Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I thank you for recognizing me this evening.

Mr. Speaker, I come to the floor today with a bittersweet message for my colleagues.

After more than a dozen years here in the House of Representatives, I am retiring/resigning this week.

I have so loved this work. It has been the honor of a lifetime to serve the good people of eastern and southeastern Ohio.

To many, the people I represent are just the flown-over of flyover country, but they are truly so much more.

From Youngstown to Portsmouth, to St. Clairsville to Zanesville, these are people who care deeply. They are hardworking men and women, with strong values and a proud legacy of doing the hard things that keep America moving forward--mining coal, making steel, and producing oil and natural gas. So often they do it with the deck stacked against them, mocked by political elites who wish they would simply go away.

Leaving Washington, believe me, will be easy, but leaving my job, representing these fine folks, is hard.

I hear a new call. It is a call to help prepare the next generation of American leaders. I will be doing it at one of our country's finest public institutions of higher learning, Youngstown State University.

It took a unique offer for me to leave the people's House, but becoming president of Youngstown State is a challenge I felt I must accept.

Working with our young people to shape the future excites me and gives me hope and zeal for the work ahead.

This brings me to my main message today. It might seem out of step in today's culture, but it is something everyone must hear. The message is simple: America is exceptional.

The Founding Fathers knew it, and on July 4, 1776, when they declared it out loud, the rest of the world soon found out that it was true also. They knew it, too.

Those men laid down a bedrock foundation on the principles of personal liberty, free enterprise, and a representative government accountable to the people. It is, without a doubt, the greatest government ever created in the history of humanity.

Now, my life has been a constant journey to serve my country, from my 26-plus years in the United States Air Force to this journey of servicing Congress and into my next chapter leading one of Ohio's finest universities.

My commitment to service is because of the debt of gratitude that I owe. I grew up poor, but this country has given me the opportunity to prosper.

I have lived the American Dream, and that has kindled optimism in my heart.

Sure, I know that watching the news or reading comments on the internet today can be depressing, but I truly don't believe these divisions that are rocking our Nation today will hold.

That is because deep down we all want the same thing here in America--peace, freedom, and the ability to pursue the American Dream on our own terms and to build a life. We mustn't let voices of anger shred our American sense of self.

In President George Washington's farewell address, he encouraged his countrymen to recognize and enjoy the fruits of the new Constitution and national government that fostered liberty and opportunity.

His message resonates down through the generations even today. Democrats, Republicans, and Independents, we all enjoy the same liberty. Liberal, moderates, and conservatives, we all have the same opportunities.

These are our common threads. Let's strengthen the fabric that binds us together. We can disagree without dissolving that bond. Indeed, that is the only way forward.

My new workplace will be a university campus, which is an ideal place for disagreements and debate to happen in a way that is civil and educational. We should and we will foster discussion even if the result is merely acceptance of differing views.

That is what George Washington and our Founders fought for, and it is the ideal that makes America different and better than other countries. It is one of the many reasons America is exceptional.

For that, I am most thankful.

I would be remiss if I didn't mention just a few people for whom I am also thankful.

It would be impossible to list everyone standing here today. I don't have but 60 minutes, and it would take far longer than that, but know that you are in my thoughts of appreciation as I close one chapter and prepare to open another.

First to my staff, past and present, led by chief of staff Mike Smullen and district director Sarah Keeler. I know that there is no more hardworking team here, working not for me, but working on behalf of the people of eastern and southeastern Ohio.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my staff Mike, Sarah, and the rest of the team. I could not have done it without them.

I also thank my colleagues here on both sides of the aisle with whom I have developed lifelong friendships, the likes of which can only be forged in the trenches of hard work and service to our Nation.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my campaign team that has stayed remarkably intact since the early days in 2009 when we sat around a kitchen table to discuss running for Congress. I thank them all.

I offer a resounding thank you to the voters of eastern and southeastern Ohio for supporting me across multiple districts that has seen us represent 19 different counties in different configurations over the last 13 years.

Servicing Congress is a sacrifice, both for us as Members and for those around us as well--our families.

Mr. Speaker, I end here by thanking my children--Josh, Julie, Jessica, and Nathan, and my extended family for putting up with the crazy session schedules and helping me during this journey when I missed so many of our family activities and couldn't be there.

Lastly, and most importantly, to my wife, LeeAnn. She would have been in the gallery today, but it is cold outside. I have always said from the day we met, the first time that I laid eyes on you, you have made me a better man, a better human being. You have sacrificed more than anyone else, and it was you that made all of this possible by being my loving partner and standing by me in some of the toughest times. I couldn't have done it without you by my side. Thank you, LeeAnn, the love of my life.

Mr. Speaker, thank you, and farewell.

I say for the last time, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 906, I call up the bill (H.R. 4468) to prohibit the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency from finalizing, implementing, or enforcing a proposed rule with respect to emissions from vehicles, and for other purposes, 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 on the legislation and to include extraneous material in the Record on

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

I rise today in strong support of H.R. 4468, the Choice in Automobile Retail Sales Act, and I urge all Members to support its passage.

America's economy is at its best when innovation, free enterprise, and consumer choice rule the day. This formula once made America a world leader in the automotive sector. Unfortunately, some key decisionmakers have forgotten that. Elected officials, government regulators, and auto manufacturers eager to appease their liberal overlords, especially those in the Biden administration, need a reminder of that fact.

