Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, there is a really simple question before us today: Is it in the U.S. national interest to look out for U.S. energy consumers or for U.S. energy producers?

Let's look at the facts. According to the most recent DOE data over the last decade, U.S. gas consumption is up by about 26 percent; U.S. gas production is up by about 50 percent; and U.S. gas exports are up 326 percent.

Ten years ago, just 6 percent of all gas produced in the U.S. was for export. Today, more than 20 percent is for export. That is not because the industry is succeeding. They can't compete against cheaper renewable energy, so they are trying to export overseas, and y'all are helping them out.

Those export volumes are going to triple again just based on the stuff that is already permitted in the pipeline--nothing to do with what is going on today.

I remind my Republican colleagues, because sometimes we need to remind on this, even in this body where we write the laws, you cannot change the laws of supply and demand. When U.S. natural gas is exported overseas, it reduces domestic supply and increases the price. We know this from recent experience because when the Freeport LNG terminal had that explosion, according to the Department of Energy, domestic prices for natural gas fell by nearly a third. Exporters were very sad that they lost money. Do you know who had more money in their pocket? American consumers. Gas was cheaper.

Y'all hate inflation, right? That was wonderful. Thank you for doing that. Who are you rooting for, though?

Mr. Speaker, there was a reason why the Natural Gas Act does not require us to determine whether domestic production of energy for domestic use is in the national interest, because we rightly assume that domestic energy security is in our national interest. That is not the question posed by this bill. This bill would insist that exports are always in the national interest, and that is, as a technical term, total poppycock.

Should we drill on public lands? Should we use eminent domain to seize private property? Should we increase the price of energy in the United States? Should we increase global warming?

Mr. Speaker, should we increase global warming? Should we do all of that just so that the natural gas

industry can make more money selling U.S. resources to Asia--not to Europe, because that is where the margin is going. Or should we maintain the current law that simply asks us to determine whether that is in the public interest before permitting a new facility?

To paraphrase a great political scientist by the name of Jeff Foxworthy: If you think that is a hard question, you might be a Republican.

It is not a hard question. This is a bad bill for the climate. It is a bad bill for the economy. It is a bad bill for the U.S. consumer. Vote ``no.'' If you can't, at least be honest about who you are working for.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, this debate makes me sad. Energy policy is really important. Energy consumers are really important. The environment is really important. So much of this debate is completely untethered from truth.

There isn't enough time to rebut everything, but I want to clarify two points. One is where LNG exports are going right now, and the second is about the environmental impact.

It is true today that the majority of U.S. LNG exports, the largest volume, is going to Europe. It is also true that that really did help our European allies wean themselves off of Russian gas. Now, that is not because the U.S. gas industry was suddenly imbued with patriotism. It is because they were paying more, which is fine.

However, all the additional exports we are talking about are contracted out. Right now, they are going to Asia. Therefore, this is not a question right now about helping Europe. This is a question of whether they will make more money going to Asia.

Now, why are they going to go to Asia? Well, that brings me to the second point. There is an assertion that LNG is inherently clean because it displaces coal. Let's be clear. No one buys natural gas so that it will be more expensive for them to make energy. It will displace coal if it is cheaper than coal.

My colleagues are to have us believe that the United States is going to export gas to Asia so that countries like China can have cheaper energy and make their businesses more competitive on the global stage and that they are doing that because they are so committed to environmental protection.

Look, natural gas is methane, for the most part. Methane is 80 times as potent a greenhouse gas as CO2, which means that if you have more than 2 percent leakage from the wellhead to the burner tip, it is worse than coal.

In the United States, that means that the wellheads, the collection facilities, the distribution pipelines, the combustion facilities, which we all in this body regulate, maybe we can get it down below that level, and maybe in the United States, it is less. However, we are not talking about that. We are talking about exports.

What is the leak rate on the ships? What are the leak rates on the regasification facilities overseas? What are the leak rates on the distribution facilities in those countries? Do we trust Chinese economic data so much that if they say it is not leaking, we will say: That is awesome. I am glad you are so competitive. I am glad you are outcompeting U.S. businesses.

