[Congressional Record Volume 169, Number 56 (Tuesday, March 28, 2023)]
[House]
[Pages H1474-H1484]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




     PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 1, LOWER ENERGY COSTS ACT

  Mr. RESCHENTHALER. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on 
Rules, I call up House Resolution 260 and ask for its immediate 
consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 260

       Resolved, That at any time after adoption of this 
     resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule 
     XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the 
     Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of 
     the bill (H.R. 1) to lower energy costs by increasing 
     American energy production, exports, infrastructure, and 
     critical minerals processing, by promoting transparency, 
     accountability, permitting, and production of American 
     resources, and by improving water quality certification and 
     energy projects, and for other purposes. The first reading of 
     the bill shall be dispensed with. All points of order against 
     consideration of the bill are waived. General debate shall be 
     confined to the bill and shall not exceed seven hours, with 
     three hours equally divided and controlled by the chair and 
     ranking minority member of the Committee on Energy and 
     Commerce or their respective designees, three hours equally 
     divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority 
     member of the Committee on Natural Resources or their 
     respective designees, and one hour equally divided and 
     controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the 
     Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure or their 
     respective designees. After general debate the bill shall be 
     considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. The 
     amendment printed in part A of the report of the Committee on 
     Rules accompanying this resolution shall be considered as 
     adopted in the House and in the Committee of the Whole. The 
     bill, as amended, shall be considered as read. All points of 
     order against provisions in the bill, as amended, are waived. 
     No further amendment to the bill, as amended, shall be in 
     order except those printed in part B of the report of the 
     Committee on Rules. Each such further amendment may be 
     offered only in the order printed in the report, may be 
     offered only by a Member designated in the report, shall be 
     considered as read, shall be debatable for the time specified 
     in the report equally divided and controlled by the proponent 
     and an opponent, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall 
     not be subject to a demand for division of the question in 
     the House or in the Committee of the Whole. All points of 
     order against such further amendments are waived. At the 
     conclusion of consideration of the bill for amendment the 
     Committee shall rise and report the bill, as amended, to the 
     House with such further amendments as may have been adopted. 
     The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the 
     bill, as amended, and on any further amendment thereto, to 
     final passage without intervening motion except one motion to 
     recommit.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Flood). The gentleman from Pennsylvania 
is recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. RESCHENTHALER. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I 
yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. 
McGovern), my good friend and the ranking member on the Rules 
Committee, pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the 
purpose of debate only.


                             General Leave

  Mr. RESCHENTHALER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all 
Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. RESCHENTHALER. Mr. Speaker, last night, the Rules Committee met 
and reported out a rule, House Resolution 260, providing for 
consideration of H.R. 1, the Lower Energy Costs Act.
  The rule provides for consideration of H.R. 1 under a structured 
rule. It provides 7 hours of general debate, with 3 hours equally 
divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the 
Committee on Energy and Commerce or their designees. Additionally, the 
rule provides for 3 hours equally divided and controlled by the chair 
and ranking minority member of the Committee on Natural Resources or 
their designees, and 1 hour equally divided and controlled by the chair 
and ranking minority member of the Committee on Transportation and 
Infrastructure or their designees.
  Further, this rule makes in order 37 amendments and provides 1 motion 
to recommit.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this rule and in support of the 
underlying legislation. H.R. 1 unleashes American energy, and it 
immediately will lower costs for families by resuming lease sales on 
Federal lands and waters. It will repeal fee increases on energy 
production, and it will end the moratorium on coal leasing.
  Additionally, H.R. 1 strengthens America's critical mineral supply, 
prohibits a moratorium on hydraulic fracking, and streamlines the 
permitting process.
  Let's remember, on day number one of his Presidency, President Biden 
launched a war on American energy. He canceled the Keystone XL 
pipeline, also, by the way, killing tens of thousands of union jobs, 
and he paused new and oil gas leases on Federal lands. That was day 
number one.
  Under President Trump, we had independence with U.S. energy, but, 
now, President Biden has drained our Strategic Petroleum Reserve to the 
lowest level since 1983. That is the lowest level since I have been 
alive.
  Meanwhile, the administration is increasing regulations on domestic 
energy production by easing regulations and incentivizing energy 
production in foreign, communist, and authoritarian states like 
Venezuela.

                              {time}  1215

  In the words of President Biden, climate change is the existential 
threat to humanity. Apparently, that only applies when the U.S. is the 
one producing the oil and gas, not when nations like Venezuela produce 
the natural gas.
  President Trump, by contrast, opened 100 million acres of public land 
and water to exploration. But Biden has leased fewer acres of Federal 
land for oil and gas drilling than any President since the end of World 
War II. The results have directly impacted all Americans.
  On the day Joe Biden took office, the average price for a gallon of 
gasoline was $2.39. Today, the national average is $3.47. That is a 44 
percent increase. And let's not forget June's highest rate of $5 a 
gallon.
  Due to inflation, the average American family is now paying $10,000 
more in household costs under President Biden.
  By leaving our resources in the ground and turning to places like 
Russia, Iran, and Venezuela for help, Democrats are choosing to 
increase energy costs and risk the national security of American 
families.
  Why? All to appease far-left, radical activists, since they, the 
Democrats, lack the moral clarity to do what is right for our citizens.
  However, instead of focusing on lower energy costs, this 
administration thinks the most pressing energy issue is--wait for it--
banning our gas stoves. That is their priority. Don't take my word for 
it. While the administration is now gaslighting the American people,

[[Page H1475]]

saying they don't stand for this, in places like New York, they have 
already taken the lead by announcing just yesterday they will ban gas 
stoves in new buildings.
  Americans shouldn't have to choose between driving to work, paying 
their electric bills, or putting food on the table. We have to lower 
energy costs for Americans. We have to do it now.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this rule, and I reserve 
the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania 
for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time 
as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, we are here today to consider a rule for H.R. 1, a bill 
that might as well be called the polluters over people act. It is yet 
another example of how this majority, instead of helping everyday 
Americans, is doing the bidding of their deep-pocketed friends.
  We had another mass shooting yesterday, but Republicans won't lift a 
finger because of the gun lobby. We had another train derailment this 
week, but Republicans won't lift a finger because of the polluters. Our 
planet is on fire, but Republicans won't lift a finger because of Big 
Oil.
  Banks are going under, but Republicans want to deregulate more to 
help their friends on Wall Street. They want to protect kids from what 
teachers teach in the classroom but not against lead pipes in schools. 
They say they want to stop inflation but won't go after the billionaire 
corporations who aren't paying any taxes while they rip people off.
  Time after time after time, Republicans continue to put politics over 
people, and it shows. Anyone who spends 2 seconds reading this bill can 
see that it is a dirty energy, pro-polluter plan that would drag our 
economy back decades. This bill puts polluters over people. It makes it 
easier for companies to strip public lands of their resources and 
harder to hold corporate polluters accountable for the mess they make. 
It gives more handouts to Big Oil, as if the industry's CEOs and 
shareholders haven't already raked in enough money with record profits 
over the last few years. It guts half a century of environmental 
protections that ensure the air we breathe and the water we drink is 
clean, and it sets our country back as the rest of the world moves 
toward a clean energy future.
  There will be plenty of time for us to talk about all the damage the 
polluters over people act could do to our country and communities, but 
let me just highlight a few of the worst.
  First, it increases the national deficit by half a billion dollars. 
Considering how much we hear from our colleagues across the aisle about 
the deficit and the deficit and the deficit, it is fascinating that 
their most important bill blows a hole in the deficit. So much for 
their commitment to fiscal discipline. Don't take my word for it, just 
consult the CBO. It is a little bit ironic on a day that they are 
asking that there be dramatic cuts in all kinds of programs that help 
people in this country, they come up with this bill and add close to a 
half a billion dollars to our deficit.
  Second, it is a job killer. This bill will kill jobs. Over the last 
few years, Democrats have invested in building a homegrown, clean 
energy system so we don't have to rely on foreign cartels like OPEC and 
greedy Big Oil companies for our energy. Investing in these clean 
energy projects meant we created millions of clean energy jobs. The 
polluters over people act would kill these jobs and pull our country 
off course from our path toward a cleaner, cheaper energy future.
  Third, it makes it easier to pollute, and it makes it easier for 
companies to get away with polluting. Just yesterday, a local 
grandfather in East Palestine, Ohio, detailed the pain caused by the 
terrible toxic spill there. He said he has ``never cried this much in 
his life.'' His young granddaughters developed blotches all over their 
bodies, and their eyes were burning.
  This bill would mean more billionaire corporations getting away with 
polluting without being held accountable, more wells with toxic 
chemicals, more days where windows are shut because the air is not safe 
to breathe, more kids diagnosed with asthma because the air quality is 
so poor.
  The worst part is that the Republicans do not care. Their bill 
literally puts polluters over the people we are here to serve. It 
forces American taxpayers to foot the bill for cleanup while 
billionaire corporations dump their toxic waste on our communities. 
This is sick.
  Look at what is happening to our planet, Mr. Speaker. Year after 
year, the warmest ever recorded; species going extinct at rates not 
seen in millions of years; sea levels rising and coastal communities 
feeling the impact; farmers struggling to cope with changing seasons, 
unprecedented droughts, and crop failures. The answer from my 
Republican friends is more fossil fuels, more pollution, more drilling, 
more toxic waste dumped into our communities, more giveaways for Big 
Oil, and nothing, not a single thing, to lower energy prices.