It is troubling that this administration, in a faltering economy, would try to replace reliable, available, functional, and affordable transportation for hardworking Americans with something far less reliable, far less available, far less functional, and far less affordable.

Under EPA's recent tailpipe proposal, two-thirds of all new cars being sold in America must be electric-powered vehicles by 2032. That is only 8 years from now.

The American people did not ask for this.

While the average price of an EV reportedly fell 22.4 percent in the last year in response to lack of demand and government subsidies, they are still far more expensive than a liquid fuel vehicle.

There are also hidden costs: $500 extra annually for insurance; at least $4,000 for battery replacement, and that is the bottom; $1,200 to $2,500 for home charging equipment. That is after you pay to rewire your home.

Range anxiety is still a real concern. EVs need more frequent and much longer stops for charges. The average EV gets about 234 miles per charge compared to 403 miles with a gas fill-up. Plus, cold weather, battery size, and towing weight can shrink battery range significantly.

Any way you look at it, working-class Americans who need reliable and affordable transportation would take a hit from a mandate eliminating their options.

This bill protects our constituents, allowing them to buy the automobile that makes the most sense for them.

Mr. Speaker, I urge support for H.R. 4468, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, this bill does not prevent the EPA from finalizing a rule. It only tells the EPA that it cannot mandate a specific technology and prevents the EPA from issuing rules that limit a vehicle's availability based on engine type.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Washington (Mrs. Rodgers), the chair of the full committee.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Walberg), the author of the bill.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Clyde), the co-lead for this bill.

Madam Speaker, I have tremendous respect for my colleague that just spoke, but I have to say that this idea that electric vehicles are emission-free is totally unfounded.

In fact, it is totally false. All you have to do is look at where the raw materials come from. Look at how China produces those materials. There are lots of emissions. If the argument is legitimate that we are going to saves lives here, we are going to cost lives over there because they are not concerned about the climate. They are not concerned with the environment, they are not concerned about the people that they use--slave labor in many cases--to try to harvest the materials that make these electric vehicles in the first place.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Bucshon).

Madam Speaker, we actually agree on some things with our Democrat colleagues. We agree that we ought to keep the environment clean: the air, water, and land. But throwing money at it, like my Democrat colleagues are trying to do, is not the answer to the problem.

This rule would result in lost middle-class jobs in the United States because we can't get new facilities and infrastructure even permitted to do these things under the current administration. Until that happens, America will be heavily reliant on China.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Arizona (Mrs. Lesko).

Madam Speaker, again, I agree, vote America. I urge my Democrat colleagues to remember that fossil fuels have raised more people around this planet across the globe out of poverty than any other fuel source on the planet, and America knows how to do that best.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Pence), my friend and colleague on the Energy and Commerce Committee.

Madam Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman from Indiana.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Joyce).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Weber).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Balderson), my friend, colleague, and neighbor.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Carter).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Idaho (Mr. Fulcher).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Pfluger), my friend and outstanding member of the Energy and Commerce Committee.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Stauber).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Williams), an auto dealer.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. LaMalfa), my friend and colleague, to close.

Mr. Speaker, that was my closing, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise as the designee of the gentlewoman from Washington, and I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. Speaker, the purpose of the CARS Act is to permit Americans, not the executive branch of the Federal Government, to continue deciding what type of car makes the most sense for them.

The purpose is not to reopen decades-old requirements that Americans have become accustomed to with their cars, and which manufacturers consider to be standard--whether it is the catalytic converter or the onboard diagnostic system, especially because those regulations were not trying to do away with an engine type--but, rather, to just address the most harmful pollution coming from that car.

Rather than creating any confusion for EPA, automakers, or the public, or leading to unintended consequences or unnecessary litigation, this amendment sets a limit on how far back in time the provisions of H.R. 4468 apply.

Instead of applying to any regulation ever issued in the history of the authority provided under Clean Air Act section 202(a), the manager's amendment caps the retroactivity of the bill's provisions to section 202(a) regulations, including revisions, proposed or prescribed on or after January 1, 2021.

By adding this date, the legislation focuses on pushing back on regulations that would have the Federal Government, and not Americans, decide what kinds of cars they should be able to drive.

For over 100 years, Americans have been free to buy their own mode of transportation based upon what is available, reliable, affordable, and functional for their lives. Quite frankly, it was because of these criteria that electric vehicles never took off with American consumers, but the Model T did.

The Congressional Budget Office has concluded that adopting this amendment would have an insignificant net effect on the deficit.

I urge all Members to support the amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, let's look at what we have heard today. If we want to help America's autoworkers, then let's keep them on the job. It takes a lot less labor to make electric vehicles than it does to make combustion engine vehicles.

If we want to protect the environment, then let's keep China from doing all the mining and refining of the rare earth minerals and critical materials, and supply chain that we actually need to make electric vehicles here in America.

If we want to stop supporting China, rather than buy Chinese cars, which is where this is ultimately going to go if we continue down this road, let's permit mining and refining of critical materials right here in America so when we do make electric vehicles, and we give the American people a choice about purchasing those vehicles, they are made with American materials mined and refined in America by American workers rather than putting money in the pockets of the Chinese Communist Party.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to think about what the future looks like. We need to rein in the EPA's egregious rule mandating electric vehicles.

