more bills written by this Republican majority of, by, and for the billionaire class.

Republicans moved Heaven and Earth to give tax breaks to the rich and powerful. That got done in a nanosecond.

If you are a regular person staring down next year's healthcare premium hikes and deciding whether to pay a thousand bucks more or put food on the table, the answer you get back from the Republicans is: Let them eat cake.

We are barreling toward another shutdown at the end of January. We could have spent the last 2 months working on passing the nine appropriations bills Republicans still need to pass to stop another shutdown. Instead, they went on a taxpayer-funded paid vacation for 8 weeks.

Let me just say, because we are debating a rule to consider these eight bills, this rule sucks. There are eight closed rules, no amendments, no changes allowed on the floor, take it or leave it. If you are keeping count at home, that is 80 completely closed rules this Congress, the most ever in a year.

Mr. Speaker, I want to correct the gentlewoman because last night in the Rules Committee she said that five of these bills didn't receive any amendments. That is because she didn't ask for any. When you don't send an amendment deadline, everyone knows you are doing a closed rule.

My Republican colleagues have been complicit in these 80 closed rules. Nearly 9 out of 10 times, the majority party has not been allowed to bring amendments to the floor. They are getting blocked by their own leadership time and time again. How does that feel?

Again, this is a terrible rule, and I urge a ``no'' vote. I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, those are a lot of words to justify the most closed Congress in history, the most authoritarian Congress in history. It would make Putin blush.

Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to provide for consideration of H.R. 6074, which would extend the Affordable Care Act enhanced premium tax credits for 3 years, through 2028.

We are in the midst of a healthcare crisis. More than 20 million Americans who get their healthcare on the ACA exchanges are going to see their premiums skyrocket next year. That includes 250,000 people in my home State of Massachusetts, who are paying lower premiums and copays due to these tax credits, which Democrats created in 2021 and which are set to expire at the end of the year.

Let me read you some of the stories from folks in my district: I just received my letter, and my monthly costs have gone from $1,287 to $3,026 for next year. As a working family with a daughter who has an autoimmune disease, we are struggling, and I am working 50-plus hours a week just to pay the insurance.

Here is another one: With the Health Connector, I was paying $264 per month, acceptable seeing that I am healthy but not young. Without the advanced premium tax credit, my monthly premium will be just over $800 per month. I can't and I won't pay that. I will go without.

This is happening across the country, and for the sake of millions of Americans and their healthcare, I urge my Republican colleagues to support this bill and vote ``no'' on the previous question.

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, shortly on the floor, Republicans are about to finally bring up the Massie-Khanna bill to release the Epstein files. We had to drag this leadership here kicking and screaming.

I appreciate their sudden and stunning change of heart on this issue, but I state for the record that the Republican leadership has tried to block this day for months and months and months.

I also want to state for the record that Donald Trump could release these files on his own, today, right now, right this very second. He doesn't need to wait for Congress to pass the bill. He could release the files himself, but he won't. That is why we are here, because he refuses to act.

Meanwhile, the Republican majority has blocked transparency at every turn. They stonewalled in committee. The gentlewoman from North Carolina and every Republican on the Rules Committee voted nine times to block my amendment to release the Epstein files, nine times.

Republicans were so afraid of my amendment that Speaker Johnson shut down the Rules Committee and sent us home early in July, and then he refused to swear in a new Member of Congress for weeks because she promised to be the 218th signature to force this bill forward. Only four Republicans signed the discharge petition. Every single Democrat signed on.

In a few moments, I am going to yield time to Representative Massie, who has been the Republican leader of this effort alongside Representative Khanna on the Democratic side. Here is why I am doing that: This bill should be getting a full hour of debate on the floor, but Speaker Johnson, I guess at Donald Trump's direction, is throwing every procedural gimmick at the wall to see what sticks, and he is trying to limit debate on the floor because for some reason he is very, very afraid of talking about this. That is why I am donating a significant chunk of my time to Members who have been silenced by the Speaker for the terrible crime of demanding truth and transparency.

If I had to guess, most Republicans will probably vote in favor of releasing the files, but they are not voting ``yes'' because their conscience changed. They are voting ``yes'' because Donald Trump tells most of them how to vote, and he realized he has lost on this one.

He says that people who support this bill ``betrayed the entire Republican Party.'' Really, really? How is accountability for a pedophile, something Donald Trump campaigned on, how is that now a betrayal? This was his issue, his idea. He ran on releasing the files.

By the way, to those who say that Biden should have released these files, let me just address that right now. You are right, he should have, but he didn't make it his number one issue, and he is not the President right now. Donald Trump is. He could have released the files at any point over the last 11 months, but he has not.

Republicans have had months to sign the discharge petition. They had months to bring this bill to the floor, but this leadership has chosen obstruction. They don't want to pass this bill. They don't even want to talk about it on the House floor, and so that is why debate matters.

