Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, in August of this year, we are going to hit the 234th birthday of the United States Coast Guard. We have seen profound changes in the Coast Guard's mission.

They perform the jobs of probably a dozen Federal agencies over water. They do a remarkable job. From drug and alien interdiction to maritime security and maritime safety, they do absolutely everything. I will say it again: What a dozen agencies do on land, the Coast Guard is responsible for over water. It is absolutely remarkable. The brave men and women that we refer to as the coasties have served our country with incredible honor and distinction.

Mr. Speaker, we refer to them as the Swiss Army knife of the Federal Government. They do so much. They conduct search and rescue missions, support safe navigation in our waterways, and help to defend our maritime border from nefarious actors.

Now more than ever, the Coast Guard's missions don't go unnoticed, and it is important that we provide the Coast Guard with the resources that they need to conduct their operations.

China is maneuvering to overtake the United States' maritime supremacy. Today, China has the capacity to manufacture 232 times the shipbuilding capacity of the United States. Let me say that again: Today, China has 232 times the shipbuilding capacity of the United States, and these ships aren't being used for honorable activities, Mr. Speaker. We have seen that China is now fishing approximately 42 percent of its fishing in what is known as distant waters. That means in someone else's exclusive economic zone. Said another way, they are illegally fishing in other countries' waters. They are overfishing. China is the worst IUU--illegal, unreported, and unregulated--fishing nation in the world.

This isn't limited to just China or Chinese waters. We recently had a major bust of IUU activities in the Gulf of Mexico on one of my favorite entrees, the red snapper.

The Coast Guard is vital to protecting our waters and national security, particularly, here in the United States, in the area that you and I share, Mr. Speaker, the Gulf of Mexico. The Coast Guard plays a critical role in protecting our maritime boundary from drugs and migrants.

While we rightfully focus our attention on the southern land border with Mexico, we cannot ignore the maritime border. Countless migrants enter unnoticed via boat, and often they are accompanied--or should I say they are accompanying dangerous drugs, such as fentanyl.

Louisiana's overdose death rate is nearly double the national average, largely thanks to massive influxes of fentanyl coming undetected through the southern border, including the maritime border.

Over the past year, a sheriff's office in my district removed nearly six times the fentanyl that they recovered in just 2022. Wouldn't it be amazing if the Coast Guard could help to stop the drug interdictions, stop these illegal drugs and migrants from coming across our maritime border?

Our coasties can't be successful in defending our national security without the proper resources.

As China seeks to insert itself in the Pacific, this bill authorizes two fast response cutters that will be used to support missions with partners in the Indo-Pacific. Furthermore, as the world and Russia move into the Arctic, this bill authorizes the second polar security cutter, or heavy icebreaker, for the Coast Guard.

It is imperative that we fund the Coast Guard at the levels authorized in this bill. It will protect our people, environment, and fisheries and continue to push back on nations such as China and Russia.

I am proud to have contributed to and supported this bill in committee,

and I look forward to voting in favor of this bill on the House floor.

Mr. Speaker, I thank all the Members who have been involved, especially Ranking Member Webster, and I am thankful for the leadership of our fearless chairman, Sam Graves, as well as the ranking members who have worked on this bill for months and months.

Mr. Speaker, I urge support of the bill.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to quickly respond to my friend from Texas and the comments about the offshore energy industry.

I represent south Louisiana. We have six States that produce offshore energy: Alaska, California, Texas Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama. You can add up the offshore Federal production in those five States combined, and you would have to multiply it times four to meet the amount of offshore energy production in Federal waters off the coast of Louisiana. Yet, our entire delegation, House, Senate, Republican, Democrat, are fully supportive of the crewing and manning provision in this bill because it does improve the safety and the security of operations in the Gulf of Mexico.

Of course, Mr. Speaker, it would not cause the shutdown of oil and gas or energy operations in the Gulf of Mexico. Let me say it again. On the contrary, it would actually improve safety and security. There are waivers and exceptions for foreign vessels that ensure these vessels operate in a way that is safe and secure for our country.

I urge adoption of this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I want to simply explain what we are talking about here.

Mr. Speaker, you could have a citizen of Russia who illegally crosses our southern border, pays cartels, comes across our southern border, and decides to set up shop in California. That citizen of Russia, who can still vote for Vladimir Putin all day long, also is counted in the distribution of electoral votes in the United States, therefore having influence and therefore shaping who is President of the United States.

I don't know what else could possibly be foreign interference in elections than what we are talking about today.

Mr. Speaker, I am from the State of Louisiana. We have six Members of Congress. We have six. By some calculations, the State of California alone has six Members of Congress entirely attributable to citizens of other countries, therefore, just offsetting all of the votes of all of the citizens of Louisiana.

This is outrageous.

To listen to people across the aisle talk about how this is inappropriate, I say: No, this is exactly appropriate. This is exactly appropriate.