Let me remind you, Republicans are not opposed to electric vehicles. I have a lot of friends who own electric vehicles. Not very many of them live in Appalachia, rural communities, where they are impractical and unaffordable, but if we want to empower the American people with choice, then we need to roll back this EV mandate because the day will come when the only choice that people will have is to buy a car that is manufactured in China by China. That will be the only thing that is going to be available because we can't get permits here in America to do our mining and refining of those critical materials.

China has already sent signals that they are going to start and have already started withholding those critical materials that we need to make electric vehicles.

The Chinese are setting a trap. God forbid if we let the Biden administration force us to fall into that trap.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 4468, the Choice in Automobile Retail Sales Act. I urge my colleagues to support it, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 1435, the Preserving Choices in Vehicle Purchases Act.

As the chairman of the Subcommittee on the Environment, I am proud to support this bill led by my Energy and Commerce Committee colleagues, Representatives Joyce, Latta, Bilirakis, and Obernolte.

H.R. 1435 is a critical step in protecting consumer choice and safeguarding Americans' access to affordable and reliable vehicles.

The legislation would prohibit the EPA from granting California a waiver for vehicle emission standards if the State's standards directly or indirectly limit the sale of new gas-powered vehicles.

Why is this important? California recently submitted a waiver request, which would require all new passenger vehicles in the State to be zero-emission vehicles by 2035, effectively phasing out new gas- powered cars.

Even worse, if California is granted that EPA waiver, 17 States, representing 40 percent of the U.S. market for new vehicles, are poised to adopt California's exact standards.

This would result in California effectively forcing their values and their mandates on all of us. How would that work out? Ask the Secretary of Energy. It was recently reported that on a road trip with her entourage to tout electric vehicles, her advance staff actually blocked a family with their baby in the car from the one functioning EV charging station at a particular stop until the Secretary arrived to recharge her luxury EV. Mr. Speaker, I think it is safe to say that my constituents don't get that privilege.

Now, I want to be clear. This legislation does not prevent Americans from purchasing EVs if they want one. House Republicans are simply ensuring that all Americans can choose the car that best fits their needs right now and in the decades to come.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 1435.

Madam Speaker, today I rise in support of H.R. 4470, and I urge all Members to support this important legislation.

Keeping our American homeland secure has been a part of my life for over four decades. Though the threats to our Nation have changed since I first entered the United States Air Force in 1973, I am reminded of our former Commander in Chief Ronald Reagan, who once said: ``Yet peace does not exist of its own will.''

``We must always remember that peace is a fragile thing that needs constant vigilance.''

This is an important admonition we should keep in mind because on July 27, 2023, this week, the legal authority for the Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism Standards program, or CFATS for short, will sunset.

This means that everything about it--right down to its fundamental legal structure--disappears, including Federal outreach and networking to prevent terrorism against these facilities.

Now to be clear, from our perspective on the Energy and Commerce Committee, we should be authorizing this program for longer, but time is of the essence, and today it is vitally important to pass this clean, 26-month CFATS extension.

American businesses have invested billions of dollars in security, expecting a strong return for their efforts. We should not nullify investments that would send a bad message to those who wish to do our Nation harm, a message that Congress doesn't take security at our chemical facilities seriously.

The Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism Standards Act is an important anti-terrorism-focused program. It is not a perfect tool, but CFATS is an important, unique program based upon collaboration between the Federal Government and the private sector.

Unlike other programs at the EPA or the Department of Labor, CFATS is focused and it serves as an important bulwark against the threat of terrorism here in the United States. It doesn't mandate the answer or the specific technology but, rather, asks facilities to identify their own vulnerabilities and meet risk-based performance standards in a way that makes sense for them.

I am aware that there are those who, because CFATS is a compulsory program for some, might question the value of the current program.

CFATS does not need to be stripped or have its mission overhauled. Though no Federal program is without need of improvement in some area, but the immediate answer should not lie in trying to destabilize or dismantle it all together.

Rather, the question should be whether Congress has thoroughly overseen the program to understand the program's statutory authority; how its operation lines up with congressional direction; whether it is effective and efficient; and if it has the will and statutory authority to correct deficits or if the law needs to be changed.

Because of that ongoing oversight work and the seemingly improved history of the program, I am comfortable voting to continue it.

To those colleagues who are still skeptical of the CFATS program----

While this extension gives time for not only more assessment and for CFATS to demonstrate its progress, I would urge you to see past this as a time to take this program hostage or distract from its security-related, terrorism prevention focus.

I urge all Members to vote for the passage of H.R. 4470, and I urge the Senate to not delay in its passing, as well.

Mr. Chair, I rise in strong support of H.R. 1615.

Mr. Chair, I will include in the Record an article entitled ``California city gives celebrity chef Jose Andres an exemption for his restaurant to use gas stoves.''

Mr. Chair, of course they did. Let's look at how this happened.

It was reported that while the progressive city of Palo Alto, California, has a natural gas ban for all new buildings and renovations, a policy that Democrats are trying to enact all over the country, we find that the ban actually doesn't apply to everybody.

Mr. Andres' lawyers, in front of the city council, argued that he could not possibly cook with the efficiency and precision he desires if forced to use electric stoves. The city council agreed and gave him a one-off, only-for-him exemption to the rule, not for small, family- owned restaurants or working-class residents. No one else, just him.