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

Mr. Speaker, the gentlewoman doesn't oppose this? Boy, she has a funny way of showing it. I gave the gentlewoman nine opportunities in the Committee on Rules to bring this measure to the floor. I gave her nine opportunities. Every time I brought up an amendment, she voted it down. There were nine opportunities. To say that somehow this is always what they wanted, I don't know, but that doesn't pass the smell test.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Khanna).

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentleman from California.

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

Mr. Speaker, the gentlewoman says that we should just trust her and Republican leadership. After what I saw unfold over these last several months, I can't. There was obstruction and the use of every maneuver possible to avoid this moment we have here today.

I say for the record: It doesn't matter whether there are Republicans, Democrats, or Independents implicated in these files. We believe in accountability for everybody who abuses young women. We believe in justice. That is kind of what is uniting many of us on this side of the aisle here today.

Mr. Speaker, I thank Representative Khanna for his leadership. I thank Representative Massie, Representative Greene, and Representative Mace for their courage and for their willingness to stand up for what is right. We don't agree on very much, but we do agree there ought to be accountability when young women are abused. That is what this is about.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Massie) to control the time.

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

Mr. Speaker, first, let me say how much I admire the courage of my Republican colleagues who are beside me here today.

Mr. Speaker, at the end of the day, this is not about us, and it is not about politics. This is about the survivors, young girls who were exploited by powerful men. These were men who used money and power to take advantage of girls, some as young as 11 years old.

The President of the United States calls it all a hoax. Can you imagine that? What an evil and disgusting thing to say. These young girls, now women, the survivors, what happened to them was horrific. They were sexually abused, many of them for years, and the President of the United States calls it all a hoax.

What kind of messed up, sick-in-the-head, immoral person says something like that? This bill is about making sure that powerful men are held accountable. It is about demanding truth and transparency for the American people.

Republican leaders in this House lost control of the story. They lost the ability to hide behind procedure, and they lost the luxury of pretending that they were ever on the right side. The American people see it. Survivors see it, and history will see it.

Listening to the Speaker of the House's press conference today, it sounds like he basically wants to kill this whole thing. He is trying to obstruct and derail the process.

Why the hell is he fighting so hard to do the opposite of what the survivors want? What an awful, awful thing to do.

Let us release the files. Let's give survivors the transparency they have long been denied. Let us take back power from the rich, billionaire elites who think that they can do whatever they want with no justice or accountability. Let's remember exactly who had to be dragged here under duress and who stood up from day one to demand the truth.

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

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 879, I call up the bill (H.R. 1949) to repeal restrictions on the export and import of natural gas, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 1949.

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

Mr. Speaker, in February 2016, the first cargo of U.S. LNG set sail from the lower 48, making the United States a natural gas exporter for the first time since the 1960s.

Since then, exports have increased from 5 billion cubic feet per day in 2016 to nearly 12 billion cubic feet per day in 2024, making the U.S. the global leader in LNG in less than a decade.

U.S. LNG has played an undeniably important role in providing affordable, abundant, and clean energy to the world. This could not have been more evident than in 2022, when Russia invaded Ukraine, disrupting global commodity markets and leaving Europe without secure access to energy.

Immediately, for our friends in Europe, U.S. producers began sending cargos of American gas to the Continent to fuel their economies and heat their homes, helping some of our most important global allies and friends.

However, in January 2024, the Biden-Harris administration announced an illegal and indefinite ban on new export authorizations, all in the name of vaguely stated climate change goals. Current law is clear. Requiring a statutory presumption in favor of exports are in the public interest.

Plus, the vast majority of studies show that not only do LNG exports boost our energy security but they also help maintain low domestic natural gas prices for Americans.

The Biden-Harris administration's action not only jeopardized our European allies but it threatened the faith and credibility of American companies' contracts. It emboldened Russia and other nefarious actors and created uncertainty for domestic producers of natural gas.

H.R. 1949, the Unlocking Our Domestic LNG Potential Act of 2025, would ensure this catastrophic policy decision is never made again by removing DOE from the statutory authorization process.

This legislation maintains the President's authority to impose sanctions on foreign governments, prohibiting imports or exports, if justified. Free trade, open markets, and competitions have resulted in the U.S. emerging as a global energy superpower. Lifting these restrictions will help maintain this dominance at a time it is needed most.

Mr. Speaker, I urge all my colleagues to support H.R. 1949. At a meeting a couple of years ago with people at the highest levels of the German Government, they said they needed American LNG gas to rain down on them because of what was going on in Eastern Europe and Ukraine.