As a matter of fact, regarding the way that we count American citizens in our territories, you are giving a greater status to an illegal alien in the United States, a citizen of a foreign country, than you are giving to an American citizen.

It is absolutely outrageous to listen to people who try to argue and justify this. This is 100 percent about stacking the vote, about foreign interference in elections, and about allowing and incentivizing sanctuary cities. That is what this does.

It actually takes American taxpayer dollars through the formula funding influenced by the Census, and it gives it to States that have illegal aliens.

This is completely outrageous. I can't even believe we are standing here having this debate.

Mr. Speaker, vote ``yes'' if you want Americans to be represented, and vote ``no'' if you think Russians, Chinese, and others should be represented.

Mr. Speaker, I urge adoption of the bill.

Madam Speaker, today we are going to be voting on legislation to name a post office in Rayville, Louisiana, after Congressman-elect Luke Letlow.

Madam Speaker, I had known Luke for many, many years and had the chance to work with him. I want to tell you a little bit about his background.

Luke, his whole life, was a little guy. He grew up kind of small. I bet when he was growing up, he looked at that as a handicap, maybe, as being a shorter, smaller person in stature.

As Luke got older and grew taller and got bigger, he never forgot about the lessons that he learned about being the little guy.

All throughout his career when he was working for the Louisiana congressional delegation for Congressman Cooksey and for Congressman Ralph Abraham, when he worked for Governor Jindal of Louisiana, Luke always, always stood up and fought for the little guy.

I am going to say it again. I bet that when he was growing up, he looked at it like a deficit, he looked at it like a handicap, but, wow, what he did later in life and how he took those experiences that he had and parlayed them, he used them, and he never forgot what it was like.

Oftentimes in government, the people that are heard, the people that are listened to are the ones that have the lobbyists, have the money, have the power, have the influence.

Luke made sure that that wasn't the case. It was the person who had an issue, the person who had a problem. No issue was too small. No community was too small.

Luke was born and raised in the town of Start, Louisiana, and I have to make reference to this. His dad is a firefighter, and their shirts say Start Fire. I always got a kick out of that. These people are looking for job security. They are pyromaniacs.

But seriously, he grew up in Start, Louisiana, in this very, very small community. Throughout his career in government, all he did was stand up for and fight for these small communities, to make sure that these communities were not left out, were not left behind.

To tell you a little bit about Luke, I think he would probably make Jeff Foxworthy look sophisticated. Luke would say some of the funniest things, had these hilarious sayings, but he was one of the brightest, most clever people.

I often thought of him as a scoundrel, but I don't mean that in a negative sense at all. Luke was a rascal, incredibly clever in what he did and always focused on outcomes. I can't even begin to express my sadness for Luke's early departure at just 41 years old. I can't even begin.

If Luke were here, if he served in Congress, if he were able to continue his public service, I have no doubt that we wouldn't be naming post offices after Luke. We would be naming large buildings. We would be naming large boulevards and streets.

Part of me is saddened by the fact that we are naming a post office-- I will say it again--because if he were here, I know he would accomplish nothing but greatness.

I also think about Luke, where he is now in Heaven, and I am sure that he has his own little corner, and he has streets of gold named after him. I am sure that he has his gaggle of people, and he is holding court up there doing amazing things.

One of the things that Luke was most excited about was when Start got a Dollar General. Start got a Dollar General. He could get--what was it, the Dr. Pepper and the Reese's or Kit Kat or whatever it was that he loved.

He is an amazing man. It is an absolute honor that we are able to name something after him today. I miss him greatly.

I know that he loves his wife, Julia, his son Jeremiah, and his daughter, Jacqueline. I know that when they look back at his history and the work that he has done, the legacy he has left, they are going to be incredibly proud. I love that we are here today able to vote for a post office for him.

God bless you, my brother, and God bless your family.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman of the Committee on Natural Resources for leading on this legislation.

Mr. Chairman, I often wonder where in the world we are sometimes. We are under an administration that has set energy policies that are causing energy prices to go up, to increase for Americans.

My friend from California's home State, I believe the average gasoline price in L.A. County right now is $5.40 a gallon. In my home State of Louisiana when President Biden took office, lowest gasoline prices were $1.74 a gallon.

I struggle to understand why my friend from California would want to force their ideas and policies on the rest of the country. This is the State that is the most dependent State on Amazon Rainforest oil to power their State's economy. This is the State that has the least reliable energy grid in America, the State that has had the eighth- worst emissions growth in the country, and, according to the American Lung Association, just last week, the State that has the dirtiest air over and over and over again in all of these cities including where my friend represents.

Mr. Speaker, I ask my friend, please keep his ideas to himself. Ruin California, but don't ruin the rest of the country. Don't ruin the other 49 States.

This is absolutely remarkable. We have watched as this administration comes in and does a ban on exporting American energy, on new exports of American energy, does a ban. That very tool would have been one of the most powerful tools available to actually reduce global emissions, but what my friend's policies are advocating and what they are supporting is supporting more Iranian energy because Iran is increasing their exports and filling the void.