I am glad we made you more competitive. I trust your data, and we are just going to tell folks at home that because we were so patriotic and environmentally minded.

Like I said in my last remarks, this is a really good bill if you want to make money exporting natural gas. It is not a good bill for anybody else. Let's just be honest with the American people about this.

Mr. Speaker, this month marks the 51st anniversary of Roe v. Wade. That decision, which recognized women's individual right to bodily autonomy, has now been supplanted by a Supreme Court that effectively said that the Federal Government isn't here to protect your individual rights because that is a States' rights issue now.

House Republicans, having cheered injecting States' rights into your individual private lives would now like to bring the Federal Government into the conversation.

If you don't believe me, Mr. Speaker, just look at what they are doing.

They passed legislation this term that would create a Federal prohibition against women who are serving in our military from traveling to get an abortion if they are stationed in a State that doesn't respect their individual rights.

They pushed legislation that would create a Federal prohibition on women from accessing medication abortion, even if that is legal in their State.

Nonetheless, here is the simple truth: The Republican Party with a big assist from a misogynistic Supreme Court took rights away from 167 million American women, granted them to States, and are now trying to take those rights away and give them to the Federal Government.

Here is the truth: Abortion has never been a States' rights issue, and it has never been a Federal rights issue. It has always been a women's rights issue, and I hope that some day that is not partisan.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, my Republican colleagues voted to condemn college presidents.

I wish they were condemning anti-Semitism, but don't let the title of that resolution fool you. This was never about that.

We know that because they did not condemn anti-Semitism when the Unite the Right rally chanted: ``Jews will not replace us.''

They didn't condemn anti-Semitism when their former Speaker shared a cartoon suggesting that Jewish bankers controlled the world.

They didn't condemn anti-Semitism when Donald Trump said that he only wanted Jews to count his money.

In every case, they have stood by in silent cowardice and defended hate speech as free speech. Yet, they have the gall to ask college presidents to resign for emulating their cowardice.

Donald Trump's rhetoric led to a spike in hate crimes, anti-Semitic and anti-Muslim hate crimes. Both spiked again after October 6.

If you are only calling it out when it is politically convenient, you are not helping, you are a part of the problem.

Madam Speaker, I am incredibly proud today to introduce the Clean Electricity and Transmission Acceleration Act with my friend, Congressman Mike Levin, to remove the financial and regulatory barriers that are delaying the clean and cheap energy transition.

For too long, U.S. energy policy has been focused on putting the interests of

energy producers and exporters first, which is good for a small minority of Americans, but is actually opposed to the interests of a majority of us who are energy consumers.

Here is the thing: every new wind turbine, every solar panel, every geothermal plant, and every hydro plant is a threat to oil, gas, and coal producers who cannot compete against free. Every EV charger, every heat pump, and every LED light is a threat to people who make money off inefficiency. However, for consumers to realize those benefits and entrepreneurs to access those markets, we need wires to connect new generations to new loads.

So over the last year, Congressman Levin and I have worked with our colleagues across the Democratic Caucus to develop a consumer-focused energy policy that makes that possible, to accelerate the deployment of clean energy, to accelerate Americans' access to cheap energy, and to refocus U.S. energy policy on the interests of energy consumers where it belongs.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to celebrate the 101st birthday of Dr. Dieter Martin Gruen for his dedication to science, significant contributions to new energy technologies, and devotion to fighting climate change. For over eight decades, Dr. Gruen has worked to enhance American technology development as a former Manhattan Project Scientist and as an Argonne National Laboratory Distinguished Fellow.

Dr. Gruen's story signifies the American dream. Born in Waldorf, Germany in 1922 to a Jewish family, Dr. Gruen would eventually leave his home only fourteen years later when the Nazi party solidified its power. He was sent to Little Rock, Arkansas to live with relatives to finish up his high school education while his parents were sent to concentration camps. Luckily, his mother and father escaped and Dr. Gruen was reunited with them in Chicago a few years later.