High natural gas prices around the world fund the Russian Army. That is how they fund their army. It is not that friends are buying from them but, as the world price goes higher, the Russian price goes higher from the people who do choose to buy from them. We are not talking about affecting those people. The President still needs to have the authority. We are talking about our friends and our allies who are dependent on us.

I worry about what we do here in our country, but also America cannot cut itself off from the rest of the world and have our friends and allies look elsewhere to other people for the natural gas they need to run their economy. They will do that if we don't step in and do this at this time.

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

Mr. Speaker, this bill does nothing to prohibit the President, or whoever is President, from limiting LNG exports, sanctioning China, or tariffing China. There is no limit to that.

The people who are begging, I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, for our energy is Europe, who are our friends. I do know from just recently meeting with friends from Japan and Korea they want the natural gas that we have in our great State of Alaska. This is important.

The chairman of the Energy Subcommittee is a leader on this issue and has fought for reliable and sustainable energy.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Latta).

Mr. Speaker, there are still protections in place so the President can sanction and not send to any adversaries. What this does is prevent a President from suspending LNG gas exports for some reason at a time when our friends in Europe are literally begging for it, and I know our friends from Japan and Korea are asking for it.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Weber), the vice chair of the Energy and Commerce Committee and my good friend.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Allen), a very valuable member of the Energy and Commerce Committee and my good friend.

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman from Georgia.

Mr. Chair, I yield to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Balderson), another good friend. I am yielding to all of my good friends, but I yield to a very valued member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Pfluger), the sponsor of the legislation and a valued member of our committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Cammack), another distinguished member of the Energy and Commerce Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I will say that we want the world price produced by what we have here in our country. The price does fluctuate on a stop price day-to-day. However, just because we are sitting on massive reserves of natural gas where our friends in Europe are suffering, where our friends in Korea and Japan are asking for it, the argument is, if you don't export any natural gas, the argument some people seem to be making is the price would go down, but that is just not true because the producers are going to produce to world price. A real problem in price of natural gas is getting it distributed to where it needs to go and that is pipelines. I hope we can work together on permit reform.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Oklahoma (Mrs. Bice).

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

Mr. Speaker, I was actually in a meeting with Europeans at the highest level of government, and when they talked about needing more LNG exports from the United States and criticized the ban, somebody made the point that my friend just made to them and said: Well, I understand all of your terminals are full. You couldn't receive any more anyway. They said: We need the world price to come down. We have to have the world price come down.

Energy prices in Germany are three times what they are here. Could you imagine trying to compete in the global economy when energy prices are three times as high and when you have a neighbor just a few countries over that has an unprovoked and illegal invasion of another country?

We can't just dismiss that this is important to Europe as well just because they have full terminals.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from West Virginia (Mrs. Miller), my good friend from a neighboring State and a good neighbor.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Babin), my good friend.

Mr. Speaker, I should have introduced my good friend from Texas (Mr. Babin) as a colleague and fellow chairman, the chairman of the Committee on Science.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Arrington), chairman of the House Committee on the Budget, my good friend.

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

Mr. Speaker, the price is different around the world because of the way it is distributed. The price of natural gas is the price of natural gas. To use it, you have to get it to market. You have to have it there.

To use an example my friend from Illinois said, Mr. Speaker, that you have a real-world example, he said there was a terminal that went offline that was supposed to export natural gas. It burned, so it went offline. There was natural gas moving to that terminal. All of a sudden, for a few days, you had an excess of capacity of natural gas. The argument would be, we would have the same production of natural gas if we just shut down all of the ports. If you can use one as an example, if you shut them all down and continue to produce the same level of natural gas, the price would drop.

The issue is, there is a certain point where it costs you to produce natural gas. You have to reach that point. What we are saying is, there is a world price for natural gas. If you continue to expand markets for people to ship natural gas, you will continue to have natural gas, and they will continue to drill to meet those market demands around the world.

If you shrink the demand around the world artificially by banning the exports, then they are not going to produce as much natural gas, and it doesn't affect the price. You can point to times when there are disruptions in the supply, but overall, it is basic economics. That is how it works.

Mr. Speaker, also, you can call what President Biden did a pause as opposed to a ban, but I know from the time he implemented the pause or ban until President Trump came into office, you couldn't ship natural gas. Either pause it or ban it, I think that is saying the same thing.

Mr. Speaker, this is important. We do want to beat China. I have a tremendous amount of respect for my ranking member. We want to work together to beat China, and we are going to work together to beat China because that unites all of us. Everybody in this room and everybody in this Chamber wants America to be first. We are going to work together to do that.

I think this is important. We may disagree on this policy. I think it is important. I encourage my colleagues to vote for this bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, today is an extraordinary day in this Chamber.

If my colleagues will vote for this measure, then we will see justice triumph over politics. Truth will triumph over deception and obfuscation. Transparency will triumph over dark money. Partisanship will fall away to bipartisanship, and grass-roots, the people, will reclaim the people's House with this vote.