  This bill might as well put ExxonMobil and Chevron in charge of our 
response to climate change. It might as well put Norfolk Southern in 
charge of chemical safety. It is a terrible bill that will shackle us 
to dirty fossil fuels for generations to come.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote on the rule and the underlying 
legislation, and I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. RESCHENTHALER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Just in rebuttal, my friend and Chairman Bruce Westerman put it best. 
He said when the Democrats talk about polluters over people, what they 
are actually referring to is not this bill. It is actually a reference 
to where we are now, thanks to Democratic reckless and radical 
policies.
  Right now, China is actually the largest emitter of CO2. 
Russian gas is much dirtier than gas from other places around the 
world, especially the United States where we have cheap, reliable, and 
clean natural gas. But instead of taking advantage of our God-given 
resources, Democrats and their reckless, radical policies make us more 
dependent on these forms of energy that are much dirtier.
  My good friend from Massachusetts said this bill will drag us back 
decades. Well, I do want this bill to take us back, not decades, but 
just to a few years ago when we had a Republican in the White House. 
Let us not forget that the United States, again, we currently lead the 
world in CO2 emission reduction, but between 2018 and 2019, 
the total reported greenhouse gas emissions from large facilities fell 
nearly 5 percent. Yeah, let's go back. Let's go back to that time.
  I find the talk about costs somewhat interesting because only in 
Washington, D.C., only in a place that lacks logic and accountability 
like Washington, D.C., can future revenue be considered a cost. Think 
about that. It is considered a cost. The math does not make sense.
  It is also quite fascinating that my friends across the aisle are now 
talking about deficits, which in the last 4 years they voted for over 
$4 trillion of increases to spending.
  Before I yield to my good friend from Texas, Dr. Burgess, I will 
point out a real-life example of what happens when we follow far-left, 
Democratic environmental policies.
  Often I wish that we had a real-life example that we could talk about 
in terms of policy, and here we do. It is called Sri Lanka. Sri Lanka, 
trying to search for a great ESG score to--I don't know, appease 
globalists, appease the ruling elite, appease woke Wall Street 
investors--they went for this ESG score and right now they are almost a 
failed state. Sri Lanka's green new deal, to be clear, was a human 
disaster. It is an ill-advised national experiment.
  Let me explain it. They went to organic farming. Organic farming 
yielded nothing but starvation, poverty, and chaos. President 
Rajapaksa, with no warning, with no attempt to teach farmers how to 
cope with change, announced a ban on all synthetic fertilizers and 
pesticides. Again, he was after that ESG score.
  Ninety percent of Sri Lankan farmers relied on synthetic fertilizers. 
After the ban, 85 percent of farmers experienced crop loss. The damage 
done by this organic order was so extensive that the former President 
had to reverse himself less than 7 months later.
  Now, let's just bring this to political reality, the goals of the 
United States,

[[Page H1476]]

where only 20 percent of electricity is powered by renewable energy, 20 
percent renewable, and less than 10 percent of American families own an 
electric vehicle. By the way, those that own electric vehicles are 
overwhelmingly people who make over six figures a year. It is not your 
average Americans who are driving around in Teslas. Yet, the left seeks 
to unilaterally ban all hydrocarbons and instill these pipe dreams that 
the U.S. will generate all of its energy through wind and solar.
  All you have to do is look at California to see what comes next. Last 
August, Governor Newsom announced that they will ban the sale of 
gasoline cars by 2035. Just 1 week later, after that announcement, the 
electric grid was overwhelmed in California, and the State had to ask 
EV owners to limit when they plugged in their vehicles to charge.
  So if you ask yourself: Where does the policy of the left lead us? 
Look no further than to the idiocy of the policy in California and look 
no further than to the almost failed state of Sri Lanka. That is where 
these reckless, radical policies will lead the U.S. economy.

  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Burgess), the good doctor, my good friend, and fellow Rules Committee 
member.
  Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I do 
want to rise in support of the rule and in support of the underlying 
bill.
  It is interesting that our Secretary of Energy, Secretary Granholm, 
came to Austin, Texas, 3 or 4 weeks ago and talked about how we should 
learn from the communist Chinese and their approach to climate change. 
Talk about putting polluters over people. If she would consult her own 
energy information agency, she would see that China gets 55 percent of 
its energy from coal, whereas the United States gets 11 percent of its 
energy from coal.
  Guess what? China is building more and more coal-fired plants each 
and every week that goes by.
  So who, indeed, is putting polluters over people?
  I submit it is this administration, and in the last Congress it was 
congressional Democrats.
  This bill before us today is a culmination of years of hard work by 
the Committee on Energy and Commerce, the Committee on Natural 
Resources, and the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. It 
is a critical step forward.
  One of the things that I have worked on for a number of years is the 
Promoting Interagency Coordination for Review of Natural Gas Pipelines 
Act. It is included in this bill. I think it is critically important, 
not just for a State like Texas but, literally, the entire country. I 
am grateful that other Republicans Members saw fit to include this 
legislation as we seek to address the obstacles preventing Americans 
from actually achieving lower energy costs.
  In less than 2\1/2\ years, we have gone from relative energy 
abundance to energy scarcity. We have gone from energy affordability to 
energy unaffordability.
  Why in the world would we want to continue down that pathway?

                              {time}  1230

  H.R. 1 also contains the repeal of section 50131 of the Inflation 
Reduction Act. This provided a billion dollars to coerce State and 
local governments into adopting costly energy codes. If these grants 
were allowed to stand, they would take away local control over energy 
code adoption and Federalize these overreaching mandates.
  Efforts to push costly and restrictive energy codes across the 
country overburden new construction and largely ignore the energy 
performance of the existing housing stock. New homes built to modern 
codes are already energy efficient, and further increases in that 
stringency must be carefully considered because, in fact, we are not 
doing that with these grant programs.
  Mr. Speaker, 2 years ago the Congress started with what was called 
the American Rescue Plan. It brought us high inflation and it brought 
us high prices. This is truly the American Rescue Plan. Let's put 
energy affordability back within the reach of the average American.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, my colleagues seem to want to debate energy policy in 
China and in Sri Lanka. That may be a fascinating topic, but that is 
not what we are here debating. We are here debating energy policy in 
the United States of America.
  I don't want us to go down the path of more fossil fuels and reliance 
on more energy sources that are going to contribute to climate change. 
I want us to lead the world toward a greener and cleaner energy future. 
I guess the question really here is: Who do you trust?
  My colleagues on the other side of the aisle, their argument is 
basically: Trust the big oil companies. Give them unfettered access. 
Give them more money and they will lower your prices. Really?
  They have the capacity to produce more now, but they are not, and 
they are gouging people at the pump. Does anybody believe that the CEOs 
of these big oil companies making record profits give a damn about 
average people in this country, about your constituents or my 
constituents? Give me a break. All they care about is profits. That is 
the question that people have to answer: Who do you trust? Do you trust 
the big oil companies?
  I certainly don't after the way they have behaved--not just recently, 
but over time. They gouge people all the time.
  The other stuff is fascinating, but we can talk about Sri Lanka at 
some other time. I would rather talk about the United States of 
America.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge that we defeat the previous question. If we do, I 
will offer an amendment to the rule to provide for consideration of a 
resolution that affirms the House's unwavering commitment to protect 
and strengthen Social Security and Medicare, and states that it is the 
position of the House of Representatives to reject any cuts to these 
programs.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my 
amendment into the Record along with extraneous material immediately 
prior to the vote on the previous question.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Massachusetts?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, Social Security and Medicare are the 
cornerstone of our Nation's social safety net. These vital programs are 
under threat as my Republican colleagues continue to demand reckless 
cuts in exchange for paying our Nation's bills.
  Some Republicans have recently claimed that they won't cut Social 
Security or Medicare benefits. Mr. Speaker, that empty rhetoric has not 
been reassuring to the American people who continue to fear that these 
programs will be slashed by my Republican friends.
  Today, once again, Democrats are giving Republicans a chance to back 
up their claims with action by providing them with a chance to reassure 
the American people, not just with their words, but with their votes. 
Today, they can vote unequivocally that they will not cut these vital 
programs. Anything short is an empty promise.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Vermont (Ms. 
Balint), to discuss our proposal.
  Ms. BALINT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to urge my colleagues to vote 
against the previous question so that the House can address more 
serious matters like the future of seniors' hard-earned benefits.
  Bringing forth H. Res. 178 gives this body the opportunity to finally 
affirm our commitment to protect and strengthen Social Security and 
Medicare.
  This is what American families want us focused on. When I talk to 
Vermont families, they are concerned with putting food on the table, 
with keeping their families safe, with how to afford lifesaving 
medications, not with propping up corporate polluters at the expense of 
our future.
  Americans need us, on the record, promising that families won't have 
to choose between essentials like medication, food, and housing. 
Cutting Social Security and Medicare hurts the poorest and most 
vulnerable among us. These programs support seniors to age with 
dignity. They support Americans with disabilities to receive the 
security that they absolutely depend on.
  We are not going to let Social Security benefits go away--we are not. 
Over 65 million Americans rely on hard-

[[Page H1477]]

earned Social Security benefits--65 million. These programs are how we 
preserve the American middle class, and it is how we support all of the 
working families in each of our districts.
  We need to expand the infrastructure and funding of these programs to 
fully support seniors in their retirement. We owe them this.
  Mr. Speaker, I want all Americans to know, Americans are not going to 
stop fighting to protect your hard-earned benefits. Again, I urge my 
colleagues to turn their attention to real issues that impact real 
American families, and defeat the previous question.
  Mr. RESCHENTHALER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, if we want to help senior citizens and if we want to 
help the working class, we can make sure that the working class and 
seniors on a fixed income can actually pay their heating bills.