Now, for those of you who aren't familiar with Mr. Andres, he is a wealthy, well-connected celebrity chef, very popular here inside the Washington Beltway, not only for great restaurants, but also for his leftwing activism for the border, climate change, and other liberal causes. I think you-all get the picture here.

To be fair, I actually totally agree with Mr. Andres. It is true that gas stoves are not only more efficient but also perform in a way that many Americans and restaurant owners prefer.

All that we ask, and what this legislation before us would do, is give the American people that same economic freedom and choice, the choice to use appliances that they actually want and can afford.

If we don't act, if we don't pass legislation like this, the Biden administration will continue on its path to take this onerous policy prescription nationwide.

To add insult to injury, this celebrity chef and his wealthy, powerful, national Democratic friends, who aren't giving up their gas stoves, their fossil-fuel-fired stoves, are the same exact people lecturing my constituents about climate change.

They say that it is Appalachian Ohioans and working-class families all over the country who need to give up their cars, their stoves, and their furnaces to avert the climate crisis. This is madness. It is hypocrisy.

Mr. Chair, any American, regardless of whether or not they are a wealthy, politically connected coastal elites, should be able to cook on a gas stove if they choose to.

Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to support this measure.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak in strong support of H.R. 467 to make class-wide scheduling of fentanyl-related substances permanent.

This hits close to home for me. I represent the men and women of eastern Ohio, a region of the country that has been hit particularly hard by this deadly drug. If the current order is allowed to expire, law enforcement will lose their ability to seize some of these fentanyl-related drugs. They will effectively be street legal.

Here are two staggering truths: Fentanyl poisonings are now the number one cause of death in the country of adults between 18 and 49. Over three-quarters of teen overdose deaths in 2021 were caused by fentanyl. That is 75 percent. In many of these instances, those taking the fentanyl had no idea they were doing so. That is what makes this lethal and heavily addictive drug so dangerous.

Sadly, it is very clear that the Biden administration is not serious about

solving this epidemic. If they were, they wouldn't be allowing our southern border to be overrun by the cartels and their drug mules. Who is paying the price for these policies and lack of border enforcement? It is the families of those that have become addicted. It is those that have overdosed and died from fentanyl. We have even had law enforcement officials in eastern Ohio that have been exposed to fentanyl and almost died during the conduct of their work busting up drug rings.

We should not be relaxing the penalties for that. We should be stiffening the penalties for fentanyl. Just 19 grams of fentanyl, what would fill a saltshaker in a restaurant, could kill 10,000 people.

Here is the bottom line: This legislation is necessary to make the temporary class-wide scheduling order for fentanyl-related substances permanent. If this body doesn't act, we should all be ashamed.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleagues Mr. Latta and Mr. Griffith for their leadership here, and I urge quick and overwhelming passage of this lifesaving bill.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 429, I call up the joint resolution (S.J. Res. 11) providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Environmental Protection Agency relating to ``Control of Air Pollution From New Motor Vehicles: Heavy-Duty Engine and Vehicle Standards'', 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 S.J. Res. 11.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of S.J. Res. 11, which rescinds EPA's rule requiring impractical emission standards for heavy-duty trucks, with huge new restrictions on F-250s, semitrucks, and everything in between--trucks that not only deliver all the goods we rely on but also trucks for our farmers and ranchers, building contractors and landscapers, and countless other workers and small businesses that quite literally keep our country running.

The EPA even acknowledges that the new standards are 80 percent more stringent than existing emission standards, but the Agency ignores the fact that new trucks already have 98 percent fewer nitrogen oxide emissions than trucks manufactured 35 years ago.

At a certain point, you start to see diminishing returns.

EPA's regulatory efforts are just the latest step by the Biden administration to electrify the transportation sector and burden American families in the process. The Agency itself emphasizes that the rule will cost truckers between $39 billion and $55 billion. In fact, the rule is expected to increase the cost of a semitruck anywhere from $8,000 to $42,000 per truck.

As we all know, the cost of these senseless regulations would inevitably be passed on to the American consumer through higher retail prices and increased inflation.

Ohio sits at the crossroads of America, and thousands of trucks travel across my State to transport goods to my constituents and businesses throughout the Nation. An unworkable rule like this one would stop some of these deliveries, cause delays for many others, and lead to shortages for some of our most basic staples.

We should ensure the delivery of essential goods and protect the quality of life for all Americans by passing the resolution before us today.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support S.J. Res. 11, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I once again have to point out that we are not only fighting for the right kinds of policies, but we have to fight against outrageous claims that are simply patently false.

That comment by my colleague that 100,000 people per year die from air pollution, that was a figure from 1990. By 2019, that figure had dropped to 60,000 people.

Now, that is not acceptable either, and I think one of the reasons that it dropped so far was because NOX emissions from truckers had dropped some 98 percent since the late 1980s. So, we are already making great progress with this.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Nehls), the sponsor of the House companion bill.

Mr. Speaker, I proudly yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Washington (Mrs. Rodgers), the chair of the Energy and Commerce Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Walberg).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Weber), another very passionate member of the Energy and Commerce Committee.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Allen), my good friend and another colleague from the Energy and Commerce Committee.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Idaho (Mr. Fulcher).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Palmer), my good friend and another member of the Energy and Commerce Committee.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Iowa (Mrs. Miller-Meeks).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from North Dakota (Mr. Armstrong), the vice chair of the Committee on Energy and Commerce.