The Biden administration's own figures show that there is going to be a 50 percent growth in global energy demand, 57 percent increase in natural gas, and we have the cleanest sources of gas in the world.

I don't understand why my friend thinks that it is better to cede this, to give this to Iran. This is the Biden administration's figures. I don't understand why my friend thinks we should cede this to Russia, why we should cede this to Venezuela.

President Biden facilitated. He lifted sanctions that allowed for the Nord Stream 2 pipeline to be built, the pipeline that took Russian energy and sent it into the European Union. Then, in the same breath, he blocked pipelines in the United States.

Let's review. We support Russian energy and Russian pipelines. We support Iranian energy, including the $65 billion they got that has gone directly to funding groups like Hamas, Hezbollah, and other terrorist groups that have killed American soldiers and invaded our ally, Israel.

We have watched as these very strategies have resulted in emissions actually going up. As the United States has led the world in reducing emissions, for every ton we reduce, China has multiple times more increases.

How many more times do we have to learn from these flawed energy strategies that harm America, enrich Venezuela, enrich Russia, enrich Iran, and harm the United States?

There is evidence all over the place. We can sit here and have these emotional arguments all day long. Math and science prove these policies are flawed. This bill helps to address it, and the fact we are even here when a law already says you are supposed to open up leases, including in areas called the National Petroleum Reserve. That is right. It is reserved for wildlife. What? This is outrageous.

The fact that we even have to be here doing this bill that the gentlewoman who represents the entire State of Alaska voted for in committee, that the gentlewoman who represents the entire State of Alaska has clearly said she will not oppose--yet, my friends from California are coming in and saying: Don't worry. We have the solution. We are going to impose our harmful strategies, our harmful energy policies, on you, as well. That way, maybe people stop leaving California.

Mr. Speaker, I can't even begin to emphasize how important it is that we move forward with this legislation, that we treat American energy fairly. I urge adoption of this legislation.

Mr. Chair, I thank Chairman Graves and Chairman Rouzer for working on this legislation.

Mr. Chair, the reality is that America has been wrapped in a bureaucratic morass. We have been wrapped in red tape. It is impossible to do things like build roads. It is impossible to deploy things like transmission that are critical to help to renew and update the electrical grid. This is because of what we have seen as an extreme agenda out of this White House.

Just yesterday we talked about the fact that the average American family is now spending an additional $1,000 a month just complying with rules and regulations out of this administration.

Mr. Chair, I remind you, this is the administration that said they would

not impose additional costs upon any family making less than $400,000 a year. That is exactly what their agenda is doing, whether it is blocking energy production and driving up energy costs or whether it is the shrinkflation you have seen with smaller products at the grocery store or higher utility bills. Every American family is facing this new hidden tax.

What Chairman Graves and Chairman Rouzer have done is they have brought together a bill that brings common sense to the Clean Water Act process.

I represent south Louisiana. We live at the bottom of one of the largest watersheds in the world and certainly the largest watershed in the United States. We go from Montana to New York to Canada and drain all of this area. Everybody's discharge, everybody's runoff, comes to our State.

Do you really think I would have an interest in dirtier water being at the bottom of the watershed, being in the area that has the greatest commercial fisheries in the continental United States and one of the biggest recreational fishing destinations in this country?

No, it doesn't make any sense.

What this legislation does is help to streamline the process. I thank the chairman for working with us to include a provision that codifies the general NPDES permits that would simply require notice if the general permit is not going to be revised. It simply lets the applicant know or the existing permit holder know if it is not going to be reissued or renewed. This is another one that helps to improve the legal process.

Mr. Chairman, I actually met with John Kerry and Brian Deese, White House officials under the Biden administration who have both left now, but who brought up to me, while they were working for the White House, they said that we have got to fix this judicial review thing. This bill does it.

What it does is something very simple that applies common sense to the situation. It says that it is fine, you can file a lawsuit if you have a problem with the decision that was made. However, first you have to try to participate and resolve your issue in the public comment process, in the public participation process, rather than waiting for the record of decision, by standing out there on the outside filing a lawsuit just as a delay tactic. These are not helpful tactics. On the contrary, these are malicious tactics. I appreciate the inclusion of that because that moves it in the right direction.

Look, in closing, Mr. Chairman, this entire bill builds upon the incredible work that was done in the revisions or the improvements in the modernization of the National Environmental Policy Act that President Biden signed into law back in June that simply tries to ensure that we shrink the amount of time and that we shrink the scope of work that is done in looking at environmental assessments and environmental impact statements.

All of this bureaucratic morass, all of this additional cost that is being heaped upon American families, all it is doing is slowing down our economy and giving strategic advantage to countries like China, which is not in our interest.

Mr. Chair, I urge adoption of this legislation.

Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

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

First of all, Mr. Chairman, after listening to the gentleman from Florida, I would like a double dose of whatever he is taking.