  According to Ipsos polling, one in three Americans have reported 
trouble affording gas in Biden's energy crisis. Almost 35 percent of 
Americans, over 40 million, use a gas stove. The Democrats want to ban 
the gas stove.
  Let's talk about the economic pain that is coming to all Americans. 
Electricity prices are expected to rise over 11 percent this winter. 
Natural gas prices are expected to rise as much as 25 percent since 
last winter. About 47 percent of households use natural gas to heat 
their homes, by the way.
  Heating home oil prices are expected to rise as much as 45 percent 
since last winter. Over 80 percent of homes in the northeast use 
heating oil. Regions that heavily depend on home heating oil, such as, 
may I dare say, Massachusetts, they will pay an average bill of $2,354 
extra due to the draconian measures on energy, the reckless and radical 
policies of the left on energy production.
  If we want to actually help these individuals, like Republicans want 
to do, we can pass H.R. 1. I also want to focus on the comment: Who do 
we trust? We heard that refrain over and over from my good friend from 
Massachusetts. I can tell you who we shouldn't trust. We shouldn't 
trust the so-called experts that the Democrats are infatuated with.
  Let's talk about some of the statements we have heard, some of the 
predictions from these so-called experts. Al Gore in 2006 said: ``If 
you look at the 10 hottest years ever measured . . . they have all 
occurred in the last 14 years. The hottest of all was in 2005.''
  ``Within the decade there will be no more snows of Kilimanjaro.''
  He said that in 2006. Last time I checked, it was 2023 and we still 
had snow on Mt. Kilimanjaro.
  Al Gore also said:

       The North Pole will be ice-free in the summer by 2013 
     because of manmade global warming.

  That was 2013. It is 2023. Another prediction that has not come true.
  John Kerry, the climate czar, in 2009 said:

       You have sea ice, which is melting at a rate that the 
     Arctic Ocean is now increasingly exposed to. In 5 years, 
     scientists predict we will have the first ice-free Arctic 
     summer. . . .

  That was 2009. It is 2023. Last time I checked, there was still ice 
in the Arctic.
  Let's talk about Barack Obama and his predictions. In 2015, he said:

       No challenge poses a greater threat to the future 
     generations than climate change.

  When he left office, let's not forget that this man bought beachfront 
property in Martha's Vineyard, while having the audacity to tell us 
that we are facing rising sea levels due to climate change. Again, he 
bought a beachside mansion in Martha's Vineyard, so spare me.
  In talking about the greatest threat, notice there was no mention of 
the CCP, notice there was no mention of Russia, which in debate with 
Republicans--when Republicans were pointing to the threat posed by 
Russia, Barack Obama said the 1980s want their foreign policy back.
  Let's talk about another so-called expert that the left loves to talk 
about, Greta Thunberg. In 2018, she tweeted: ``A top climate scientist 
is warning that climate change will wipe out all of humanity unless we 
stop using fossil fuels over the next 5 years.''
  Conveniently, Greta Thunberg deleted that tweet this month. Why? 
Because that was said in 2018. It is now 2023, 5 years later, and 
humanity is still around.
  It is easy to say that the experts have just been wrong in the last 
few years, since the early 2000s. The so-called experts have been wrong 
on this topic since the 1960s.
  In 1969, The New York Times published a piece from Paul Ehrlich, and 
he said--the so-called expert, by the way: ``We must realize that 
unless we are extremely lucky, everybody will disappear in a cloud of 
blue steam in 20 years.'' Again, that was 1969. That didn't happen. 
Yet, in 2023, Paul Ehrlich--I think he is 90 years old--this man is 
still being published and still being held up as an expert on climate 
change, and appearing on 60 Minutes telling us that we are all going to 
die. Spare me.
  I have got more quotes. I could go on, but it is very clear who you 
should trust. The Republicans are the party of science. The Democrats 
are the party of political science. The Republicans are the party of 
chemistry. The Democrats are the party of alchemy. We are the party of 
astronomy. They are the party of astrology. The science is with us.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Roy), 
my good friend and fellow Rules Committee member.
  Mr. ROY. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Pennsylvania. I couldn't 
help but notice my colleagues on the other side of the aisle going, yet 
again, to one of their pages in their playbook that they love to bring 
out every single time we have a debate--oh, who can you trust?
  You can't trust corporate America. Guess what? I don't trust 
corporate America. I don't trust Big Oil. I don't. I don't trust them 
any more than I trust any of the big government bureaucrats that decide 
what is best for me. I do trust the market.
  I do trust people being able to go out and use their capital to go 
out and produce the best energy for the American people. This 
administration and my Democratic colleagues don't want to do that, as 
exemplified by the fact that the President of the United States dumped 
300 million barrels out of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve last year 
heading into an election.
  Mr. Speaker, 300 million barrels. They cut the Strategic Petroleum 
Reserve in half in order to bail out their election because their 
policies were so bad. Even Goldman Sachs is saying that the so-called 
Inflation Reduction Act, which massively expands unreliable energy, 
would cost $1.2 trillion. That is the truth.

  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule for this bill. I think it 
is critically important that we take a massive step forward to try to 
ensure that we open up exploration on lands, repeal the methane tax, 
and overall permitting.
  It is only a simple step because the step that has to be taken is to 
free up the market from the ungodly amount of subsidies coming from 
Washington, subsidizing unreliable energy at the expense of capital 
being able to flow into the development of oil and natural gas and 
nuclear power to ensure that we have the power to live our lives.
  When you have a cloudy, windless day, you have to have power. This 
building is powered by natural gas. Hospitals across the country stay 
open because of natural gas. The fact of the matter is, you cannot 
power the world right now with wind and solar power.
  My colleagues on the other side of the aisle live in unicorn land 
with fairy dust, completely ignoring the reality of what happens to 
real Americans when the cost of their goods and services go up; when 
they have inflation skyrocketing and raising up; when it is destroying 
their way of life because people want to feel good about themselves 
hopping in their Tesla and rolling around pretending there is a magic 
energy tree. There isn't.
  People's lives are at stake. My colleagues on the other side of the 
aisle want the American people to lack the energy that they need to 
live their lives productively and affordably. You want to know why 
inflation is going up?
  Because this body has spent money it doesn't have. The Fed has 
printed money and jacked up the extent to which we have massive easy 
money out in the supply money. We have spent money we don't have. We 
have regulated the oil and gas industry to death,

[[Page H1478]]

such that we don't have the ability to actually back up their magic 
fairy dust energy supplies with wind and solar.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman says that this building is 
powered by natural gas. I think it is probably more accurate to say it 
is powered by hot air.
  Mr. Speaker, the bottom line is that this bill is a giveaway to the 
oil companies. The gentleman says he doesn't trust Big Oil, but this is 
a bill that gives them everything they want--their wish list.
  Trust the markets? I don't know that the market can clean up a toxic 
waste dump or the market can clean up an oil spill or the market can 
monitor clean air.

                              {time}  1245

  The bottom line is this bill goes after all of those protections and 
actually endangers the American people.
  To the gentleman from Pennsylvania, who I hope will read more quotes 
because I think it is making it clear--which is shocking in the year 
2023--he is making the case that climate change doesn't exist going all 
the way back to Al Gore, who actually was right when he said that 
climate change was a problem, and selectively taking these quotes from 
way back when.
  Does anybody believe that climate change isn't real?
  Come to Massachusetts. I will introduce you to my farmers who 
complain about the impacts of climate change on their ability to make a 
livelihood. Maple syrup producers wonder whether they will be able to 
get maple syrup out of trees in Massachusetts because of climate 
change. I could go on and on about the impacts of climate change on our 
local farmers.
  Much of this discussion, Mr. Speaker, can be tied back to 
Republicans' affinity for culture wars. They just claimed a little 
while ago that President Biden and Democrats were planning to come 
after Americans' gas stoves. It couldn't be further from the truth. No 
one is taking your stove.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to include in the Record a Vox 
article titled: ``Five myths about gas stoves, the latest culture war 
clash.''
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Massachusetts?
  There was no objection.