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

Mr. Speaker, this EPA rule would go into effect for model year 2027, which is an extremely tight timeline for compliance. The Truckload Carriers Association commented that the rule outpaces available technology, which means there is not even technology there yet to do the kinds of things that this rule is requiring.

I also point out that there are significant key groups that support S.J. Res. 11: American Trucking Association, Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association, Transportation Intermediaries Association, National Tank Truck Carriers, Truckload Carriers Association, and the National Federation of Independent Businesses, which represents literally thousands of small businesses, many of them small trucking operations across America.

There are some very, very serious technical issues with this rule, as well as some real economic concerns.

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

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I will close by starting with something that Mr. Carter from Georgia just reminded us all of: A Democratic-controlled Senate passed S.J. Res. 11--a Democratic-controlled Senate. Democrats in the Senate said that this rule is unnecessary and too onerous. They passed the CRA, and they have asked us to do the same.

I heard several things today that I want to put an exclamation point on. I heard from my colleague and my friend, the ranking member of the Energy and Commerce Committee, that the EPA's job is to protect the air and water, the environment.

I actually agree with that, but let's look at the environmental facts that surround this particular rule--a 98 percent reduction in NOX emissions since the late eighties and early nineties. Look at the cost that this is going to place on the American economy: $39 billion to $55 billion.

Many trucking companies are not going to be able to comply with this, so they are not going to buy the new trucks. Instead, they are going to continue to use the old trucks. It is going to defeat the very purpose that this rule was set out to do in the first place. They are just going to keep driving those trucks until they drive the tires off of them.

I heard one of my Democratic colleagues say earlier that if we overturn this rule by passing S.J. Res. 11, we are going to create an unlivable future for our children and our grandchildren.

Mr. Speaker, let me tell you what an unlivable future looks like in rural America, where inflation is already at a 40-plus-year high. Americans--parents and grandparents--are having to raise their own grandchildren because of things like the drug epidemic and having to work two jobs to make ends meet. They are having to choose between putting fuel in the car and buying groceries or paying the electric bill or having health insurance. That is an unlivable future.

When we do something like this rule that continues to cause inflation to go up and up, it puts more strain on American families who are living paycheck to paycheck.

I also heard the term ``environmental justice.'' What about environmental injustice? Mr. Speaker, come to Appalachia. Ride up and down the roads and see the farmhouses where people live paycheck to paycheck and where they struggle like I just described.

The EPA puts forward rules that have no consideration for the economic impacts on the people whom it is going to hurt the worst. Those are the people who get up every day and put their work clothes on.

Ninety-six percent of the trucking industry are small operators. Ninety-six percent are small fleet companies. They are the ones who are the least able to go out and buy this new technology, and they are the ones who are going to more quickly go under and go out of business because of this onerous rule.

Mr. Speaker, this CRA is the right thing to do. Democrats in the Senate said so, and Republicans in the Senate said so. I urge today in the U.S. House that we also say so. Tell the EPA this is a bridge too far.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support S.J. Res. 11. Let's overturn this rule.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for yielding to me.

Service is something that is in my blood, and I can tell you that, as I rise today in support of the men and women who wear the blue as we recognize National Police Week, I don't think we can say enough about their sacrifices.

All across America, police officers have an increasingly difficult and thankless job today. They see, literally, the worst of humanity, day in and day out, putting their lives on the line while serving to protect all of us for very modest pay.

They head toward the danger. They run into it rather than away from it. They are constantly put in unpredictable, chaotic, and threatening positions in order to keep our communities safe.

Very few professions demand the willingness to sacrifice one's own life in order to protect the safety and security of others, but that is exactly what our men and women in blue willingly sign up to do.

Just last year, 224 police officers were killed in the line of duty. Never, as I was growing up in this great country, did I think I would see a number like that. They have been shot, stabbed, and run over by the lawless.

Their murders don't receive nearly the media coverage that they should. The whole Nation should be outraged by what we see.

To the men and women who wear the blue, on behalf of those I represent, I thank them. I thank them for choosing to serve and to protect. Importantly, I thank their families who sacrifice so much and can never be sure if that pre-shift hug and kiss might very well be their last.

God bless each and every man and woman in blue for what they do. I thank them so much on behalf of a grateful Nation.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague, Mr. Latta, for recognizing me.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of my legislation, H.R. 1353, the ALERT Parity Act.

This bipartisan legislation would require the Federal Communications Commission to issue rules within 18 months of enactment to establish an application process for any entities seeking to provide wireless emergency alerts for 911 services in unserved areas across America. It also requires the FCC to establish service rules whereby providers of emergency connectivity service may access spectrum held by a licensee, so long as it does not cause interference and they have express written consent from the licensee.

Additionally, the bill requires the FCC to provide an annual report to Congress detailing instances where emergency connectivity service was provided by this process, and also each instance when an entity authorized to use spectrum declined to provide the consent needed by providers of emergency connectivity service to use their spectrum.

This enables Congress to provide oversight of these services and ensure that this legislation is implemented as intended.

First and foremost, enabling 911 calls and texts and emergency alerts in remote and unserved areas is not only

common sense, it is a lifesaving measure.

Every American deserves access to emergency assistance, regardless of where they live, period.