Secondly, Mr. Chairman, what our amendment does is, it addresses something that I think both Conservatives and Liberals should be excited about. Let me explain.

Under the Inflation Reduction Act, this large, incredibly expensive energy bill, the Congressional Budget Office did an estimate to determine the total amount of subsidies that this legislation would cost the American taxpayers.

Then you have had folks like Goldman Sachs that have come in and done evaluations and determined that that assessment was likely off by a factor of three or even four. Let me say that again. The estimate was off by a factor of three or even four.

What the base text of this legislation does is it provides for an expedited processing or environmental review of Clean Water Act requirements. Our amendment simply says, once you hit that cap of how much the Congressional Budget Office said this bill was going to cost, said the Inflation Reduction Act was going to cost, you no longer get the expedited process strictly for linear infrastructure projects; otherwise, projects like transmission.

If you are a Conservative, you should be supportive because you are simply capping the cost of this project at what the Congressional Budget Office said. If you are a Liberal, you should be supporting this. You are beating up on the bill right now. This caps or stops the effect of that bill, the expedited process, once you hit the cap that you all thought you were voting for.

Mr. Chair, this should be a win-win. This should have bipartisan support. I think that this is an appropriate amendment. I think the amendment ensures that congressional intent is preserved by limiting the cost of these incredibly expensive subsidies at the rate that Members of Congress who supported this legislation believed they were spending.

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

Mr. Chairman, I listened to the gentlewoman's response, and I guess I am confused. First of all, this amendment does absolutely nothing to affect public participation. It does nothing. It does nothing to affect local input.

This amendment does apply to linear infrastructure, as she noted, things like transmission, but I remind my friend across the aisle, the gentlewoman from California, you can't have your cake and eat it too.

The gentlewoman can't be opposed to the bill, opposed to the underlying bill, and then when this amendment actually stops the expedited authority under this legislation from applying to projects also say that she opposes that.

Does the gentlewoman support the expedited process or does she not? I am very baffled by the comments. Either you oppose the underlying bill or you support the underlying bill. I have heard the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Napolitano) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Huffman) both express opposition to the underlying bill.

Let me say it again: What this amendment does, it says that this expedited authority only for linear transmission projects, linear infrastructure projects, it no longer applies once you hit the financial cap that was estimated, the financial score that was estimated by the Congressional Budget Office.

I would think that my friend from California would actually be supportive of this legislation, of this amendment if she is opposed to the underlying bill. It caps, it curtails the use of this expedited authority that I believe Mr. Huffman indicated he believed would result in trashing the environment.

Let me say it again, you can't have your cake and eat it too. If you are a fiscal conservative, you should support this amendment because it stops this runaway, excessive subsidy for technologies that have been around for 40, 50 years. It stops the expedited authority for those type of projects. Why we are subsidizing technologies that have been around for 40 or 50 years, I do not understand. Other countries don't in many cases.

Secondly, if you are a Liberal, if you are out there saying that this bill is extreme, you should support this amendment because it no longer allows for the expedited authority once you hit the financial cap.

I ask my friends across the aisle: Do you want to have your cake or do you want to eat it because you only get one choice?

Mr. Chair, I urge support of this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Minnesota for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, $9,600, that is how much the average American household is paying today in the higher cost of living in the United States as a direct result of policies of the Biden administration, $9,600.

Now, Mr. Speaker, compare that to what President Biden said on the campaign trail. He said, I will not raise costs, raise taxes on any American who earns less than $400,000. That is the average, $9,600. In fact, for some people it is more. Mr. Speaker, the cause of these higher costs is the regulatory agenda of this administration.

That is exactly what we are debating today. We are talking about energy prices. We are talking about energy policies of this administration that are having an adverse effect on Americans. We are watching right now as this administration, as this bill tries to fix, bans fracking.

You can go back, and you can look historically at the United States. We have led the world in reducing emissions. How have we done it? Do you know what the secret is? One of the most important tools that we have used to reduce emissions is actually natural gas. Natural gas, one of the biggest targets, the biggest victims of this fracking ban.

Let's take a look. Is this fracking ban legal? Well, there was a judge in Wyoming who actually looked at this under the Obama administration and said: ``Congress has not delegated to the Department of the Interior the authority to regulate hydraulic fracturing. The BLM's effort to do so through the Fracking Rule is in excess of its statutory authority and contrary to law.''

What does this administration do? The same exact thing.

It is not just a fracking ban, though. It is also banning the export of liquefied natural gas.

As my friend from Minnesota just said, what happens is that you don't have a decrease in demand for energy. It is simply that other countries provide it.

Countries like Iran that are profiting tens of billions of dollars love these policies. Russia loves these policies. This administration actually increased the importation of energy from Russia when they came in.

This is baffling energy policy. You are failing to address America's energy security. You are failing the affordability test.