The shock of nearly losing his family did not dissuade Dr. Gruen from dedicating himself to his studies and empirical inquiry. Five years after reuniting with his family, Dr. Gruen received his bachelor's degree in chemistry from Northwestern University in 1944, his master's degree, and eventually a PhD in chemical physics from the University of Chicago. He studied at night and worked at a machine shop during the day. Shortly after graduating from Northwestern University, Dr. Gruen was recruited to work on the Manhattan Project, the U.S. government's top-secret effort to develop the atomic bomb. He worked on the large- scale electromagnetic separation of uranium-235, and the nuclear material he helped to produce would later be fashioned into the bomb that fell on Hiroshima in 1945.

After the war, Dr. Gruen helped found the Oak Ridge Scientists and Engineers, a group dedicated to ensuring nuclear weapons were never used again in war. After returning home to Chicago, he began working at Argonne National Laboratory, one year after the establishment of the U.S. Department of Energy national laboratories and during a time when Argonne was a national center for the development of nuclear reactors. Dr. Gruens work at Argonne focused on nuclear power and led to him serving as a delegate to the Second United Nations Conference on Peaceful Uses of Atomic Energy in 1958.

Throughout his career, Dr. Gruen has made significant contributions to new energy technologies, specifically to nuclear fission and fusion, solar energy, energy storage, and conservation. Dr. Gruen has been recognized by the international scientific community and has made key advancements such as the nuclear submarine reactor cooling design and purification of uranium used to end World War II in the Pacific theater.

For these accomplishments and his lifelong commitment to science, I had the great honor of supporting Dr. Gruen's nomination for the Presidential Medal of Freedom alongside my colleagues, Representatives Bill Foster, French Hill, Jerry McNerney, and Cheri Bustos. Dr. Gruen's tireless and selfless efforts to solve future clean energy challenges presented by climate change is seldom exhibited by an individual. Humble and unpretentious, Dr. Gruen is the embodiment of a dedicated American and pure scientist.

I have had the great pleasure of learning from Dr. Gruen from his life stories and scientific endeavors in innovation and inquiry. Today, I wish Dr. Gruen a very happy 101st birthday and thank him for his decades of public service and remarkable advancements in and commitment to scientific research and discovery.

Mr. Speaker, next week Americans across the country are going to gather around their dinner tables and share what they are thankful for.

I hope my Republican colleagues will use that moment to reflect on how lucky they are to work with House Democrats.

I hope they are thankful for that time last June when the Republicans were on the verge of driving us into an economic default and Democrats stepped up, helped them out, and provided the votes needed to make sure we didn't default.

I hope they are thankful for the time, 45 days ago, when they were driving us to the edge of an economic shutdown and, once again, Democrats stepped up, helped them out, and made sure we kept the government open for the American people.

I hope they are thankful for that time this week when Democrats, once again, had to be the adults in the room. We didn't throw any punches, but made sure, even though the Republican majority couldn't pass the new Speaker's stop-gap measure, we did, and we kept the government open for a few more weeks.

This Thanksgiving, be thankful. Whatever you do, don't be that crazy uncle who won't stop yapping about Hunter Biden.

Mr. Speaker, we operate on a September 30 fiscal year. Here we are 39 days later, and the majority has yet to even propose a way to keep the government open.

Last September, they kicked the can down the road and kept the government open for 45 days. In the words of Mr. Santos, that made you all ``big mad.'' You fired your Speaker. You have a new Speaker. A lot of you are still big mad. Instead of working, we are sitting here this week debating nonsense.

Here is an example. Lots of American companies operate overseas. Outside of the U.S. Republican Party, climate change is real, which means that U.S.

companies have to comply with scientifically informed policy.

The Biden administration is appropriately trying to help develop U.S. climate reporting rules that are also scientifically informed to minimize the hassle of multijurisdictional reporting.

The Republican response to that is big mad. Today, we are voting on a bill that would defund the ability of regulators to develop consistent climate accounting rules instead of doing the work of the people.

Mr. Speaker, science is real. We have real challenges. Please stop being big mad.

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

Mr. Chair, I believe my colleagues across the aisle fundamentally misunderstand or intentionally misrepresent the interests of energy consumers in the United States and the interests of energy producers.