This bill is very narrow in scope. The rules required by the bill would only enable emergency connectivity service providers to connect to individuals' phones where there is no cellular service, either due to an outage or because there is not a mobile carrier providing service in that area.

To many of us, it is frustrating if we lose cell service temporarily. It is unfathomable for many to understand that in 2023 there remains remote areas in America that still lack reliable cellular service.

Now that there is technology that will enable distressed Ohioans in rural Appalachia, and all such rural areas across the United States who lack mobile cell service to reach emergency assistance, I believe we have a responsibility to make it happen and to ensure American innovation can serve our communities that are otherwise left out.

Mr. Speaker, I thank Representative Kim Schrier for co-leading this legislation and her work on this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I also urge my colleagues to support H.R. 1353 to ensure everyone has access to critical lifesaving emergency services regardless of where they live or travel.

Mr. Speaker, I also thank Mr. Pallone, the ranking member of the Energy and Commerce Committee for his support as well.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 1, the Lower Energy Costs Act.

With H.R. 1, we are working to lower energy costs for consumers across America by unleashing American energy and strengthening American supply chains.

H.R. 1 addresses regulatory red tape and permitting barriers to the domestic development of energy without compromising environmental protections.

The Lower Energy Costs Act also encourages domestic processing and refining of critical energy resources to ensure that components for all energy sources can be made right here in America.

As chair of the Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Environment, Manufacturing, and Critical Materials, I am proud that H.R. 1 includes seven bills that passed through our subcommittee and full committee through regular order.

The bills encourage the domestic refining of critical energy resources, allow for flexible approaches to permitting, support national security, promote innovation that is currently stalled in EPA red tape, repealed two sections of the Democrats' Inflation Reduction Act, and protect American refining capacity from agency overreach.

I thank Representatives Carter of Georgia, Joyce of Pennsylvania, Pence, Curtis, Pfluger, Palmer, and Crenshaw for their work on this important legislation.

In addition, H.R. 1 includes my bill, the Unlocking Our Domestic LNG Energy Potential Act, under section 10007. The section would amend the Natural Gas Act to repeal all restrictions on the import and export of natural gas. Removing such restrictions would help facilitate timely exports of LNG and help our allies. A stronger LNG export industry also means increased domestic production of natural gas and lower domestic prices.

I have heard my Democratic colleagues across the aisle criticize H.R. 1 because they say it does nothing for clean energy. This could not be further from the truth. H.R. 1 includes several provisions that incorporate focused flexibilities into certain environmental statutes in order to create an improved regulatory landscape for refining and processing critical minerals.

Mr. Chairman, what are the industries that need critical minerals the most? Those are the wind, solar, and battery technology industries--all clean energy technologies.

We do almost no critical mineral refining and processing in the United States. That must change, or we risk becoming dangerously dependent on China for our energy and transportation systems.

The International Energy Agency estimates that the demand for critical minerals will double by 2040. We want to meet that demand with American resources and reduce reliance on China.

I will close by thanking Chair Rodgers for her leadership on the Lower Energy Costs Act. Energy security is national security, and through H.R. 1, we can unleash American energy dominance and lower energy costs for American families, thereby lowering inflation.

Mr. Chairman, I urge all of my colleagues to support the Lower Energy Costs Act.

Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Miller), my friend and colleague.

Mr. Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Carter).

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

According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration data, the average price for gasoline in 2022 was $1.80 per gallon more than when President Biden assumed office.

H.R. 1 is not just about energy independence. That is the underlying foundation, but what it is really about is the quality of life for the American people here at home and the cost of energy that is feeding the skyrocketing inflation.

The average price of gas in 2020 was $2.26 per gallon. The average price of gas in 2022 was $4.06 per gallon, reaching a peak of over $5 per gallon in June of 2022.

According to the Department of Energy's Low-Income Energy Affordability Data, the LEAD Tool, low-income households spend 8.6 percent of their income on energy expenses. Depending on location and income, certain households spend as much as 30 percent of their income on energy expenses. The energy burden for low-income households is three times higher than non-low-income households.

In rural parts of the country, like where I represent in Appalachia, you are very familiar with that area, it is a real problem when families have to choose between putting gas in their car or groceries on the table. It is a real challenge when they have to choose between paying their heating bill or buying clothes for their kids to go to school. This is what H.R. 1 begins to address for the American people.

Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Fry), my friend and colleague.

Mr. Chair, I yield an additional 15 seconds to the gentleman from South Carolina.

Mr. Chair, may I inquire as to the time remaining on each side?

Mr. Chair, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Good).

Mr. Chair, I proudly yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Lawler).

Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mills).

Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Hill), my friend and colleague.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Flood).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from North Dakota (Mr. Armstrong).

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

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

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

Mr. Chair, we have said it over and over and over again, and there is no denying it. Energy security is national security. That is what H.R. 1 is all about.

Unleashing American energy, production, permitting, put American energy back into play to address the needs and concerns of the American people, to lower inflation, and to ensure America's national security on the international stage. That is what H.R. 1 is all about.

I look forward to closing here in a few minutes with some striking comments about telling the truth. I heard the ranking member from our Energy and Commerce Committee a little bit ago say, tell the American people the truth, and I respect him greatly. I am going to tell the American people the truth in just a little bit.

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

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

Mr. Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Donalds).