Mr. Speaker, let's think about emissions. On the emissions side, are these policies resulting in lower emissions? Let's look at facts. The facts show that between 2005 and 2021, the United States has actually reduced emissions more than any other country in the world--not just more than any other country, more than the six next emissions-reducing countries combined.

How have we done it? It is by using natural gas. What happens? Other countries fill the void, countries like Russia.

Let's do a comparison there. When you take 1 year of liquefied natural gas supplied to the European Union from Russia, and if you were to supplant it with liquefied natural gas coming from the United States, it would reduce emissions by 218 million tons, but my friends across the aisle and at the White House have taken that off the table.

Let's go back and review. We have higher prices that Americans are paying--higher prices for utilities and higher prices for gasoline. We have more dependence upon countries like Iran, China, Venezuela, and Russia for energy. We are more dependent upon them, the globe is, and emissions are going up.

Which one of these is important? I mean, this is baffling to me. Higher prices, less energy security, and higher emissions are what this administration's energy policies have achieved. It makes no sense.

Let's talk about where these dollars are going. My friend talked about the tens of billions going to Iran. These dollars are being directly provided to Iranian terrorist proxies that have attacked and killed American troops in Syria and Iraq. These policies are funding this.

Coming back to us, we are now funding Ukraine, which is battling Russia, paid for with U.S. bad energy policy. We are funding Israel. That is paid for by bad energy policy that Iran is profiting from. This makes no sense. It makes absolutely no sense.

This bill, however, does make sense because it reverses the policies of this administration. It brings back common sense. It follows evidence, science, and math that show that we can actually reduce emissions, increase energy security, and have affordable energy in the United States.

Mr. Speaker, I urge adoption of the legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I have sat in this Chamber, and I have listened to folks debate and raise concerns and problems about the legislation that is before us right now. I have heard people talking about how this is extreme, about how it is a gift to oil and gas production, and how it is going to trash the environment. There has been a poster that is up over there--and I am sad I don't have it right now--that said: polluters over people.

Mr. Speaker, we take an oath of office to stand up for this country and to defend the Constitution. We make a commitment to represent about 700,000 people each, 700,000 people, to represent their best interest.

So, Mr. Speaker, if the things that my friend from California (Mr. Huffman) was saying were accurate, then I would be outraged too, but the facts show a very different story.

I am from south Louisiana.

When President Biden took office, Mr. Speaker, do you know what gasoline prices were?

The lowest prices in our State were $1.74 per gallon on the day he took office.

Mr. Speaker, where do you find $1.74 per gallon anywhere?

If I can find it at $2.74, then I am going to fill up extra gas cans. Prices are outrageous.

Does somebody want to call AAA a partisan organization?

AAA says that the average gasoline prices in America today are $3.52 a gallon. This is outrageous. It is absolutely outrageous.

This has the biggest impact on those who can least afford it. People can't afford to fill up their vehicles. With higher energy prices, they can't afford to pay their utility bills. We have watched as food prices have skyrocketed and as housing prices have skyrocketed. Much of this is attributable to energy policy because everybody has got to drive, and everybody has got to air-condition their homes and heat their businesses.

Mr. Speaker, so what is the cause of all this?

The cause of this is exactly what this administration's policies are doing. We just heard my friend from Minnesota say that the average American family is spending about $1,000 a month more now than they were when Biden took office.

Everything we are hearing this administration say and my friends across the aisle talk about is that this is trashing the environment.

Let's look at the facts. The facts show that the United States, even under the Trump administration, actually led the world in reducing emissions, in reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Under the Biden administration, they have gone up, not down. They are going up.

What problem is the administration solving?

They are charging people higher prices. They are more dependent on foreign countries, and emissions are going up. They are having more of an adverse impact on the environment. I don't understand.

Mr. Speaker, it is interesting. I noted that the folks who have been speaking on this bill are from California. Let's take a look at the performance of California. Let's take a look at the performance.

Electricity rates in California are almost triple those in my home State. They are almost triple. Gasoline prices are approaching double. Emissions, they have the eighth worst emissions growth in America. California is the most dependent State upon oil from the Amazon rainforest. It is the most dependent State on imported energy, and it has the least reliable grid in America.

Mr. Speaker, who in the hell would want to thrust that upon their citizens?

This is a complete record of failure. Yet, it is the exact blueprint that this administration is following. It doesn't make sense.

This isn't about Republican, Democrat, Conservative, or Liberal. This is about math. It doesn't make sense.

All we are doing is we are creating a void that Iran is filling, that Russia is filling, and that Venezuela is filling.

Are they taking those dollars and doing things that are in America's interests?

No.

We have got to look at this globally. We have got to follow the math and the science as America has led the world in reducing emissions. We have led the world more than the next six emission-reducing countries combined, and we have ceded all of this energy void to China.

Mr. Speaker, do you know what has happened?

China has increased emissions five tons for every one ton we have reduced. It doesn't make sense.