NEPA is critically important to protect all Americans, but let's run through some statistics. There are currently 2,000 gigawatts of electric generation waiting to be interconnected to the queue in this country. That is more generation than we have by almost a factor of 2. Of those 2,000 gigawatts, there is 1 gigawatt of coal, 85 gigawatts of gas, and every other power plant that is trying to be interconnected to the grid is a zero carbon source of energy. They are not represented by

Mr. Speaker, with the failure of that last vote, we are now less than 2 days away from shutting down the United States Government, not because we don't have a path forward, but because the party of Lincoln has been captured by the spirit of Yeats: The best of you lack all conviction, and the worst are filled with passionate intensity.

Extreme Republicans with passionate intensity are choosing to destroy all that makes America great while their moderate enablers sit meekly, lacking the conviction to oppose.

My question is, do any of you have a plan to land this plane? It seems weird that you skipped that part of flight school.

Less than 2 days from now, every single American is going to feel the pain of this crash, every soldier who wants to get paid, every woman who wants food assistance for her child, everybody who needs housing support, everybody who is wondering if the train they are riding on has been inspected.

We don't have to be here, Mr. Speaker, but we need some of you, any of you, to stand up.

Mr. Speaker, there was a time in Washington less than a year ago when if the Speaker of the House of Representatives gave you their word, it meant something.

That is no longer true.

Earlier this year, Speaker McCarthy stood in the Oval Office with the President of the United States and negotiated a deal to raise the debt limit and fund the government. Today, instead of keeping his end of the deal, Speaker McCarthy is refusing to even allow bills to come to the floor that would honor that promise and avert a government shutdown.

His failures mean that 1.3 million Active-Duty troops will have to continue to work but not be paid for their service.

His failures mean that 7 million women and children will not receive the nutrition assistance that they depend on.

His failures mean that every one of you can expect flight disruptions, less border security, fewer food and rail safety inspections.

There is an old saying, Mr. Speaker: Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me. Shame on Speaker McCarthy for forcing the American people to suffer all this foolishness.

Mr. Speaker, can we maintain an affordable, reliable, and decarbonized grid if we rely only on traditional renewables?

To hear our Republican colleagues talk, absolutely not. They say that nuclear and advanced fossil fuels and hydrogen all have to be in the mix. As the old saw goes, when you are in a negotiation, don't watch the other guy's lips, watch his feet.

The Republicans' proposed appropriations package includes $15 billion--that is a 20 percent cut--in the title 17 program. This is the loan program office that helps those early stage technologies get to commercialization.

This program, by the way, is currently massively oversubscribed. Of their existing $73 billion of loan authority, they have already received over $90 billion of applications of which 37 percent offer carbon management, advanced nuclear, and fossil fuel technologies included that my colleagues claim to hold dear.

These technologies are critically important to the future of our energy system. They all critically need government support to get to commercialization, and they would all be cut by the proposed Republican budget.

I want a reliable, decarbonized power grid that uses all those technologies and more. My colleagues across the aisle, on the other hand, seem to be rooting for blackouts--or worse.

I know that is true because in the words of Shakira--feet don't lie.

Mr. Speaker, this past weekend, on Father's Day, 23 people were shot and 1 person was killed at a Juneteenth celebration in Willowbrook, Illinois.

Law enforcement has not yet identified a suspect or a motive, but preliminary reports have indicated there were multiple guns and multiple shooters.

In 2 weeks, Highland Park, Illinois, will recognize the 1-year anniversary of its July Fourth parade that killed 7 people and wounded 48 others. In that case, the parade route was lined with armed police officers.

Here is what we know. Having lots of guns around, whether at a parade, a Juneteenth party, a temple, or a school, does not make anyone safer. It just makes it more likely that yet another family is going to get a call to come down and identify yet another bullet-ridden corpse.

Yet, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle continue to walk through this Chamber with AR-15 lapel pins, proudly announcing their service as foot soldiers in the NRA's war on the living.

I don't want a moment of silence. I don't want thoughts. I don't want prayers. They are all far too quiet, and they don't do a damn thing.