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

Mr. Chair, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

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

Throughout this debate, my Democratic colleagues have repeated misinformation and engaged in fearmongering as a tactic to convince American families to submit to their green agenda and just accept more expensive and less reliable energy as the new normal to undermine our economy, make the cost of living even higher, and, perhaps even more troubling, severely undermine our national security.

Apparently, my Democratic colleagues are okay with making China great again at the expense of the American people and the rest of the world.

I heard the ranking member of the Energy and Commerce Committee, my colleague--again, who I have great respect for--say a few minutes ago: Tell the American people the truth.

Well, let's tell the American people some truth. According to a report by the LendingClub, at the end of 2022--that is 2 years into the Biden administration--9.3 million more United States consumers were living paycheck to paycheck compared to the prior year.

Of that group, 75 percent identified inflation as a reason for their financial situation to be worsening.

By the end of 2022, China's oil refining capacity exceeded the United States' oil refining capacity.

According to the International Energy Agency's oil market report, U.S. refining capacity is at 17.6 million barrels per day.

According to the China Petroleum and Chemical Industry Association, China's capacity is at 18.4 million barrels per day.

We are far more dependent on China today for the very rare earth minerals and critical minerals that are needed to pursue the renewable green energy plan that the Democrats are trying to push. You can't get there in the timeframe that they are trying to get there, Mr. Chair, without becoming more dependent on China.

There are those who say that Republicans are climate deniers. That is simply not true. We simply believe that Republicans have better ideas to unleash America's energy and to restore America's energy independence. At the same time that those are good energy policies, they are also good climate policies.

Let me give you an example. Everybody says that the goal of addressing the climate problem is to reduce carbon emissions.

Mr. Chair, if that is truly the goal, why do we not want to export more American natural gas around the world?

According to the American Exploration and Production Council, if we would simply export four times the amount of natural gas that we are exporting today--which we could do easily because we have got a wealth of it--we could lower carbon emissions more than if we were to electrify every vehicle in America, put a solar panel and a battery backup on the home and the rooftop of every residential home in America, and build 57,000 industrial-strength windmills, all combined.

American natural gas is the cleanest form of natural gas on the planet. Our friends and allies in Europe sure wish they had some of that today because they have become dependent on Vladimir Putin for their sources of energy.

Look at the Germans, who decided to throttle their nuclear suite and become dependent on Russia for their energy.

What did they end up doing?

Forest clearing, burning wood to cook their food and heat their homes. We do not want to go the way of Europe. They have already tried all of this.

I implore my Democratic colleagues: We are not arguing about the goal. We agree with cleaner forms of energy.

What we are arguing about, it appears to me, is the timeframe in which to accomplish that and the amount of money and the change in the quality of life that it is going to require for the American people.

I am sure many of you went to college and you studied the business triangle: time, cost, and quality. You can't affect one of those without affecting the other two. With this rush to green, if we want to do this so fast before renewable forms of energy are mature enough technologically to be able to provide the baseload energy for our grid, to put fuel in our automobiles, if we want to do it that fast, it is going to cost a hell of a lot of money, and it is going to change for the worse the quality of life for the American people.

H.R. 1 is a commonsense energy package. If you lower energy costs, you are going to lower inflation. If you lower inflation, you are going to allow the American people to keep more of their hard-earned money. When American people keep their hard-earned

money, they come up with good ideas, and our economy begins to thrive.

Mr. Chair, H.R. 1 is not about politics. It is about the American people. They are sick and tired of people inside the beltway taking and taking and taking while they are always having to do the giving.

Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support H.R. 1. It is the right thing to do for the American people. Let's unleash American energy.

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

Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained, but had I been present, I would have voted NAY on Roll Call No. 46.

Mr. Chair, I thank the chairwoman for yielding.

Mr. Chair, I rise today in support of H.R. 21, the Strategic Production Response Act. Instead of unleashing America's vast domestic energy resources, President Biden has hobbled our Nation's energy production, resulting in fuel shortages and rising energy costs for all American families.

He went so far as begging foreign dictators for oil instead of uplifting America's economy. It is worth noting that just a few short years ago, America was energy independent.

House Republicans have made it clear that we are going to hold the Biden administration accountable for its actions.

As we sit here today, President Biden is draining around 40 percent of our Strategic Petroleum Reserve. The reserve was established to be used for national emergencies, not for cheap political points or Band- Aids for failed policies.

The Strategic Production Response Act would require the Biden administration to replenish and maintain the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, and this legislation would require the Secretary of Energy to come up with a plan to replenish the reserve if oil is taken for nonemergency reasons.

The President has ample solutions in front of him to fix America's energy crisis. In fact, Republicans have been offering up long-term energy solutions to the Biden administration, but they refuse to listen. Instead, they have given in to the demands of left-wing special interests and radical environmental groups and have left the American people stranded.

In America, we do our part in making sure that the energy we produce is done in a cleaner and safer way than any other country on Earth.

Unleashing American energy is the solution to our Nation's energy crisis.

My message to President Biden is simple: The days of taking shortcuts to cover up major policy failures are over. H.R. 21 is an important step in holding the administration accountable for their actions, and I am proud to support this legislation.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, this is another tactic to delay implementation of the underlying bill.

Energy security is national security, and if my Democratic colleagues recognized this, they wouldn't need to abuse the SPR and attempt to offset the high prices caused by their very policies.