                       [From Vox, Jan. 20, 2023]

         5 Myths About Gas Stoves, the Latest Culture War Clash

                           (By Rebecca Leber)

       The debate over the future of the gas stove has been going 
     on for years, long before last week, when it turned into a 
     full-fledged culture war.
       Public health officials, researchers, and doctors have long 
     been taking note of the abundant research linking pollution 
     from the gas stove to respiratory problems, and the Consumer 
     Product Safety Commission announced in December it was taking 
     a look at the health risks to determine what regulations 
     would be appropriate for the gas stove.
       But after a member of the CPSC told Bloomberg in an 
     interview last week that ``products that can't be made safe 
     can be banned,'' the fervor built quickly. Republicans (and 
     some Democrats) portrayed the commissioner's remark as a sign 
     that the Biden administration was coming for the gas stove as 
     its next attack on American freedom. And plenty of defenders 
     of the gas stove came out insisting it's the superior way to 
     cook.
       The fracas generated some new myths about gas stove 
     reglation--and perpetuated other long-held misunderstandings. 
     Here's how to separate fact from fiction.


 Myth 1: Biden--or federal regulators--want to take your gas stove away

       The hysteria that ensued when the Consumer Product Safety 
     Commission said it would be taking a closer look at gas 
     stoves could be summed up by a tweet from Rep. Ronny Jackson 
     (R-TX). ``I'll never give up my gas stove. If the maniacs in 
     the White House come for my stove, they can pry it from my 
     cold dead hands. Come and take it!!''
       Some confusion comes from remarks from CPSC Commissioner 
     Richard Trumka Jr., who told Bloomberg that ``any option'' is 
     on the table as the independent agency considers the hazards 
     posed by the gas stove: ``Products that can't be made safe 
     can be banned,'' he said. The CPSC later clarified those 
     remarks: The commission said that there is no ban under 
     consideration, and ``the CPSC is looking for ways to reduce 
     related indoor air quality hazards.''
       There are a lot of other options, like requiring range hood 
     ventilation to be sold alongside the gas stove and warning 
     labels, that the commission could consider before an outright 
     ban. And any CPSC regulation for stoves would apply to new 
     products being sold, not those already in people's homes.
       What's more, it's not the White House that's calling all 
     the shots here. The CPSC commissioners are appointed by the 
     president, but otherwise, its regulations are not vetted 
     through the White House, unlike the Environmental Protection 
     Agency's process. States and cities are also already taking 
     action to minimize the climate and health risks involved with 
     combusting gas indoors.
       The White House has said it doesn't support a ban, but it 
     is promoting incentives through the Inflation Reduction Act 
     that help people voluntarily electrify their homes.


               Myth 2: Gas stove hazards are ``newfound''

       In a letter to the CPSC's Trumka, Sen. J.D. Vance (R-OH) 
     calls the gas stove a ``newfound `hidden hazard' that rests 
     on limited research.'' In another section, Vance says there's 
     a ``lack of compelling evidence.''
       The study that caught national attention estimated that 
     almost 13 percent of childhood asthma cases in the U.S. are 
     linked to gas stove use, similar to the level caused by 
     secondhand smoke. That study is based on a review of the 
     evidence from 2013, which examined 41 studies from multiple 
     countries, dating as far back as 1977, to conclude that 
     children living in households with gas stoves had a 42 
     percent higher risk of currently being diagnosed with asthma 
     and a 24 percent higher risk of being diagnosed with asthma 
     at some point in their life.
       ``Although the effects of gas cooking and indoor NO2 on 
     asthma and wheeze were found to be relatively small . . . the 
     public health impact may still be considerable because gas 
     cooking is widespread,'' the authors of the 2013 evidence 
     review concluded.
       These studies looked at the impact of gas cooking 
     specifically. But there's an even longer trail of studies 
     looking at the pollutant nitrogen dioxide, which is emitted 
     by gas stoves, and the damage it does to people exposed to it 
     outdoors. In fact, outdoor NO2 pollution is regulated by the 
     EPA, which has done its own thorough reviews of NO2 risks.


        Myth 3: No type of cooking can compare to the gas stove

       The idea that gas is vastly superior to all its 
     alternatives is pervasive and is eagerly pushed by both 
     appliance makers and the natural gas industry. Whirlpool, 
     which manufactures both gas and electric, says matter-of-
     factly on its website, ``If you like to make meals that 
     require rapid temperature changes, gas ranges might be the 
     way to go.''
       The comparisons between gas and electric are usually 
     comparing apples and oranges: the contemporary gas stove 
     against dated electric stoves. The better modern equivalent 
     is induction, which uses electromagnetic energy that makes 
     the pans themselves a heat source, leaving the actual 
     stovetop relatively cool. These new models come with settings 
     that allow you to cook precisely at a certain temperature and 
     hold that heat, with a lower risk of burns. Other positive 
     reviews note that induction stoves are easier to clean and 
     can boil water faster than gas stoves.
       Chefs are also more split on induction versus gas than the 
     public realizes. In a Vox interview, Jon Kung, a Detroit-
     based chef, noted that he prefers induction because it 
     improves his indoor air quality and heat in the home. He also 
     noted you can use woks with it, a common complaint about 
     switching away from gas. Sierra magazine has talked to other 
     chefs who prefer induction. ``For me, it was an economic no-
     brainer,'' chef Michael Godlewski said on opening an all-
     induction restaurant in Pittsburgh in spring 2022 called EYV 
     (Eat Your Veggies). ``They asked me where I wanted the gas 
     line, and I said, `Nowhere.' ''
       An induction range is expensive; it can run you in the 
     thousands of dollars. But the cost is coming down. One 
     program some households may qualify for is the Inflation 
     Reduction Act's kitchen appliance tax credits and rebates. 
     The 25C tax credits cover a range of energy-efficient 
     products in the home, including an induction range. It allows 
     you to deduct 30 percent of the costs of electrical work on 
     the house (up to $1,200). Later this year, there will be 
     rebates available, too, under the High-Efficiency Electric 
     Home Rebate Program. Households making up to 150 percent of 
     the local median income will lower the upfront costs of the 
     appliance and installation. Lower-income households (below 80 
     percent of the median income) can have all their costs 
     covered under the program.
       In the meantime, households that don't want to wait or 
     don't qualify could also opt for a portable plug-in induction 
     stovetop, which costs much less and is renter-friendly.


                Myth 4: Most of America uses gas stoves

       Gas stoves are common but not ubiquitous. Per the Energy 
     Information Administration, on average, 38 percent of the 
     country uses gas for cooking, or about 40 million stoves. But 
     those numbers vary widely depending on where you are. New 
     York, New Jersey, Illinois, and California have the highest 
     rates of gas stoves in the country, over 60 percent. 
     Southeastern states have some of the lowest rates in the 
     country, under 20 percent.
       Sen. Joe Manchin (D-WV) reacted to the CPSC uproar by 
     tweeting, ``I can tell you the last thing that would ever 
     leave my house is the gas stove that we cook on.''
       Manchin himself may have a gas stove, but many in his state 
     do not. In fact, a survey from the EIA in 2020 found that a 
     quarter of West Virginia residents have a gas cooking 
     appliance, while 73 percent use electric.
       The consequences of gas appliances aren't also evenly 
     distributed. Children, who have

[[Page H1479]]

     smaller lungs, are at higher risk of developing complications 
     from NO2, and so are older adults and people with preexisting 
     health conditions. Another risk factor is if a person is 
     already exposed to other pollution sources in addition to the 
     stove. They might live near a highway, an industrial site, or 
     even in an area with concentrated gas appliances all venting 
     outside, so they are breathing dirty air both outside and 
     indoors.


     Myth 5: As long as you use ventilation, the risks don't matter

       The American Gas Association's website emphasizes that with 
     ventilation like a working range hood, the gas stove is not a 
     problem for indoor air quality. The Wall Street Journal 
     editorial board echoed this: ``Studies flogged by the climate 
     left don't account for the effects of ventilation. One even 
     sealed a test kitchen in plastic tarps in an effort to show 
     that gas stoves increase pollution.''
       More recent research from LBNL found that a gas stove can 
     also be leaking methane, a greenhouse gas, even when the 
     appliance is shut off. Inside the home, the level of methane 
     is probably low enough that the researchers don't consider 
     these leaks to be a health threat. But methane is also a 
     larger problem, not just for its climate risks but because it 
     contributes to ground-level ozone that harms human health.