It is going to be a victory for survivors; not just survivors of the Epstein sex trafficking scandal, but the 1,000 survivors who exist. Some of them are victims. They are no longer alive, and some have committed suicide. They share one thing in common: Their youth was robbed from them, and much of their lives were robbed from them. But they are claiming it back. We are going to help them claim that back.

However, it is not just a victory today if this vote prevails for those survivors. It is a victory for every person, man or woman, boy or girl, who has been victimized sexually in this country. Anybody who has been a victim of sexual assault, or maybe they have been victimized by a family member, maybe it is not a billionaire, but they are all waiting and watching to see what we do today.

They are wondering: If I go to mom or dad, will anything happen?

If I go to the sheriff, will anything happen?

We have a chance today to make something happen, something that has not happened, something that should have happened decades ago, and that is to get justice for these victims and survivors, and transparency for America.

That is what this vote is about today.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from Georgia (Ms. Greene).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1\1/2\ minutes.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the generosity of Representative Jim McGovern for granting us this time.

I am embarrassed for my own party today. I am embarrassed we withheld swearing in a duly-elected Representative of the people for 49 days just to avoid this vote that is finally going to happen today.

I am embarrassed that my own party isn't going to yield me time to debate this. Even though they say they support it and I authored it, they don't even want to yield me time to debate this during the bill debate.

However, Mr. Speaker, let me tell you whom I am thankful to: these three brave women, Marjorie Taylor Greene, Nancy Mace, and Lauren Boebert. They have been threatened, and they have been intimidated physically and politically--it is disgusting--not by the far left. They have been intimidated by people in our own party.

For what?

It is for seeking justice for these victims.

So my hat is off. I congratulate them for standing strong.

I have always wondered: Where were the Republican men during this battle?

We have taken 5 months. These three women and I have had to drag our party to this floor today to even vote on this.

Ro Khanna is the most to be thanked here. In an extraordinary display of bipartisanship, he did not hesitate when I asked if we wanted to bring this bill to the floor together, if he would stand in the trenches with me. He said yes.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from South Carolina (Ms. Mace).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 3\1/2\ minutes.

Mr. Speaker, all that is necessary for evil to prevail is for good men to do nothing, and we have had a lot of good men doing a lot of nothing on the other side of the aisle until we did something. Three brave women, myself, and the Democratic Caucus, we did something. Then, what did they do? They have opposed us every step of the way. They have lied about the legislation.

Let me tell you some of the lies they have told. They have said that it doesn't protect victims. Well, if that is so, why were dozens of victims with us today at a press conference, urging this body to pass this legislation? It is because this legislation specifically protects victims.

They have said this legislation does not prevent the release of child pornography. Of course it does. We have a specific provision in our legislation to prevent that.

They have said so many falsehoods about this legislation, but now they are going to vote for it--hopefully enthusiastically. Really, they have been drug to this.

Our judicial system is broken. If it were working, there wouldn't be a thousand victims who haven't seen justice yet. They are victims of the Epstein class.

I begrudge nobody's success if they become a billionaire, but if you think being a billionaire or buying politicians keeps you out of the judicial system, lets you rape young women, lets you traffic women, you have another thing coming when this bill passes.

Do not let the Senate muck this up. There have already been efforts to derail our discharge petition. The Oversight Committee has released thousands, tens of thousands of documents. That is fine. Keep working. How many names have they released? Zero.

They are still protecting, or the DOJ is protecting, pedophiles and sex traffickers. The time for that to stop is now.

Our Speaker says: Oh, this bill needs to be amended in the Senate, and specifically, he is trying to create a loophole. He is trying to categorize the pedophiles as victims. He is saying: Oh, we don't want to embarrass the people who went to the rape island. We should protect those names against unreliable accusations. Is he calling all of these victims unreliable?

They have testified to the FBI. The FBI has these names in their possession.

I asked the FBI Director in a hearing: Have you looked at the documents?

No. He trusts everybody who has been there for decades.

That is wrong. Do not let the Senate muck this bill up. If Senators are a party to that in the Senate, they are part of this coverup that we are trying to expose. I am sorry if one of their billionaire donors is going to get embarrassed because he went to rape island.

That is what they have coming. In fact, they need to be on the other side of bars, a lot of them. Some of them will be embarrassed, but some of them need to go to prison, and the survivors know that.

Mr. Speaker, how will we know if this bill has been successful? We will know when there are men, rich men, in handcuffs being perp-walked to the jail. Until then, this is still a coverup.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my Senate colleagues: Do not muck up this bill.

The President has already said that he will sign it. That means that he will sign the bill that we have here today.

Do not change this bill. He is ready to sign it. Give it to him. Put it on his desk. Let's get justice for these victims.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern).