Floor Statements

Mr. Chair, I can't even believe we are at this moment where the administration wants to take your gas stove--not take your gas stove but limit what you can purchase in the future.

I rise in support of H.R. 1640, the Save Our Gas Stoves Act.

It is no secret this administration has waged war on American energy. From day one, President Biden has waged war on American energy, doing everything possible to phase out the use of all fossil fuels, including American-produced oil and clean-burning, American-produced natural gas.

Now, they are taking it a step further. They are dictating what appliances Americans can purchase for their homes.

In February, the Department of Energy announced a new proposal that would ban most natural-gas-fueled stoves on the market today. According to DOE's evaluation, only 4 percent of the gas stove cooking tops tested would meet DOE's proposed standard. DOE's proposed regulation would render gas stoves almost completely unavailable to the American consumer.

The average annual savings under the proposed rule would be only about $1 over the average lifetime of the appliance--$1 a year. We are debating a proposed rule that would save Americans, on average, $1 a year over the life of the appliance?

Mr. Chair, we have a lot more to do in this United States Congress than debating a proposed rule that will limit Americans' choices for appliances that would only save them $1 a year.

This clearly does not achieve the significant savings of energy as the law, the Energy Policy and Conservation Act, requires.

So, what is this all about? I will tell you what it is about, Mr. Chair. The Democrats and this administration hate fossil fuels, and they want to diminish Americans' standard of living.

This rule is illegal, and it should be withdrawn. It is not a sincere effort to improve efficiency but rather a part of the whole-of- government approach to target energy sources they ideologically oppose.

H.R. 1640, the Save Our Gas Stoves Act, which we are debating today, would prohibit the Secretary of Energy from finalizing, implementing, or enforcing the recently proposed rule. It would also prohibit the Department of Energy from reissuing a rule that bans the use of natural gas.

Their goal is to end natural gas in this country. Natural gas is what got us down to the carbon emissions levels that we have achieved. If you want to approach it from the climate change standpoint, the carbon emissions standpoint has been because of natural gas.

It would also prohibit the Department of Energy from reissuing a rule. It would clarify that DOE does not have the authority to remove cooking products from the market simply because of the fuel product that the appliance consumes.

I am a proud cosponsor of this bipartisan legislation, and I thank Congresswoman Lesko for her leadership on this and for introducing this bill.

Americans should be free to choose the cooking products they use in their homes and their businesses, and this bill ensures that. Households that use

natural gas for heating, cooking, and clothes drying save an average of $1,068 per year compared to homes that use electricity for those appliances.

The rush to green and mass electrification efforts pursued by the Biden administration are costing Americans and making everyday life more expensive, all for $1 per year savings.

It is gas stoves today. It will be gas furnaces tomorrow. They are already talking about gas hot water heaters and then dryers. They are coming after your natural gas appliances because they hate natural gas.

The bottom line is that, on day one, President Biden said that we are going to end the use of fossil fuels. He wanted to ban fracking, offshore production, and onshore production.

That is the real reason we are debating this. It is not about the appliance. It is about the war on energy and American-produced energy.

Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support this legislation that is in front of us today which prioritizes American energy affordability and reliability and that puts the American people first and gives them choices.

Let the market determine which choice they can have, and let the consumer choose which one best meets their needs for their family, for their households, and for their businesses as they look at the bottom line in their budgets because the intention of the proposed rule only saves American families $1 a year. Give me a break.

Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 1640.

Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, today I want to recognize the Clinton High School and Clinton Middle School Olympiad teams for both bringing home the state championship in Charleston this month and qualifying for the National Science Olympiad Tournament in Kansas this May.

The Science Olympiad was founded in 1984 as the premier team STEM competition in the nation and provides standards-based challenges to 6,000 teams at 425 tournaments in all 50 states. Winning the State Olympiad is a tremendous accomplishment alone, but the fact that Clinton has a history of excellence in the Science Olympiad is even more impressive.

Clinton has been involved in the Olympiad since 1986, and I am proud of Clinton's continued success in this competition. Clinton Middle School, formerly Bell Street Middle School, has won the State Olympiad title nineteen times in the last twenty-one years, and Clinton High School has won the State title twelve of the last fifteen years.

I would like to congratulate the coaches and the members of Clinton's State Championship Science Olympiad Team for their win this year.

This year's middle school team included: Jackie Alcudia, Liam Bell, Rylee Bell, Madison Boyter, Lauren Ficklin, Sam Hunt, Salaam Jenkins, Jacob King, Matthew King, Shayne Kiselak, Hank Lanford, Landen Lowman, Kelly Nelson, Sidney Nelson, Arohi Patel, Shrey Patel, Ada Tiller, Brian Phillips, Aubrie Watts, Ben Wiggins, and Marlee Williamson.

This year's high school team included: Kaelyn Bell, Jules Darden, Keegan Fortman, Julieta Garcia, Becca King, Anna Litzenberger, Addison Lowman, Shane Nelson, Junia Nolan, Wes Ray, Helen Sarah, Bailey Suarez, and Rachel Vondergeest.

And of course, we have to remember the coaches because a team is only as good as its leadership: Head Coach Terri O'Shields, David O'Shields, Kevin Cox, Michael Mack, Jason Smith, Ami Vaughan, Allison Lanford, Stan Walsh, Jimbo Langston, Scott Shiflet, Dianne Summer, Sharon Lone, David Bell, Katie Scarlett, Maggie O'Shields, and Asheton Wilbanks.

Clinton High School defeated fourteen other high school teams to win and brought home the gold medal in Astronomy, Bridge Building, Chemistry Lab, Dynamic Planet, Environmental Chemistry, Forestry, Remote Sensing, and Wifi Lab. Clinton Middle School defeated all of its competition in each event.

Congratulations to the students of Clinton High School and Clinton Middle School for another Olympiad State Championship. Their success is a testament to their talent, hard work, and dedication.

South Carolina is rooting for them as they compete in the National Science Olympiad

Tournament next month. They all have bright futures and are the innovators of tomorrow--the sky is the limit. I thank them and God Bless.

Mr. Speaker, that is what you call making it just in time. I thank the gentleman from California for yielding just a little time in this Special Order hour in order for me to recognize a very special group of students down in Clinton, South Carolina.

Mr. Speaker, today I recognize the Clinton High School and Clinton Middle School Olympiad teams for both bringing home the State championship in Charleston this past month and qualifying for the National Science Olympiad tournament in Kansas this May.

Now, the Science Olympiad was founded in 1984 as the premier team STEM competition in the Nation and provides standards-based challenges to 6,000 teams at 425 tournaments in all 50 States.

Winning the State Olympiad is a tremendous accomplishment alone, but the fact that Clinton has a history of excellence in the Science Olympiad is even more impressive.

Listen to this: Clinton has been involved in the Olympiad since 1986, and I am proud of Clinton's continued success in this competition.

The Clinton Middle School, formerly Bell Street Middle School where my sons went to middle school, has won the State Olympiad title 19 times in the last 21 years--19 times in the last 21 years--and Clinton High School has won the State title 12 of the last 15 years.

I congratulate the coaches and members of the Clinton State Championship Science Olympiad team for their win this year and applaud them for their wins over the years.

This year's middle school team included Jackie Alcudia, Liam Bell, Madison Boyter, Lauren Ficklin, Sam Hunt, Salaam Jenkins, Jacob King, Matthew King, Shayne Kiselak, Hank Lanford, Landen Lowman, Kelly Nelson, Sidney Nelson, Arohi Patel, Shrey Patel, Ada Tiller, Brian Phillips, Aubrie Watts, Ben Wiggins, and Marlee Williamson.

This year's high school team included Kaelyn Bell, Jules Darden, Keegan Fortman, Julieta Garcia, Becca King, Anna Litzenberger, Addison Lowman, Shane Nelson, Junia Nolan, Wes Ray, Helen Sarah, Bailey Suarez, and Rachel Vondergeest.

Now, of course, we have to remember the coaches because a team is only as good as the leadership, so you have head coach Terri O'Shields and David O'Shields, who is our superintendent in that district. They are both dear friends of mine.

Kevin Cox, Michael Mack, Jason Smith, Ami Vaughn, Allison Lanford, Stan Walsh, Jimbo Langston, Scott Shiflet, Dianne Summer, Sharon Lone, David Bell, Katie Scarlett, Maggie O'Shields, and Asheton Wilbanks.

Clinton High School defeated 14 other high school teams to win, and they brought home the gold medal in astronomy, bridge building, chemistry lab, dynamic planet, environmental chemistry, forestry, remote sensing, and the WiFi lab. What great categories for STEM education.

Clinton Middle School defeated all of its competition in each event.

Congratulations to the students of Clinton High School and Clinton Middle School for another Science Olympiad State championship.

Their success is a testament not only to their talent and the hard work that they put in and the dedication, but it is a testament to the leaders and the teachers and the coaches that really helped them navigate this success.

South Carolina is rooting for them as they compete in the National Science Olympiad tournament next month. They have bright futures, and they are the innovators of tomorrow. The sky is the limit.

I thank them for what they do. I congratulate them on their win, and God bless them.

Madam Chair, I thank the chairwoman for her leadership on this bill. The Lower Energy Costs Act is a product of countless hours of discussion between leadership, stakeholders, and our constituents, who are tired of higher costs for less reliable energy.

The United States has an incredible energy potential. We have vast resources of oil, natural gas, and other critical minerals essential for energy dominance.

Only a few years ago, we were a global leader in both oil and gas production. This was achieved through American innovation, domestic energy production, and investment from the private sector in developing our critical energy infrastructure.

Unfortunately, the Biden administration vowed to wage war on American energy. Starting on his very first day in office with the help of the Democrats here in Congress, the Biden administration has pursued radical rush-to-green energy policies that made energy less secure, less reliable, and more expensive for our constituents.

This has led to increased costs of energy and goods, hitting the most vulnerable the hardest. We should be about increasing the standard of living for Americans versus diminishing the standard of living that these anti-American energy policies actually do.

Energy is the foundation of everything in American life. When the cost of energy goes up, everything else does, as well. H.R. 1 should help America and will help America produce more, deliver more to our communities, and give us the ability to export and help our allies around the world.

The American people recognize this, and they are sick of choosing between paying their energy bills and putting food on the table, which is why they gave us the majority, to stop this radical energy agenda.

I am proud that my bill, Protecting American Energy Production Act, was included in this package. This provision will protect energy security and affordability by prohibiting the President from imposing a ban on hydraulic fracturing.

The discovery of natural gas through the shale revolution has made the United States a leader in energy production as well as emissions reduction and has allowed the United States of America, not our adversaries, to set the price of energy.

We are approaching the breaking point in our energy infrastructure. The so-called rush-to-green agenda has prevented the buildout of natural gas and other essential energy infrastructure, which is now reaching capacity. Many States, like my own State of South Carolina, are now at risk of approaching an energy deficit in the next few years if we don't immediately change our current regulatory framework.

Fortunately, H.R. 1 addresses these concerns by requiring States to raise legitimate water quality concerns for interstate pipelines and LNG export facilities through FERC's NEPA process instead of weaponizing section 401 of the Clean Water Act to block pipelines.

This change is critical to prevent the political agenda of States abusing section 401 to veto projects of national significance while preserving the ability of States to raise legitimate water quality concerns. New England States could finally get gas from the Marcellus shale instead of importing natural gas from Russia, Iran, Venezuela, and a lot of our other adversaries around the globe.

We have the resources here not only to meet our domestic demand but also to be a leading exporter globally.

Representative DeGette mentioned earlier about capacity and U.S. production and how that would limit available gas for American domestic energy production. The Progressive Policy Institute, which is far from a conservative think tank, put out an article, ``The Climate Case for Expanding U.S. Natural Gas Exports,'' which talks about using that domestically. I would ask you to read it.

This package also sets a framework to export our domestic resources so our allies will no longer have to rely on Vladimir Putin's energy oligarchy. The Democrats keep calling this the polluters over people act. That couldn't be further from the truth.

The reality is that their energy policies put Russia, China, OPEC+, and radical Green New Deal interests over the interests of the American people. The greatest beneficiaries of their policies are the CCP and Vladimir Putin.

Green New Deal policies leave us totally dependent on China for critical minerals that make all of our devices work. Even the green energy devices, wind and solar, need those critical minerals.

We have them here. We harvest them cleaner, more environmentally friendly than anywhere in the world. Let's produce them here. That is what H.R. 1 allows us to do.

H.R. 1 puts the American people first by unleashing American energy and securing our supply chains. It will increase American energy production and restore American energy leadership in the world. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Madam Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Latta).

Madam Chair, let me just say it is great to see the American people in the gallery for once listening to a debate on energy. It is so important to them.

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

Madam Chair, I am glad the people at home are watching this on TV or here in person because they are learning that H.R. 1 is going to lower their energy costs.

Madam Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Weber), who is a valuable member of the Energy and Commerce Committee and whose State is a huge energy producer for our Nation.

Madam Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Dunn), a new member on the Energy and Commerce Committee.

Madam Chair, I am glad we have got so many members of the Energy and Commerce Committee to come down and show the American people how we are going to lower their energy costs.

I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Walberg), a real leader on the Energy and Commerce Committee.

Madam Chair, the rush to disaster is this rush to green energy policies without thinking about the replacement source of power generation that can be provided by American-produced natural gas, delivered to where it needs to be to produce the power and help lower carbon emissions for America.

I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Rose).

Madam Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Cammack), who is a valuable member of the Energy and Commerce Committee.

Madam Chair, it is funny. I see polluters over people act. We are talking about increasing natural gas production and delivery in this country. According to EIA data, switching to natural gas has accounted for as much as 61 percent of U.S. emissions reductions from 2005 to 2020.

More natural gas--cleaner burning, American-produced natural gas-- delivered to where it needs to go will help

us lower carbon emissions and make America more energy secure.

Madam Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Allen).

Madam Chair, it is my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Bucshon), whose State is at the crossroads of America.

Madam Chair, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Meuser), whose State includes the Marcellus shale, which has an immeasurable amount of natural gas.

Madam Chair, exporting U.S.-produced, cleaner-burning natural gas to places like Vietnam and China, which allows them to take their coal-fired power plants offline, actually lowers carbon emissions globally.

Democrats say they care about carbon emissions globally. Exporting clean-burning natural gas will help do that.

Madam Chair, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Palmer).

Mr. Chair, I applaud leadership for allowing this bill to go through regular order. It went through three committees, 21 bills, hearings, markups, amendments offered, and here we are today.

Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Joyce), who is from a huge area of Marcellus shale, producing so much natural gas for our Nation.

Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Obernolte), a new member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce.

Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Balderson), who is a new member on the Energy and Commerce Committee, and whose State has the Marcellus shale. They are a big producer in oil, coal, hydro, nuclear, and a lot of other things.

Mr. Chair, I am glad to have the author of the bill on the floor, Mr. Scalise.

Mr. Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from West Virginia (Mrs. Miller), my guardian angel.

Mr. Chair, I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentlewoman from West Virginia.

Mr. Chair, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from West Virginia.

Mr. Chairman, may I inquire how much time is remaining.

Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Curtis), the vice chairman of the Energy, Climate, and Grid Security Subcommittee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Bilirakis), who is a Florida Gator.

Mr. Chairman, we should fix the grid and harden it from the EMP threats and other things, but while we are doing that, we need the pipeline infrastructure to get the resources to where they need to go, and that is in our communities so that baseload generation can happen.

Mr. Chairman, there is a gentleman from Ohio who understands energy. He is the chairman of the Environment, Manufacturing, and Critical Materials Subcommittee on the Energy and Commerce Committee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Johnson).

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to applaud the commitment of the United States Forest Service to see through the protection of the Bering River coalfield in Alaska.

According to the Forest Service, the Copper River watershed, in which the Bering River lies, is one of the largest and most biologically intact places on Earth.

Mineral rights to the Bering River coalfield are currently owned by a Korean company, which means almost 12,000 acres of coalfields in the Copper River watershed remain vulnerable to mining.

Coal from the Bering River has no value in the U.S. coal market. We have plenty in the lower 48. An extraction would only serve to benefit the Asian markets at the cost of decimating one of the few untouched places left in America. The current owner of the mineral rights expressed that they are willing to sell the rights, and the bid for appraisal opened last week.

It is my hope that we are approaching the finish line of the conservation of the Bering River, an effort that has been ongoing for 100 years. Forty-six conservation organizations have voiced their support for the protection of this invaluable natural resource.

If a purchase of the Bering River coalfield is successful, all future generations of American sportsmen and -women and outdoor recreationists can experience the magnificent wild country the way it emerged from our creator.

I will take a brief moment to thank the late Representative Don Young from Alaska for his help and support of this issue to get it to this point.

I also thank the Exxon Valdez trust for extending a boundary so that money could be leveraged to help set aside for future generations this important national asset.

Mr. Speaker, at 5:19 this afternoon, I became a grandfather.

My middle son, J.P. Duncan, had our first grandchild, John Waylon, J.W. Duncan, 8 pounds, 4 ounces, and you can tell this Congressman is excited.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the leadership of Dr. Evans P. Whitaker, President of Anderson University, as well as his wife, Mrs. Diane Whitaker,

In 2002, Dr. Whitaker assumed the presidency of Anderson University in Anderson, South Carolina, and in just 2 decades, the university's student population has more than doubled. Anderson College was chartered more than a century ago in 1911 and was one of the first institutions of higher learning for women in the United States. In 2006, it officially became Anderson University under Dr. Whitaker. In under 20 years with Dr. Whitaker at the helm, Anderson University has grown from barely 1,600 students to roughly 4,200 students, making it South Carolina's largest private university and the 16th fastest- growing regional university in the last decade.

Under Dr. Whitaker's visionary leadership, he has ushered the university into its modern era and established a legacy of accomplishments, including increasing the campus size from 68 acres to 400 acres and bringing the university's academics to the next level. He has also seen the university launch 26 graduate programs, establish the South Carolina School of the Arts, begin the Undergraduate Center for Cancer Research, be recognized by the Chronicle of Higher Education as a Great College to Work For, and experience more than $100 million in capital improvement, including a new library, student center, athletic facilities, and 2 new academic buildings. Dr. Whitaker is also a leader in the Anderson community, South Carolina, and beyond, and

holds various leadership positions on the community, state, and national levels.

Congratulations to Dr. Whitaker and his wife, Diane (and her commitment to baking her famous chocolate chip cookies for every student), for 20 years at AU and for helping shape the university into a premier Christian university and among the best regional universities in the South. The university has remained committed to preparing students with the knowledge they need to be successful in their careers, and more importantly, to thrive in all areas of life, including family, community, and faith. AU is truly an Academically Excellent, Faith-filled, Hospitable, Purpose-driven place that provides students with a rigorous educational experience, grounded in faith and innovation.

I am proud to represent Anderson University in Congress and am excited to see the university continue to grow and instill in students ``Knowledge for your Journey'' in an intentionally Christian environment. God Bless Anderson University and Go Trojans.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of my legislation to end Joe Biden's COVID-19 vaccine mandate for our Nation's healthcare workers.

We have had a lot of debate and conversation, and we have learned a lot about COVID since 2020. I am proud to continue our work from last Congress to end this mandate, and I will not stop leading the charge until this requirement is lifted.

No American should be forced to choose between receiving a COVID shot or losing their livelihood. But CMS uses the purse strings of forced policies on healthcare systems. I have serious concerns regarding the practicality, efficacy, and morality of a vaccine mandate for healthcare providers.

The CMS mandate is one of the strictest mandates the Biden administration has implemented. With few permissible exceptions for healthcare workers, this mandate has only created resentment and distrust toward the government and loss of jobs, nursing jobs, CNA jobs, often replaced with traveling nurses being paid a higher rate, a higher cost for the taxpayers and the hospitals.

Joe Biden's draconian vaccine mandate is unscientific, un-American, and is deeply damaging to healthcare workers as we already face a nationwide shortage.

CMS's one-size-fits-all vaccine mandate exacerbates the ongoing staffing shortage by limiting the ability of healthcare providers to make important accommodations and set standards for their employees based on their staffing needs.

No American should stand for this type of authoritarianism that is a detriment to our healthcare system.

Last night, the Biden administration threatened to veto this legislation. The administration went on and on about protecting individuals from COVID-19, but there was no mention that the COVID-19 vaccine prevents transmission. That is because the CDC has confirmed that the shot does not prevent transmission.

Let's follow the science here and allow individuals to make choices for themselves.

I encourage my colleagues to support my legislation, the Freedom for Health Care Workers Act, and give medical freedom back to our Nation's healthcare workers and let them get back to work.

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

Mr. Chair, this amendment will prohibit the leasing plan from including a whole new swath of Federal lands.

This is a solution in search of a problem because many of these areas are already protected. I went through the list. I don't see any that aren't.

Under existing law, many of these places aren't open for oil and gas leasing. Nothing in H.R. 21 would change that fact.

President Biden campaigned on a platform to end fossil fuels, and on day one of his administration, he imposed a moratorium on energy production on Federal lands. The Biden administration has leased fewer acres than any other administration dating all the way back to World War II. H.R. 21 will reverse the dangerous precedent set by President Biden and his administration and unlock the natural resources owned by the American people for the benefit of all.

The SPR shouldn't be used for political purposes. Drawing down to influence gas prices is wrong when the SPR is set aside for national emergencies, a time of war. It is a strategic asset for the American people, not to be used to influence elections.

This amendment will increase gas prices and weaken our energy security by reimposing the Biden administration's leasing moratorium.

It is wrong. It is messaging. I get it. You are okay with releasing gas and oil out of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve to influence gas prices, weakening our Nation if a natural disaster should strike.

We need to replenish the SPR. We need to do it with the American resources that we are blessed with in this country. That is what H.R. 21 does.

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

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

Mr. Chair, once again, this amendment would further allow the President to abuse the SPR by draining it without declaring a national emergency under the Energy Policy and Conservation Act, giving him the ability to once again use the SPR for political purposes, and that is wrong.

It is set aside for national emergencies, true national emergencies. Hurricanes hit the coast. We just saw one in Florida this year. We all remember Hurricane Katrina. We have adversaries threatening us around the world.

We need the SPR full. We don't need it to be released to influence an election. We need it there for national emergencies. This amendment would further allow the President to abuse it.

The statute is clear, and emergency triggers to use the SPR are very well defined. The law requires the President to declare that a ``severe energy supply interruption'' exists.

The only reason a severe supply interruption exists is because of their policies, the policies of the Biden administration that took oil and gas production in this Nation off the table.

We have American resources here. We are blessed in this Nation with abundant natural resources, but we are cursed by liberal politicians who don't want America to be energy independent. They don't want us to be energy dominant.

They want to take those resources off the table for production to increase supply to meet demand to lower prices for consumers, manufacturers, and people across America.

The statute defines a supply interruption as follows: ``An emergency situation exists and there is a significant reduction in supply which is of significant scope and duration.''

There was no emergency situation existing when the President withdrew oil from the SPR.

``A severe increase in the price of petroleum products has resulted from such emergency situation.''

Where was the emergency?

Yes, we had higher prices because supply was low due to the policies of the administration that took oil and gas production off the table. He created the emergency if you want to call it an emergency.

Number three: ``Such price increase is likely to or may cause a major adverse impact on the national economy.''

There is a solution. Drill here. Drill now. Produce American energy.

The SPR is a critical national security asset. We have said that over and over and over and over and over on this side. It is a national asset paid for by the taxpayers, set aside for the use of this Nation in time of a real emergency. A real emergency.

The SPR is a critical national security asset. It should have only been utilized in accordance with the law. This amendment would affect that.

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

Mr. Chair, I rise in support of this amendment, which would simply clarify that the President is not authorized to make emergency drawdowns of the SPR for political purposes. It is pretty simple.

Imagine if a Republican administration would have done what this administration did. You all would be hollering from the tops of buildings in the streets.

It is clear. President Biden has abused his emergency powers to raid our SPR for political gain. The SPR was meant for true emergency energy supply interruptions. President Biden has mismanaged the SPR.

Mr. Chair, 250 million barrels, over 40 percent of the SPR, has been drained in less than 2 years; it happened in 15 months.

We need to unleash American energy by expanding energy production on Federal lands across the country. We are going to work on that in the House majority, to expand American energy. We are fighting--like Marjorie is--to deliver affordable and reliable energy for all Americans.

We are also fighting to maintain and bolster our energy security. That is

what this is about: energy security, national security.

H.R. 21 furthers these goals, and I support this amendment and the passage of H.R. 21.

Mr. Chair, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chair, the Democrats try to paint this picture that rising energy costs was Putin's war, Putin's gas hikes.

I had to do some research. The gentleman from North Carolina tried to make this all about the war in Ukraine, the reason the President did this. Just a little factoid: The first drawdown of SPR was 2 months before Russia invaded Ukraine. So this isn't about a national emergency related to Ukraine or related to Vladimir Putin. This isn't Putin's price hike on gasoline for American consumers.

This is the Biden administration's war on American energy. He said it on the campaign trail, and he is implementing it today. He implemented it from day one, and it continues.

The SPR is a strategic asset for the American people to meet their needs in a time of crisis, such as a national emergency or time of war.

Let's just be clear. It should not be used for political gain or political influence. The American people see right through this. They appreciated a little bump--and that is all it was, a speed bump--at the pump for them. The prices went right back up.

It didn't have much influence on the price of energy in this country. What can have an influence on the price of energy in this country is producing American energy resources.

My goodness. We are blessed in this Nation with natural gas and oil to meet the demands of a growing economy.

Your constituents and mine are paying the price at the pump. It is time to unleash American energy dominance, which we can.

Mr. Chair, I yield to the gentlewoman from Georgia (Ms. Greene).

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

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

Mr. Chairman, the education of my colleagues continues.

A plan?

The administration in violation of the law that requires a 5-year drilling plan on OCS. I was on the MMS 5-year OCS drilling study committee. I know what the law is. The administration needs to create a 5-year plan for drilling offshore on Federal lands. That is a plan.

We talked about oil and how we shouldn't import oil. There are all kinds of different oil: heavy and light. Our refineries are set up to take a certain kind of oil. We were called a net exporter when we exceeded the demand in this country. We had a surplus and were able to export it. Net exporter because we are still going to import oil because our refineries are set up to take that kind of oil and not necessarily the oil that is produced here.

My friend mentioned our neighbors to the north in Canada producing a lot more oil.

They don't have refineries up there to meet their demand. They need to send that oil somewhere to be refined and made into all of the miraculous products that come out of a barrel of hydrocarbon. It doesn't just produce diesel fuel and gasoline. So they have to send that oil somewhere.

But the stoppage of the Keystone XL pipeline kept that oil from coming to the United States of America.

Guess what, Mr. Chairman?

They have got to send it somewhere else. They have got to send it overseas to be refined somewhere. That is the reason that Canada may pay higher prices for gasoline.

We have the solution. Bring that oil here. Let us refine it. Let's put American workers to work at refineries. We haven't built a refinery in this country since I don't know when.

We can meet a lot of different goals in this country and globally by refining more of that product here. That is a plan for you.

The Keystone pipeline is important for our refineries and the energy sector and for our allies both north and south in Mexico and Canada. We can be North American energy secure. We can actually be hemispherically energy secure by working with our colleagues.

H.R. 21 is about the SPR, about requiring nonemergency use to be accompanied by a plan to produce American oil resources. There is the gentleman's plan.

By requiring a plan to limit oil imports, this amendment aims to harm American families by imposing costly trade restrictions into the global market for oil, which would drive up fuel prices.

OPEC doesn't play by these rules. America is the top producer in the world; increasing energy production leads to more security and price stability especially when prices are set by OPEC and the global market.

This amendment undermines the purpose of the bill and undermines American energy affordability and security.

Mr. Chairman, I urge a ``no'' vote for my colleagues, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I wish to speak on the point of order. This is absolutely germane. It is the same subject, and it meets all the rules.

Mr. Chairman, I support the amendment.

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

Mr. Chair, recollection serves me that you guys on that side of

the aisle blocked an amendment or a bill that Republicans put up during the Trump administration that actually made this very point, to allow President Trump to buy oil at a low price and refill the SPR. You all said no. You can't make this stuff up.

The government should not be in business. The government is here to serve the people, to meet the constitutional responsibilities enumerated in the Constitution of the United States, and I don't see that the government is a business that should make a net profit on anything.

Taxpayer dollars go to purchase something as a strategic asset for emergencies, not to be traded as a commodity so that the government can make a profit. I guess you all wanted to make a profit so you could keep spending money--over $31 trillion in debt.

The government shouldn't impose price controls at all. That is not what a democratic republic does.

If Democrats are so concerned with fiscal oversight of the Department of Energy, they should take a look at the so-called Inflation Reduction Act, which allocated over $400 billion in Federal funding to clean energy.

Picking winners and losers in the marketplace, that type of government control over our energy is the exact type of policy that got us here in the first place, that got us to where we are today, why we are even having this debate.

I look forward to conducting future oversight over the implementation of the Inflation Reduction Act during this Congress, and I will say once again, and I will say it ad nauseam, the SPR must only be used to protect Americans in the time of a true emergency--natural disaster, war, that type thing--not for political purposes, as it was used by this administration to lower gas prices before a midterm election to influence politics in this country. That was the wrong use of it.

If a Republican administration had done that, you would be making the same argument that I am making, that it was wrong. It was wrong then; it is wrong today; and it will be wrong tomorrow. It shouldn't be used that way. It is for national emergencies, period.

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

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

Mr. Chair, this amendment seeks to delay the operation of the bill pending an unregulated contingency.

Let me just say this: I was on the Natural Resources Committee for a while, and I think the person in the chair was on that committee, as well. I remember we were talking about seismic testing, and there was this huge outcry that seismic testing would harm marine mammals.

We got a letter on BOEM's website that said that there is not a single verifiable instance anywhere in the world, off the coast of Africa and the Mediterranean, off the coast of the United States, anywhere in the world, that a marine mammal was harmed or killed by seismic testing.

I just read an article this week, though, that whales are washing up onshore, and they believe it might be attributed to offshore wind production. Are you going to include that in this? Those are marine mammals.

It is just amazing that these amendments are put in place. This amendment invokes an entirely different statute and agency, the Marine Mammal Protection Act and the Department of Commerce. I could make the argument that it is not germane. I am not going to do that.

This amendment prohibits a leasing plan from including any tract on the Outer Continental Shelf if it would adversely impact marine mammals. Show me where a marine mammal has been killed from oil and gas production or exploration.

As I just pointed out, there is not a single verifiable instance, and ironically, that was during the Obama administration. That was Obama's Bureau of Ocean Energy Management that had the letter on their website, their chief biologist.

That was a fun debate in that committee. They were holding up seismic permits, but they would permit a wind farm offshore, a solar panel that was frying birds or knocking endangered species out of the air in a heartbeat, but wouldn't let us go after these abundant resources that we had offshore and onshore.

This is nothing more than an attempt to delay the implementation of H.R. 21. There is nothing in the bill that changes any laws relating to protection of marine mammals.

It is worth noting that about offshore wind.

Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this messaging amendment from the other side, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Chair, the Biden policies are causing inflation across this country and not allowing America to come roaring back after the pandemic.

The first thing he did was stop oil and gas production in this country--ended leases, stopped Federal leasing--and that has caused gas prices to go up, which affects all of our constituents, not just the lower income ones, but all of them.

The lower income people pay a higher percentage of their discretionary income for energy due to this administration's policies. That means they have less money to spend on other commodities that they want to buy to improve their lives.

If you want to lower inflation in this country, let's get the economy back. One way to get the economy back is to provide cheap diesel fuel so that those commodities can be transported across the country and so that diesel fuel is affordable for the farmers to plant their crops and harvest their crops.

Inflation is going to continue because of this administration's policies affecting energy prices for our farmers. Commodities are going to be higher than they are today because of the input costs. Fertilizer comes from energy sources. That is an input cost. Diesel fuel for tractors and trucks transports the crops from the farm to the processors to the store.

If we want to lower inflation in this country, we do it through American energy dominance. We have the resources. All we have to do is go tap them. Increase supply to meet demand. That is how you lower prices, and that is how you address the inflationary data that we are seeing.

Inflation is caused by this administration spending too much money, printing too much money, and not increasing American energy security. Providing plans under H.R. 21 that will lead to an increase in production of American energy creates wealth, creates jobs, creates tax revenues, leads to lower prices, and definitely combats inflation.

We know this from the shale revolution, which helped hardworking Americans; added to their jobs, added to their bank accounts, added to their spending, increased economic activity, a healthy economy, limited inflation.

Energy is the foundation of everything in modern life. When the price of energy goes up, everything does. It is not just transportation fuels.

When you put a barrel of hydrocarbon under pressure, it separates, and miraculous products are produced that are used by this Nation and the world, so it is not just for transportation fuels.

Low-income Americans feel the pain the most. Let's support building a healthy economy to reduce inflation and ensure American energy security.

I will go back. This bill deals with the SPR. The drawdown by this administration to affect energy prices for American constituents-- voters--right before an election wasn't a proper use of it then, it won't be a proper use of it today, and it will not be a proper use of it in the future. It is there for emergencies for this Nation. That is what it should be used for.

We need to replenish the SPR so it will be available in a time of a true emergency in this country.

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

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

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

Mr. Chair, the amendment violates clause 7 of rule XVI of the Rules of the House because it is not germane to the underlying bill. It fails the tests for subject matter and fundamental purpose.

The amendment opens up new statutes and topics. Specifically, the amendment would amend section 3009 of America's Water Infrastructure Act of 2018; page 27, line 8 for reference.

That statute is not amended by H.R. 21. It is not even discussed.

The amendment would create a new regime of government supply and price controls not at all contemplated in this bill's simple leasing plan. It is totally different in subject matter, totally different in purpose, totally different in the end game. For that purpose, the amendment is not germane.

I would also note that this amendment has been determined to have an impact on direct spending, although CBO has not yet determined the magnitude.

I say the amendment is not germane in so many ways, and I look forward to the ruling.

Mr. Chair, I move to strike the last word.

The ACTING Chair. The gentleman from South Carolina is recognized for 5 minutes to strike the last word.

Mr. Chair, the more things change, the more they stay the same. Members of Congress are standing on this floor talking about buy low, sell high.

I look back two Congresses ago during the Trump administration, and the Republicans stood on this floor and offered this very thing: to allow the President of the United States to buy a commodity--oil--at the lowest price possible so that we could replenish the SPR. Thank God for acknowledging that fact.

Unfortunately, oil isn't cheap right now. You're not going to be able to buy oil very low. Unless we change the policies of this country and start producing American energy, increasing supply to meet demand lowers prices. It is very simple: Economics 101.

The answer to our energy insecurity is not reflexive Democrat Big Government price controls which will restrict energy resource development and supply and drive up energy costs, which we are seeing, adding to the current inflation rate which is over 6 percent.

The GDP numbers came out today. Very slow growth in this Nation. We have a solution: produce American energy, fuel the economy, help your constituents, lower transportation fuels, lower energy costs for their homes through American energy resources. Price controls always end with gas lines and fuel shortages.

Truckers were stuck this year on the side of the interstate for days because of diesel fuel shortages. I talked about that earlier.

Consumer prices are through the roof. Anything transported by an 18- wheeler is going to cost more on the consumer shelf because the price of diesel fuel is passed on to the consumer in the prices. It is how the economy works.

Cargo ships, planes--everybody is paying more for fuel. That will result in higher prices and inflation as a direct result of the Biden administration's policies to end American energy production and ultimately, American energy dominance.

The U.S. is the number one oil and gas producer in the world, and we have the resources here to produce millions more barrels a day.

H.R. 21 is about restoring U.S. leadership in the world in the realm of energy production. It is about reducing political interference in markets and unleashing the benefits of free and open markets and encouraging innovators to invest and take risks, and end our dependence on OPEC to demand and set price controls for our global market.

The shale revolution just didn't happen in countries with price and supply controls. It happened because of innovation in this country. It happened in America where we encourage the entrepreneurial spirit instead of a top-down government-controlled economy. It is estimated that the shale revolution saves U.S. consumers $203 billion annually. That equates to about $2,500 per family.

Guess what?

Because of the Biden administration's policies, those same constituents of ours are paying about $2,500 more per year in costs; not just energy costs, but inflationary costs all across the spectrum.

It also lowered energy-related greenhouse gas emissions by an estimated 527 million metric tons per year because of natural gas.

If we want to alleviate the burden of record-high energy prices on the American people, the American families, Democrats should reverse the regulatory death grip on the policies they have on the oil and gas industry.

I have a solution: Build more pipelines in this country, and let's get the resources where they are needed in our States and in our communities, in our homes.

Rather than destroy the SPR by turning it into a political tool, as we saw the Biden administration do, let's unleash American energy production and become American energy dominant once again.

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

Announcement by the Acting Chair

Mr. Chairman, I thank the Chairwoman for the time. She has done a great job. We look forward to big things on the Energy and Commerce Committee.

Mr. Chairman, I have been watching this debate, and the Democrats are having a hard time defending the administration's drawdown of a strategic asset for the political reasons to lower gas prices during an election year. I mean, it is obvious. The ranking member has been down here on the floor, pretty much left alone to debate this piece of legislation.

Even the Biden administration understands that House Democrats will have to support this sound energy policy that facilitates oil and gas development and has preemptively threatened to veto this legislation.

The Biden administration has said time and again that there is nothing prohibiting energy production in the United States. But we, the people, we know better because we lived it. We saw when energy production was high in this country under the past administration, gas prices were lower.

Once the Biden administration came in and started stopping oil and gas leasing and drilling, gas prices went up, and they felt the political pressure. The Biden administration and the House Democrats felt the political pressure.

So what did they do? They tapped into a strategic reserve for America. The SPR, the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, is set aside for emergencies like Hurricane Katrina, for a time of war, for emergencies, not for a political maneuver to lower gas prices in an election year.

I will tell you what: Put your money where your mouth is. Support this measure instead of hiding behind the excuse that this bill ties the President's hands, which we know isn't true.

The SPR should never be tapped to offset high consumer prices caused by irresponsible energy policies. H.R. 21 calls out what we know: Draining the SPR, as it has been drained over the last 15 months, acknowledges that getting prices down is about having more supply on the market.

It was a blip. It was a temporary price reduction at home. We need to produce here. We need to produce now.

We have been blessed in this Nation with abundant natural resources, but we have been cursed by liberal politicians who don't want us to tap into those abundant resources.

How could anyone believe this administration supports oil and gas production when President Biden literally campaigned on ending the industry?

So prove us wrong. Show support for this legislation. Show America you support sound energy policy, and vote in support of H.R. 21. Take the first step in unleashing American energy production and allow America to become energy dominant once again.

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

Mr. Chair, H.R. 21 is about strengthening the SPR by requiring any nonemergency use to be accompanied by a plan to produce American oil resources.

Energy security, based on energy abundance, leads to reliable, clean, and affordable delivery of energy. This is fundamental for our jobs, our economic health, for communities striving for better opportunities. It reduces energy poverty and improves health and welfare.

This amendment really is an unnecessary messaging exercise. There is no reason to delay implementation of this, so let's focus on results for Americans.

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

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

Mr. Chair, H.R. 21 is really about strengthening the SPR by requiring nonemergency use to be accompanied by a plan to produce American oil resources. Increased supply of

American-produced energy lowers costs for all Americans.

Energy security provides all communities with reliable, clean, and affordable energy. This is fundamental for our jobs, economic health, and for communities to strive for better opportunities.

It reduces energy poverty. Lower-income households pay a higher percentage of their income for energy. Lower costs help everyone. Greater supplies lower costs, and create jobs here in America with American-produced energy resources.

This amendment misses the point. It is an unnecessary messaging exercise. Let's focus on results for Americans, American jobs, American energy.

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

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

Mr. Chair, this is a messaging amendment. We saw the President draw down the SPR in order to lower gas prices. That is not the purpose of the SPR. The SPR is not a political tool to be implemented with a drawdown right before an election.

This was a blip on the radar for lowering gas prices for our constituents.

The SPR was designed for emergencies for this Nation, whether there is a hurricane hitting Louisiana or a war. That is the purpose of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. It is not just a reserve that the President can tap into to influence elections and lower gas prices for folks. The way to do that is to increase American energy production in this country.

We are blessed in this Nation with abundant natural resources, but apparently, we are cursed by liberal politicians who don't want us to tap into those abundant resources that will help the quality of life of people not only in America but by exporting some of those resources to people across the globe, you can improve the quality of lives for people around the world.

Yet, we saw a drawdown of the SPR to temporarily lower prices. That was wrong. Emergencies only.

When we draw it down, we ought to produce American energy and refill it, not buy oil from OPEC or adversaries using American resources, again, that we are blessed with in this Nation.

This amendment will allow the Department of Energy, the administration, to continue abusing something that wasn't intended for that, and that is the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. We use SPR; we can call it SPR. We can try to downplay the intended purpose, strategic purposes, to help Americans at a time when it is needed. That is in a time of emergency.

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

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

Mr. Chair, this is just another distraction and delay tactic, nothing more than a stunt.

The Secretary of Energy had culpability in drawing down the SPR to lower gas prices just before a midterm election. She would certainly delay the implementation of this bill without making that certification that is included in this amendment.

If we really want to protect consumers, let's prioritize them instead of radical climate policies. Let's produce American energy here at home--safe, reliable, deliverable--lowering prices at the pump for transportation fuels, lowering prices at homes in heating, lowering prices for manufacturers that need natural gas, reliable electricity produced by fossil fuels in many instances.

The intent of this bill is protecting the SPR. Let's take the first step in reducing the price to consumers by unleashing American energy production, lowering costs here at home.

Let's take care of the SPR for its intended purpose. That is the purpose of this bill.

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

Mr. Chair, I reserve a point of order.

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

Mr. Chair, the amendment violates clause 7 of rule XVI of the House rules because it is not germane to the underlying bill.

Specifically, the bill limits the drawdown of petroleum from 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 limits the drawdown of petroleum in the SPR until the Department of Energy certifies to Congress that the U.S. is meeting the Paris climate accord's targets to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and the recommendations of the Justice40 Initiative.

The amendment also requires a report outlining how funds made available under Public Law 117-169 ``are being used to confront decades of underinvestment in disadvantaged communities that bear the burden of climate change and environmental hazards.''

All of this is well outside the scope of H.R. 21, which simply asks for a plan to increase oil and gas production on Federal lands.

Mr. Chair, for that reason, the amendment is not germane, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Chair, H.R. 21 is about strengthening the SPR by requiring nonemergency use to be accompanied by a plan to produce American energy resources.

We have witnessed the tremendous benefits of energy security from the shale revolution, the amazing technological advancements and innovations from American companies, private companies, companies that have ownership in equities markets.

America does not have State-owned oil companies like OPEC and Russia.

This amendment not only undermines the important purpose of this bill, it undermines American innovators who thrive on the capital markets. Capitalism.

I understand the gentlewoman across the aisle doesn't like capitalism, but capitalism provides benevolence. In so many ways, this amendment is anti-free market.

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

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

Mr. Chair, let me state again that H.R. 21 is about strengthening the SPR by requiring nonemergency use to be accompanied by a plan to produce American resources.

Mr. Chair, I invite the Members across the aisle to actually go out and talk to oil and gas producers, understand leases, understand that every square acre out in the ocean or on land doesn't have oil or gas under it. They have got to find it.

They have got to start drilling, exploring, and producing. And once they produce, they have got to pipe that either to the beach or put it on a ship to be taken to refineries.

They have a permitting process for pipelines that do that, permitting processes to get the well actually permitted once they discover resources. Go and learn. Go and learn for yourself about this. Educate yourself on how America attained its low emissions.

If you care about the air quality, you care about climate change-- natural gas is what got America there. Educate yourself on that, and we can have a better debate about future resources and future energy production.

This debate tonight is not about any of that. It is about the SPR. It is about the fact that the Biden administration drew down on the SPR for one purpose: to lower gas prices for Americans right before an election. That is influential politics.

This is about efficient, clean American energy production. Efforts to reduce our production means the world relies more on nations that do not impose state-of-the-art controls on emissions. Think Russia. Think China. Think about what America has done.

This amendment would limit clean energy, American-produced clean energy, and increase emissions-heavy foreign energy.

It hurts me when I see an American LNG tanker in the Boston Harbor when we have the natural gas here in this country, cleaner burning natural gas. This is about the SPR.

As chair of the Energy Subcommittee, I look forward to a lot of debates on energy resources, American energy production, and clean energy, and what works to make America energy dominant once again--but we are not doing it tonight.

We are going to talk about the SPR. We are going to talk about replenishing it. We are going to talk about American resources. This amendment is counterproductive to energy security and addressing climate risk.

American oil production is the cleanest in the world; where it is produced and where it is used.

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

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

Mr. Chair, the last time I checked, I don't think the United States of America signed onto or ratified the Paris accords. This is a messaging amendment.

If we are serious about addressing global climate risk and preserving and expanding the prosperity of the American people, we should focus on American energy security and American energy resources.

When you bring in the Paris climate accord, or Kyoto, the United States, to my understanding, has actually achieved the carbon emissions goals set forth in those agreements, and we have done it through American energy resources, like clean burning natural gas.

This bill is about protecting our strategic resources and ensuring American energy production, which we do more cleanly than most any other Nation. I mentioned Russian natural gas in Massachusetts. It burns dirtier than American-produced gas.

I have got a solution. How about we permit pipelines from the Marcellus up to New England and allow New England to burn cleaner burning, less carbon-emission-emitting natural gas produced here at home.

This amendment is unnecessary. It is a messaging amendment.

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

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the gentlewoman from Washington on her chairmanship.

Before the Biden administration's war on American energy, America was increasingly dominant in energy production producing a surplus--a surplus.

Exceeding demand usually means that you can have lower prices because you are providing supply that exceeds demand, and then when we have more supply, we can export. We can export to our allies at prices that actually compete with the OPEC cartel on the open market. That is what American energy dominance can do.

My colleagues on the other side of the aisle want to keep pushing green energy initiatives such as wind and solar. I think those are groovy technologies.

Guess what, Mr. Speaker?

You cannot export renewable energy. You can export oil and gas in order to lower prices and increase stability for our friends in Europe who are more reliant on Vladimir Putin for their energy.

Do you know what, Mr. Speaker?

For political purposes, President Biden sold off a strategic asset of this Nation. He started dumping oil out of the SPR, the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, and put it out there so that China could buy it, and China did buy it.

This is an American asset.

Do you know what, Mr. Speaker?

This bill that prohibits that oil from being sold to China and other adversaries makes sense, but the Democrat talking points make none.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to support the Republican rules package and our return to common sense in the people's House.

I want to point out a few line items in the rules package for particular praise.

This bill returns to the historical norm of in-person meetings and in-person votes. No more proxy voting or remote committee hearings. Let's do the work in the people's House.

This bill returns to the Holman rule. If ever there was a time for this House to stop paying the salaries of bad bureaucrats, it is now. Tony Fauci deserves that step.

I think knowing this rules package was coming is one of the reasons why he has now mercifully left government service. The power to fire unelectable bureaucrats who abuse their power is a central reason to support this package.

In the past the 3-day rule has been abused--bills being dropped in the dead of night to be voted on 2 mornings later is just wrong. Moving to a true 72-hour rule will end that abusive practice.

Eliminating the Gephardt rule to ensure that this House has a true debate over whether or not to raise the debt limit is a move in the right direction for fiscal sanity in the people's House, and so is the three-fifths majority requirement to raise taxes.

I thank my fellow Freedom Caucus members and my friends in House leadership for making these necessary changes to the House rules package, and I ask my colleagues to pass this package.

Now, since Ranking Member McGovern mentioned the IRS bill coming up, let me just point out that we need to rescind that.

Mr. Speaker, do you know what 87,000 IRS agents equates to?

It equates to 200 new IRS agents in every congressional district in this country. That is 1,740 new IRS agents in every State for one purpose: to go after small businesses and hardworking Americans to try to raise money to pay for reckless spending--reckless spending that has cost $31 trillion in debt in this Nation.

This is the right thing to do.

I tell you what, Mr. Speaker, we could repurpose those agents to the southern border, or we could repurpose them and let them build the Keystone XL pipeline.

There were an estimated 61,000 lost jobs with the Keystone XL pipeline when the Biden administration canceled that project. But yet we turn around, and the government hires 87,000 new IRS agents to go after your constituents and mine, Mr. Speaker.

I mentioned earlier the number. Look it up.