Let's protect our strategic reserves, which is now at the lowest level since 1983, and unleash American production.

I urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I have no opposition to this amendment. This amendment would increase the percentage cap on Federal lands identified in DOE's replacement plan for oil and gas production, taking it from 10 percent to 15 percent.

Mr. Chair, I support this amendment.

Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chair, this amendment prohibits oil and gas

leasing on any tract of land off the coast of Virginia. Virtually all offshore oil and gas leasing occurs in the Gulf of Mexico.

Mr. Chair, I reserve a point of order against the amendment.

Mr. Chair, I do insist on the point of order.

The amendment violates clause 7 of rule XVI of the Rules of the House because it is not germane to the underlying bill.

Specifically, the bill limits the drawdown of petroleum in the Strategic Petroleum Reserve until the Department of Energy develops a plan to increase the percentage of Federal lands leased for oil and gas production.

The amendment requires the Secretary of the Interior to complete a separate environmental review for each lease and permit before issuing any oil and gas lease or permit.

Environmental reviews are outside the scope of H.R. 21. The amendment is not germane.

Mr. Chair, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I urge all Members to support the Perry amendment. While this amendment raises an issue that is different from this bill, it is an important facet to understanding the seriousness of the Energy Secretary's plan.

This is a perfecting amendment that will enhance public transparency, congressional oversight of department plans and operations, and bring certainty in planning for the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, and efforts to keep it appropriately filled for emergencies.

I thank the gentleman for his concern in offering this amendment. Again, I have no objection, and I urge a ``yes'' vote.

Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to this amendment.

Mr. Chair, put plainly, this is not an appropriate role for EPA or CEQ, neither of which oversee Federal land.

The agencies consulted in the plan already must comply with existing requirements, so this amendment only serves to obstruct.

H.R. 21 is about strengthening the SPR by requiring any nonemergency use to be accompanied by a plan to produce American oil resources. This amendment undermines the purpose of the bill.

Mr. Chair, I urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, today I rise in support of H.R. 22 led by our Energy and Commerce Committee chairwoman, Cathy McMorris Rodgers.

Earlier this week it was reported that after President Biden drained over 200 million barrels out of America's Strategic Petroleum Reserve, his Department of Energy is now rejecting multiple bids to refill it, saying that oil is too expensive.

Mr. Speaker, this is hard to believe.

This administration--who has put a stranglehold on domestic production by canceling pipelines, reducing drilling, halting leases, and proposing burdensome regulations--is now telling the American taxpayer: Sorry, we depleted your national reserves, sold some of it to China, and now we won't refill it because it is too expensive.

Aren't they the ones making oil more expensive?

It is as if President Biden thinks the SPR is his strategic political reserve to be used as a Band-Aid for his failed energy policies.

Mr. Speaker, this legislation is a needed course correction in our national energy strategy, and I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the legacy of Corporal Howard Arthur Tibbs, one of our Nation's esteemed World War II Tuskegee Airmen.

Corporal Howard Tibbs was no stranger to military service. The Tibbs family's military history dates back to the Civil War, when Charles Henry, Sr., of Salem, Ohio, the grandfather of Howard Tibbs, fought with the Ohio Colored Troops in the Grand Army of the Republic.

In addition to dutifully serving our Nation's military efforts, the Tibbs family has actively participated in other patriotic endeavors, including helping to organize the local movement to guarantee the right to vote for women and educating young people about the military, cultural, and political contributions of Black Americans.

Corporal Howard Tibbs continued his family's legacy of duty, serving our Nation when he joined the 99th Fighter Squadron and the 477th Medium Composite Group during World War II.

In 2007, he posthumously received the Congressional Gold Medal in recognition of his military contributions and bravery, both at home and abroad.

Today, the House has the opportunity to honor Corporal Howard Arthur Tibbs by passing H.R. 2473 and naming the Salem post office after him.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to highlight my amendment that the minority refuses to even bring to a vote. My amendment is simple. It would amend this so-called Inflation Reduction Act by striking from the bill the Methane Emissions Reduction Program, which is a fancy term for what could be more accurately described as attacks on American natural gas.

In my district in eastern and southeastern Ohio, oil and gas workers get up every day to produce our valuable natural resources that are used to generate electricity, power manufacturing, heat and cool our homes, cook our food, and more recently, to use our American natural gas to rescue our European allies who now find themselves under Vladimir Putin's tyrannical thumb.

This methane tax jeopardizes all of this, and it represents yet another attack by the majority on American fossil fuels that have brought more people out of poverty around the world than any other energy source around the planet.

When I talk to producers in my district, I give them a lot of credit. These companies, without being asked, are quite literally innovating every day. They use state-of-the-art technology to capture as much of their methane

emissions as possible, and they are proud to do it.

And what is their reward? Well, they get a new tax anyway. It is also worth noting that the EPA is already working on rulemaking for regulating methane emissions, and the authors of this bill knew that-- all to appease the radical environmentalist left.

Madam Speaker, I want to be clear that this isn't, ``a methane reduction program.'' It is a massive tax on American producers, American businesses, and American workers. It is a tax on job creators in Ohio. It is a tax on hardworking Americans trying to heat and cool our homes, and a tax on feeding our families, and a tax on the American way of life.

We should strike this provision from the bill.