Mr. Speaker, I need my colleagues to be brave. I need them to be loud. I need them to stand up and act like saving lives matters.

Mr. Speaker, I missed Roll Call vote numbers 249 through 256 for personal and familial reasons. Had I been present, I would have voted as follows: NO on Roll Call No. 249, H. Res. 495, Previous Question; NO on Roll Call No. 250, H. Res. 495, Agreeing to the Resolution; YES on Roll Call No. 251, H.R. 3099, Suspension Passage; NO on Roll Call No. 252, H.J. Res. 44, Passage; NO on Roll Call No. 253, H.J. Res. 44, Passage of Veto Message; NO on Roll Call No. 254, H.R. 1615, Boebert Amendment; NO on Roll Call No. 255, H.R. 1615, Passage; and YES on Roll Call No. 256, H. Res. 377, Suspension Passage.

Madam Speaker, my Republican colleagues are presently fiddling while Rome burns, but I come to praise my Republican colleagues, not to bury them.

I come to praise my friend Patrick McHenry for his wisdom just 6 months ago when he said that he opposes Speaker McCarthy's plan to use the debt limit to cut spending; when he said that it is important that Congress raise the debt limit; when he said that Treasury markets are the lifeblood of the global economy; when he said it is an important function of the government for us to make good on the checks we cash.

I come to praise the July 2019 version of Speaker McCarthy when he said that we should not leave here without doing something on the debt ceiling.

Where are those brave, principled souls now?

The answer, Madam Speaker, as you know, not here. Empty, inconsistent rhetoric does not pay the bills.

The American people know that, and I hope the American people will remind my Republican colleagues of the work requirements of this job during their upcoming 11-day vacation.

Mr. Speaker, in the 10 years since the Sandy Hook shooting, the NRA has spent more than $100 million to help elect Republicans who will make it easier to sell more guns so we can kill more kids--$100 million.

They have gotten what they paid for because we have had 189 more school shootings and 279 people killed on school grounds since Sandy Hook.

Some of my colleagues may be happy about that, but I am angry, and my constituents live in trauma.

Mr. Speaker, I had a student in my district who wrote in to tell me: ``We are tired. We are exhausted. We are sick of going to class and any public area and forming an escape route.''

I had another constituent who asked me: ``How many children and teachers are going to have to be killed by guns before our government takes action?''

The honest answer is that I don't know. In the wake of these shootings, I have to tell them that I work with people who wear AR-15 lapel pins on the floor of the House, people who send holiday cards where their whole family cosplays as Rambo. They actually believe that our Founders envisioned and designed a country where you have a right to shoot innocent strangers dead, but no American has the right not to get shot.

Five months into this year, America has already had 199 mass shootings. Sometimes, we have a moment of silence on the floor afterward, but quite frankly, there are too many to keep up. I am not proud of this, but we ignore most of them. The American people can't.

I had a mother who wrote to me saying: ``Each day, as I send my two children off to school and daycare, I find myself fearing that it may be the last time I will see them.''

Another wrote to say: ``I am the parent of a 5-year-old. I cannot believe that we are living in a country where 5-year-olds die like soldiers at the mall and where another mother will come home today without her child. I do not feel safe in public places. I have no peace while my child is at school, and because I am a teacher, I don't feel safe at work either.''

Five months into this year, we have had 15,166 deaths due to gun violence. Yet, my colleagues across the aisle have not allowed a single bill to come to the floor to address that risk.

After the shooting at Covenant Elementary in Tennessee, I got this message from Meaghan, a student teacher. She said:

``After working in over five schools now, I have loved every moment of my teacher education experience, meeting so many amazing students and faculty members that have shaped my mind the way I hope to for my own students one day. And each day I have gone in, I have to admit, I have silently wondered if I would come out, if our kids would come out, if my peers would come out, if my teachers and mentors would come out.

``I have caught myself dozing off and imagining what I would do if someone came into our room with a gun. I have imagined every person in that room with bullets in them and blood splattered from the walls to the floors.

``I know you all get these messages in your offices. Do you read them? Do you understand the fear, the trauma, and the death that your inaction has caused? Is it worth the NRA money? Do you even care?''