  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Florida (Ms. Castor).
  Ms. CASTOR of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I thank Mr. McGovern for yielding 
the time.
  Mr. Speaker, our neighbors back home send us here to Washington to 
stand up for them and to stand up to the powerful special interests 
that have all too much influence here in the halls of Washington. They 
expect us to work to lower costs and for good-paying jobs and safe and 
healthy communities.
  That is why this Republican polluters over people act is so 
dangerous. It does the opposite of what we should be doing here. This 
bill would reward the price gouging of the big oil and gas companies. 
This bill would roll back our bedrock environmental protections for 
clean air, clean water, and lower-cost clean energy.
  Mr. McGovern, I think it is important that you know that in the 
Energy and Commerce Committee last week, at the very last minute, with 
no hearing and very little debate, they included a provision that would 
roll back an important piece of the Inflation Reduction Act that puts 
money back into people's pockets back home for energy efficiency 
rebates and discounts to help lower energy bills. They do this at a 
time when Exxon made record profits last year, $56 billion, and Chevron 
$36 billion.
  Fossil fuels were the main driver of inflation, yet you want to give 
another massive giveaway to oil and gas companies and take away simple 
energy rebates for homeowners?
  They are doing it at a time when it looks as if this bill would 
increase the deficit by half a billion dollars. This is an 
irresponsible giveaway to polluters at the expense of our neighbors 
back home. It deserves a big ``no'' vote. Let's think about the people 
we represent for a change.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are reminded to direct their remarks 
to the Chair.
  Mr. RESCHENTHALER. Mr. Speaker, spare me the gaslighting on gas 
stoves. We know that, just yesterday, New York banned all gas stoves in 
new buildings. We are talking about New York.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Langworthy), who is my good friend on the Rules Committee.
  Mr. LANGWORTHY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule, which 
provides consideration of legislation to bring relief to Americans and 
unleash the power of American energy.
  Forty percent--that is the spike in heating costs borne by many of my 
constituents in New York State during a bitter, life-threatening 
winter. For a family on a budget and a retiree on a fixed income, that 
40 percent hike is a painful one. It means doing without certain items 
from the grocery store or carefully rationing when and how you keep the 
heat on in your home despite bitterly cold temperatures.
  Mr. Speaker, these are the terrible choices that my constituents must 
make due to the Biden-Hochul energy agenda. This is life for many 
Americans in the unaffordable, inflation-ridden Biden economy.
  Let's not be fooled by the President's rhetoric about a Putin price 
hike at the pump. The regulatory machine imposed on American energy has 
been built for one objective in mind: to destroy our Nation's energy 
sector as we know it.
  In New York State, our Governor, Kathy Hochul, has made it a top 
priority to force our State's farmers, the guarantors of our Nation's 
food security and leaders in conservation, into a future of expensive 
and unreliable electric vehicles and equipment.
  That technology doesn't even exist yet. We know that current EV 
technology is inferior to diesel machinery. We know that a future with 
more EV batteries and EV motors means greater dependence on China. God 
forbid we let those inconvenient truths get in the way of the left's 
radical and out-of-touch Green New Deal religion.
  The southern tier of New York sits atop one of our country's greatest 
natural resource endowments, the Marcellus shale. Just across the 
border from my district in neighboring Pennsylvania, hydraulic 
fracturing has created an economic miracle and newfound prosperity. It 
has transformed their economy while counties in my district in the 
southern tier are some of the poorest in our State.
  Yet Governor Hochul, who is taking her cues from Democrats here in 
Washington, has made it her mission to ensure those same opportunities, 
that dream of prosperity and economic revival, are denied to New 
Yorkers in the southern tier.
  Democrats in Albany and Washington have locked away the promise of 
natural gas production. They have blocked the construction of oil and 
gas pipelines. They are now leading the way in banning natural gas to 
our homes.
  Mr. Speaker, Americans are desperate for relief and an end to the 
left's destructive anti-energy agenda. H.R. 1 promises to unleash the 
power of our Nation's energy sector once again. It will create 
countless new jobs and bring investment and economic rebirth into 
communities across this great country. It will allow Americans once 
again to live in a world where they can afford to farm their farms, 
drive their cars, put food on their tables, and heat their homes. I 
support this rule.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, the way everybody is yelling and screaming over there, 
you would think that they want to have a debate on ideas, but this rule 
actually blocks over three-quarters of all the amendments submitted.
  Democrats offered 95 amendments. Mr. Speaker, do you know how many 
they made in order? Seven.
  That is not just an interesting statistic, Mr. Speaker. It means that 
real and important ideas are completely blocked from even being debated 
on this House floor on their signature piece of legislation. Many of 
these amendments would protect public health and safety and our 
environment.
  Take, for example, an amendment by Ms. Kamlager-Dove, No. 37, that 
requires permits prepared under the NEPA process to include an analysis 
of health and safety impacts. That is it. It seems like a good idea to 
me.

  The amendment sponsored by Mrs. Sykes, No. 118, takes into account 
drinking water quality when approving permits. I don't think clean 
drinking water ought to be a radical idea, but maybe it is on the 
Republican side of the aisle. We should debate it.
  Another amendment submitted by Mrs. Dingell, No. 15, would require 
the United States to actually reduce its emissions before repealing a 
section of the law, the greenhouse gas reduction fund, set up to spur 
clean energy projects and reduce air pollution.
  I offered three amendments, and they were all blocked. One of them, 
No. 94, struck language in this bill providing blanket immunity to 
polluters who violate our country's bedrock environmental laws.
  Really? Do you think that is objectionable? We can't even debate it 
here? We can do 7 hours of general debate, but we can't take 10 minutes 
to discuss whether companies should get a blank check to pollute. Whose 
side are you on?
  Back in January, Speaker McCarthy actually promised both sides ``more 
openness, more opportunity for ideas to win at the end of the day.'' 
Mr. Speaker, that promise has been broken. This Republican majority 
knows their

[[Page H1480]]

bills fail to address real problems, so they continue to block our good 
ideas from even coming to the floor rather than debating them. They are 
scared to let Americans hear our ideas, and that tells you everything 
you need to know.
  This is important, I think, for my colleagues on both sides of the 
aisle to know. My friends across the aisle blocked all six amendments 
from the gentleman from Pennsylvania, the co-chair of the Problem 
Solvers Caucus, Mr. Fitzpatrick, who happens to be a Republican. They 
blocked all six.
  Mr. Fitzpatrick's amendments would have opposed drilling in the 
Delaware River Basin, ensured the act doesn't preempt a State 
constitution, established an infrastructure and environmental 
innovation trust fund, preserved the greenhouse gas reduction fund, 
prohibited energy exploration activities on any protected public land, 
and added a sense of Congress that U.S. citizens have a right to clean 
air and clean water.
  I get it. My friends are pushing this polluters over people bill, but 
our colleague, a Republican who is the co-chair of the Problem Solvers 
Caucus, was denied all six of these amendments.
  What are you afraid of? Why don't you debate these?
  It is unfortunate that those ideas apparently were just too radical 
to even be debated on the House floor.
  I truly hope that Mr. Fitzpatrick, after witnessing his own majority 
block all of his amendments, even the ones the gentleman watered down 
with a revision, I hope he will not support this rule. Supporting this 
rule would mean the gentleman would be voting to block his own 
amendments.
  In fact, I ask all Republican members of the Problem Solvers Caucus 
to vote ``no'' on this rule because if you don't, this will be the 
pattern.
  Mr. Speaker, I rhetorically ask the Problem Solvers Caucus how they 
plan to solve any problems if their Republican leadership won't even 
let them offer their ideas and won't even give them a fair fight on 
this floor.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are again reminded to direct their 
remarks to the Chair.
  Mr. RESCHENTHALER. Mr. Speaker, spare me the pearl-clutching about 
this amendment process. Let me remind my friends across the aisle that 
last Congress, their H.R. 1 was a closed rule. Zero amendments from 
either side were allowed.
  We have Democrat and Republican amendments on this bill, so, again, 
spare me. Also, spare me that we don't want to debate this. Spare me 
that we don't want to have this debated and other viewpoints heard.
  White House climate adviser Gina McCarthy recently called for Big 
Tech censorship of Americans who dared to speak out against the Biden 
administration's radical, far-left Green New Deal agenda. I think it is 
very clear who wants censorship. I think it is very clear who is afraid 
of ideas that don't fit their narrative. It is the Democratic Party.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. 
Alford), who is my good friend.
  Mr. ALFORD. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Pennsylvania for 
yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 1.
  From day one, this administration has demonized American energy 
producers, forcing prices to skyrocket and compromising our national 
security.
  My Missouri constituents care about three things, Mr. Speaker: food, 
fuel, and fertilizer. This President has done nothing but raise prices 
on all three.
  Our constituents don't want to be forced to drive a Prius. They want 
affordable prices at the pump. The F-150 is the model of a truck made 
in Missouri. It shouldn't be what it costs to fill it up, but that is 
exactly how much it cost this past summer. It has to end.
  Since taking office, President Biden has canceled construction of the 
Keystone XL pipeline, which could have supplied us with more than 
800,000 barrels of oil a day. He has depleted our strategic reserves to 
their lowest levels since 1983. The cherry on the top, Mr. Speaker, is 
that he has prevented any new permits on Federal lands and completely 
undermined the permitting process.
  This President has kneecapped American energy producers.
  America should not have to choose between driving to work and putting 
food on the table, but that is exactly what is happening in America 
today. This administration is making them make those tough choices, and 
that is exactly why we need H.R. 1.
  We promised the American people that we would make sure they could 
fill up their trucks. We promised that we would fight to make it 
affordable to heat their homes. We promised to fight the woke Green New 
Deal policies that are killing our energy sector.
  This legislation does just that. It will increase domestic energy 
production. It will reform the permitting process for all industries. 
It will reverse the anti-energy policies being perpetrated by the Biden 
administration.
  Mr. Speaker, it is not complicated. We know that American energy 
producers make the cleanest energy in the world. Let's not only make 
America energy independent; let's make America energy dominant.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the rules 
package on this critical piece of legislation and ``yes'' on H.R. 1.
  Let's put a tiger back in the tank and not a kitty cat in the 
glorified golf cart.

                              {time}  1300

  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Pennsylvania just said that when we 
introduced H.R. 1, our H.R. 1 was a closed rule. I would urge him to go 
back and look at the statistics because our H.R. 1 in the 117th 
Congress had a structured rule with 56 amendments in order, more than 
the 36 on this bill. In the previous Congress, our H.R. 1 had even more 
amendments in order.
  If the gentleman can't even be kind of factual about that, what else 
should we wonder whether it is based on fact or not?
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from New Mexico 
(Ms. Leger Fernandez), a distinguished member of the Rules Committee.
  Ms. LEGER FERNANDEZ. Mr. Speaker, Democrats believe in putting people 
over politics. Last Congress, Democrats tackled climate change and 
brought down energy costs for the American people. Those investments in 
the Inflation Reduction Act have already spurred investments in clean 
energy projects and created good-paying jobs. At a time when we see 
rising costs, the Inflation Reduction Act will save the average 
American family $1,800 a year.
  The Biden administration is also moving forward with an important 
rule to limit methane emissions nationwide. New Mexico led the way on 
this. We strengthened our methane emissions rules in 2021.
  The Energy Information Administration data shows that even though we 
strengthened our methane emissions, we grew year after year for 5 years 
in natural gas and energy production. The Land of Enchantment shows us 
that we don't have to sacrifice the environment for energy production.
  H.R. 1 would sacrifice the environment and put polluters over people. 
Members of the majority are pursuing this at a time when CEOs for large 
corporations have made record profits. While the industry made $451 
billion in profits just last year, New Mexicans and people throughout 
rural America were taking groceries out of their carts to pay for gas.
  H.R. 1 will not make it cheaper for the ranchers I know in Colfax 
County to fill up their trucks. Republicans dispute this and say the 
bill will lower costs. Let's see.
  I offered an amendment to see if that is true. My amendment simply 
states that H.R. 1 does not take effect until the Secretaries of Energy 
and of the Interior certify that it will lower costs for American 
taxpayers and consumers.
  What did the Republicans do with this commonsense amendment? They 
voted it down unanimously.
  What are they afraid of seeing?
  What are they afraid of debating?
  The reality is H.R. 1 guts our longstanding environmental safeguards. 
It makes it easier to dump toxic and hazardous wastes. It threatens 
clean drinking water and lines the pockets of the wealthiest CEOs.
  The Clean Water Act has long been key to protecting America's water. 
As

[[Page H1481]]

we say, ``agua es vida'', ``water is life.'' This bill guts our Clean 
Water Act in favor of polluters.
  The Republicans also rejected my amendment to protect our water from 
mining for our farmers, ranchers, and Tribes. We have to remember that 
the mining that is proposed that would decimate our waters is often 
proposed by Chinese-owned subsidiaries or foreign-owned subsidiaries.
  The Republicans also blocked an amendment that would have required 
that Chinese subsidiaries not own our minerals.
  Mr. RESCHENTHALER. Mr. Speaker, I admit I misspoke, it wasn't H.R. 1 
in the 117th. It was--wait for it--H.R. 5, the Equality Act; H.R. 6, 
the American Dream and Promise Act; and H.R. 4, the John R. Lewis 
Voting Rights Advancement Act. Three of the low-numbered bills that my 
friends across the aisle ran last Congress, their so-called priority 
bills, were run with closed rules. Just to be clear on that, it wasn't 
H.R. 1, but it was the three other ones that they ran as a priority.
  Mr. Speaker, I have no further speakers, and I reserve the balance of 
my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for admitting his 
error and admitting that he was wrong when he said H.R. 1 was a closed 
rule we brought up. I think perhaps the gentleman might want to go back 
and consult some of his research because I think he would also find out 
that some of the things he said about climate change would be proven 
factually wrong.
  I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Correa).
  Mr. CORREA. Mr. Speaker, as I said last night before the Rules 
Committee, I don't disagree with this legislation. Every day I hear 
from my constituents, gasoline prices are way too high. They have got 
to choose between paying for groceries and filling up their gas tank. I 
agree, we should ease the burden on American taxpayers. However, I 
disagree that this is the right way to do it.
  Just last year, the Inflation Reduction Act made historic investments 
in home energy rebates, tax credits, clean energy vehicles, land and 
water conservation, and grants for greenhouse gas reduction.
  This legislation, in contrast, does not make any new investments. It 
simply walks back all the progress we have made before we can see the 
results of those investments.
  That is why I introduced last night an amendment to simply say that 
any future investments in gas and oil be equaled in clean energy 
investments.
  Why? Because we want to make sure we keep America on the world stage 
as leaders in energy production.
  Sadly, my colleagues across the aisle will not be bringing up my 
amendment for a vote this week.
  Mr. RESCHENTHALER. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time 
until closing.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Colorado (Mr. Neguse), a distinguished member of the Rules Committee.
  Mr. NEGUSE. Mr. Speaker, I didn't prepare a speech today. I brought 
the bill to the floor because I have great empathy for my colleague on 
the other side of the aisle who has the unenviable task of somehow 
trying to defend this 200-page bill, the polluters over people act. 
These 200 pages put polluters first at every turn.
  Mr. Speaker, if you don't believe me, I encourage you to read the 
bill. Buried in this 200-page bill, on page 40, is a provision that 
gives the Secretary of Energy and the Administrator of the EPA the 
power to grant a waiver to any refinery in this country from the key 
requirements of bedrock environmental laws that have governed this 
space for the better part of the last 50 years, since the days of 
President Richard Nixon.
  Look at subparagraph (c) that enables any party who acts under a 
waiver granted under this bill to violate any environmental law and 
have blanket immunity. The Clean Water Act, the Clean Air Act, NEPA, 
you name it, they will waive it. That is not a bill that puts people 
first. It is a bill that puts polluters first. It is why I am proud to 
vote ``no'' and why I encourage every Member of this distinguished body 
to vote ``no'' on this bill.
  Mr. RESCHENTHALER. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time 
until my closing.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time to 
close.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to include in the Record a 
letter from nearly 100 energy and environment groups including the 
Natural Resources Defense Council, the Sierra Club, The Wilderness 
Society, and Oceana.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Massachusetts?
  There was no objection.

                                                   March 27, 2023.
     Re Vote Recommendation on H.R. 1, the ``Lower Energy Costs 
         Act''

       Dear Representative: On behalf of our millions of members 
     and supporters, the undersigned organizations write to 
     express our strong opposition and to urge you to vote NO on 
     H.R. 1, the so-called ``Lower Energy Costs Act,'' which the 
     House will take up this week.
       This legislation would exacerbate the climate crisis, 
     perpetuate environmental injustices, and undermine U.S. 
     economic and national security by prolonging reliance on 
     risky and volatile energy sources. Its sweeping changes to 
     the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the Mineral 
     Leasing Act, the Mining Law of 1872, and the Clean Water Act 
     prioritize polluter profits over public health and exhibit an 
     astonishing disregard for government accountability and the 
     voices and welfare of communities impacted by federal 
     decisions.


                               DIVISION A

       Division A would encourage new fossil fuel production and 
     infrastructure, despite the scientific consensus that there 
     is no room for investment in new fossil fuel production if we 
     are to keep the world on a 1.5  deg.C compatible pathway. It 
     would also undermine bedrock environmental laws, including 
     NEPA, by short-circuiting permitting processes and limiting 
     public input. NEPA is a critical environmental law and an 
     important tool for frontline and environmental justice 
     communities to influence federal infrastructure projects that 
     will impact them the most.
       Division A's most egregious provisions:
       Repeal the Methane Emissions Reduction Program created by 
     the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA). This critical program 
     supports efforts to reduce methane emissions from the oil and 
     gas sector, improve methane monitoring, fund environmental 
     restoration, and help communities reduce the health impacts 
     of pollution.
       Undercut public transparency and input from communities by 
     arbitrarily limiting the time for environmental reviews. The 
     bill alters the approval process for gas pipelines by 
     requiring all other federal and state agencies to defer to 
     FERC.
       Strip away the federal government's responsibility to 
     examine the full impacts of LNG expansion on US energy 
     markets, the environment, and local communities. It would 
     make it easier to approve LNG exports by removing the first 
     three sections of the Natural Gas Act, which require a public 
     interest determination for LNG exports to non-FTA countries 
     and by mandating that FERCdeem gas exports in the public 
     interest. LNG exports negatively impact Americans by 
     exacerbating climate change, raising domestic energy prices, 
     and perpetuating environmental injustices, and these factors 
     need to be taken into account when deciding whether to 
     approve additional LNG export terminals.
       Authorize the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to 
     waive the Clean Air Act (CAA) and Solid Waste Disposal Act 
     (SWDA) requirements for waste produced by certain energy 
     facilities. Exempting energy waste potentially including 
     everything from fracking wastewater to mine processing 
     facilities and tailing sites to nuclear facilities from these 
     laws threatens the health of people in frontline communities, 
     as well as our air and water. The waste from energy 
     production are some of the most threatening products and 
     sites, and often they exist for hundreds of years, even in 
     perpetuity, which is part of the reason why the Superfund 
     program is overwhelmed.
       Undermine the Toxic Substances Control Act by short 
     circuiting the review and approval process for new chemicals 
     used in the energy sector, whether that is for fracking, 
     petrochemicals, mining or dozens of other products. This 
     rushed and weak assessment, which would lead to default 
     approvals, would result in the blind rubber-stamping of 
     chemicals for use in energy that have deleterious impacts on 
     human health and the environment. Virtually any chemical that 
     plays a role in the production, refining, distribution, and 
     use of energy could be designated as ``critical'' by the 
     Department of Energy.
       Allow the EPA Administrator to circumvent the scientific 
     process of approving or denying flexible air permitting at 
     the agency. Doing so could potentially allow the EPA 
     Administrator to increase air pollution from so-called 
     ``critical energy resource facilities,'' subsequently harming 
     environmental and public health. A broad spectrum of 
     facilities that emit toxic air pollution could evade scrutiny 
     for health impacts, including processing and refining 
     products of oil, gas, coal, minerals, and fertilizers.
       Modify the organization of the Department of Energy, taking 
     the authority on many issues and processes that are vital for 
     the protection of communities, air, lands, and

[[Page H1482]]

     water away from those who have the expertise in understanding 
     the potential impacts of extraction and production, whether 
     that is the Department of Interior (DOI) or Environmental 
     Protection Agency (EPA). In doing so it makes the only metric 
     for consideration economic, which would mean that 
     communities, lands, and waters would be sacrificed.
       This Division also contains a provision purporting to 
     support domestic supplies of ``critical minerals,'' but in 
     reality creates a new legislated term--``critical energy 
     resources''--which the majority has defined to mean virtually 
     anything related to the energy sector, whether that is oil 
     and gas, coal, petrochemicals or nuclear production, mineral 
     processing, and refining.
       Other notably problematic provisions in the remainder of 
     Division A would:
       Prohibit the President from issuing a moratorium on 
     fracking unless authorized by Congress. Fracking releases 
     massive amounts of methane, a potent greenhouse gas that has 
     more than 80 times the power of carbon dioxide over a 20-year 
     period, driving approximately one quarter of the warming our 
     planet has experienced to date. Fracking also harms local 
     communities and ecosystems by releasing air pollutants and 
     contaminating water sources.
       Exempt certain energy facilities from requirements to 
     secure an interim permit before operating, instead allowing 
     the facilities to operate before securing such a permit. The 
     result could be the release of harmful pollutants into our 
     air and water, threatening the environment and health of 
     people in frontline communities. The facilities that could 
     receive a permit without an accurate assessment of their 
     impact include everything from radioactive waste to 
     petrochemicals to fertilizer to mining waste, all extremely 
     toxic industries.
       Express disapproval of President Biden revoking the 
     Presidential Permit for Keystone XL pipeline. If built, 
     Keystone XL would have carried 830,000 barrels per day of the 
     dirtiest oil on the planet, threatening our climate, 
     farmland, critical water resources, and wildlife habitat 
     along the pipeline's path.
       Express the sense of Congress that the federal government 
     should not restrict the export of crude oil or other 
     petroleum products. Increased oil drilling and exports have 
     enormous climate repercussions and pollute communities and 
     ecosystems. They also open U.S. consumers to the whipsaw 
     effects of geopolitical tensions and conflicts, creating 
     energy instability and often driving significant increases in 
     energy prices. The federal government must ensure that these 
     exports do not compromise US climate and environmental 
     justice goals or undermine our global climate leadership.


                               DIVISION B

       Title I would take us in the wrong direction on onshore and 
     offshore oil and gas leasing. It would lock in decades' worth 
     of fossil fuel infrastructure, preclude protections for 
     millions more acres of public lands, split estates, and 
     offshore waters, and handcuff the Biden Administration's 
     ability to address the climate crisis through thoughtful 
     management of our shared public resources. Like many recent 
     proposals from the present House majority, it attempts to 
     further prop up the federal fossil fuel program despite 
     rising (and record) production, and industry's existing 
     access to tens of millions of acres of our shared public 
     spaces and thousands of approved and unused permits to drill 
     on federal lands and in offshore waters.
       To start, Title I:
       Mandates leasing onshore and offshore, eviscerating long-
     standing precedent that defers leasing decisions to the 
     President and the Secretary of the Interior.
       Rushes oil and gas drilling permits through the 
     environmental review process with zero regard for community 
     input, effects on endangered species, or emissions 
     consequences.
       Exempts as many permitting decisions from the federal 
     review process as possible.
       Severely restricts the President's authority to protect 
     specific lands with natural, cultural, or scientific 
     significance.
       Repeals the hard-fought common-sense reforms to the 
     outdated oil and gas leasing program that were enacted in the 
     Inflation Reduction Act to ensure that industry pays a fairer 
     share when reaping--and profiting from--shared, public 
     resources. Title II, which incorporates the BUILDER Act, 
     would eviscerate NEPA and fundamentally gut the review of 
     environmental, health, and economic impacts of decisions by 
     over 80 agencies in the federal government. If passed, local 
     community voices would be silenced, the public would be 
     essentially unable to hold the federal government 
     accountable, and polluting industries would be allowed to 
     steer a review process designed to be in the public, not 
     private, interest. The ways this bill would radically 
     undermine informed government decision-making and 
     accountability are too numerous to detail here, but a few 
     merit particular attention:
       Dramatically Narrows Application of NEPA and Limits the 
     Scope of Reviews--The bill would radically limit the 
     application of NEPA by redefining the threshold consideration 
     of what is a ``major federal action'' for the purposes of 
     NEPA. Further, the bill excludes oil and gas gathering lines, 
     federal loans, projects not occurring on federal lands, loan 
     guarantees, and other forms of financial assistance from 
     NEPA, which could potentially allow projects such as offshore 
     oil and gas development, coal fired generating facilities, 
     LNG projects, nuclear facilities, roads, bridges, highways, 
     and concentrated animal feeding operations to evade any 
     review or public scrutiny. For reviews that do occur, it 
     relieves agencies of any responsibility to undertake any new 
     research necessary for informed decision making and 
     potentially prevents the consideration of upstream and 
     downstream impacts of decisions, thus codifying climate 
     denial into federal decisions.
       Essentially Eliminates Judicial Review--In addition to 
     reducing the statute of limitations to a mere 120 days, the 
     bill would bar legal challenges to categorical exclusions as 
     well as many environmental assessments. For the few remaining 
     projects subject to judicial review, injunctive relief would 
     be prohibited, thus ensuring that projects move forward 
     regardless of how egregiously deficient a review or harmful 
     the impacts of a project on a community or the environment.
       Allows Inherent Conflicts of Interests In Review--The bill 
     would allow project sponsors to prepare their own 
     environmental reviews, thus eliminating objective analyses 
     about the environmental and related social and economic 
     effects of federal actions and institutionalizing bias in the 
     review process. This potentially undermines the entire 
     purpose of NEPA to have federal agencies make informed, 
     unbiased decisions in the public interest.
       Prioritizes Project Sponsors Over the Public Interest--The 
     legislation not only would impose arbitrary timelines on 
     reviews but would also prohibit an agency from extending the 
     time if needed to do essential scientific work or to 
     accommodate public comment, unless the project sponsor 
     agrees. Further, the bill would severely narrow what has long 
     been considered the ``heart'' of the NEPA process, by 
     prioritizing consideration of alternatives that meet the 
     project sponsor goals.
       Finally, Title II would exacerbate deficiencies in the 
     existing 151-year-old mining law, result in an unnecessary 
     increase in mining on federal public lands, and put at risk 
     irreplaceable protected lands, special places, endangered and 
     sensitive wildlife, tribal sacred sites, and culturally 
     significant sites. Current mining law has allowed for the 
     pollution of America's environment and waterways, placing 
     additional unjust burdens on communities who have already 
     borne the brunt of our nation's toxic mining legacy. The GAO 
     estimates America is littered with hundreds of thousands of 
     abandoned mines while the Environmental Protection Agency 
     (EPA) estimates hardrock mines have polluted 40 percent of 
     the headwaters of western U.S. watersheds and will cost 
     taxpayers more than $50 billion to clean up. Under current 
     law, taxpayers are potentially liable for billions more in 
     cleanup costs at currently operating mines because the legal 
     requirements for mining companies to remediate lands and 
     waters remain inadequate. This legislation does nothing to 
     address the legacy of abandoned mines or promote remediation 
     of American lands and waters.
       Of particular concern, this Title upends more than a 
     century of practice by validating mining claims under the 
     Mining Law of 1872 before the claimant has proven a mineral 
     discovery. Currently, mining claims do not become valid just 
     because the claimant says so: mining rights fully vest only 
     after the miner discovers valuable minerals. Yet, under 
     Section 20307, a claimant would no longer need to actually 
     prove they discovered valuable minerals. Instead, any person 
     could ``claim'' mining rights on unwithdrawn public lands 
     merely by grounding a stake, paying a fee, and filing some 
     paperwork. This Section would effectively lock out most other 
     uses of public lands, prioritizing mining instead regardless 
     of whether those lands had any value for mineral development.
       Title II also continues the current majority's constant 
     attempts to unnecessarily prop up the domestic uranium 
     industry. Under Section 20308, the U.S. Geological Survey is 
     once again directed to reevaluate its list of critical 
     minerals. However, under this bill, ``fuel minerals'' are now 
     defined to specifically exclude uranium, making it an 
     automatic candidate for consideration despite its dominant 
     use as a fuel mineral.


                               Division C

       Division C (as well as Section 10008(e) of Division A) 
     would weaken state and tribal authority under Section 401 of 
     the Clean Water Act, one of the law's most important 
     provisions empowering states. Native, rural, and 
     socioeconomically disadvantaged communities have been 
     fighting to stem the marginalization accompanying resource 
     extraction for decades and Section 401 enables those 
     communities to work through states and tribes to protect 
     their waters.
       States and authorized tribes depend on the Clean Water Act 
     Section 401 certification process to ensure that projects 
     requiring federal licenses and permits will not harm the 
     waters within their borders--projects like dams, river 
     alterations, wetland fills, and interstate pipelines. If this 
     bill is enacted, state and tribal experts would lose a key 
     oversight tool for activities that can threaten state and 
     tribal investments in pollution control programs, fish 
     recovery programs, temperature control mechanisms, minimum-
     flow requirements, and other essential activities.
       The bill seeks to limit states' longstanding authority 
     under Section 401 to broadly consider the impact of a project 
     or activity on water quality. It would significantly curb 
     Section 401's express authority enabling states to make 
     certification decisions based

[[Page H1483]]

     on requirements of state law, which would severely hamstring 
     states' and tribes' ability to comply with laws they have 
     adopted to maintain and improve the condition of their water 
     bodies. As tribes often do not receive the required 
     government-to-government consultation, they depend on Section 
     401 certification to ensure their waters remain protected. 
     Rollbacks in this proposed legislation would severely 
     restrict the usage of this tool, leaving tribes without one 
     of the few tools they have to ensure their waters are healthy 
     enough to support tribal rights and traditions.


                               Conclusion

       H.R. 1 would encourage new fossil fuel production and 
     infrastructure, locking us into increased extraction, high 
     and volatile energy prices, and even greater profits for 
     fossil fuel companies. It would undermine bedrock 
     environmental laws through its short-circuiting of government 
     accountability, meaningful public input, and review. It would 
     put the interests of industry ahead of the public. We urge 
     all Members to vote NO on H.R. 1, and to instead prioritize 
     efforts to meet the challenge of the climate crisis, secure 
     our clean energy future, and protect public health, community 
     voices, public lands, waters, and oceans.
       Sincerely,
       350.org, Accountable.US, Alaska Clean Water Advocacy, 
     Alaska Community Action on Toxics, Animal Welfare Institute, 
     Azul, Bold Alliance, C.A.N. Coalition Against Nukes, Center 
     for Biological Diversity, Center for Oil and Gas Organizing, 
     Change the Chamber, Clean, Healthy, Educated, Safe & 
     Sustainable Community, Inc., Climate Action Campaign, Climate 
     Hawks Vote, Concerned Citizens of Cook County (Georgia), 
     Conservation Colorado, Conservation Lands Foundation, Cook 
     Inletkeeper, Dayenu: A Jewish Call to Climate Action, 
     Defenders of Wildlife, Earthjustice, Earthworks, Endangered 
     Species Coalition, Environment America, Environmental 
     Investigation Agency, Environmental Law & Policy Center, 
     Environmental Protection Information Center--EPIC, 
     Environmental Working Group, Fenceline Watch, For a Better 
     Bayou, Friends of the Earth, Friends of the Kalmiopsis, Grand 
     Canyon Trust, Green New Deal Network, GreenLatinos, 
     Greenpeace, HG Conservation Solutions, Hip Hop Caucus, 
     Hispanic Access Foundation, Honor the Earth, Humanity, 
     Indigenous Environmental Network, Interfaith Power & Light, 
     John Muir Project, Kalmiopsis Audubon Society, League of 
     Conservation Voters, Los Padres ForestWatch, Lynn Canal 
     Conservation, Malach Consulting, Micah Six Eighth Mission, 
     Mining Impact Coalition of Wisconsin, Montana Wildlife 
     Federation, Natural Resources Defense Council, Nevada 
     Wildlife Federation, NEW MEXICO SPORTSMEN, North American 
     Climate, Conservation and Environment (NACCE), Northern 
     Alaska Environmental Center, Nuclear Information and Resource 
     Service, Oceana, Ocean Conservation Research, Ocean Defense 
     Initiative, Operation HomeCare, Inc., Oregon Wild, Oxfam, 
     PACAN, Project Eleven Hundred, Property Rights and Pipeline 
     Center, Public Citizen, Public Citizen, Inc., Rachel Carson 
     Council, Rio Grande Indivisible, NM, Rocky Mountain Wild, 
     Safe Energy Rights Group, Save the Eau Claire River, Seven 
     Circles Foundation, Sierra Club, Soda Mountain Wilderness 
     Council, Southern Environmental Law Center, Southern Utah 
     Wilderness Alliance, Standing Trees, Stop The Oil 
     Profiteering, Surfrider Foundation, Tapeats, The Wilderness 
     Society, Trustees for Alaska, Tucson Audubon Society, Turtle 
     Island Restoration Network, U.S. PIRG, Voices for Progress, 
     Waterkeeper Alliance, WE ACT for Environmental Justice, 
     Western Environmental Law Center, Western Organization of 
     Resource Councils, Western Watersheds Project, Winter 
     Wildlands Alliance, Zero Hour
       Please note that the organizations listed may not have 
     positions on every topic included in this letter.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, my colleagues are saying that this bill 
doesn't put polluters over people. This letter I include states: ``H.R. 
1 would encourage new fossil fuel production and infrastructure, 
locking us into increased extraction, high and volatile energy prices, 
and even greater profits for fossil fuel companies. It would undermine 
bedrock environmental laws through a short-circuiting of government 
accountability, meaningful public input, and review. It would put the 
interests of industry ahead of the public.''
  Mr. Speaker, let me just say, H.R. 1 puts polluters over people. It 
does nothing to lower energy costs. Their bill makes it easier for 
companies to contaminate our water and spew pollution and God knows 
what else into the air. It will make us pay for corporations' messes 
while they leave behind a toxic trail of disaster.
  The polluters over people act is a massive giveaway that ensures the 
GOP's industry friends make more money. I would say to those who are 
watching this, follow the money. Look at who the oil companies are 
giving their money to.
  It jeopardizes American jobs. It worsens the climate crisis, and it 
takes monumental steps back from achieving a clean energy future.
  Mr. Speaker, we can do so much better. This is such a blatant 
giveaway to polluters. This is such a blatant giveaway to big corporate 
interests. This is such a blatant giveaway to Big Oil. It is offensive.
  I urge a strong ``no'' vote on this rule. I urge a ``no'' vote on the 
previous question. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the 
underlying bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. RESCHENTHALER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time 
to close.
  Mr. Speaker, my friend across the aisle wants to say follow the money 
so we can see where people's priorities are.
  Let's just follow the Strategic Petroleum Reserve release. President 
Biden shipped 5 million barrels of this emergency fuel overseas to 
countries, including China. If you want to see where the priorities 
lie, don't follow the money, follow where the Strategic Petroleum 
Reserve is going, and that is going to China.
  Also, quotes on climate change, I will provide my friend across the 
aisle with all my quotes regarding climate change. I have got pages and 
pages of them. What you might find very interesting are all the ones 
from the 1980s where the so-called experts were calling for the next 
ice age, so I would direct you to that just for the fun of it.
  It is interesting to see how wrong these so-called experts are and 
somewhat ironic that we are still being told that the experts are right 
after literally decades of getting almost everything wrong.
  The U.S. produces more oil and natural gas than any other country in 
the world. As a global energy power, we can provide lower energy 
prices, we can create steady jobs, and we can secure America and our 
allies with cheaper gas that is cleaner.
  Just imagine if the U.S. were supplying LNG from the great 
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania to our allies in Europe. Think about that 
instead of our allies in Europe being dependent on Russian gas, which 
is 41 percent dirtier.
  However, the left's goal is to eliminate fossil fuels. They want to 
make the United States dependent, unstable, poorer, needier, and weaker 
because they refuse to allow us to exploit our natural resources.
  If you want to think about what lies ahead in the future if we allow 
the Democrats to get their energy plan in place, just look at Sri 
Lanka. I have already talked about it. Sri Lanka has a great ESG score. 
They also have an almost-failed state.
  Don't think that this is just some misguided plan or misguided 
misinformation from the Democrats. This is their plan. They want to 
make hydrocarbons more expensive because their base, the liberal elites 
that sit at home on Zoom all day, they don't have to put gas in their 
tank, they work from home. It is the guys who are working, who shower 
after work that have to put gas in their trucks and cars. That is why 
it is necessary to pass H.R. 1.
  I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the previous question and 
``yes'' on the rule.
  The material previously referred to by Mr. McGovern is as follows:

                   Amendment to House Resolution 260

       At the end of the resolution, add the following:
       Sec. 2. Immediately upon adoption of this resolution, the 
     House shall proceed to the consideration in the House of the 
     resolution (H. Res. 178) affirming the House of 
     Representatives' commitment to protect and strengthen Social 
     Security and Medicare. The resolution shall be considered as 
     read. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on 
     the resolution and preamble to adoption without intervening 
     motion or demand for division of the question except one hour 
     of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and 
     ranking minority member of the Committee on Ways and Means or 
     their respective designees.
       Sec. 3. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the 
     consideration of H. Res. 178.
  Mr. RESCHENTHALER. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, 
and I move the previous question on the resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous 
question.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.

[[Page H1484]]

  

  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further 
proceedings on this question are postponed.

                          ____________________