I am not asking for Republican or Democrat policies. I am not asking for Conservative or Liberal policies. I am simply saying: Let's follow the math and follow the science and do what makes sense.

Folks are wondering: Why are my prices higher?

For one reason, this bill right here actually repeals higher royalty rates. Royalties are a percentage. They are not a hard dollar figure per barrel of oil or cubic foot of gas. It is a percentage. So as prices go up, so do the royalties. They have raised the percentage.

People are wondering why they are paying more money?

It is a percentage, yet this bill tries to come in and create a level playing field, create certainty, and create economic conditions that make sense.

My friends are sitting here saying: Oh, Big Oil is profiting.

They are profiting because the policies that the Biden administration is putting forth is resulting in conditions that cause prices to skyrocket. The thing that is so frustrating is that we had evidence that this is exactly what was going to happen. During the Obama administration the exact same thing happened, and I noted in the State of California the exact same thing happened.

I am just asking that we follow the math and the science. Let's support this legislation. Let's stop doing things that charge people unaffordable energy prices and trash the environment at the same time.

Madam Chair, I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania for promoting this legislation, for carrying it through the committee.

Let me provide a little bit of background because I think there has been some confusion here.

If we look at occupancy rates of Federal buildings from pre-pandemic to current, then 54 percent of the buildings are occupied as compared to pre-pandemic.

Let me say this again. If you look at pre-pandemic occupancy and compare it to today, you have 54 percent occupancy as compared to what would have been 100 percent at the time, 100 percent of those slots filled.

What this legislation does is, it says that if leases are occupied 60 percent or less, then the government needs to give up those leases.

My friend from Washington has brought up the fact that you have folks who do telework and flexible schedules and things along those lines. There is a 40 percent cushion, number 1. Number 2, I think something that is incumbent upon folks in government that are using public money to pay for this--let me say it again: $2 billion a year to operate and maintain, $5 billion a year to pay for leases. It is incumbent upon these folks that are managing this to make sure that you are properly coordinating schedules.

If people are teleworking or have flexible schedules, that is fine. Just manage them in a way that maximizes the use of the space.

Look, this is ridiculous what is going on. It is $7 billion a year. If we went around the Congress and asked Members of Congress, do you have something in your district that needs funding and you have been unable to get funding for, every single one of us could spend $7 billion.

We have been trying to fight for a new bridge crossing the Mississippi River for years and years now. It should have been done 40 years ago.

Let's be clear: It only requires divestment or elimination of the lease if the occupancy is less than 60 percent. What private business would even do that? I think it actually should be a higher standard in an ideal situation.

As Chairman Perry said, according to a Government Accountability Office study that went through, they looked at 24 Federal agencies and 17 of the 24 only used 25 percent of the space. This is insane. There is better uses of taxpayer funds.

In closing, Madam Chair, I remind everyone here, our current government debt is approximately $34.5 trillion. Each individual taxpayer's share of that is around $257,000. I couldn't afford that. I don't think we need to be irresponsibly and recklessly spending taxpayer dollars in this environment or ever. I commend my friend from Pennsylvania for pushing this legislation, and I urge adoption.

Madam Speaker, Members of this body are so used to me coming up here to talk about all the national championships that LSU has won. Whether it is football, women's basketball, or baseball, we are up here all the time.

Well, the good news is that LSU's Manship School of Mass Communication is competing for, once again, another national championship. They are participating in Culturs magazine's national championship, a promotional tournament.

LSU represents the incredible diversity of Louisiana, which we refer to as America's foreign country. The culture, the music, the people are like nowhere else in this amazing country.

As the students of LSU Manship School of Mass Communication participate in this national tournament, I wish the best to Brooke Bordelon and the entire team.

Go Tigers.

Madam Speaker, I want to add my voice of strong support to this legislation.

There is no question what we have seen in the aviation industry, these near misses, these runway incursions, and safety issues all across the aviation system.

As both Ranking Member Larsen and Chairman Graves noted, the House did its business. We came together on a bipartisan basis and passed legislation in July by a vote of 351-69. That legislation addresses everything from general aviation, a topic that I know our chairman cares much about and knows a lot about, to topics like new entrants and new aviation technologies. It focuses on safety, and it ensures, Madam Speaker, that this entire legislation focuses ultimately on the passenger experience, making sure that air travelers from all across the United States have a great experience with new technology whenever they enter the airports and whenever they enter the airplanes.

None of those benefits are going to be realized unless and until we pass a long-term authorization bill. This is the last temporary extension we are going to do. This is a clean extension until May 10. If we don't do this, it will cause the Federal Government to incur debt, because we won't be able to collect the user fees that go along with aviation travel.

It is absolutely critical that this clean, bipartisan extension be enacted. It is absolutely critical that we stay on track with bipartisan, bicameral negotiations on the FAA bill, now that the Senate has finally--and I commend them--passed this bill out of the Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee in the United States Senate.

I thank Chairman Graves for his leadership, Ranking Member Larsen and my friend Steve Cohen for working together on this to make sure that we can continue a united front and realize all these gains in the aviation sector as a result of the House aviation bill.

I also add my regret to the loss of Chris Senn to the Subcommittee on Aviation. He is overcredentialed, overeducated, and often awes us with his knowledge of drones and other technology. It is going to be a big loss to the committee, but I appreciate his service.

Madam Speaker, had I been present, I would have voted ``aye'' on rollcall No. 35, H. Res. 996.

personal explanation

Mr. Speaker, nothing ruins a great day like the tax man. Nothing ruins a great day like the tax man, and I am not talking about the IRS. I am talking about when you are out there fishing, and you have this big shark that just comes up and takes your catch.

You have great fishermen like Mr. Wittman and Mr. Westerman, and maybe it is not that big of a deal; your next cast you are going catch another one. But you have people out there who don't know what they are doing, like Mr. Joyce of Ohio; it is a whole other thing. You just ruined his day.

What happens is--as Mr. Wittman clearly laid out--you will be out there, and you may be on a red snapper, you may be out there in some mangrove, and you are just catching fish; that is dinner.

This is an amazing experience. As Mr. Wittman noted, this is about economic activity all across the coastal United States. One of the biggest gaps, one of the biggest voids in our ability to properly manage fisheries is knowing more, knowing better about the impact of this apex predator, the shark.

I want to be very clear. This bill is not about culling species. It is not about killing sharks. What it is about is simply ensuring that we have the right data, that we have the right understanding to build properly managed fisheries, and to be able to ensure we can promote avoidance techniques to prevent this depredation from occurring.

I thank the gentleman from Virginia, who is an expert in this field, Mr. Wittman, and I thank Mr. Soto and Mr. Veasey, some of the cosponsors on this legislation, for their support, but this is all about improving the accuracy of fish management.

It benefits recreational fisheries, it benefits commercial fisheries, and, most importantly, Mr. Speaker, it benefits the sustainable fisheries, the sustainable stocks of some of these important areas like the Atlantic, the Pacific, the Gulf of Mexico, and other areas.

Again, I thank my friend from Virginia for his hard work on this legislation. I thank Chairman Westerman for working with us and some of the great staff on his team, Vivian and Sandra. I thank Anderson on our staff, as well as Rachel on Ranking Member Grijalva's staff for their work in coming together to make sure that we have the right balance here.

This is all about ensuring that for generations to come that our children and our grandchildren can enjoy the same experiences that we have for many, many years.

Mr. Speaker, I urge support of this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I thank Dr. Joyce for organizing this Special Order tonight.

I thank the Biden administration, actually. I thank the Biden administration because they came out a week from Friday and admitted what we knew all along. They paused American energy.

Mr. Speaker, it is consistent with what we have seen out of this administration for the last few years. They go out there and say, yes, Russia should be able to build the Nord Stream 2 pipeline to facilitate Russian energy, but the Keystone pipeline in the United States can't be built. It is pro-Russia; it is anti-U.S.

It is not just that, Mr. Speaker. Let's look at what is happening. Since Putin has invaded Ukraine, the European Union is still dependent upon Russian natural gas today. Mr. Speaker, 14 percent of the natural gas being supplied to the European Union is coming from Russia. Let me say it another way: It is a billion dollars a month. Of course, it was twice or three times that before the invasion.

What is happening is this billion dollars a month today is actually funding the Russian war against Ukraine. At the same time, this administration is out there banging on Congress to give them $60 billion in aid for Ukraine.

I have an idea: Stop funding the Russian war. How do you do that? Dr. Joyce said this a little while ago. You can look at the National Energy Technology Lab analysis looking at U.S. natural gas. Compared to Russian gas, Russian gas has 41 percent higher emissions.

Mr. Speaker, let me say it another way: If we had taken 1 year of Russian gas that was supplied to the European Union and supplanted it, replaced it with U.S. gas, it would have reduced emissions to the tune of 218 million tons of emissions.

Do you know what? It would have been for free. We could have just supplanted U.S. gas with Russian gas. We could have kneecapped Vladimir Putin and those billions of dollars he received. We could have helped the economy in the United States. We could have strengthened our economic ties with our allies.

This doesn't make any sense, Mr. Speaker, but this is what we are seeing out of this administration over and over again. Their policies are resulting in Iran profiting $60 billion--$60 billion to Iran as a result of this administration's flawed energy policies.

We lost three servicemembers and had 30-plus more injured because we are funding Iran that is funding the Houthis that is funding Hezbollah that is funding Hamas that is funding the Islamic Jihad and other terrorist organizations.

This is unbelievable. Higher costs for American families, higher emissions, and lower energy security--this makes no sense. It lacks common sense, and it is simply not in America's interests.

I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania for hosting this tonight. Most importantly, Mr. Speaker, we have to bring common sense back to American energy policy.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Arkansas and the gentlewoman from Oregon for their cooperation on this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I note that my friend from Arkansas, whether he has the electronic stamp or the physical stamp, I feel that the ducks in Arkansas are safe. I have seen him shoot and am confident that those ducks are safe.

Seriously, Mr. Speaker, oftentimes, when Congress acts, I think the American people need to be very concerned.

In this case, I think it is a really good thing that is happening today.

As my friends have discussed, back in 1934, President Roosevelt signed the Migratory Bird Hunting and Conservation Stamp Act into law. Today, over 1.6 million hunters go out and buy a physical duck stamp every single year.

This has resulted in over $1.1 billion being invested in conservation. This has benefited over 6 million acres of our national wildlife refuges around the United States. This is a great program.

As my friend from Arkansas indicated, there is a compliance issue. With the great work that was done in 2013 to allow for an electronic duck stamp, there is a lag time between when the duck stamp is purchased and when the physical stamp comes in. You could find hunters out of compliance, despite the fact that they bought a stamp. Simply, this legislation fixes that.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the Senate cosponsors of this legislation who have jumped in, Senators Boozman, Manchin, Marshall, and King, for introducing the House companion--I want to be clear, the House companion. This was a House bill and has already passed out of the House, but now, the Senate is refusing to take our bill up, so we find ourselves here.

In any case, I think this is good news. We are going to take the win. I appreciate the opportunity to move forward.

The bottom line is that this ensures that hunters can be compliant and are not going to get fined for not having the physical stamp. Importantly, it preserves the physical stamp that will continue to be mailed. It still is available to be purchased at local sporting goods stores and post offices all around the United States.

We can continue to ensure compliance and ensure the enjoyment of waterfowl all over the United States, whether you are in North Dakota or south Louisiana or even in the chairman of the Natural Resources Committee's State, Arkansas.

Mr. Speaker, I thank Congressman Mike Thompson from California, who is the bipartisan cosponsor on this legislation. I urge adoption.

Mr. Speaker, this body is often fighting over things. We are at one of the most polarized points in our Nation that I have ever experienced, but in this case, this is an instance where Republicans and Democrats are coming together. I thank my good friend, Steve Cohen, not just for this bill but also for the 5-year authorization that we passed out of this Chamber back in July. I also thank Rick Larsen, the ranking member of the full committee; and, of course, Sam Graves, the full committee chairman, a good friend, and probably the best expert on aviation in the entire House of Representatives, for their work on aviation this year.

Mr. Speaker, I often hear people quote John Dingell, who said that the other party is the opposition, but the Senate is the enemy. In this case, I think that is exactly what we are experiencing.

Right now, we are in a situation where the House of Representatives, in this very polarized environment, passed a bipartisan FAA bill that we worked on for over 18 months.

The aviation team did an amazing job going through and distilling over 2,000 requests from Members of Congress and stakeholders and generating a bill, while not a metric of success, over 900 pages, ultimately passing the House Transportation Committee unanimously and passing the House of Representatives by a vote of 351 to only 69 people who didn't understand the bill.

Mr. Speaker, that shows huge momentum. We were able to work through complicated issues, as you heard others say, things like improving the passenger experience and making regulatory decisions for the FAA to ensure that we continue to play the leadership role in aviation innovation; to ensure that we have regulatory certainty and that we are not sending innovators and entrepreneurs to other countries to make investments because we don't have regulations, stability, or predictability in the aviation sector where new entrants are coming in at a remarkable rate; to ensure that we move the ball forward and properly strike that balance, as I know the full committee chair is so concerned about, between general aviation and commercial aviation; and to ensure that commercial space travel is properly regulated and has the certainty that they need.

Mr. Speaker, we reorganized the FAA. We improved the training of air traffic controllers. We improved addressing the major cliff that we are going over on pilots, A&P mechanics, and others involved in the aviation space who are so critical to this country.

Rather than sending a bill to the President's desk to do a long-term reauthorization of the FAA for 5 years, which addresses most of the problems in the FAA, we find ourselves now doing a 3-month extension until March 8 because the Senate has been unable to get their job done.

Just 2 weeks ago, we had a hearing in the Aviation Subcommittee where we went through and explored these issues. We looked at this.

The FAA now finally has an Administrator. I am fully supportive of the Administrator of the FAA, Administrator Whitaker, for being in there, but we have to have long-term certainty.

While I am voting for this bill and support it, it does not address the problems in the aviation space. They will not be addressed until the Senate takes up the bill and, ultimately, goes to conference with the House to where we are working on a conference report and sending a long-term authorization to the President.

Once again, Mr. Speaker, I thank the other members of the Big Four: Mr. Cohen, Mr. Larsen, and Mr. Sam Graves. I thank everybody for working on this. I thank the aviation team on both sides.

I support this legislation, and I urge its adoption, but we cannot take the pressure off of the United States Senate to ultimately do their job and pass a long-term FAA reauthorization.